Sitting of 28 July 1910

Preamble
The House met at a Quarter before Three of the clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Slough Water Bill,
Bristol Gas Bill,
Lords Amendments, pursuant to the Order of the House of 25th July, considered, and agreed to.
Great Northern Railway (Ireland) Bill, To be read the third time to-morrow.
Gas Companies (Standard Burner) (No. 1) Bill [Lords] (by Order),
Gas Companies (Standard Burner) (No. 2) Bill [Lords] (by Order),
Gas Companies (Standard Burner) (No. 3) Bill [Lords] (by Order),
Consideration, as amended, deferred till to-morrow.
Abertillery and District Water Board Bill [Lords],
Ordered, That, in the case of the Abertillery and District Water Board Bill [Lords], Standing Orders 84, 214, 215, and 239 be suspended, and that the Bill be now taken into consideration, provided amended prints shall have been previously deposited.—[The Deputy-Chairman.]
Bill, as amended, considered accordingly.
Ordered, That Standing Orders 223 and 243 be suspended, and that the Bill be now read the third time.—[The Deputy-Chairman.]
Bill accordingly read the third time, and passed, with Amendments.
Water Provisional Order Bill,
Lords Amendments considered, and agreed to.
Education Board Provisional Order Confirmation (London) Bill [Lords],
Education Board Provisional Orders Confirmation (Berks, etc.) Bill [Lords],
Gas Orders Confirmation (No. 1) Bill [Lords],
Pier and Harbour Provisional Orders (No. 2) Bill [Lords],
Electric Lighting Provisional Order (No. 4) Bill [Lords],
Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Order (No. 6) Bill [Lords],
Read the third time, and passed, without Amendment.
Message from the Lords, That they have agreed to—
Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No. 2) Bill,
London County Council (Tramways and Improvements) Bill,
London County Council (General Powers) Bill,
Middleton Corporation Bill, with Amendments.
Barry Railway Bill, without Amendment.
That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act to confirm a Provisional Order under the Sea Fisheries Act, 1868, relating to a several Oyster and Mussel Fishery at the Bay of Firth." [Oyster and Mussel Fishery (Bay of Firth) Order Confirmation Bill [Lords.]
And, also, a Bill intituled, "An Act to confirm a Provisional Order under the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899, relating to Wemyss and District Water." [Wemyss and District Water Order Confirmation Bill [Lords.]
That they have agreed to,—
Aldermen in Municipal Boroughs Bill,
Duke of York's School (Chapel) Bill,
Public Works Loans Bill,
Mines Accidents (Rescue and Aid) Bill, without Amendment.
Amendments to—
Cambridge University and Town Water Bill [Lords],
Metropolitan District Railway Bill [Lords],
Padstow Harbour Bill [Lords],
Havant Gas Bill [Lords],
London United Tramways Bill [Lords], without Amendment.
That they have agreed to,—
Children Act (1908) Amendment Bill, with Amendments.
Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No. 2) Bill.
Lords Amendments to be considered tomorrow.
Oyster and Mussel Fishery (Bay of Firth) Order Confirmation Bill [Lords],
Read the first time; and ordered (under Section 9 of The Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899) to be read a second time to-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 284].
Wemyss and District Water Order Confirmation Bill [Lords],
Read the first time; and ordered (under Section 9 of The Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899) to be read a second time to-morrow.

RAILWAY COMPANIES (CHARITABLE AND OTHER CONTRIBUTIONS, 1909).
Return ordered, "showing, in detail, the amounts contributed by the Railway Companies of the United Kingdom, during the year 1909, to Institutions and Associations of various character not directly controlled by the Companies and not for the exclusive benefit of the Companies' Servants."—[Mr. Sydney Buxton.]
IRON AND STEEL, 1908–9.
Copy of Memorandum and Statistical Tables ordered, "showing the production and consumption of Iron Ore and Pig Iron, and the production of Steel in the United Kingdom and the principal Foreign Countries in recent years, and the Imports and Exports of certain classes of Iron and Steel Manufactures (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 376, of Session 1908)."—[Mr. Sydney Buxton.]
COAL TABLES, 1908–9.
Copy of Statistical Tables ordered, "relating to the production, consumption, and imports and exports of Coal in the British Empire and the principal Foreign Countries in each year from 1885 to 1909, as far as the particulars can be stated, together with Statements showing the production of Lignite and Petroleum in the principal producing countries for a series of years (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 377, of Session 1908)."—[Mr. Sydney Buxton.]

LOCAL TAXATION LICENCES, 1909–10.
Copy ordered, "of Return showing, in respect of each Administrative County and County Borough in England and Wales, the amounts collected during the year ended 31st day of March, 1910, in respect of the Duties on the several Local Taxation Licences; the amount of the Penalties and Forfeitures recovered during the year in respect of Local Taxation Licences; and the amount received during the year for other Duties and Payments which are directed to be dealt with in the same manner as Local Taxation Licences."—[Mr. Herbert Lewis.]
Copy presented accordingly.

UNEMPLOYED WORKMEN ACT, 1905.
Return ordered "as to the proceedings of Distress Committees in England and Wales and of the Central (Unemployed) Body for London under the Unemployed Workmen Act, 1905, during the year ended the 31st day of March, 1910 (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 276, of Session 1909)."—[Mr. Herbert Lewis.]
Copy presented accordingly.

MAINTENANCE, ETC., OF ROYAL FAMILY AND RECEIPTS FROM HEREDITARY REVENUES.
Return ordered, "showing the aggregate amounts derived from public sources for the nine years ending the 31st day of March, 1910, and the yearly averages of each under the following heads in connection with the maintenance of the Royal House-hold and the honour and dignity of the Crown:—(1) Civil List; (2) Provision for other Members of the Royal Family; (3) Civil List Pensions; (4) Annuities granted to Members of Queen Victoria's house-hold or charged on previous Civil Lists; (5) Provision in Votes for expenditure on Palaces in Royal occupation; (6) Provision in Votes for Royal State Ceremonials, including Coronation and Funerals; (7) Provision in Votes for other Royal expenditure, including construction and maintenance of yachts and pay of the crews thereof; (8) Revenues of the Duchy of Lancaster; (9) Revenues of the Duchy of Cornwall; (10) Totals of 1 to 9; and (11) Receipts into the National Exchequer from hereditary revenues, including woods and forests and small hereditary revenues."—[Mr. Barnes.]
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.

  British Army Manœuvres.
  Mr. BOTTOMLEYasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will state the name of the Servian officer who has been invited to attend the British Army manœuvres?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir E. Grey): The Servian Government have been invited to send one military officer to attend the man™uvres, but they have not yet replied to the invitation. I am therefore unable to supply the hon. Member with the information for which he asks.
  Mr. BOTTOMLEY: Will there be any stipulation that the officer nominated shall not be one of the regicides?
  Sir E. GREY: I have no reason to suppose there is any need for such stipulation.

  British Commercial Rights in Korea.
  Mr. STEWARTasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether his attention has been called to the creation of a Colonial Board in Japan to superintend affairs in Korea, Formosa, and the Japanese part of Saghalien; whether His Majesty's Government infers from this, or has reason to believe from other information, that the formal annexation of Korea by Japan is contemplated; and whether, in such event, His Majesty's Government will take steps to safeguard the commercial rights of British merchants in Korea secured by existing treaties between Great Britain and that country?
  Sir E. GREY: The answer to the first question is in the affirmative. In the event of the annexation of Korea by Japan being decided upon His Majesty's Government would carefully consider the best means of safeguarding their commercial interests in the country.

  Russian Troops in Persia.
  Mr. DILLONasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether his attention has been drawn to the facts that the Russian troops in Northern Persia are now distributed over a number of stations; that they are in many places quartered on the inhabitants; and that bitter complaints are made by the inhabitants of the conduct of the troops; whether he can give
  2318
  a list of the places where Russian troops are now stationed; and whether he is now in a position to state approximately when the Russian troops will be withdrawn from Persia?
  Sir E. GREY: As regards the first three points in the hon. Member's question, I have received no information of the kind. As regards the fourth point, so far as I am aware there are Russian troops at only three places in Persia: Tabriz, Kazvin, and Ardebil. As regards the fifth and last point, I have nothing to add to the reply returned to the hon. Member for Brighton on 27th June on this subject.

  Japanese Tariff.
  Mr. LONSDALEasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he is aware that the new Japanese tariff, which comes into operation on 1st July, 1911, will exclude British goods now exported to Japan to the estimated amount of nearly £1,000,000 annually; and if he will state, in view of the official announcement of the Foreign Secretary of Japan that as Great Britain has what is called a Free Trade policy there is no room for a convention with this country, the methods by which he proposes to protect British trade interests in Japanese markets?
  Sir E. GREY: I cannot admit the figures quoted by the hon. Member, and I would also point out that the new tariff comes into operation on 17th July, and not on 1st July as stated in the question. I have nothing to add to the replies returned to the hon. Member for Maidstone and other Gentlemen yesterday on this subject.
  Mr. JAMES HOPE: Is it not a fact that nothing can be done except to politely ask them to lower the duties?
  Sir E. GREY: The hon. Member is a little previous in his anticipations. It would be better to wait until the negotiations with certain other Powers are over. Then we shall be able to judge as to how the results obtained compare with the results obtained by other Powers.
  Mr. JAMES HOPE: Is there any reason to suppose they will be better than in the case of the French tariff?
  Sir E. GREY: The results obtained with regard to the French tariff compared very favourably with the results obtained by other Powers.

  Dresden International Hygiene Exhibition.
  Lord HUGH CECILasked whether the British Government have declined to take part in the International Hygiene Exhibition, to be held at Dresden in 1911; and, if so, for what reason?
  Sir E. GREY: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. His Majesty's Government considered that it would not be practicable to arrange an official exhibit, owing to the reluctance of manufacturers in this country to incur the heavy expenditure involved in frequent participation in large international exhibitions, and in view of the other engagements entered into by His Majesty's Government in respect of other exhibitions to be held during this year and next.

  Egyptian Loan.
  Mr. DILLONasked whether there is any intention of raising a fresh Egyptian loan?
  Sir E. GREY: I have no information to show that the Egyptian Government intends at present to raise a fresh loan.

  Suez Canal Concession.
  Mr. DILLONasked whether it is intended to propose for the acceptance of the Government of Egypt another convention with regard to the Suez Canal concession?
  Sir E. GREY: I am not aware whether the Suez Canal Company intend to propose a fresh arrangement with the Egyptian Government. Such a step would be one for the company, and not for His Majesty's Government to take.

  Brussels Act (Position of Slave Traders).
  Mr. FELLasked if the British Government has on several occasions declared that vessels engaged in the slave trade are pirates and can be captured as such, irrespective of any treaties; and if this declaration would by the Brussels Act be limited to vessels of under 500 tons?
  Sir E. GREY: Whatever declarations may have been made by the British Government in the past, and I am not aware of any, the right of visit, search, and detention is limited to vessels of under 500 tons by the Brussels Act.
  Mr. GIBSON BOWLES: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that the slave trade has been declared by Act of Parliament to be piracy?
  Sir E. GREY: I was not aware of that point at the moment, and I do not say that it is not so. I was asked a specific question as to declarations made by the British Government. I do not say there have not been such declarations. I only said I was not aware of any.
  Mr. GIBSON BOWLES: Is it proposed to take any steps to increase the amount of tonnage?
  Sir E. GREY: The Amendment of the Brussels Act is under consideration at this moment, and, of course, if there is any reason to amend it in this respect that point will be considered.

  National Schools, Ireland.
  Captain CRAIGasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can now say what progress has been made in respect of the proper heating and cleansing of Irish national schools?
  The ATTORNEY-GENERAL for IRELAND (Mr. Redmond Barry): This matter is now the subject of discussion between the Irish Government and the Treasury.
  Captain CRAIG: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that I got exactly the same answer from the Chief Secretary a long time ago?
  Mr. REDMOND BARRY: The matter is being discussed between the Treasury and the Irish Government.
  Captain CRAIG: Is it proposed by the Government to postpone this till the autumn, when it will be too late to do anything for the coming winter?

  Kilmurry Disturbances.
  Captain CRAIGasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland the reasons that actuated the Government in their decision to enter a nolle prosequi in the case of the King against Richard J. Walsh, Kilmurry, and others at the Kerry Summer Assizes; and whether the Government intend in future to refuse to prosecute in all such cases of throwing boiling whitewash and tar by well-armed mobs over members of the Royal Irish Constabulary in the execution of their duty?
  Mr. REDMOND BARRY: The men accused in this case were tried at the spring assizes on the main charge arising out of the resistance of the sheriff, and were acquitted. In these circumstances, and having regard to the improved state of the district, I considered that it would

  2321
  have been an overstraining of the matter to proceed to trial on the subsidiary charges.
  Captain CRAIG: In future is it intended not to prosecute in these cases?
  Mr. REDMOND BARRY: There is, of course, an intention to prosecute where evidence is available.
  Captain CRAIG: Why was it not done in this case?
  Mr. REDMOND BARRY: It was done.
  Captain CRAIG: The facts mentioned in the question were stated by the Chief Secretary, and, under the circumstances, why was the law not put in force and these people prosecuted?
  Mr. REDMOND BARRY: The whole transaction was gone into, and as the main accusation was disposed of the minor matters also fell through.

  Dunamanagh Orange Anniversary.
  Captain CRAIGasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he is aware that in the town of Dunamanagh, county Tyrone, the Protestants have for fifty years past erected arches on Orange anniversaries, that the Nationalists have never erected any on their anniversaries, that the town is owned by Protestants, except for the publican and the national schoolmaster; whether, seeing that there has never been any breach of the peace in connection with these arches during fifty years, he will explain why the Government, at the request of the Nationalists, drafted seventy police into the town to prevent these arches being put up this year; and why in all other parts of Ulster the usual practice has not been interfered with?
  Mr. REDMOND BARRY: The Inspector-General informs me that in the village referred to the population is about half Protestant and half Catholic. I understand that for the past thirty years the former have erected arches on the occasion of Orange anniversaries. On 17th March last the Catholics proposed to erect arches, but the Orange party objected, and the Irish Government, in the interests of public peace, prevented the proposal being carried out. This course was also adopted for the same reason on 12th July last. The Irish Government acted with strict impartiality on both occasions.
  Captain CRAIG: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that for fifty years there have been no disturbances in this particular locality in connection with these celebrations? Why does he anticipate any in 1910?
  Mr. REDMOND BARRY: We had local reports to the effect that the action now being taken was likely to lead to a breach of the peace this year.
  Captain CRAIG: Can the right hon. and learned Gentleman cite a single instance in Ireland of any outrage worth talking about arising out of these celebrations? Why should he interfere with the custom of fifty years in this particular locality?

  Boycotting and Disorder (Kinsale).
  Captain CRAIGasked if Protestants in Kinsale, including the Protestant curate, have recently had their houses attacked by a Nationalist mob because they refused to join in a boycott of a family called Bradfield; and what action do the Government propose to take in the matter?
  Mr. REDMOND BARRY: The police authorities inform me that there was a good deal of disorder in Kinsale between 15th and 25th June in connection with an evicted farm held by a man named Bradfield. The windows of the houses of some shopkeepers who supplied him were broken, and also the window in the house of the Protestant curate who had dealings with him. One of the party who broke the window in the latter house was summoned by the police, but the charge was dismissed at the Kinsale Petty Sessions. A force of twenty extra police was drafted into the town to preserve order. I understand that the boycotting and disorder have now ceased. The matter is being closely watched, and full protection will be afforded to any persons who may require it.
  Mr. CREAN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this dispute has been amicably settled by the intervention of Catholic and Protestant gentlemen in the district?
  Mr. WILLIAM O'BRIENasked a like question, and further inquired: Has this matter anything whatever to do with religion?
  Mr. MOORE: And will the right hon. Gentleman also answer that part of the question which suggests that Driscoll is

  2323
  of American nationality? Is it intended to give him a farm at the expense of the British taxpayer?
  Mr. REDMOND BARRY: Those points are not mentioned in this question.
  Mr. W. O'BRIEN: Will the right hon. Gentleman answer my question whether this dispute has not been amicably settled? Has not the boycott now ceased?
  Mr. REDMOND BARRY: I have already stated that the boycott has ceased.
  Mr. MOORE: Was this family boycotted because they would not give up the farm to Driscoll? Are the Estates Commissioners going to reinstate Driscoll, who is an American citizen?
  Mr. KILBRIDE: Will the right hon. Gentleman suggest the advisability of a conference between Driscoll and the hon. Member for North Armagh?
  Mr. MOORE: He would come off second best if he tried on that.

  Irish Disturbances.
  Mr. LONSDALEasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland the number of agrarian outrages under each of the headings, firing at the person and firing into dwellings, respectively, which were reported to the police in Ireland during the month of June last?
  Mr. REDMOND BARRY: During the month of June last there were two agrarian cases of firing at the person and five of firing into dwellings.

  Dundrum Bay Fisheries.
  Captain CRAIGasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether he will instruct the Fisheries Board not to open Dundrum Bay, county Down, for trawling, and not to increase the present existing hours for trammel-net fishing, in view of the damage any alteration would inflict on the line-fishing industry carried on at Ardglass, Killough, Dundrum, Newcastle, Annalong, Kilkeel, and other smaller villages round the bay, where, in the majority of instances, such line fishing is the people's main means of livelihood; whether he can say if an influentially-signed petition was received against any alteration; if so, what reply was made by the Fisheries Board; how many cases of illegal trawling and net fishing inside the Bay of Dundrum
  2324
  have been reported in the past five years; and how many prosecutions instituted and the amount of fines imposed?
  Mr. REDMOND BARRY: I have no power to give any such instructions. The matters referred to were the subject of a statutory inquiry held yesterday, when, no doubt, the views of all concerned were heard. An appeal will lie to the Lord Lieutenant in Council against any by-law made as a result of the inquiry. A memorial against previous proposals of the Department was received and forwarded to the Lord Lieutenant in Council, and the memorialists were so informed. A large number of reports of illegal fishing in Dundrum Bay have been received, and the Department have instituted proceedings in twenty-three cases during the past five years, and fines amounting to £91 have been imposed.

  Agricultural Prices (Ireland).
  Captain COOPERasked the Chief Secretary whether he can state when the Return of Agricultural Prices for 1908–9 will be issued by the Department of Agriculture and Technical Instruction; and whether he will endeavour to expedite it, in view of the fact that the Return for the previous year was presented to the Lord Lieutenant in December, 1908?
  Mr. REDMOND BARRY: The Return in question was presented to Parliament on the 25th inst., and will be available to Members at an early date.

  Alleged Boycotting, Ballyduggan (Michael Burke).
  Captain COOPERasked whether Michael Burke, of Ballyduggan, is boycotted; if so, for what reason; whether any persons in Loughrea have been warned not to supply him with anything under threats of having their place burnt; whether these threats have been put into execution; and whether any steps are being taken to bring the offenders to justice?
  Mr. REDMOND BARRY: The police authorities inform me that Mr. Michael Burke is not boycotted. No person in Loughrea has been warned against supplying him with goods, but in January last a publican received a letter warning him not to supply Mr. Burke's employés with drink, or his house would be wrecked or burnt. On 7th February the publican's shop was discovered to be on fire, and for this injury he was awarded compensation

  2325
  at quarter sessions. Every effort has been made by the police to bring the offenders to justice.
  Mr. KILBRIDE: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman take steps to see that such letters written by the police warning a publican not to supply drink will be withdrawn in the interests of Dunville's Distillery, in Belfast?

  Old Age Pensions (Ireland).
  Mr. DORISasked the Chief Secretary if he can state upon what evidence the Local Government Board disallowed the old age pension of Martin M'Nicholas, of Cloontubret, Castlebar, county Mayo, which he had received without question for over twelve months; was any record of the pensioner's birth or age found in the Census Returns of 1841 or 1851; and, if no such record was found or could be found, how did the Local Government Board come to the decision, in face of the unanimous finding of the Castlebar (No. 1) subcommittee to the contrary, that M`Nicholas had not attained the statutory age?
  Mr. REDMOND BARRY: The Local Government Board inform me that this man did not know the date of his birth, and the only evidence he produced was a certificate of his marriage in 1872. The Board had no option, therefore, but to disallow the pension.
  Mr. DORIS: On what evidence does the Local Government Board discontinue a pension granted regularly to a man twelve months before?
  Mr. REDMOND BARRY: It is the duty of a claimant to prove his age to the satisfaction of the Local Government Board, and the decision of that body was that no evidence of a satisfactory character was forthcoming.
  Mr. DORIS: I ask upon what evidence a pension which was in existence for twelve months was discontinued?
  Mr. REDMOND BARRY: The man was called upon to prove that he was seventy years of age, and he failed.
  Mr. DORIS: On what grounds do you call upon a man who has proved his case twelve months previously to prove his age again, he having proved it to the satisfaction of the regular tribunal of the time?
  Mr. REDMOND BARRY: There is plenty of authority for reopening the question of age. That has been decided by the courts in Ireland.
  Mr. CULLINAN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in the case of pensions an arrangement was come to between the Treasury and the old age pensions committee to have these questions decided by law and if need be taken to the House of Lords, and whether under these circumstances he will prevent the Local Government Board interfering with any of these pensions, pending a decision?
  Mr. REDMOND BARRY: I think the suggestion of my hon. Friend is scarcely practicable, because it would involve the payment of a pension in the meantime pending the decision, which might be held contrary to law.
  Mr. MOORE: Was this one of the numerous class of Nationalists who refused to accept a shilling from the British Treasury?
  Mr. CONDONasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland if he can state by whose instructions and by what authority the following have been deprived of their old age pensions through their books having been taken from them, namely, Margaret Rock-hill, Anastasia Green, Bridget Walsh, Margaret Day, Margaret Cunningham, and Catherine Delany, all in the pension district of Clonmel and station of Carrick-on-Suir?
  The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Hobhouse): The pension was stopped in each instance in pursuance of directions from the Board of Customs and Excise.
  Mr. CONDON: On what ground were the pensions stopped by the Local Government Board?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: In all these cases, unless the pension had been stopped, it would have been obligatory to recover the amount which was paid, and it was better to prevent it being paid than to pay it and get it back afterwards. It was not thought fitting to give the pension and then get it back afterwards.
  Mr. CONDON: I asked on what ground was the pension stopped?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: That is outside my province entirely. It was finally stopped on the authority of the Local Government Board.
  Mr. CONDON: To whom shall I apply for information? I put a question to the Chief Secretary, and he requested me to

  2327
  put it to the representative of the Treasury. Then I put it to the representative of the Treasury, and he is not able to give me the information.
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: I beg the hon. Member's pardon. I have answered the question. The pensions have been stopped by the authority of the Board of Customs and Excise.
  Mr. CONDON: What power have they to stop the pensions?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: That is to be found in the Old Age Pensions Act and the Regulations made under it.
  Mr. HAYDENasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether he is aware that the Castlerea sub-pension committee granted an old age pension of 5s. a week to Thomas Montgomery, of Corrastown, Ballintubber, that the pension officer lodged an appeal on the ground that the man was not the required age, and the Local Government Board refused the pension, notwithstanding the following circumstances: that, it being impossible to find evidence of age from the Census Returns of 1841 or 1851, applicant produced the baptismal certificate of his eldest child, showing that the child is now fifty years of age; produced his marriage certificate; and that the committee were fully satisfied that applicant was the required age; and, having regard to the fact that applicant has offspring fifty years of age, whether the Local Government Board will assume the age of seventy years established and grant the pension?
  Mr. REDMOND BARRY: The hon. Member appears to be misinformed as to the evidence in this case. Montgomery's name could not be traced in the Census Returns, he produced no marriage certificate, and the baptismal certificate of his eldest child shows that she is now only forty-five years of age.

  Congested Districts Board (County Mayo).
  Mr. DORISasked whether the Congested Districts Board have yet come to any decision upon the appeals made on behalf of James Lavelle, of Ardoley, Westport, county Mayo, labourer and quarryman, whose residence adjoins the Ardoley farm, recently acquired by the Board; whether he is aware that Lavelle's principal means of livelihood have hitherto been acquired by labour in a quarry which belongs to this farm; and whether, having
  2328
  regard to the fact that through the operations of the Board he has been deprived of his means of living, and that he has an aged mother and young family depending entirely upon him, the Board will assign a portion of this farm to him as a purchasing tenant?
  Mr. REDMOND BARRY: The Congested Districts Board inform me that, notwithstanding an injunction which has been obtained against him, Lavelle persists in trespassing upon a quarry on the farm referred to. The Board are prepared to allow him to work portion of the quarry, but they will not do so while the land near his house remains undisposed of.

  Land Purchase (Healy Estate), County Kilkenny.
  Mr. MEAGHERasked whether the tenants of the Healy estate, Folkscourt, county Kilkenny, have agreed to purchase their holdings; whether it is the intention of the Estates Commissioners to exercise their influence with the representatives of the owner with a view to having the tenants of the village of Johnstown and Folkscourt included in the sale; and whether, in view of the fact that proceedings for the recovery of rent have been taken against some of the tenants of this village, the Chief Secretary will induce the Estates Commissioners to investigate those cases with a view of having a settlement arrived at?
  Mr. REDMOND BARRY: The Estates Commissioners are unable to identify this estate as pending for sale before then.

  Government Appointments (Ireland).
  Mr. CREANasked the Chief Secretary whether he is aware that Mr. George M'Sweeney, who has been appointed by the present Government Crown Prosecutor for the city of Cork, Mr. Robert Donovan, who was appointed secretary to the University Commissioners and subsequently secretary to the National University, and the late Mr. Edward H. Ennis, who was appointed Under-Secretary for Ireland, were editorial writers for the "Freeman's Journal"; that Mr. J. G. M'Sweeney, who was appointed Local Government inspector, was editor of the "Weekly Freeman"; that Mr. M. M'D. Bodkin, who was appointed county court judge for Clare, was an editorial writer for the "Freeman"; that Mr. M. J. Cosgrove, who was appointed Local Government inspector, was a sub-editor in the

  2329
  employment of the "Freeman's Journal"; that the hon. Member for South Donegal, who has been appointed professor of law in the National University at a salary of £300 a year, chargeable on the Consolidated Fund, and the hon. Member for East Tyrone, who has been appointed professor of national economics in the National University, at a salary of £500 a year, chargeable on the Consolidated Fund, have also been editorial contributors to the "Freeman's Journal"; and whether, in view of the attitude adopted by the "Freeman's Journal" to the land settlement of 1903, he will explain why so large a portion of Government patronage has fallen to members of the "Freeman's" staff?
  Mr. REDMOND BARRY: As to the appointment to a professorship in the National University that was no concern of the Irish Government. In the cases of the other gentlemen my right hon. Friend has no knowledge of their past connection (if any) with the journal referred to, and the fact, if it be a fact, that such connection at any time existed had no influence whatever upon their appointments.
  Mr. T. M. HEALY: May I ask if a vacancy now exists in the Chief Magistracy of Dublin, which is going to be given to a member of the "Freeman" staff; also whether the proposed revising barrister who is to be sent down to North Louth to revise my Constituency is a member of the "Freeman" staff?
  Mr. WILLIAM O'BRIEN: With reference to the right hon. Gentleman's answer, can he name any newspaper in the three Kingdoms upon which such a shower of gold has ever fallen?
  Mr. MOORE: With regard to the first name of a gentleman appointed, was he appointed Crown Prosecutor with his consent; also was he aware chat Mr. M'Sweeney's connection with the "Freeman's Journal" before he appointed him?
  Mr. REDMOND BARRY: I must refer the hon. Member to the answer given in the name of the Chief Secretary. I said he was not aware that Mr. M'Sweeney, who was a friend of mine, was at one time a member of the "Freeman" staff. My predecessor appointed him.
  Mr. T. M. HEALY: I ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman for an answer to my question whether the existing vacancy in the Chief Magistracy of
  2330
  Dublin is about to be given, in addition to all these extraordinary appointments, to another member of the "Freeman" staff, and will he have any objection also to state whether we can have a Select Committee of Inquiry into this extraordinary state of things—this attempt to corrupt public opinion in Ireland?
  Mr. REDMOND BARRY: It is quite impossible for me at the present time, when the vacancy is still unfilled, to state what appointment will be made.
  Mr. T. M. HEALY: Can we have any assurance that the great City of Dublin is not going to be put under a journalist out of the "Freeman" office?
  Mr. CREAN: Is it competent for a person holding an honorary position on a county council to accept office under that council, and if that is so why is it that in the University College, Dublin, men holding honorary positions have been successful in getting into office?
  Mr. REDMOND BARRY: I cannot see what that has to do with the matter.
  Mr. KILBRIDE: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman undertake that all future appointments shall be divided between the staff of the "Belfast News Letter" and the "Cork Free Press"?

  Domestic Economy Classes (Ireland).
  Captain COOPERasked the Chief Secretary whether, in view of the fact that it is often more convenient for the wives of working men to attend classes in domestic economy in the daytime than in the evening when their husbands are at home, he will consider the advisability of urging the Department of Agriculture and Technical Instruction to make the fees paid for attendance at these classes in the daytime equal to those paid for attendance at night?
  Mr. REDMOND BARRY: I have nothing to add to the reply given by my right hon. Friend to the hon. and gallant Member's question on this subject on the 21st instant.
  Captain COOPER: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman answer the first part of the question whether it is more convenient for the wives of working men to attend these classes in the daytime than in the evening?
  Mr. REDMOND BARRY: I do not doubt in particular cases it would be.

  Department of Agriculture (Ireland).
  Mr. KILBRIDEasked what are the duties of the office to which Mr. Sydney Smith has been recently appointed by the Department of Agriculture and Technical Instruction?
  Mr. REDMOND BARRY: Mr. Smith's duties are to carry out the instructions of the Department of Agriculture in connection with the development in Great Britain of the trade in Irish Agricultural produce.

  Official Motor Cars (Ireland).
  Mr. LARDNERasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland if he will state what officials in the public services in Ireland are supplied with motor cars by their respective Departments; will he state whether these officials were paid travelling expenses before the introduction of motor cars; if so, whether he has any information at his disposal to show whether the provision of motor cars has effected a saving on the amount formerly paid for travelling expenses; and will he state whether these officials are allowed to use the motor cars supplied to them by the Department for private purposes?
  Mr. REDMOND BARRY: Motor cars have been supplied for the official use of the superior officers of the Royal Irish Constabulary and of the Congested Districts Board. The Estates Commissioners and the Resident Commissioner of National Education also have authority to hire motor cars when necessary. All these officials were formerly paid travelling expenses, and the use of motor cars has tended to economy and efficiency. The Department of Agriculture have purchased a motor car, the upkeep of which is defrayed from the Department's Endowment Fund. There is no reason to believe that officials are allowed to use the cars for private purposes.
  Mr. LARDNER: Will the hon. and learned Gentleman supply me with a statement showing the comparative cost before and since the adoption of motor cars?
  Mr. MOORE: Are the Department liable for accidents to these cars? We have had one case already.

  Constabulary Rates (Ireland).
  Mr. JOHN PHILLIPSasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland, in view of the fact that the occupying tenant in Ireland is
  2332
  liable for the rates on buildings, if he will instruct the occupying tenant of Baron House, Moydow, county Longford, or the Paymaster-General of the Constabulary in Ireland to pay the rates, as the extra constabulary occupy his mansion; and is he aware that the rate collector is bound to pay these rates, under Order No. 2 of the Local Government Board?
  Mr. REDMOND BARRY: The Inspector-General informs me that the police occupy two rooms in Bawn House as a protection post. The police pay neither rent nor taxes, and have never been required by the landlord to do so.

  Evicted Tenant (John Bennett, Darrarah, Clonakilty).
  Mr. SHEEHANasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether his attention has been drawn to the claim of the representatives of John Bennett, an evicted tenant; is he aware that this man was evicted from his farm of 353 acres on the estate of Smith-Barry at Darrarah, near Clonakilty, in the year 1886 for a sum of £327 10s., being a year and a third of a year's rent; that at their own request the Estates Commissioners were repeatedly furnished with all documents and particulars concerning this eviction, including the writ of summons out of which the eviction took place and a copy of the judicial order fixing a fair rent, which shows that the late John Bennett was a judicial tenant at the time of his eviction; that this farm was subsequently taken by a planter named Daniel O'Leary; that under his will it passed into the hands of the Bishop of Ross and Monsignor O'Leary as trustees or tenants; that the Estates Commissioners, on the 31st January, 1905, wrote to John Bennett, then alive, stating that his application for reinstatement had been duly received and recorded, and adding that, should the Commissioners acquire any untenanted lands in the neighbourhood of his former holding, his application for another farm in lieu of the one from which he had been evicted would be considered; that the Estates Commissioners, notwithstanding this, wrote on 4th November, 1909, to Mr. C. J. Harold stating that the reason that they decided to take no action on the claim of Mr. Bennett's daughters was that the application was not lodged within the time prescribed by the Evicted Tenants Act of 1907; that Mr. Bennett's farm of 343 acres has since been purchased, with the aid of public money, by the Bishop of Ross and Monsignor O'Leary; is this same evicted

  2333
  holding now used as an agricultural station by the Department of Agriculture; and seeing, from the Estates Commissioners' letter of 1905, that they regarded this claim as a bonâ fide one, will he now state the grounds on which it was rejected, and whether he has sanctioned a Department of the Irish Government being at this moment the tenants of an evicted farm?
  Mr. REDMOND BARRY: The Estates Commissioners inform me that in 1904 John Bennett made application for reinstatement in the holding described in the question, which was then in the occupation of other tenants. The Commissioners understand that Bennett owed £577 at the time of his eviction. In January, 1905, the Commissioners wrote to him stating that his case would be considered in the event of their acquiring untenanted land in the neighbourhood. His application was subsequently inquired into, considered, and refused. An application on behalf of his daughters made after the date prescribed by the Evicted Tenants Act was also inquired into by the Estates Commissioners and refused. The lands in question are now held by the Bishop of Ross and Monsignor O'Leary, who appear to have acquired the tenant's interest under the will of Daniel O'Leary. They have agreed to purchase the lands under the Irish Land Act, 1903. I understand that the lands are now used as an agricultural station, and I see no reason why they should not be so used.

  Labour Exchanges.
  Lord HENRY CAVENDISH - BENTINCKasked the Prime Minister whether, as the relations between the local education authorities and the Labour Exchanges cannot be settled satisfactorily by either the Board of Education or the Board of Trade alone, and still less by casual and haphazard arrangements made locally, he will take steps to ensure that this question, involving the care, direction, education, and control of boys and girls between the age when they leave school and the age of man and womanhood, shall be properly considered and settled by Parliament, and the limits of control to be exercised by the education authority on the one hand, and the trade authority on the other shall be constitutionally defined?
  The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Buxton): My right hon. Friend has asked me to answer this question. Special rules dealing with this matter have been made by the Board of Trade
  2334
  after consultation with the Board of Education, in pursuance of Regulation IX. of the Statutory Regulations for Labour Exchanges approved by Parliament under the Labour Exchanges Act, 1909. The Education (Choice of Employment) Bill recently introduced by my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Education proposes to confer certain powers on local education authorities in England and Wales with respect to this question. In Scotland the powers of such authorities have already been defined by the Education (Scotland) Act, 1908. I have no reason for thinking that the existing and proposed machinery will be inadequate to deal with this important problem, which, in my opinion, can only be satisfactorily solved by cordial co-operation between the education authorities and the Labour Exchange authorities. I may add that I have every reason to anticipate that this cooperation will be forthcoming.
  Lord HENRY CAVENDISH - BENTINCK: Will the right hon. Gentleman give facilities for the Choice of Employment Bill to pass before the Recess?

  Committee of Imperial Defence.
  Lord CHARLES BERESFORDasked the Prime Minister if he can state to the House the date upon which Field Marshal Lord Kitchener was officially informed that he was no longer a member of the Committee of Imperial Defence; and whether the reason given was that he declined to accept the honour of the position of General Officer Commanding-in-Chief in the Mediterranean?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Mr. Haldane): I must refer the Noble Lord to my right hon. Friend's answer to the hon. Member for Dublin County on 21st July. Lord Kitchener never became a member of the Committee of Imperial Defence.
  Mr. GIBSON BOWLES: Was Lord Kitchener, in fact, summoned to a meeting of the Committee of Defence?
  Mr. HALDANE: Certainly not—that I know anything of.
  Mr. WILLIAM PEEL: Is it not the fact that Lord Kitchener considered himself to be a member of the Committee of Defence, and that the first intimation that he received of the fact that he was no longer to be on the Committee was the statement of the right hon. Gentleman to that effect as reported in the papers?
  Mr. HALDANE: The hon. Member seems to have a knowledge of the mind of Lord Kitchener which I do not possess. I would suggest to the hon. Member, and to others, that it would be well to inquire of Lord Kitchener before they put that kind of question. I know nothing of it.
  Mr. ASHLEY: Was he not offered the post?
  Mr. HALDANE: No, certainly not. In connection with the Mediterranean Command, there was to be a seat on the Committee, but Lord Kitchener did not take up the appointment, and he was never summoned.
  Mr. BOTTOMLEY: Does the right hon. Gentleman not think that, in the interests of the nation, it would be a good thing if the services of Lord Kitchener were utilised on this Committee?
  Mr. HALDANE: That question should be addressed to the Prime Minister, who, I believe, has already answered it.
  Mr. FELL(for Captain Faber) asked whether Lord Esher, who belongs to the Imperial National Defence Committee, ever belonged to the Regular Army; and, if so, for what period; and what superior claims he possesses to those of Lord Kitchener as regards his knowledge of military subjects for the purposes of knowledge of national defence?
  Mr. HALDANE: So far as I am aware Lord Esher never belonged to the Regular Army. My right hon. Friend must decline to discuss the comparative claims of particular persons to sit on the Committee of Imperial Defence.

  Government Servants (Wages).
  Mr. BARNESasked what progress has been made with the inquiry by the advisory committee into the conditions of service and wages of certain Government servants; and when is the inquiry likely to be concluded?
  Mr. BUXTON: My right hon. Friend has asked me to answer this question. As soon as the terms of reference relating to the minimum wage for adult male labour at Pimlico and Weedon were received from the War Office the Fair Wages Advisory Committee made arrangements to take evidence, and they have heard witnesses representing the War Office and the trade unions of employés at Pimlico and Weedon. They have collected information from various sources as to the
  2336
  wages paid in analogous employments, and Members of the Committee visited Pimlico yesterday, and are at Weedon today, in order to have the nature of the work explained on the spot. I understand that the Committee hope to be able to report their conclusions to the War Office at an early date.
  Mr. CLYNES: In the event of advances of wages being conceded, will they be made retrospective?
  Mr. BUXTON: That is a question for the War Office. The Committee's duty is to inquire and report, and it remains within the discretion of the War Office how and in what respect they shall carry it out.

  Fair Wages Clause (Work Abroad).
  Mr. CLYNESasked whether provision can be made whereby any State Department which arranges a contract, the work of which is executed abroad, can impose upon the foreign employer conditions similar to those which would be imposed by the Fair Contracts Clause if the work were performed in this country; and, if so, will the wording of the Clause be amended accordingly?
  Mr. BUXTON: My right hon. Friend has asked me to answer this question. Any well-substantiated complaint regarding a contractor executing work abroad would be taken into account by the Government Department concerned when any further contracts had to be made.

  Trade Marks and Patent Laws.
  Mr. PETOasked the Prime Minister if he will suggest as a subject of debate at the next Colonial Conference the question of the unification of all laws relating to trade marks and patents within the British Empire?
  The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Colonel Seely): This question was before the Colonial Conference of 1907, and correspondence will be laid in a few days showing the action taken on the resolution of that Conference. In view of this correspondence, I do not consider, as at present advised, that the matter can be usefully discussed at the next Conference.

  Estimates Committee.
  Mr. NUTTALLasked the Prime Minister if he has been able to lay before his colleagues the consideration of the setting up of an Estimates Committee, as

  2337
  promised in his reply to a question on 14th September, 1909; and if any decision has been come to?
  The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Lloyd George): My right hon. Friend desires me to say that he is not as yet in a position to make any announcement in reply to the question of my hon. Friend.

  Heavy Naval Guns (British and German).
  Mr. FELLasked the Prime Minister if he will state whether his attention has been called to the fact that, whilst the heaviest gun yet tested for the British Navy is 13.5, throwing a 1,250–1b: shell, the new German 14-inch gun is to throw a 1,600–1b. shell, and that, whilst the actual weight of a broadside fired by the heavy guns of British ships is only 147,900 lbs., that of Germany is 161,000 lbs.; if he is aware that the new German ships to carry the new 14-inch guns will be 8,000 tons heavier than the original British "Dreadnoughts"; and whether he will now consider the desirability of raising a loan of at least fifty millions spread over a term of years, with the object of placing our Fleet in a position of absolute supremacy?
  The FIRST LORD of the ADMIRALTY (Mr. McKenna): I cannot accept responsibility for the accuracy of the figures given in the hon. Gentleman's question. In any case, as the maintenance of the supremacy of our Fleet must be regarded as a permanent feature in our national policy, I do not think that such temporary expedient as loans constitute the best means of giving effect to it.

  Appointment of Justices.
  Mr. LLOYD MORGANasked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that dissatisfaction exists as to some of the recommendations of the Royal Commission on the appointment of justices of the peace; and whether, before the Government take steps to carry them into effect, the House will be given an opportunity of expressing its opinion on the subject?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Churchill): My right hon. Friend is not aware of the existence of the dissatisfaction to which my hon. Friend refers. In reply to the latter part of the question he would refer my hon. Friend to the statement made by the Lord Chancellor in the House of Lords on Tuesday.

  HOUSE OF CONVOCATION.
  Sir DAVID BRYNMOR JONESasked whether the Houses of Convocation of the provinces of Canterbury and York respectively have met and transacted business since the death of King Edward VII.; whether new writs for the summoning of the Houses of Convocation of the said provinces have been sealed and issued since the death of King Edward VII. to the Archbishops of Canterbury and York respectively; and, if so, on what date or dates?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: I understand the answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative, and to the second part in the negative. I am informed that the Convocation of Canterbury met and transacted business on 5th and 6th July, and the Convocation of York on 25th and 26th May.

  Royal Standard (Recognition of Wales).
  Mr. ORMSBY-GOREasked whether any steps are to be taken to obtain the recognition of the Dominion of Wales in the Royal Standard?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: I have received certain representations on this subject which shall receive proper consideration.

  King Edward's Funeral (Absence of Scottish Heralds).
  Viscount DALRYMPLEasked whether inquiries will be made why the Scottish heralds took no part in the funeral of His late Majesty the King of Scotland?
  The FIRST COMMISSIONER of WORKS (Mr. Harcourt): I believe that the precedent of Queen Victoria's funeral was followed, but I have not been able to get full information on the subject. Lyon King-at-Arms was invited to the funeral of the late King at St. George's, Windsor.

  Parliamentary Franchise (Women) Bill.
  Mr. SNOWDEN (for Mr. Shackleton)asked, in view of the majority by which the Parliamentary Franchise (Women) Bill was carried on the Second Reading, what facilities would be given for its further stages in the present Session in this House?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister stated on 23rd June, the Government cannot give any further facilities to this Bill in the present Session.
  Mr. C. BATHURST: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether the Government have yet considered the desirability of taking the opinion of the electorate on this matter by Referendum?
  Mr. SNOWDEN: With reference to the answer given by the Prime Minister on 23rd June, is it not the fact that on that occasion the right hon. Gentleman said that this House, if it so desired, should have full opportunity for considering this question, and, in view of that statement, are not the Government prepared to stand by the promise made by the Prime Minister?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I think the hon. Member is mistaken as to the pledge given by the Prime Minister. The pledge given was that the Government in this Parliament would give an opportunity for effectively dealing with the whole question. But inasmuch as this Bill is so framed that the House of Commons cannot effectively deal with the whole question, but only with a part of it we certainly cannot give further facilities.
  Mr. SNOWDEN: May I ask if the decision announced by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his first answer was arrived at in order to ensure that the will of the people, as expressed by their representatives, should take full effect during the lifetime of one Parliament?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I quite agree, but if Bills are so framed that you cannot even ascertain what the will of the people's representatives is, then there is no reason why special opportunities should be given for dealing with such Bills.
  Mr. SNOWDEN: Is it not the fact that this House of Commons has declared by a majority that it wants this Bill to be passed into law, and is not the House of Commons to be permitted to give effect to its vote? May I also ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer to state what is the difference between the veto of a non-elected Prime Minister and the veto of a non-elected House of Lords?
  Mr. SPEAKER: No man can answer the second question, and the first question everybody can answer for himself.
  Mr. KEIR HARDIE: Since the Government are not satisfied with the form of the Bill before the House, may I ask whether they are prepared to introduce one of their own to give effect to their own ideas on the subject?
  Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member should give notice of that question.

  Allahabad Exhibition.
  Sir ALFRED THOMAS (for Sir J. D. Rees)asked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether he is aware that German firms applied for the whole of the machinery hall at the Allahabad Exhibition, and made the grant of the whole space available a condition of their exhibiting; and whether the authorities concerned have complied with this application, which implies the exclusion of British exhibits of this class?
  The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Mr. Montagu): The Secretary of State has no knowledge of the circumstances to which the hon. Member refers in his question, but if such an application was made, it would not be granted.

  Australian Public Debt.
  Mr. WILLIAM REDMONDasked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will say what is the exact amount of the Australian public debt, and how much of this debt has been invested in reproductive public works, such as railways, tramways, harbours, and roads; if he can say what is the amount earned annually by the Australian railways; how much is expended in their working expenses; how much is devoted to interest on loans; whether he can state what relation the value of the railways and other public works has to the total of the Australian public debt; and whether there is any portion of the British Empire where the public debt is so largely represented in useful public works as in Australia?
  Colonel SEELY: I am indebted to the High Commissioner for the Commonwealth of Australia for the following statement:—"The amount of the Australian Public Debt up to 30th June, 1909, was £251,733,533. Of this amount, £202,421,652 has been spent on reproductive works such as railways, tramways, telegraphs and telephones, water supply and harbours. In addition to the amount spent on the works specified above, the sum of £16,644,074 has been spent upon objects bearing immediately on the development of the country, such as roads, mines, advances to settlers, land purchase for settlers, loans to certain bodies, and rabbit-proof fences. This must be regarded as expenditure contributing largely to Australian progress, and a large portion is to be repaid. On public buildings and State schools, and other public works and purposes, a further sum of £16,380,884 has

  2341
  been spent. On immigration, which is a very important source of Australian progress, the sum of £3,254,005 has been spent. These items together amount to £238,700,615. The total earning of the Government railways was £14,750,000 for the year ending 30th June, 1909, and the total working cost was £8,826,000, which is equal to 59.84 per cent. of the gross earnings. The interest paid on loans for railways for the year ending 30th June, 1909, was £5,102,000, and the profit on the railways, after payment for interest, working expenses, and other charges, was £821,000."
  I fear I am not in a position to answer the last part of my hon. Friend's question. It would be very difficult, and might be invidious, to compare the public debts of the different parts of the Empire from the point of view of reproductiveness, but it is clear that, tried by this test, Australia would in any case stand very high.
  Mr. WILLIAM REDMOND: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether, as a matter of fact, there is any country in the world which has better public works than Australia?
  Colonel SEELY: Speaking off-hand, I should doubt whether any country has better public works than Australia.
  Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman if the £3,000,000 to which he alluded as being spent on immigration by Australia was spent on emigration from this country?
  Colonel SEELY: Well, most of it would be, because the greater proportion of the emigrants who go to Australia go from this country.
  Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Can we have the particulars of the amount?
  Colonel SEELY: I do not carry them in my head.
  Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: No, Sir; but will you give them?
  Colonel SEELY: Yes.

  Oloye of Oye (Southern Nigeria).
  Mr. KINGasked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he can now make a statement upon the case of the Oloye of Oye, who was recently ordered under threat of deposition to appear at Imo Hill, three days' journey from his home in Southern Nigeria; whether this order, amounting to virtual
  2342
  arrest, was given by Captain Blair, a travelling Commissioner, to whom the Oloye of Oye had sent two men who were robbers and murderers to be dealt with; whether this question was settled by Captain Blair before his return to England, or whether the Oloye of Oye and his native chiefs with him are still detained at Imo Hill; and whether the attention of the Colonial Office has been directed to the condemnation of this affair by the white population in Lagos as unjust to the native chiefs, and calculated to injure the high sense of British justice held by the natives?
  Colonel SEELY: The following is a summary of the report which has been furnished on the incident in question: On the 25th of March a Government messenger brought before the District Commissioner a man arrested near Oye for illegal rubber tapping. He had caught another man, but as he was unable to bring more than one with him, he sent the second man to the Oloye, and asked the latter to send the prisoner to the Commissioner at Oke Imo. The Oloye failed to do this, although he came to that place himself when sent for. He was told that he would have to remain at the town of Ilesha until he produced the man. This he did, on 19th April, and was allowed to leave. I am not aware of any expression of opinion on the matter by the European population in Lagos.

  Customs Duty on Tea (Ceylon).
  Mr. JAMES HOPEasked whether the Customs Duty on tea in Ceylon is 25 cents per hundredweight, on wheat and rice 50 cents, and on flour 1 rupee; whether in each case there is any corresponding Excise Duty; and whether it is the intention of His Majesty's Government to acquiesce in the maintenance of such duties?
  Colonel SEELY: The duty on tea is 25 cents a pound. In other respects the hon. Members figures are correct. The answer to the second part of the question is in the negative, and the answer to the third part in the affirmative.
  Mr. JAMES HOPE: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he is aware that the duties on rice, wheat, and flour are higher than anything proposed by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham (Mr. J. Chamberlain)?
  Colonel SEELY: I do not think that really arises out of the question, which refers to tea. I do not think we can discuss this matter by question and answer across the floor of the House. I shall be glad to debate it.
  Mr. JAMES HOPE: May I ask whether these duties are, or are not, higher than those proposed by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham?
  Colonel SEELY: I do not quite know to what particular proposals the hon. Member refers.
  Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member had better give notice of a question.

  All-Red Route (Progress of Negotiations).
  Mr. EVELYN CECILasked what progress has been made with the negotiations for an All-Red Route as outlined at the last Colonial Conference; whether any shipping or railway companies have been approached; whether any calculation has been made as to the cost; what subsidies or guarantees would probably be required; and whether any further information can be given as to the policy of His Majesty's Government?
  Mr. BUXTON: I have nothing to add at present to answers which have previously been given in the House on this subject.

  Southern Nigeria.
  Mr. KINGasked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he will instruct the Governor of Southern Nigeria that compensation should be awarded out of Government funds to the relatives of the native recently shot by Mr. H. Tressing, who was at the time an official in the Government service, and was convicted of manslaughter by the court, but not punished?
  Colonel SEELY: I do not consider that this is a case in which further compensation should be paid from public funds, in view of the fact that no recommendation to this effect was made by the Supreme Court before which Mr. Tressing was tried.
  Mr. KING: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that only £3 has been received by the relatives of this man, who suffered in a most peculiar and unfortunate way, and who was the breadwinner of his family?
  Colonel SEELY: Oh, yes. He certainly suffered very much—he was killed. I
  2344
  think £3 was a very small sum to give him, but there are legal difficultes. It is a very long time since this occurred.
  Mr. KINGasked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he will instruct the Governor of Southern Nigeria that compensation should be awarded out of Government funds to the individual members of the church congregations at Imuku and Isere recently disturbed by Dr. Braund Kent, a Government official, who forced them to go out of church on Sunday and carry loads for him?
  Colonel SEELY: Compensation was offered by the Governor, and the offer was referred by Bishop Oluwele to his church council. The Bishop's reply was that the council were grateful for the kind spirit in which the offer was made, but unanimously agreed not to accept it.

  Malta Fever.
  Mr. CHANCELLORasked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies if the elected members of the Council of Government in Malta who have declined to concur in the appointment of a committee to consider further the origin of Malta fever, unless the inquiry is limited to the manner in which goats are infected, are paid officials who are largely responsible for the goat's milk theory; and whether he is aware that those members who are popularly elected are almost, if not quite, unanimous in their opposition to that theory?
  Colonel SEELY: The elected members, with the exception of two who receive remuneration as members of the Executive Council, are not paid by the Government; and their attitude on the question is as stated in the answer which I returned to my hon. Friend's question of 21st July.

  Royal Forest Revenues.
  Mr. CHARLES BATHURSTasked whether any net revenue, after deduction of all outgoings and the whole cost of maintenance and management, has been derived from timber either in the New Forest or the Forest of Dean at any time during the last twenty-five years; and, if so, in what year or years and in which of the two forests was such net revenue obtained, and what was its amount?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: The New Forest is maintained largely as a national playground. It is not possible in the case of either forest to apportion the cost of

  2345
  supervision accurately between the woods and other sources of income, and to ascertain the proper debit representing the value of the land planted.
  Mr. CHARLES BATHURST: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether any income whatever has been received from the forests during the last twenty-five years?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: Undoubtedly income has been received.
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: Can the right hon. Gentleman give any information as to the commercial success or failure of the planting of the Forest of Dean?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: It is very difficult to give the net revenue, which is what I am asked. I am not asked to give the gross. It is difficult to give the net revenue, because it is impossible to apportion the cost of administration between income from the sale of timber in the wood and the revenue derived from other sources.
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: Is the difficulty any greater than drawing a distinction between expenditure in the Post Office on telegraph and telephone services?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: The telephone and telegraph services are two distinct operations of a large character, the difference between which is clearly marked, but I do not think that is so in the other case.
  Mr. PETO: Ought not the distribution of income be made just as in the case of a well-managed private business?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: It is quite possible to show the gross income, but we are asked to show the net, and we cannot do that for the reason I have explained.

  Civil Service (Compulsory Retirement Pensions).
  Major ADAMasked the date of the last case in which, for purposes of compensation on retirement, years were added to the number of years served by a Civil servant compulsorily retired on account of abolition of office?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: Since the passing of the House of Commons Resolution of 12th June, 1888, additions of years on account of abolition of office have been granted in exceptional cases only. The last such occurred in 1907.

  Old Age Pensions.
  Mr. LYNCHasked whether the Secretary to the Treasury can state how often, in cases where an applicant for an old age pension has maintained himself and family on a small holding without the aid of the parish, the pension officer has objected on the ground that the applicant has not worked according to his ability during the past twenty years preceding his application; and in how many cases an objection lodged upon these grounds and no others has been upheld?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: The information asked for is not available, nor do I know how it could be obtained.
  Mr. LYNCHasked whether, in the case of John Neylon, of Caheraderry, Ennistymon, number in register 6,286, the Secretary to the Treasury can state on what ground the pension officer concluded that James Neylon had not worked according to his ability for the past twenty years, considering that James Neylon had maintained himself and family on a small holding without parish relief and free from debt; and whether, after the pension committee had twice decided in favour of James Neylon's claim, any kind of evidence was asked for from the pension officer or any steps whatever were taken to ascertain whether the pension committee or the pension officer was best informed regarding the circumstances of the applicant?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: As stated in a reply to a question put by the hon. Member on the 20th instant, the claim of James Neylon was disallowed by the Local Government Board on appeal, of whose proceedings I have no knowledge and over whom I have no control.
  Mr. LYNCH: What functions do these mysterious persons discharge save saying ditto to the pension officers?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: I do not understand the hon. Gentleman.
  Mr. FRANCIS MEEHANasked on what grounds Charles Keane, of Procklish, register number 2,194, Keshcarrigan, county Leitrim, was deprived of his old age pension; why it was the Local Government Board delayed four months before giving their decision without giving Keane notification of an opportunity of establishing his claim; and whether Keane will be now afforded an opportunity of submitting evidence in support of his claim?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: I understand that Charles Keane had never been in receipt of an old age pension, but that his claim was disallowed on appeal by the Local Government Board. I have no information as to the second part of the question. As regards the third part, it is open to Keane to prefer a fresh claim if he desires to do so.
  Mr. SWIFT MacNEILLasked whether the old age pension forms and notices in use in Wales are printed in Welsh; and whether, in the Irish-speaking districts in Ireland, the necessary notices and forms will in future be printed in Irish?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: A few old age pension forms and notices are printed in Welsh. None are printed in Irish. I will inquire whether it is advisable to extend the same system in Ireland.
  Mr. SWIFT MacNEILLasked whether any steps are taken beforehand to ascertain whether a pension officer knows Irish before he is appointed to administer the Old Age Pensions Act in any Irish-speaking district; and, if not, whether steps will be taken in future to guarantee that the officers will be able to make the necessary inquiries from claimants in the language they understand?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: In selecting pension officers for Irish-speaking districts, preference is as far as possible given to officers who have a knowledge of the Irish language. It would be impossible to ensure that all pension officers in these districts should know Irish. Some of them do know the language; but I am assured that the lack of this knowledge has not been found in practice to impair the efficiency of an officer's work or prejudice the interests of the claimants themselves.

  Actinomycosis Among Stock.
  Mr. CHARLES BATHURSTasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Agriculture whether the Board has information showing that the fungoid disease of the jaw in horses and other live stock known as actinomycosis is seriously on the increase in many parts of Great Britain; and whether any steps are being taken by the Board to make known to stock owners the symptoms of this disease and the best methods of its treatment or prevention?
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of AGRICULTURE (Sir Edward Strachey): No, Sir. Information
  2348
  on the disease has been given to agricultural associations and individual farmers.
  An article on the subject appeared in the Board's Journal of November, 1907, and a leaflet on it is in preparation. The disease, I may add, is exceedingly rare in horses; it affects cattle principally.

QUEEN MOTHER'S RESIDENCE (EXPENDITURE).
Mr. VERNEY: I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer a question of which I have given private notice, on a matter of urgency: whether his attention has been drawn to the following statement, reported from "The Times" of 26th July, as having been made by the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydvil (Mr. Keir Hardie), on the day before, at a meeting of the Cumberland Iron Ore Miners:—
"Last Friday the House of Commons agreed that £20,000 a year should be spent on looking after the drains of the Royal Palaces. They voted £50,000 more for putting the house of the Queen Mother in order. Fifty thousand pounds for a woman's house."
Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: My attention has been drawn to the newspaper report to which my hon. Friend refers, but I can hardly believe that it is correct in attributing to the hon. Member for Merthyr a statement so grossly inaccurate in fact, made about one whose position must command the sympathy of all, and should at least protect her from the annoyance of such rash and unfounded allegations. The true facts of the case are that the Select Committee on the Civil List recommended, in paragraph 11 of their Report, that this House should be asked to vote a special Grant of £55,000 in order to place Windsor Castle, Buckingham Palace and Marlborough House in a condition fit for the occupation of Their Majesties the King and Queen and of Queen Alexandra. Only a very small proportion of this Grant is required in respect of Marlborough House.
Mr. KEIR HARDIE: As a matter of personal explanation, may I say that I withdraw at once the statement that £50,000 was to be spent in respect of the residence for the Queen Mother. The incident which led me into assuming that that sum would be spent was that in the Report of the Civil List Committee provision is made for spending £47,000 a year on internal and external repairs of Royal Palaces. I assumed that the extra £55,000 was required for a residence for the Queen Mother. We are now informed that this has to be spent on the ordinary Royal

2349
Palaces in addition to the £47,000 already arranged for, as I understand. I unreservedly withdraw that part of my statement which states that £50,000 was to be spent on the residence for the Queen Mother and not on Royal Palaces generally. May I just add that I should be sorry if any words of mine have given offence to the Royal lady.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: May I ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer in what order the Government are going to take their business to-morrow? I do not know whether he is prepared to state on what day next week he proposes the House should resume?
Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: To-morrow it is proposed to take the Report on the Accession Bill first, and we hope also, in order to avoid the necessity for a Saturday sitting, to have the Third Reading as well. Those will be the first Orders to-morrow, and after that there will be the Motion for Adjournment. It is proposed to adjourn either till Tuesday or Wednesday next. I am not quite sure which. It will depend rather on the House of Lords than upon ourselves. We will be in a better position to know to-morrow than to-day. We can inform the House in time. The Motion to-morrow will be that after Tuesday or Wednesday next the House will adjourn without question until Tuesday, 15th November.

REVISING BARRISTER, BELFAST.
Captain CRAIG: I beg to ask the Attorney-General for Ireland a question of which I have given him private notice—whether he is aware that Mr. Johnston, a barrister-at-law, who was yesterday appointed revising barrister for Belfast, is a member of the United Irish League, and, as admitted by the Chief Secretary for Ireland, canvassed in Londonderry last January against the Unionist candidate; and if it is desirable that he should act in a constituency where party feeling sometimes run very high?
Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member must give notice of that. It is not a matter of urgency.
Captain CRAIG: For what day shall I give notice?
Mr. SPEAKER: You can give notice for next Tuesday or Wednesday.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
The PRIME MINISTER The PRIME MINISTER moved: "That the Proceedings in Committee on the Accession Declaration Bill and on Third Reading of the Civil List Bill, and on the Motion relating to Portsmouth and Ryde Mail Service, if under discussion at Eleven o'clock this night, be not interrupted under the Standing Order (Sittings of the House), and may be entered upon and proceeded with at any hour, though opposed."
Question put.
The House divided: Ayes, 245; Noes, 140.

Division No. 142.]

AYES.

[3.40 p.m.

Abraham, William (Dublin Harbour)

Byles, William Pollard

Dickinson, W. H.

Agnew, George William

Carr-Gomm, H. W.

Dillon, John

Ainsworth, John Stirling

Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich)

Donelan, Captain A.

Alden, Percy

Cawley, Harold T. (Heywood)

Doris, W.

Baker, H. T. (Accrington)

Channing, Sir Francis Allston

Duffy, William J.

Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)

Chapple, Dr. W. A.

Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

Ellis, Rt. Hon. John Edward

Barlow, Sir John E.

Clancy, John Joseph

Elverston, H.

Barnes, G. N.

Clough, William

Esmonde, Sir Thomas

Barran, Sir J. (Hawick)

Clynes, J. R.

Falconer, J.

Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.)

Collins, G. P. (Greenock)

Farrell, James Patrick

Beale, W. P.

Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

Fenwick, Charles

Benn, W. (Tower Hamlets, S. Geo.)

Collins, Sir Wm. J. (St. Pancras, W.)

Ferens, T. R.

Bethell, Sir J. H.

Compton-Rickett, Sir J.

Ffrench, Peter

Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

Condon, Thomas Joseph

Field, William

Black, Arthur W.

Corbett, A. Cameron

Flavin, Michael Joseph

Bottomley, Horatio

Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

Furness, Stephen

Bowles, T. Gibson

Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

Gelder, Sir W. A.

Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North)

Crawshay-Williams, Eliot

George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd

Brady, P. J.

Crean, Eugene

Gibson, Sir James Puckering

Brigg, Sir John

Crossley, Sir William J.

Gilhooly, James

Brocklehurst, W. B.

Cullinan, J.

Gill, A H.

Bryce, J. Annan

Dalziel, Sir James H. (Kirkcaldy)

Ginnell, L.

Burke, E. Havlland-

Dawes, J. A.

Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

Delany, William

Greenwood, G. G.

Buxton, C. R. (Devon, Mid)

Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas

Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, N.)

Devlin, Joseph

Hackett, J.

Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

Hall, Frederick (Normanton)

Mallet, Charles E.

Roche, Augustine (Cork)

Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis (Rossendale)

Marks, G. Croydon

Roe, Sir Thomas

Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

Masterman, C. F. G.

Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

Hardle, J. Keir

Meagher, Michael

Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland)

Harvey, A. G. C (Rochdale)

Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

Scanlan, Thomas

Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, W.)

Meehan, Patrick A. (Queen's Co.)

Scott, A. H. (Ashton-under-Lyne)

Harwood, George

Middlebrook, William

Seely, Col., Right Hon. J. E. B.

Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

Millar, J. D.

Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

Molloy, M.

Sherwell, Arthur James

Haworth, Arthur A.

Molteno, Percy Alport

Shortt, Edward

Hayden, John Patrick

Montagu, Hon. E. S.

Smith, H. B. (Northampton)

Hayward, Evan

Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

Smyth, Thomas F.

Hazleton, Richard

Muldoon, John

Soames, Arthur Wellesley

Healy, Maurice (Cork, N.E.)

Munro, R.

Soares, Ernest J.

Healy, Timothy Michael (Louth, N.)

Murray, Captain Hon. A. C.

Spicer, Sir Albert

Helme, Norval Watson

Muspratt, M.

Strachey, Sir Edward

Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

Nannettl, Joseph P.

Sutherland, J. E.

Henry, Charles S.

Neilson, Francis

Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

Herbert, Col. Sir Ivor

Nolan, Joseph

Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

Higham, John Sharp

Norton, Capt. Cecil W.

Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

Hindle, F. G

Nugent, Sir Walter Richard

Toulmin, George

Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

Nussey, Sir Willans

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

Hodge, John

Nuttall, Harry

Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

Hogan, Michael

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

Verney, F. W.

Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)

O'Brien, William (Cork, N.E.)

Walker, H. de R. (Leicester)

Horns, C. Silvester (Ipswich)

O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

Walton, Sir Joseph

Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)

Hughes, S. L.

O'Doherty, Philip

Waring, Walter

Illingworth, Percy H.

O'Donnell, T. (Kerry, W.)

Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay

Jardine, Sir J. (Roxburgh)

O'Kelly, Edward P. (Wicklow, W.)

Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea)

O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.)

Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvll)

O'Malley, William

Waterlow, D. S.

Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)

O'Neill, Dr. Charles (Armagh, S.)

White, Sir George (Norfolk)

Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire)

Joyce, Michael

O'Shee, James John

White, Sir Luke (York, E.R.)

Kilbride, Denis

Parker, James (Halifax)

White, Patrick (Meath, North)

King, J. (Somerset, N.)

Pearce, William

Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.

Lambert, George

Pease, Rt. Hon. Joseph A.

Whyte, A. F. (Perth)

Lardner, James Carrige Rushe

Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

Wiles, Thomas

Layland-Barratt, Sir Francis

Pickersgill, Edward Hare

Wilkie, Alexander

Leach, Charles

Pointer, Joseph

Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

Lehmann, R. C.

Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

Williams, P. (Middlesbrough)

Levy, Sir Maurice

Power, Patrick Joseph

Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthen)

Lewis, John Herbert

Priestley, Sir W. E. B. (Bradford, E.)

Williamson, Sir A.

Lincoln, Ignatius T. T.

Pringle, William M. R.

Wilson, Hon. G. G. (Hull, W.)

Lundon, T.

Raffan, Peter Wilson

Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

Lyell, Charles Henry

Rainy, A. Rolland

Wilson, J. W. (Worcestershire, N.)

Lynch, A. A.

Reddy, M.

Wilson, T. F. (Lanark, N.E.)

Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

Wing, Thomas Henry

Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

Redmond, William (Clare)

Wood, T. M'Kinnon (St. Rollox)

Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

Rees, Sir J. D.

Yoxall, Sir James Henry

MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

Rendall, Athelstan

MacVeagh, Jeremiah

Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Master

M'Callum, John M.

Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

of Elibank and Mr. Gulland.

M'Kean, John

Robinson, S.

NOES.

Adam, Major W. A.

Chaloner, Col. R. G. W.

Glover, Thomas

Agar-Robartes, Hon. T. C. R.

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

Goldman, C. S.

Arbuthnot, G. A.

Chambers, J.

Gooch, Henry Cubitt

Ashley, W. W.

Clyde, J. Avon

Gordon, J.

Attenborough, W. A.

Cooper, Capt. Bryan (Dublin, S.)

Grant, J. A.

Bagot, Captain J.

Cory, Sir Clifford John

Guinness, Hon. W. E.

Baird, J. L.

Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.)

Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne)

Baker, Sir R. L. (Dorset, N.)

Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

Hamilton, Lord C. J. (Kensington, S.)

Balcarres, Lord

Craik, Sir Henry

Hardy, Laurence

Banbury, Sir Frederick George

Cripps, Sir C. A.

Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

Barnston, H.

Dalziel, D. (Brixton)

Henderson, H. (Berks, Abingdon)

Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry, N.)

Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott

Hickman, Colonel Thomas E.

Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks

Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

Horne, W. E. (Surrey, Guildford)

Benn, I. H. (Greenwich)

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Horner, Andrew Long

Bentinck, Lord H. Cavendish-

Du Cros, Arthur P. (Hastings)

Hunter, Sir C. R. (Bath)

Beresford, Lord C.

Duncannon, Viscount

Jowett, F. W.

Bird, A.

Faber, George Denison (Clapham)

Kerr-Smiley, Peter

Boyle, W. L. (Norfolk, Mid)

Falle, B. G.

Kimber, Sir Henry

Bridgeman, W. Clive

Fell, Arthur

Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

Brunskill, G. F.

Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey

Kirkwood, J. H. M.

Bull, Sir William James

Fleming, Valentine

Kyffin-Taylor, G.

Carlile, E. Hildred

Fletcher, J. S.

Lane-Fox, G. R.

Castlereagh, Viscount

Forster, Henry William

Law, Andrew Boner (Dulwich)

Cator, John

Gibbs, G. A.

Lawson, Hon. Harry

Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

Gilmour, Captain J.

Lee, Arthur H.

2352

2353

Llewelyn, Venables

O'Neill, Hon. A. E. B. (Antrim, Mid.)

Steel-Maitland, A. D.

Lloyd, G. A.

Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

Stewart, Gershom (Ches., Wirral)

Locker-Lampson, O. (Ramsay)

Paget, Almeric Hugh

Stewart, Sir M'T. (Kirkcudbright)

Lockwood, Rt. Hon. Lt.-Col. A. R.

Parkes, Ebenezer

Thompson, Robert (Belfast, North)

Long, Rt. Hon. Walter

Peel, Hon. W. R. W. (Taunton)

Thomson, W. Mitchell (Down, North)

Lonsdale, John Brownlee

Peto, Basil Edward

Thorne, William (West Ham)

Lowe, Sir F. W. (Birm., Edgbaston)

Primrose, Hon. Nell James

Thynne, Lord Alexander

MacCaw, Wm. J. MacGeagh

Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

Tobin, Alfred Aspinall

Mackinder, H. J.

Rice, Hon. W.

Walker, Colonel W. H. (Lancashire)

Macmaster, Donald

Ridley, Samuel Forde

Ward, Arnold (Herts, Watford)

M'Calmont, Col. James

Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

White, Major G. D. (Lancs., Southport)

Magnus, Sir Philip

Rolleston, Sir John

Willoughby, Major Hon. Claude

Meysey-Thompson, E. C.

Ronaldshay, Earl of

Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

Mildmay, Francis Bingham

Rothschild, Lionel de

Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E.R.)

Mitchell, William Foot

Royds, Edmund

Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

Moore, William

Rutherford, Watson

Wood, Hon. E. F. L. (Ripon)

Morpeth, Viscount

Samuel, Sir Harry (Norwood)

Wood, John (Stalybridge)

Morrison-Bell, Major A. C.

Sanders, Robert A.

Worthington-Evans, L.

Mount, William Arthur

Sanderson, Lancelot

Yerburgh, Robert

Newdegate, F. A.

Snowden, P.

Newton, Harry Kottingham

Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)

Starkey, John R.

TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr.

Nield, Herbert

Staveley-Hill, Henry

C. Bathurst and Viscount Dalrymple.

ACCESSION DECLARATION BILL.
Order read for Committee.
Mr. SPEAKER: There is a number of Instructions on the Paper. They all propose to give powers to the Committee which the Committee already have. Therefore they are unnecessary and are out of order.
Considered in Committee.
[Mr. EMMOTT in the Chair.]
(IN THE COMMITTEE.)
Mr. CHARLES CRAIG: I beg to move "That the Chairman do report Progress and ask leave to sit again." I make this Motion to draw attention to the way in which the Government has treated those Members of the House and of this Committee who are opposed to this measure. I venture to say there never has been a case where a Bill of such far-reaching importance as this Bill is, in our view at any rate, has been rushed through the House in its three stages in three consecutive days. When the Prime Minister introduced this Bill he clearly indicated that it was a measure which we ought to have ample time, not only for considering—that is, the Bill as it was introduced—but also for considering Amendments and the other stages of the Bill. The Prime Minister said:—
"I have not introduced the Bill as I might have done under the Ten Minute Rule."
I think the Prime Minister very naturally shied at such an arbitrary proceeding as introducing a Bill of this magnitude under the Ten Minute Rule. He went on to say that he did not do so—
"because of the importance and gravity of the subject. I thought it would be hardly treating it with proper respect. At the same time, I would earnestly deprecate at this stage anything in the nature of prolonged or acrimonious discussion. I think it is most desirable
2354
that hon. Members should study the Bill, and ample opportunity will be given before the Second Reading." [OFFICIAL REPORT, 28th June, 1910, cols, 851 and 852.]
I think those words clearly indicated to the House that he himself looked on the Bill as one of very grave importance, and as one which we ought to have ample time to consider in its various stages. It is quite true we have had ample time only to consider the Bill between the First and Second Readings, but I say we have had no time to consider the altered Bill, for it has been altered since the First Reading. We have had no time to study the Amendments that have been put on the Paper this morning, and we have had no time to look at the altered situation which was created by the speech of the Prime Minister yesterday. I would also like to point out that this Constitution of ours is for the most part an unwritten Constitution, and the enactments which were put in our hands, through the White Paper issued recently, are practically the only part of our Constitution which is written. This Bill seeks to destroy and to very gravely alter one of the most important parts of that written portion of our Constitution. I draw the attention of the House that that is proposed to be done in three days, and that the most important stage, the Committee stage, is to be taken after the House was sitting up until three o'clock this morning. I think that is not fair. I should like to remind the House that this question has never been before the country at a General Election, and that in the only election which has taken place a few days ago the result was that the candidate at that election who objected to any change in the Declaration was returned by a larger majority than his predecessor in the constituency had enjoyed.

2355
On those grounds I think we have every right to ask that further time should be given between the Second Reading and the Committee stage. I should like to quote again from the Prime Minister. After having informed us that he proposed that the Committee stage and Report and Third Reading of this Bill should be postponed until after the adjournment, that is until November, he came down to the House one day, and without any notice informed us that owing to representations which he had received from various quarters of the House he had come to the conclusion that it would be better to dispose of this Bill before the Recess. I should have thought before such an idea ever entered into the head of the Prime Minister that when he consulted with the Members in various quarters of the House the least he could have done was to have consulted with that portion of the House from which opposition would come. He never did that, he never took our convenience or views into consideration, as I submit he ought to have done. He came down and told the House that the remaining stages must be disposed of before we rose for the holidays. I do not think that is treating us fairly. I do not think in any case, whether he had given us notice or not, that sufficient time has been given or is being given for the discussion of a matter of such grave importance as that concerned in this Bill. For those reasons I beg to move.
The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. Runciman): I am sure that the hon. Member does not expect the Government to accept the Motion. Ample time was given between the First and Second Reading for a great deal of the discussion which he desires, and I am sure we are only consulting the general wish of the House in proceeding at once with the Bill. [HON. MEMBERS: "No, no."]
Mr. C. CRAIG: Of those in favour of the Bill, no doubt.
Mr. RUNCIMAN: The Bill is a very short Bill. The number of Amendments which are down on the Paper, although large in number, really cover, I think, very few principles, and the discussion that we can have this afternoon will be quite ample for the purpose. I am sure the hon. Gentleman and those who think
2356
with him will take full advantage of the opportunities which are offered to them. We could not think of accepting this Motion.
Mr. WALTER LONG: Nobody will be surprised at the answer which the right hon. Gentleman has made. It is quite obvious that it is the deliberate intention of the Government to force this Bill through Parliament in a manner for which I do not believe any Member of this House can find any precedent. The position is a remarkable one, and I do not wonder that my hon. Friend has made this Motion, because it affords the only opportunity possible for calling the attention of the House and the country to the action of the Government. What is the position? A few moments ago the Chancellor of the Exchequer told us that this House is to re-assemble on 15th November for the Autumn Session. I defy the Government, or any Member of it, to give us a satisfactory reason for forcing this Bill through in three consecutive days now when they could with perfect ease make it part of their programme for the Autumn Session. Supposing this Bill was to require a week's time, and I do not think that would be too much to give to its various stages, then if the right hon. Gentleman is correct in saying that the House is anxious to carry it nobody would object to an extra week being given for its consideration at that time. The right hon. Gentleman says, though there are numerous Amendments, that they are few in regard to the priciples which arise, and that some of them are duplicated many times over. That is perfectly true. He goes on to say that the questions at issue are simple, and can easily be decided on the Amendment. I think the right hon. Gentleman is straining the argument in defence of his situation in making that speech. We sat until three o'clock this morning, and consequently the Amendments were not in the hands of the Members until this morning. I only received them at eleven o'clock. We have had in the meantime to consider those Amendments and make up our minds which seemed the best calculated to carry out the object we have in view. I do not believe that it ever occurred before that on a Bill of this grave and far-reaching character Members of the House, who received their Amendments at eleven o'clock, have been asked to come down and seriously discuss them at four o'clock, with this condition: that the discussion is to be carried through

2357
within the compass of a single sitting in order that the Report and Third Reading may be taken to-morrow.
I am not going to say anything about the Bill itself. My hon. Friend said that the Bill had been materially changed by the alteration made by the Prime Minister yesterday. He also referred to the fact, which is an undoubtd one, that the only alteration made is one which is a concession to hon. Gentlemen opposite, and that the views of those who are either opposed root and branch to the Bill, or the views of those who, like myself, are anxious to see the objectionable language removed, but would like something very different from what the Government have proposed—all those views have been entirely disregarded by the Prime Minister. No attempt has been made to meet them by Amendment, nor has the smallest hope been held out to us that in Committee the Government would favourably consider the proposition that we desire to make. Not only is this Bill altered by the announcement of the Prime Minister, but the whole position was changed by the speech made by the Chief Secretary for Ireland in that very small portion of his speech which had any reference to the Bill itself. Those who were present will remember that the right hon. Gentleman, when he told us a great deal about the past and present, said that he would say a word or two now about the Declaration itself. It was only in his concluding sentences that he dealt with the subject which was really before the House. What he said came to this, that as the Protestant cause is so strong everybody have made up their minds as to the Protestant Succession, and the logical conclusion of the right hon. Gentleman's speech is that this Bill in its full form is not necessary because no Declaration of any kind is required inasmuch as the Protestant Succession stands secure.
Therefore it comes to this, that the Government tell us that this Bill must be carried and they are asking this House at enormous inconvenience, personally and collectively, to dispose of it to-day, while the last utterance the Government has made on the subject is that this Bill is not necessary, and all that would be required would be a single line to remove the present Declaration. That is a most extraordinary declaration. I do not wonder that my hon. Friend has raised the question. He cannot hope of course to secure its acceptance by the Government, but I venture to say that the Government
2358
has set a very bad precedent in the method by which they propose to carry this legislation and that they are making a very unfair demand upon Parliament and upon the time of Members. They may rely on it, and they ought to have realised, that there are a great many men in all parts of the country who look upon this proposed change with the greatest misgiving, and when they realise this change has been forced upon Parliament at the end of the Session, and in a few hours of time, and by a process of Debate which has no precedent and which makes Debate almost a farce. I do not think the Government can complain if those people continue to resent this change and if they claim it has been made in a violent and exceptional manner. For these reasons I do not wonder at the proposal of my hon. Friend, and if he goes to a Division I shall certainly support him because it is the only way open to us to register in this House our protest against the unprecedented, and as I think, most improper action which the Government have taken.
Sir CLIFFORD CORY: I rise to support the Motion. The hon. Member who moved it referred to the fact that the Prime Minister, in introducing the Bill, assured the Members of the House generally that they should, so far as possible, or certainly implied that they should, have ample time for discussion on the Second Reading. As a matter of fact, what happened? Yesterday the Eleven o'clock Rule was suspended and a number of Members on both sides of the House were anxious to speak when the Closure was moved by the Government.
The CHAIRMAN (Mr. Emmott): It is not in order in Committee to reflect on the Closure being carried by the House.
Sir C. CORY: I was not reflecting on the House, but I think a mistake was made. I suggest, inasmuch as the Government curtailed the time for discussion on the First Reading, that it is only reasonable, and I am sure the whole country expected that they would have given ample time for the discussion on the Second Reading.
The CHAIRMAN: I have told the hon. Member that that is out of order.
Sir CLIFFORD CORY: The Secretary for Ireland last night said that the Protestant Succession is absolutely secure as against Popery in this country, and he referred to it as though he thought that in that Declaration they had got the Pope very much in the same way as, it seems to

2359
me, the Prime Minister thinks he has got the opponents of this Bill by proceeding in the way he has done. I would suggest that, in view of the statement made in the country by the Chief Liberal Whip that the Government had no intention of dealing with controversial measures except the definition and adjustment of the relations between the two Houses, this proceeding really amounts to a breach of faith with the electors, inasmuch as the Government have introduced one of the most controversial measures possible. The Leader of the Opposition yesterday expressed the belief that the statement was strictly true, but that the majority of the people in the country were opposed to any alteration of the Declaration. Incidentally I may remark that, inasmuch as the right hon. Gentleman is, I suppose, a supporter of representative government, it is a matter for surprise that he should have voted for the Second Reading of this Bill when he was under the impression that the majority of the people were opposed to it. I said in a former Debate that the Government had no mandate for this Bill. What is more, there is no general demand from the country for it. The only demand the Government seem to have had is from the hon. Member for Clare (Mr. W. Redmond), who, the day after the death of the late King, wrote a letter asking that such a measure as this should be introduced and the offensive words in the Declaration struck out. I would put it to the Government whether they are not straining very severely the loyalty of their supporters in the country by introducing the Education Bills they have done——
The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is not confining himself even to the Bill, and when he deals with the Bill he appears to be making a Second Reading speech. He must apply himself to the Motion to report Progress.
Sir CLIFFORD CORY: I was about to say that the Government had introduced other Bills straining the loyalty of their followers, but that this Bill does so more than any of the others. I do not think there ought really to be any complaint even if I was making a Second reading speech, seeing that I got up yesterday on every occasion between four o'clock and half past ten without being called on; therefore, I think the House might naturally be a little indulgent. We have heard time after time from Members on
2360
the Treasury Bench of the iniquity of the House of Lords in trying to thwart the opinion of the country; but it seems to me that the House of Lords is not in it with the Government, who, having changed their minds, now try to force the Bill through in such a short space of time as three days. In so doing they are certainly trying to thwart the opinions of the electors, who have, without doubt, declared very clearly that they are opposed to this Bill, and would like more time in which to express their opinion. The House of Lords will have an opportunity, of which I trust they will avail themselves——
The CHAIRMAN: I must remind the hon. Member that he is irrelevant. If I have to speak again I shall order him to resume his seat.
Sir CLIFFORD CORY: I will endeavour not to be irrelevant any more. I think it is not irrelevant to the matter before the House to ask whether this Bill, if it is forced through, will have any legal force. I would refer to the interesting point raised yesterday by the Noble Lord opposite (Lord H. Cecil), as to whether, if the Sovereign refused to take the Declaration, anything could be done.
The CHAIRMAN: That clearly is irrelevant.
Mr. LAURENCE HARDY: I should like to join in the appeal to the Government, although no doubt it is somewhat late in the day. I regret that the question should have been raised in the manner it has been. Since yesterday morning the Bill has been materially altered. We have in our hands eight pages of Amendments, which were not presented to us until quite late this morning, and it has been absolutely impossible for any Member, feeling the responsibility of his duties, to come here this afternoon and say that he has arrived in his own mind at the best decision on the Amendments now on the Paper. This is too serious a matter to be pushed forward at this speed. I was rather struck this morning by noticing in the paper most favourable to the Government, the statement that so far as this matter was concerned the House of Commons undoubtedly knew a great deal better than the electors themselves. That seemed a rather bold statement to make; but the paper went on to say that there was no doubt in the country a very different feel-

2361
ing from that in the House of Commons. I think it is desirable that the country should have an opportunity of knowing what is being done in the House of Commons, and of considering which of the Amendments proposed is most likely to lead to a solution of the question. I desire most cordially to meet the wish for the removal of anything likely to be offensive to any other party or religion, but it is too serious a matter to be taken in hand in the manner adopted by the Government. Let anyone compare the two speeches made from the Treasury Bench yesterday—the weighty speech of the Prime Minister, which made us at all events think very carefully over the solution which he suggested, and the speech which concluded the Debate last night, and which at all events ought to be understood in the country. When the people see that this Declaration is not a real Declaration, because the Government do not believe that any Declaration at all is necessary, but is merely one put forward to satisfy what they think are the perfectly unnecessary fears of a certain number of people, I do not think the proposal will be accepted as a good solution of a very difficult constitutional point.
Mr. GIBSON BOWLES: I have a great deal of sympathy with the complaint of the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Walter Long) as to the insufficiency of the time granted for so important and grave a matter as that before the House. It is one of the gravest matters that could occupy the attention of Parliament, and I think that three weeks rather than three days should have been allotted to it But there I part company with the right hon. Gentleman. He says that this is the only opportunity the House has had of debating the question of the shortness of time. He has forgotten that he might have debated the question at the commencement of to-day's proceedings on the Motion to suspend the Eleven o'clock Rule. [Several HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Those cries of "No" only add to my sorrow at the incapacity of hon. Gentlemen opposite to understand the Rules of this House or to take advantage of them. I venture to say that if any Member will read attentively Standing Order 1, he will find that the Motion made to-day was not excluded from Debate or Amendment. It might have been debated and amended to the full. We might have been discussing it now had hon. Members opposite had an adequate knowledge of the Rules of the House.
Mr. MITCHELL - THOMSON: If the hon. Member will read Sub-section (7) he will see why we could not debate the Motion.
Mr. GIBSON BOWLES: No, I should see why you could. Standing Order 1 gives a particular form of words which may be moved and decided without Amendment or Debate. Speaking from memory, I think the Standing Order says that a Motion may be moved at the commencement of proceedings, that certain business, if under discussion at eleven o'clock, may be proceeded with——
The CHAIRMAN: I do not think this has anything to do with the Motion before the Committee.
Mr. GIBSON BOWLES: I was challenged on the point, but I will content myself by affirming, and I am sure that neither Mr. Speaker nor the Chairman would deny, that any Member might have debated or moved to amend the Motion made at the commencement of to-day's proceedings.
Mr. CHARLES CRAIG: If we had done so, we should not have been allowed to debate the question now, so that it comes to exactly the same thing.
Mr. GIBSON BOWLES: I am answering the complaint that there had been no other opportunity of debating the matter. I have pointed out that there was an opportunity to-day; and I may remind hon. Members that for ten days past they have passed a similar motion without taking advantage of their opportunity to debate it. Members opposite complain, and I think with some reason, of the insufficiency of the time accorded to the discussion of so grave and important a subject as that now before the Committee; but if the Motion to report Progress were carried, the time at our disposal for debating important matters would be still more curtailed. [An HON. MEMBER: "The Autumn Session."] Are hon. Members really prepared to go on sitting from now until next November, or even for another week? I believe that even on the opposite side there is neither so much constancy nor so much courage as would encourage hon. Members to resist the desire of the Government to rise next week. My experience of this House is that when a holiday is proposed everybody wants one; sometimes they want one when it is not proposed. I think hon. Members opposite

2363
have lost many opportunities of which they might have availed themselves to resist the rapid progress of business through this House. Although I regret it, I am afraid they will now be forced to accept the conditions of the Government and pass this Bill in the extremely rapid manner proposed.
Sir ALFRED CRIPPS: The great reason why the Motion to report Progress should be supported is the nature of the consideration involved. The essential point upon which we are embarking is the alternative to the existing Declaration. As one of those who are against the present Declaration, I think the alternatives to the words of the Declaration are of extreme importance. There is no greater or important thing to consider than whether we can put in an effective alternative to the words of the existing Declaration. How are we really to consider what the right words are to be? This is a matter of extreme importance. The statement was only made by the Prime Minister last night. We have only had these new Amendments in our hands for a very few minutes or a very few hours this morning. There is one other consideration which I should like to address to the right hon. Gentleman opposite. It is not as though there was any hurry in regard to this Bill. The question of making the Declaration in its present or in its new form does not arise for a long time to come. It only arises at the time of the Coronation, which we are told is next June, or when a new Parliament is summoned. Under these circumstances what possible hurry can there be to push on a Bill of this kind at the present moment, when it is admitted on all hands that the real question now is as to the terms of the amended Declaration?
There is one other consideration which ought to weigh with Members of this House. This is a matter in which we ought to be as little controversial as possible. In order to be that it is essential that those who do not take the view that the amended Declaration is satisfactory as it stands should have sufficient time to consider what to them would appear to be a real safeguard for the Protestant position in this country, and what should be a real substitute—and not a sham one—for the Declaration which is to be repealed. On these grounds I ask why is the
2364
matter to be pressed forward? Surely both in this House and the country we ought to have adequate time to consider these matters.
Mr. MOORE: I must say I was rather struck by the attitude taken up by the Government. After having passed judgment they are prepared to listen to the arguments put forward. It is rather regrettable that this attitude should be introduced at this time into this Debate, and that the attitude of the President of the Board of Education, on behalf of the Government, should be the ipsi dixit: "I have said it, and no one can dispute it; now you may proceed with your arguments." I think we have a right to protest against that. I suppose we are to have no other Government reply because the Government has already spoken; but when the Government replies like they do sometimes, I do not know that the House will be much the poorer for the absence of a reply, or that the dignity of the House of Commons will be impaired by it. I wish to ask why is it necessary that this Bill should now be rushed through in this manner, because the Government take the view, I suppose—although they have been singularly indefinite—that although the Bill may become law, the first time it would come into action would be the date of the Coronation in June next? This Bill would still be in ample time if it were deferred becoming law till after 15th November next. You have only to get it ready for the great occasion in June next. The advantage of delaying it is obvious. It would not be required at the opening of Parliament, because I understand the Government take the view that although a new Parliament is called no necessity for it arises. I differ from that view. I hope the Committee will consider it, because the Government have, through the Chief Secretary for Ireland, deliberately given the go-by to this very important constitutional point. Assuming that to be so; if in the view of the Government this Declaration cannot be used till the month of June, would there not be time to debate it in November? It seems to me the only object the Government can have in not postponing it till November is to burke discussion in the country. I was very glad indeed to hear the recognition paid by the spokesman on behalf of the Government to what they were pleased to term the very successful "agitation," as they called it, worked in the country against the change proposed by this Bill. I do not really think——
Mr. T. M. HEALY: On a point of Order, Mr. Emmott. Should not the discussion on the Motion to report Progress have some relevance to the question?
Mr. MOORE: That is for the Chairman.
The CHAIRMAN: Yes, certainly. The speeches made on a Motion to report Progress should have some relevance. But whilst the hon. Member's remarks are not irrelevant, I must point out that he is merely repeating what has already been said.
Mr. MOORE: I will at once, as I always do, respect the authority of the Chair. If the Government, by refusing this Motion and by pressing forward this matter now, instead of allowing it to stand over till November, are doing so because they are afraid of the agitation which, on their own statement, has been worked up in the country, I might be allowed to say this: If it is agitation, it is agitation that proceeds from the innate convictions of the people. It is an agitation not fortified and stimulated by lies about Chinese slavery or Liberal Publication Department literature. Perhaps I should not call them lies, but "political exaggeration." It is a genuine agitation, and I rejoice to think that though we may suffer we will suffer gladly. The Government are fools, because they must pay the ultimate penalty. Discussion is burked, everything is done to despite the popular voice. I shall rejoice when retribution falls.
Mr. A. C. MORTON: I take it that the real object of this Motion to report Progress is to put this thing off till November. There is another and very strong reason why this should be postponed, and that is that this is practically a new Declaration altogether. Surely, it is not asking too much that, in face of this new Declaration, I should have the opportunity of going down to my Constituents and asking them what they think of it. I am astonished that the Government have refused the time for discussion. It seems to me that they are afraid and ashamed of their conduct in this matter. They are trying to rush the Bill through, and think they will end it. My opinion is that they are only beginning it, and they may find out by-and-by that to flout Scottish opinion, as they are doing at the present time, is not to get a good character. Undoubtedly the matter is being rushed. The Government have no mandate from either the people or the
2366
Liberal party to deal with this matter. I was much struck, in hearing the Prime Minister a fortnight ago, state, in regard to the Woman Suffrage Bill, that there was no mandate for it. I should like to, ask the Prime Minister if he has got any mandate for this Bill, which is a much more important matter than the Woman Suffrage Bill? He will have to say that he has not, for the matter has never been discussed at all by our Constituents. I (la not want to go into other points, but I trust that the Government, even at this somewhat late hour, will not be afraid of discussion in the country, and that they will put the matter off till November, and allow us to have an opportunity of consulting our Constituents. I shall vote for the Motion to report Progress, because I do not think that either our Constituents or ourselves have been treated fairly in this matter.
The CHIEF SECRETARY for IRELAND (Mr. Birrell): The hon. Member who has just sat down has overlooked the fact that over 400 Members voted for the Second Reading of the Bill last night. I think, therefore, that so far as that part of his argument goes, it falls to the ground.
Mr. MORTON: They did not represent the country.
Mr. BIRRELL: I apprehend that what the hon. Gentleman wishes to put forward is the Referendum. That I cannot assent to. When Parliament, it is urged, finds itself in the possession of a majority it should not be enabled to carry any measure that it proposes until that particular measure has been referred to the constituents of my hon. Friend.
Mr. MORTON: That is not my argument.
Mr. BIRRELL: At all events, that is not the Constitution of this country at present. At all events, the House of Commons, carrying a Bill with such a majority as that of last night, is entitled,. I think, to consider that it may proceed with it. Hon. Gentlemen opposite have very fairly admitted that they have had full and ample opportunity for the discussion of this Bill [HON. MEMBERS: "No, no."] Well, the hon. Gentleman who moved this Motion, after he had read the speech of the Prime Minister, admitted that there had been time between the First and the Second Reading for discussion, and everybody who has followed the course of events must recognise that the

2367
time was fully available. The question now arises, the principle of the Bill having been affirmed by a large majority, whether the time now before us is or is not sufficient to discuss and to determine fully the important question whether you want a repudiatory Declaration or whether you a ant an affirmatory Declaration. That was the question which was put with great force by the Leader of the Opposition. Which do you want? There is, I agree, a difference of opinion, on that subject. There are some—I think an obvious minority in this House—who insist upon the repudiatory Declaration. There are, on the contrary others who think that an affirmatory Declaration is better. Having settled that point first, I should imagine there is ample time for the further discussion which may very legitimately arise as to whether the words of the affirmatory Declaration which have been put forward by the Prime Minister as the proposal of the Government are or are not sufficient. I would put it to the House whether, instead of wasting time at the beginning by this kind of discussion, Members could not bend their minds to what, after all, I venture to say, is the simple point; as to whether you want a repudiatory or affirmatory Declaration. Having discussed that, I hope in candour and in perfect good temper, I think we shall find ample time has been left to consider the words of the Prime Minister's proposal. I do honestly hope that after the expression of the case of the Government that they cannot accept this Motion, we may, as business men, set ourselves to grapple with this point, the issue of which is very simple, and which ought to be determined without any very great difficulty.
Lord HUGH CECIL: I find myself in some difficulty as to how to vote on this question. I am a strong supporter of the Bill, and I also support the Prime Minister's Amendment, but if this Motion can be regarded as a Motion of criticism for the way in which the Government have managed their business I think the case for it overwhelming. Never was a Bill managed as this Bill has been managed. The Government left an immense interval between the First and Second Readings. They left no interval between the Second Reading and the Committee stage, which is much more important and much more desirable. In fact, my hon. Friends are perfectly entitled to complain that they
2368
have been treated in a way quite unparalleled in Parliamentary history, and quite inconsistent with the statement of the Prime Minister when he introduced the Bill. I imagine what really took place is this: The Government intended to keep the Bill back until the autumn originally, when they thought it would be useful as against the Nationalist Members from Ireland in getting their Budget through. They would then be able to say to them, "If you do not vote for our Whisky Tax we will let the King continue to anathematise your religion." That plan evidently has now been abandoned. The Government want now to press their Bill through as quickly as possible. On the other hand this Motion would really mean adjourning the discussion until the Autumn. That is really what it comes to. I confess, though my hon. Friends think with perfect truth that this agitation in the country is very honest, yet it is an ill-constructed agitation, and it is more likely to produce heat than light, and the House would be in no better position after three months' Protestant rhetoric in the next summer and autumn. Therefore I think it would be a pity to adjourn. The course the Government ought to have taken would have been to put the Appropriation Bill down for the end of this portion of the Session, and to have taken this Bill last week. Why they did not take that course I do not understand. As we find ourelves in this position, I think it would be better not to adjourn the discussion, and not to run the risk of all this further controversy.
Mr. PRIMROSE: The Noble Lord who has just sat down is in a different position to many of us His constituents have already formed an opinion on this Bill, but the country at large has had no such opportunity. If considered impartially, this Motion ought to attract support from all sides of the House, because it is a Motion which goes to the very root of the whole principle of Liberalism. If the Government had carried out the policy they initiated in the King's Speech, we would have a Second Chamber, initiating, revising, and, subject to due safeguards, delaying legislation, and then we could rest content, but at present we have a Second Chamber, which, although it may be hostile to such measures as the Budget, cannot be depended upon in regard to a question like this. We rather seem to be guided by the Leader of the Opposition. The Government formulate their proposals, the Leader of the Opposition seems

2369
to agree, and then everything is rushed through in a hurry. As a Liberal, when the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition happens to agree with the Government, I, like my hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy (Sir Henry Dalziel), view the position with profound suspicion. I am rather inclined to oppose any measure with increased activity on account of that fact.
The Government during the whole of the elections talked about nothing but that the will of the people should prevail. Every town was illuminated by these perorations, and placards to that effect were posted in every village and almost in every post office. They seem to me now to be stultifying their whole election policy. They are deliberately ignoring whatever will the people may wish to express. There is a further grievance. I feel that in questions of this kind we must not aim at merely passing a Bill rapidly through Parliament, but we must try to get a definite settlement in the country.
That can only be done by creating trust in the constituencies and by making it clear that you are not trying to rush a Bill through Parliament, but that your aim is to arrive at a just settlement of the question. I cannot agree with what has fallen from the Noble Lord opposite. I am a most profound believer in popular government. More than that, I believe in the common-sense of the people. However strong prejudices may be, I believe if the case is put fairly before the people these prejudices will fade away, and it is only by acting in a manner like that that a definite conclusion can be arrived at.
The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. Runciman)rose in his place and claimed to move "That the Question be now put."
Question, "That the Question be now put," put accordingly.
The Committee divided: Ayes, 255; Noes, 142.

Division No. 143.]

AYES.

[4.50 p.m.

Abraham, William (Dublin Harbour)

Crossley, Sir William J.

Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

Adkins, W. Ryland D.

Cullinan, J.

Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

Agnew, George William

Dalziel, Sir James H. (Kirkcaldy)

Haworth, Arthur A.

Ainsworth, John Stirling

Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

Hayden, John Patrick

Alden, Percy

Dawes, J. A.

Hayward, Evan

Armitage, R.

Delany, William

Hazleton, Richard

Baker, H. T. (Accrington)

Dickinson, W. H. (St. Pancras, N.)

Healy, Maurice (Cork, N.E.)

Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

Dillon, John

Healy, Timothy Michael

Barnston, H.

Donelan, Captain A.

Helme, Norval Watson

Barran, Sir J. (Hawick)

Doris, William

Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.)

Duffy, William J.

Henry, Charles S.

Beale, W. P.

Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

Herbert, Col. Sir Ivor

Belloc, Hilaire Joseph Peter R.

Edwards, Enoch

Higham, John Sharp

Benn, W. (Tower Hamlets, St. Geo.)

Ellis, Rt. Hon. John Edward

Hindle, F. G.

Bethell, Sir J. N.

Elverston, H.

Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

Esmonde, Sir Thomas

Hodge, John

Boyle, D. (Mayo, N.)

Falconer, J.

Hogan, Michael

Brigg, Sir John

Farrell James Patrick

Holt, Richard Durning

Brocklehurst, W. B.

Fenwick, Charles

Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

Bryce, J. Annan

Ferene, T. R.

Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)

Burke, E. Haviland-

Ffrench, Peter

Horne, C. Silvester (Ipswich)

Burns, Rt. Hon. John

Field, William

Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

Fisher, W. Hayes

Hughes, Spencer Leigh

Buxton, C. R. (Devon, Mid)

Flavin, Michael Joseph

Illingworth, Percy H.

Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, N.)

France, G. A.

Isaacs, Sir Rufus Daniel

Byles, William Pollard

Furness, Stephen

Johnson, W.

Carr-Gomm, H. W.

Gelder, Sir W. A.

Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea)

Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich)

George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd

Jones, Edgar R. (Merthyr Tydvll)

Cawley, Harald T. (Heywood)

Gibson, Sir James Puckering

Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)

Chancellor, H. G.

Gilhooly, James

Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

Channing, Sir Francis Allston

Gill, A. H.

Joyce, Michael

Chapple, Dr. William Allen

Ginnell, L.

Keating, M.

Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

Glanville, H. J.

Kelly, Edward

Clancy, John Joseph

Glover, Thomas

Kennedy, Vincent Paul

Clough, William

Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

Kilbride, Denis

Clynes, J. R.

Greenwood, G. G.

King, J. (Somerset, N.)

Collins, G. P. (Greenock)

Griffith, Ellis J. (Anglesey)

Lambert, George

Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

Lardner, James Carrige Rushe

Collins, Sir Wm. J. (St. Pancras, W.)

Hackett, J.

Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.)

Compton-Rickett, Sir J.

Hall, Frederick (Normanton)

Layland-Barratt, Sir Francis

Condon, Thomas Joseph

Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis (Rossendale)

Leach, Charles

Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

Lehmann, R. C.

Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

Hardie, J. Keir (Merthy Tydvll)

Levy, Sir Maurice

Cowan, W. H.

Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

Lewis, John Herbert

Crawshay-Williams, Eliot

Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, W.)

Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

Crean, Eugene

Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N.E.)

Lundon, T.

Crosfield, A. H.

Harwood, George

Lyell, Charles Henry

Lynch, A. A.

Pease, Rt. Hon. Joseph A.

Sutton, John E.

Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

Talbot, Lord E.

Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

Pickersgill, Edward Hare

Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

Pointer, Joseph

Tennant, Harold John

MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

Pollard, Sir George H.

Thomas. Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

MacVeagh, Jeremiah

Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

Thorne, William West Ham)

M'Callum, John M.

Priestley, Sir W. E. B. (Bradford, E.)

Toulmin, George

M'Kean, John

Pringle, William M. R.

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

Marks, G. Croydon

Radford, G. H.

Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

Masterman, C. F. G.

Raffan, Peter Wilson

Verney, F. W.

Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

Rainy, A. Rowland

Walker, H. de R. (Leicester)

Meehan, Patrick A. (Queen's Co.)

Raphael, Herbert H.

Walton, Sir Joseph

Middlebrook, William

Reddy, M.

Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)

Millar, J. D.

Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

Wardle, George J.

Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

Redmond, William (Clare)

Waring, Walter

Muldoon, John

Rendall, Athelstan

Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay

Murray, Captain Hon. A. C.

Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

Muspratt, M.

Roberts, G. H. (Norwich) Wason, John

Cathcart (Orkney)

Nannetti, Joseph P.

Robinson, S.

Waterlow, D. S.

Neilson, Francis

Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

White, Sir George (Norfolk)

Nolan, Joseph

Roche, Augustine (Cork)

White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire)

Norton, Capt Cecil W.

Roe, Sir Thomas

White, Sir Luke (York, E.R.)

Nugent, Sir Walter Richard

Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

White, Patrick (Meath, North)

Nussey, Sir Willans

Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland)

Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.

Nuttall, Harry

Scanlan, Thomas

Whyte, A. F. (Perth)

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

Scott, A. H. (Ashton-under-Lyne)

Wiles, Thomas

O'Brien, William (Cork, N.E.)

Seely, Col., Right Hon. J. E. B.

Wilkie, Alexander

O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

Sheehy, David

Williams, P. (Middlesbrough)

O'Doherty, Philip

Sherwell, Arthur James

Williams, W. Llewelyn (Carmarthen)

O'Donnell, T. (Kerry, W.)

Shortt, Edward

Wilson, Hon. G. G. (Hull, W.)

O'Kelly, Edward P. (Wicklow, W.)

Smith, H. B. (Northampton)

Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

O'Malley, William

Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

Wilson, T. F. (Lanark, N.E.)

O'Neill, Dr. Charles (Armagh, S.)

Snowden, P.

Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

Soames, Arthur Wellesley

Wing, Thomas

O'Shea, James John

Soares, Ernest J.

Wood, T. M'Kinnon (Glasgow)

Palmer, Godfrey Mark

Spicer, Sir Albert

Parker, James (Halifax)

Strachey, Sir Edward

TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Master

Pearce, William

Sutherland, J. E

of Elibank and Mr. Gulland.

NOES.

Arbuthnot, G. A

Fletcher, J. S.

MacCaw, Wm. J. MacGeagh

Ashley, W. W.

Forster, Henry William

Mackinder, Halford J.

Attenborough, W. A.

Foster, H. S. (Suffolk, N.)

Macmaster, Donald

Baird, J. L.

Foster, J. K. (Coventry)

M'Calmont, Colonel James

Baker, Sir R. L. (Dorset, N.)

Gardner, Ernest

Meysey-Thompson, E. C.

Balcarres, Lord

Gibbs, G. A.

Mildmay, Francis Bingham

Banbury, Sir Frederick George

Gilmour, Captain J.

Mitchell, William Foot

Baring, Captain Hon. G.

Goldman, C. S.

Moore, William

Barlow, Sir John E.

Gooch, Henry Cubitt

Morpeth, Viscount

Barnston, Harry

Gordon, J.

Morrison-Bell, Major A. C.

Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry, N.)

Goulding, Edward Alfred

Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

Bathurst, Hon. A. B. (Glouc., E.)

Grant, J. A.

Mount, William Arthur

Bathurst, Charles (Wilton)

Gretton, John

Newdegate, F. A.

Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks

Guinness, Hon W. E.

Newton, Harry Kottingham

Benn, I. H. (Greenwich)

Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne)

Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)

Bird, A.

Hall, E. Marshall (Toxteth)

O'Neill, Hon. A. E. B. (Antrim, Mid

Boyle, W. L. (Norfolk, Mid)

Hamilton, Marquess of (Londonderry)

Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

Bridgeman, W. Clive

Hamilton, Lord C. J. (Kensington, S.)

Paget, Almeric Hugh

Brunskill, G. F.

Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashford)

Parkes, Ebenezer

Bull, Sir William

James Harmsworth, R. L.

Peel, Hon. W. R. W. (Taunton)

Carlile, E. Hildred

Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

Peto Basil Edward

Castlereagh, Viscount

Henderson, H. (Berks, Abingdon)

Pretyman, E. G.

Cator, John

Hickman, Colonel Thomas E.

Primrose, Hon. Neil James

Cecil, Evelyn (Ashton Manor)

Horne, W. E. (Surrey, Guildford)

Quitter, William Eley C.

Cecil, Lord Hugh (Oxford University)

Horner, A. L.

Rice, Hon. W.

Chaloner, Col. R. G. W.

Hume-Williams, W. E.

Ridley, Samuel Forde

Chambers, J.

Hunter, Sir C. R. (Bath)

Roberts. S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

Kerr-Smiley, Peter

Rolleston, Sir John

Clyde, J. Avon

Kimber, Sir Henry

Ronaldshay, Earl of

Cooper, Capt. Bryan (Dublin, S.)

Kinlock-Cooke, Sir Clement

Rothschild, Lionel de

Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

Kirkwood, J. H. M.

Royds, Edmund

Craik, Sir Henry

Kyffin-Taylor, G.

Rutherford, Watson

Cripps, Sir C. A.

Lane-Fox, G. R.

Sanders, Robert A.

Dairymple, Viscount

Law, Andrew Boner (Dulwich)

Sanderson, Lancelot

Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott

Lee, Arthur H.

Sandys, G. J. (Somerset, Wells)

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Llewelyn, Venables

Smith, F. E. (Liverpool, Walton)

Du Cros, Arthur P. (Hastings)

Lloyd, G. A.

Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

Duncannon, Viscount

Locker-Lampson, O.(Ramsay)

Starkey, John R.

Faber, George Denison (Clapham)

Lockwood, Rt. Hon. Lt.-Col. A. R.

Staveley-Hill, Henry(Staffordshire)

Falle, B. G.

Long, Rt. Hon. Walter

Steel-Maitland, A. D.

Fell, Arthur

Lonsdale, John Brownlee

Stewart, Gershom (Cheshire, Wirral)

Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey

Lowe, Sir F. W. (Birm., Edgbaston)

Terrell, G. (Wilts, N.W.)

2372

2373

Thompson Robert (Belfast, North)

Ward, Arnold (Herts, Watford)

Wood, Hon. E. F. L. (Ripon)

Thomson, W. Mitchell (Down, North)

Warde, Col. C. E. (Kent, Mid)

Wood, John (Stalybridge)

Thynne, Lord A.

White, Major G. D. (Lancs., Southport)

Worthington-Evans, L. (Colchester)

Tobin, Alfred Aspinall

Willoughby, Major Hon. Claude

Yoxall, Sir James Henry

Tryon, Capt. George Clement

Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E.R.)

TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. C. Craig and Sir C. Cory.

Walker, Colonel W. H. (Lancashire)

Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

Question put, "That the Chairman report Progress and ask leave to sit again."
The Committee divided: Ayes, 131; Noes, 272.

Division No. 144.]

AYES.

[5.0 p.m.

Arbuthnot, G. A.

Foster, John K. (Coventry)

Mount, William Arthur

Ashley, Wilfrid W.

Gardner, Ernest

Newdegate, F. A.

Attenborough, Walter Annis

Gibbs, George Abraham

Newton, Harry Kottingham

Baird, John Lawrence

Gilmour, Captain John

Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)

Baker, Sir Randolf L. (Dorset, N.)

Goldman, Charles Sydney

O'Neill, Hon. A. E. B. (Antrim, Mid)

Balcarres, Lord

Gordon, J.

Paget, Almeric Hugh

Banbury, Sir Frederick George

Grant, James Augustus

Parkes, Ebenezer

Baring, Captain Hon. Guy Victor

Gretton, John

Peto, Basil Edward

Barlow, Sir John Emmott

Guinness, Hon. Walter Edward

Pollock, Ernest Murray

Barnston, Harry

Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne)

Pretyman, Ernest George

Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry, N.)

Hall, E. Marshall (Toxteth)

Quilter, William Eley C.

Bathurst, Hon. Allen B. (Glouc. E.)

Hamilton, Lord C. J. (Kensington, S.)

Rice, Hon. Walter Fitz-Uryan

Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton)

Hamilton, Marquess of (Londonderry)

Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks

Hardy, Laurence

Rolleston, Sir John

Benn, Ion Hamilton (Greenwich)

Harmsworth, R. L.

Ronaldshay, Earl of

Bird, Alfred

Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

Royds, Edmund

Boyle, W. Lewis (Norfolk, Mid)

Honderson, H. G. H. (Berkshire)

Rutherford, Watson

Bridgeman, William Clive

Hickham, Colonel Thomas E.

Sanders, Robert A.

Brunskill, G.

Horne, Wm. E. (Surrey, Guildford)

Sanderson, Lancelot

Carlile, Edward Hildred

Horner, Andrew Long

Smith, F. E. (Liverpool, Walton)

Castlereagh, Viscount

Hume-Williams, William Ellis

Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

Cator, John

Hunter, Sir Charles Rodk. (Bath)

Starkey, John Ralph

Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

Kerr-Smiley, Peter Kerr

Staveley-Hill, H.

Chambers, James

Kimber, Sir

Henry Steel-Maitland, A. D.

Chaplin, Rt. Hon.

Henry Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

Stewart, Gershom (Ches, Wirral)

Clyde, James Avon

Kirkwood, John H M.

Terrell, G. (Wilts, N.W.)

Colefax, H. A.

Kyffin-Taylor, G.

Thompson, Robert (Belfast, North)

Cooper, Capt. Bryan R. (Dublin, S.)

Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich)

Thomson, W. Mitchell (Down, North)

Cory, Sir Clifford John

Lee, Arthur Hamilton

Thynne, Lord Alexander

Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.)

Lockyer-Lampson, O. (Ramsay)

Tobin, Alfred Aspinall

Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

Lockwood, Rt. Hon. Lt.-Col. A. R.

Tryon, Capt. George Clement

Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet)

Long, Rt. Hon. Walter

Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire)

Craik, Sir Henry

Lonsdale, John Brownlee

Warde, Col. C. E. (Kent, Mid)

Cripps, Sir Charles Alfred

Lowe, Sir F. W. (Birm. Edgbaston)

White, Maj. G. D. (Lancs. Southport)

Dairymple, Viscount

MacCaw, Wm. J. MacGeagh

Willoughby, Major Hon. Claude

Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. S.

Mackinder, Halford J.

Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E.R.)

Du Cros, Arthur P. (Hastings)

Macmaster, Donald

Wolff, Gustav

Duncannon, Viscount

M'Calmont, Colonel James

Wood, John (Stalybridge)

Faber, George D. (Clapham)

Meysey-Thompson, E. C.

Worthington-Evans, L.

Falle, Bertram Godfray

Mitchell, William

Foot Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart-

Fell, Arthur

Molteno, Percy Alport

Yoxall, Sir James Henry

Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey

Moore, William

Fletcher, John Samuel

Morpeth, Viscount

TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Col.

Forster, Henry William

Morrison-Bell, Major A. C.

Chaloner and Mr. Primrose.

Foster. H. S. (Suffolk. N.)

Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

NOES.

Abraham, William (Dublin Harbour)

Bull, Sir William James

Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

Adkins, W. Ryland D.

Burke, E. Haviland-

Cowan, W. H.

Agnew, George William

Burns, Rt. Hon. John

Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

Ainsworth, John Stirling

Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

Crawshay-Williams, Ellot

Alden, Percy

Buxton, C. R. (Devon, Mid)

Crean, Eugene

Armitage, Robert

Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, North)

Crosfield, Arthur H.

Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry

Byles, William Pollard

Crossley, Sir William J.

Baker, Harold T. (Accrington)

Carr-Gomm, H. W.

Cullinan, John

Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.)

Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich)

Dalziel, Sir James H.(Kirkcaldy)

Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

Cawley, H. T. (Lancs. Heywood)

Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

Barnes, George N.

Chancellor, Henry George

Dawes, James Arthur

Barran, Sir John N. (Hawick B.)

Channing, Sir Francis Allston

Delany, William

Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.)

Chapple, Dr. William Allen

Dickinson, W. H.

Beale, William Phipson

Clancy, John Joseph

Dillon, John

Belloc, Hilaire Joseph Peter R.

Clough, William

Donelan, Captain A.

Benn, W. (Tower Hamlets, S. Geo.)

Clynes, John R.

Doris, William

Bethell, Sir John Henry

Collins, Godfrey P. (Greenock)

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

Duffy, William J.

Brady, Patrick Joseph

Collins, Sir Wm. J. (S. Pancras, W.)

Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

Brigg, Sir John

Compton-Rickett, Sir J.

Edwards, Enoch

Brocklehurst, William B.

Condon, Thomas Joseph

Elibank, Master of

Bryce, J. Annan

Corbett, A. Cameron

Ellis, Rt. Hon. John Edward

Elverston, Harold

Lambert, George

Reddy, Michael

Esmonde, Sir Thomas

Lane-Fox, G. R.

Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

Falconer, James

Lardner, James Carrige Rushe

Redmond, William (Clare, E.)

Farrell, James Patrick

Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.)

Bendall, Athelstan

Fenwick, Charles

Layland-Barratt, Sir Francis

Ridley, Samuel Forde

Ferens, Thomas Robinson

Leach, Charles

Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

Ffrench, Peter

Lehmann, Rudolf C.

Roberts, George H. (Norwich)

Field, William

Levy, Sir Maurice

Robinson, S.

Fisher, William Hayes

Lewis, John Herbert

Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

Flavin, Michael Joseph

Llewelyn, Venables

Roche, Augustine (Cork)

France, Gerald Ashburner

Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

Roe, Sir Thomas

Furness, Stephen

Lundon, Thomas

Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

Gelder, Sir W. A.

Lyell, Charles Henry

Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland)

George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd

Lynch, Arthur Alfred

Scanlan, Thomas

Gibson, Sir James Puckering

Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

Schwann, Sir Charles E.

Gilhooly, James

Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

Scott, A. H. (Ashton-under-Lyne)

Gill, A. H.

Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

Seely, Col., Right Hon. J. E. B.

Ginnell, L.

MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

Glanville, Harold James

MacVeagh, Jeremiah

Sheehy, David

Glover, Thomas

M'Callum, John M.

Shenvell, Arthur James

Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

M'Kean, John

Shortt, Edward

Goulding, Edward Alfred

McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

Smith, H. B. (Northampton)

Greenwood, Granville George

Marks, G. Croydon

Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

Griffith, Ellis J.

Meagher, Michael

Snowden, Philip

Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

Soames, Arthur Wellesley

Hackett, John

Meehan, Patrick A. (Queen's Co.)

Soares, Ernest Joseph

Hall, F. (Yorks, Normanton)

Middlebrook, William

Spicer, Sir Albert

Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)

Mildmay, Francis Bingham

Strachey, Sir Edward

Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

Millar, James Duncan

Sutton, John E.

Hardie, J. Keir

Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

Sutton, John E.

Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

Muldoon, John

Talbot, Lord Edmund

Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)

Murray, Capt. Hon. Arthur C.

Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N.E.)

Muspratt, Max

Tennant, Harold John

Harwood, George

Nannetti, Joseph P.

Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

Neilson, Francis

Thorne, William (West Ham)

Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncaster)

Toulmin, George

Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

Nolan, Joseph

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

Haworth, Arthur A

Norton, Capt. Cecil W.

Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

Hayden, John Patrick

Nugent, Sir Walter Richard

Verney, Frederick William

Hayward, Evan

Hussey, Sir Willians

Walker, H. De R (Leicester)

Hazleton, Richard

Nuttall, Harry

Walton, Sir Joseph

Healy, Maurice (Cork, N.E.)

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

Ward, A. S. (Herts, Watford)

Healy, Timothy Michael (Louth, N.)

O'Brien, William (Cork)

Wardle, George J.

Helms, Norval Watson

O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

Waring, Walter

Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay

Henry, Charles S.

O'Doherty, Philip

Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

Herbert, Col. Sir Ivor (Mon. S.)

O'Donnell, Thomas (Kerry, W.)

Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

Higham, John Sharp

O'Dowd, John

Waterlow, David Sydney

Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

O'Kelly, Edward P. (Wicklow, W.)

White, Sir George(Norfolk)

Hodge, John

O'Malley, William

White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire)

Hogan, Michael

O'Neill, Dr. Charles (Armagh, S.)

White, Sir Luke (Yorks, E.R.)

Holt, Richard Durning

Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

White, Patrick (Meath, North)

Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.

Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)

O'Shee, James John

Whyte, A. F. (Perth)

Horne, Charles Slivester (Ipswich)

Palmer, Godfrey Mark

Wiles, Thomas

Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

Parker, James (Halifax)

Wilkie, Alexander

Hughes, Spencer Leigh

Pearce, William

Williams, John (Glamorgan)

Illingworth, Percy H.

Pease, Rt. Hon. Joseph A.

Williams, Penry (Middlesbrough)

Isaacs, Sir Rufus Daniel

Peel, Hon. William R. W. (Taunton)

Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthen)

Johnson, William

Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

Wilson, Hon. G. G. (Hull, W.)

Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea)

Pickersgill, Edward Hare

Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

Jones, Edgar R. (Merthyr Tydvil)

Pointer, Joseph

Wilson, J. W. (Worcestershire, N.)

Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

Pollard, Sir George H.

Wilson, T. F. (Lanark, N.E.)

Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

Jowett, Frederick William

Priestley, Sir W. E. B. (Bradford, E.)

Wing, Thomas

Joyce, Michael

Pringle, William M. R.

Wood, Hon. E. F. L. (Ripon)

Keating, Matthew

Radford, George Heynes

Wood, T. M'Kinnon (Glasgow)

Kelly, Edward

Raffan, Peter Wilson

Kennedy, Vincent Paul

Rainy, A. Rolland

TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. Gulland and Mr. Dudley Ward.

Kilbride, Denis

Raphael, Herbert Henry

King, Joseph (Somerset, North)

CLAUSE 1.—(Alteration of Form of Accession Declaration.)
The Declaration to be made, subscribed, and audibly repeated by the Sovereign under Section one of the Bill of Rights and Section two of the Act of Settlement shall be that set out in the Schedule to this Act instead of that referred to in the said Sections.
Mr. WILLIAM MOORE Mr. WILLIAM MOORE moved to leave out the word "the" ["the Sovereign under Section one"] and to insert instead thereof the word "any."
I do not know whether the Government will accept this Amendment or not. It seems to me that it would not affect the object of the Bill by a jot or tittle. Of course, if it is accepted I shall then

2377
proceed to develop my argument upon the Amendment standing in my name further down on the Paper to insert the words "who shall accede to the Crown after the passing of this Act." If my first Amendment is not accepted I must ask leave of the Committee to take them both together.
The CHAIRMAN: That is the ordinary course, and the Division on this Amendment will dispose of the Second Amendment as well.
The PRIME MINISTER: Do I understand you, Mr. Chairman, to rule that if the present Amendment is negatived then the subsequent Amendment, the effect of which is to make it obligatory in the case of the new Sovereign, would be negatived also?
The CHAIRMAN: Certainly, that is what I mean, if the hon. Member argues in favour of both Amendments, the whole thing is settled.
Mr. MOORE: I am sorry that on this occasion I shall have to trouble the Committee with a repetition of certain arguments which I used yesterday with regard to this point. I rejoice that the occasion has arisen, because the Committee can now come to a definite understanding upon a definite question. I was unfortunate yesterday in having to speak after the Prime Minister, because I am sure he would have dealt with this point, and he would have given some explanation, at any rate. The Minister who replied for the Government made a fireworks speech and ignored this important constitutional question. For that reason I make less apology for bringing it again to the attention of the Committee. The matter stands in this way: If my view is correct, it is impossible, by any Bill the Government bring in, now that we are dealing with this or any other topic, for such a Bill to become validly law until the Sovereign has qualified himself as Sovereign under the provisions of the Act which has been circulated for the convenience of Members on the White Paper. Such written Constitution as we have lays it down in express terms that before the Monarch can give assent to any legislation he must have first qualified by making the Statutory Declaration imposed by the Act. It provides that "on the first day every King or Queen of this realm who at any time hereafter shall come to or succeed to the Imperial Crown of this
2378
kingdom shall on the first day of the meeting of the first Parliament next after his or her coming to the Throne sitting on his or her Throne in the House of Peers, and in the presence of Lords and Commons assembled, subscribe and repeat the Declaration."
That is the Declaration which the Government are now abolishing, but the time and the occasion is limited here to the first meeting of the first Parliament after the King has come to the Throne. I wish the Committee particularly to remember this. In those days Parliament went out on the death of the Sovereign, and it was impossible for any new Parliament to legislate until of course it had been summoned, and that is the meeting of the first Parliament. At that moment this obligation came upon the Sovereign, and, before any legislation could be passed by the new Parliament, he had to publicly make this Declaration in the House of Lords. I do not say there has been any legal authority expressed on it, but a great jurist (Lord Salisbury), in the Debate on this question, when it arose in 1901, said:—
"When I say the Sovereign was forced to make it. I mean the whole political machine would have come to a deadlock if he had not done so. The Statute compelled him to make the Declaration before he met Ids Parliament, and until he met his Parliament it was impossible that any new legislation could take place. The only method which could enable you to take a different course—that of obtaining the assent of Parliament to a repealing Act—was, in the very nature of the precaution taken by the statesmen of Charles II., excluded from political possibility."
Therefore, as the law stood, it was absolutely impossible for the King to give his assent to a Bill until he had made the Declaration. The reason for that is this: Our Protestant forefathers, as was admitted on both sides of the House last night, wanted to secure the Protestant Succession. Supposing Parliament had had a temporary Roman Catholic majority, they could have brought in a Bill to enable a Roman Catholic to sit on the Throne. A Roman Catholic would be confronted at once with this Declaration. He could not take it. I am sure the Prime Minister would recognise that any alteration of this Declaration, whether it is a mild and moderate one, or an extreme one, such as enabling a Roman Catholic to succeed to the Crown, is equally objectionable from the constitutional point of view. I do not think the question will be affected at all by the power to continue Parliament under the Representation of the People Act,

2379
1867. That Act simply provided that Parliament might sit after the death of the Sovereign. The question I want the Committee to consider, with the best opinion the Government can give is this: Is this present Parliament the first Parliament of the present Sovereign or is it not? This very Bill is entitled, "The First of George V."; it is described as "a Bill to alter the Declaration on the Accession," and it is called "the Accession Bill." We have all, as I said, taken the oath of allegiance to his present Majesty. Is this or is it not a meeting of the first Parliament since his present Majesty came to the Throne, because that is what the Bill of Rights says:—
"The meeting of the first Parliament after his next coming to the Throne."
Mr. SWIFT MacNEILL: "Or at his Coronation."
Mr. MOORE: Certainly; but admittedly the Coronation has not taken place. I want the Government to explain if this present House now passing legislation is entitled to pass legislation in the present Sovereign's name as that "of a meeting of the first Parliament after his next coming to the Throne," because, if it is, I submit, as a constitutional point, and I am sure the Prime Minister will meet it fairly, that the first occasion on which this Parliament met after the Succession of the present Sovereign to the Throne was the occasion on which the Declaration should have been made, and that until that Declaration has been made there is no constitutional power in the Sovereign to give his assent to any legislation, whether this or any other.
The PRIME MINISTER: I want to appreciate the point of the hon. and learned Member. Does he contend that, inasmuch as the Sovereign has admittedly not taken the Declaration, the Royal Assent given to about sixty-eight Acts of Parliament is invalid?
Mr. MOORE: I am driven to that, and, if it is so, it is owing to the action of the Government in not advising the Sovereign to take the Declaration. I am not responsible for the consequences; it is the Government who are responsible. That view has been very well set out by a leading Liberal paper in the North of England, an out-and-out supporter of the Government—the "Manchester Guardian":—
"The question arises: Is the King constitutionally Sovereign till he has made the Declaration? No certain answer can be given. Logically, on the strict
2380
wording of the Act, King George is presented with a dilemma. An Act changing the Declaration requires his assent; hut, if he has not made the Declaration already, is he legally entitled to give his assent to any Act whatever?"
I am not expressing any opinion other than as a Member of this House, but the question is one of great constitutional importance. It is a question which ought not to have been passed over and ignored by the Chief Secretary unless he found himself genuinely incompetent to deal with it, as perhaps he was. I would ask the Prime Minister how this question is being considered? I quite agree it would be a very serious deadlock if the legislation which has taken place is not valid legislation. No one will deny that the subject whose rights are affected by a Bill is entitled to have the Assent of King, Lords, and Commons to it. The importance of this will be recognised when one sees how difficult it would be to raise this matter. In most matters he can go to the King's courts and say: "My rights affected under this Bill are not really limited, because the Bill was not properly passed," but, when dealing with an Act of Parliament which bears the imprint of the King's printer, the subject is debarred from raising a large constitutional question like this in the courts of law. Surely, therefore, it is a case to which either Committee in either House should pay careful heed. It seems to me the only way out of the difficulty is for His present Majesty to conform to the Bill of Rights and take the Declaration in its present form, and for a Bill to be then passed validating all legislation which the Government have got through this Session. The Amendment I propose will enable that course to be taken. I submit it is the correct and constitutional course. If the Government are fortunate enough to obtain the Royal Assent, once the Declaration has been made, they will then have a Bill on the Statute Book which will apply to the successors of the monarchy in the words the Prime Minister recommends. I think the matter is too important from a constitutional point of view to be ignored, as the Chief Secretary ignored it last night, and I hope the Government will consider it.
The PRIME MINISTER: The hon. and learned Gentleman has raised a very interesting point, but I think I shall be able to show it is not one which has any legal or constitutional substance in it. His contention is that the effect of the requirement in the Bill of Rights is that the new

2381
Sovereign shall on the first day of the meeting of the new Parliament next after his coming to the Throne, or at his Coronation, make and repeat this Declaration. I understand his contention is that, until he has made that Declaration in the manner prescribed by the Statute, the Parliament sitting at the time of the demise cannot lawfully pass or obtain the Royal Assent to any Act which may be passed by that Parliament. That is his contention, but, in order to establish his contention, he has got to take a good many fences. He has got to say that the Statute Book either by expressed terms or by necessary implication has attached to the non-taking of the Declaration by the Sovereign the consequence that all Sovereign acts done by him are invalid. Where does he find that? There is not a word of it. I pointed out yesterday, and it has often been pointed out, that the peculiarity of the requirement to make this Declration is that no penalty attaches to a non-compliance with it. If the Sovereign violates the first provision of the Bill of Rights and becomes a Roman Catholic, the Statute Book goes on carefully to provide a penalty, and his subjects are thereupon and thereby absolved from allegiance. Of course, penal Acts of Parliament are all very strictly construed, and to say that without any words of any sort or kind attaching any consequences of any sort or kind to his failure to comply with the requirements to make the Declaration, we are to jump to the extreme and monstrous conclusion that every Act of Parliament to which the Sovereign has given assent is invalid is a proposition which I do not think the hon. Gentleman, with all his ability, could maintain in a court of law. That is the first difficulty he has got to get over; there is no such provision in the Act of Parliament. The next question is, What is the meaning of the words:—
"The first day of the meeting of the first Parliament."
What does that mean? The hon. Gentleman says that, inasmuch as at the time when this Act was passed, and for a long time afterwards, Parliament was automatically dissolved on the demise of the Crown, the event here contemplated must have happened before any legislative action can be taken in the reign of the new Sovereign. That is not, historically, strictly correct, because 7 and 8 William III., chap. 15, provided, and for a very good reason, that Parliament should not
2382
automatically be dissolved by the demise of the Crown, but should continue for six months afterwards.
Mr. MOORE: It was only for that particular Parliament.
The PRIME MINISTER: No; it was exactly to prevent that sort of paralysis which might be brought about by the automatic dissolution of Parliament contemporaneously with the demise of the Crown. The Act of William III. provided that Parliament should last six months afterwards, and, under Section 51 of the Representation of the People Act, 1867, as the hon. Gentleman well knows, Parliament now is not in any way affected by the demise of the Crown. That disposes of that.
Mr. MOORE: I think the right hon. Gentleman will find that the Statute of William III. was expressly limited to that Parliament of William and Mary.
The PRIME MINISTER: I agree it was a temporary Act, but it was subsequently confirmed and made part of the Statute law of the country, and has remained so. Let us look at the actual practice pursued. May I observe, in passing, that the point which has now been taken would, with all deference to the hon. and learned Gentleman, if there was anything in it, in all probability have been discovered before the year 1910. I will take the precedents. I will take the last four reigns, those of George III., George IV., William IV., and Victoria. In every case the precedent is against the hon. Member. George III. died on 29th January, 1820. On 28th February Parliament was sitting. A number of Bills were passed, and Royal Assent was given by Royal Commission. Parliament was then prorogued and dissolved, and the King did not make the Declaration until the 27th April, in the new Parliament. The Bills passed by Parliament at the time the late King died were assented to by Royal Commission without the new King having taken the Declaration, and that is exactly what has happened in the present Session. The next case was in 1830. George IV. died on 26th June, and on 23rd July a number of Bills, the new King being present in person—and this makes the case still stronger—a number of Bills received the Royal Assent without the King having taken the Declaration at all. Parliament was then prorogued and dissolved. King William IV. did not take the Declaration till 2nd December, and constitutional

2383
lawyers at that time admitted, as regarded the Parliament in existence at the time when the King died, that the Royal Assent could be given without the Declaration being made at all. I will take the next ease, and here again the evidence is perfectly overwhelming. William IV. died on 20th June, 1837, and on 30th June the Royal Assent was given by Commission to a number of Bills. Parliament was then prorogued and dissolved. A new Parliament was opened by Commission on 15th November, and it was not until 20th November that Queen Victoria made the Declaration. Thus, in three successive cases—in the cases of George IV., William 1V., and Queen Victoria—the Royal Assent was given to Bills without the new Sovereign taking the new Declaration as an initial proceeding to the new Monarch giving the Royal Assent. Parliament always had to be dissolved within six months of the demise of the Crown in those days, and any Session of the then existing Parliament was prorogued. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Donegal shakes his head, and I confess I speak with some trepidation on this subject in his presence. But I am prepared to concede to the hon. Member that a new Session of the present Parliament—a new Session created by a prorogation of the Session existing at the time of the death of the King might probably, in the words of the Statute, be the occasion taken of the King's first coming to the Throne. You could not get an earlier time. It must be either a new Parliament elected after the demise of the Crown, or at the very least a new Session of the Parliament which was then existing. I am reminded that the words of the Statute are:—
"The first meeting of the first Parliament next after his or her coming to the Throne."
I am not sure the hon. and learned Member for Donegal, therefore, is not right when he shakes his head and exhibits other signs of mental anxiety, especially if I understand him to imply by that that there must be a new Parliament.
Mr. MOORE: I hope the right hon. Gentleman will not think me discourteous if I interrupt him, but I wish to remind him that King Edward VII. met a Parliament which was summoned before his Accession.
The PRIME MINISTER: The question is if, in spite of it, in spite of his not making the Declaration, the Acts to which the Royal Assent is given are invalid. The hon. Member knows that in law, as in
2384
science, one negative is worth more than two affirmatives. We have three successive cases. In every one of these, if the hon. Gentleman's contention is correct, we violated the Constitution and therefore the Acts of Parliament which were assented to under these circumstances should not have become the Statute law of the land. This is, no doubt, a very interesting point, more fit for argument, perhaps, in a court of law than in this House. But I think I have put forward absolutely conclusive objection to the contention of the hon. and learned Member. In the first place, he is importing into the Statute words which are not to be found in it and which there is no reason to believe the framers had any intention to put into it. Secondly, he is putting a wholly unnatural construction on the words; and, thirdly, there is an overwhelming continuity of precedents entirely against him. Therefore, I submit that his contention has not really been sustained.
Mr. MOORE: I think the Prime Minister will admit that no lawyer in any court of law would rely on precedents unless the conditions were similar. He has quoted three precedents, but I think it will be remembered that they were all departed from in the most recent case—that of Edward VII. I am not aware, too, that in any of them there was any contentious legislation whatsoever involved. If it is merely a matter of giving assent to Bills at the end of a Session I can quite understand they would go through without question. It is only if you have Bills of the sort now before the House, which go to the root of the Constitution, and which arouse protests in every part of the country, that lawyers or others would be astute enough to make a point such as this. Unless the conditions are similar I do not think the precedents can be relied on.
Mr. CHARLES CRAIG: I understand from the statement of the Prime Minister that he holds it is not necessary for the King to make this Declaration in the course of the present Session, and that it is not even necessary that the King should make it on the meeting of Parliament in January or February next.
The PRIME MINISTER: On the contrary, I rather intimated I thought that that was the proper occasion, but I submitted the point with some diffidence in view of the attitude of the hon. Member for Donegal.
Mr. CHARLES CRAIG: At any rate, I take it that the Prime Minister is not clear in his mind that the King will have to make the Declaration at the meeting of the present Parliament in January or February. Suppose he is not legally bound to make that Declaration. Suppose also, for the sake of the argument, that, for some reason or other, the Coronation does not take place next year, or the year after, or possibly two years later, then we are in this position, that Acts passed by this House and Royal acts of all kinds can be assented to by the Sovereign even for five or six years if need be before he takes this Declaration or in any way fulfils the legal obligations imposed upon him by the Bill of Rights and the other measures which have been referred to. I ask the Prime Minister to say if it is his view that that result is possible under the circumstances?
Mr. SCOTT DICKSON: I notice the Prime Minister yesterday, in answer to a question by an hon. Member below the Gangway, said that the Accession Declaration was made by King Edward VII. "at the correct time and in the correct manner according to law," and later on the right hon. Gentleman, in moving the Second Reading of the Bill, stated that the Oath was always taken by the Sovereign immediately on Accession, and that it was taken by the present King on the very day he succeeded to the Throne. That statement is not quite accurate, for I find that Queen Victoria died on the 22nd January, that there were three days following during which Parliament sat, and that the House was then adjourned until the 14th February, on which date the King took the Declaration. If it was the correct time at which he took it, why was it not the correct time for the present Sovereign to take it before this House came to business?
Sir A. CRIPPS: I think the Constitutional question is very important. There is one point on which I should like to put a question. Suppose there is no penal clause to give sanction to the taking of the Declaration. Does the right hon. Gentleman think the obligation on the Sovereign to take it is in any way lessened? It appears to me that the obligation rests as much on the Sovereign whether it has any penal sanction to it or not. I take it that I have the Prime Minister's sanction to that. The other point is as to the time at which the Oath should be taken. Of course, one time is the Coronation, but we
2386
may put that out of the question at the present moment. The other time is the first meeting of the first Parliament next after his or her coming to the Throne. It is quite true, of course, that conditions have changed. The whole constitutional situation has changed to a certain extent since the Bill of Rights was passed. Our ancestors, in framing the Bill of Rights, made it quite clear that no legislation should be passed until the Oath had been taken. They never contemplated that where there is an obligation to take the Declaration before that Declaration is taken, the law itself may be altered. If you can alter the law under these conditions all the safeguards provided in the Bill of Rights are really of no use at all. The aim which our ancestors had in view no doubt was that no Act of a legislative character of any kind should be sanctioned by the Sovereign until he had made the Declaration which is contained in the Bill of Rights. The first alteration made since that date was undoubtedly that instead of the House of Commons being dissolved at the demise of the Crown, it was kept alive. Originally that was only a temporary measure, but eventually the provision was made permanent. Then we have the Representation of the People Act, 1867. I do not think that the Prime Minister will venture to state to this House that it was intended by this Act that the Oath, whatever it might be the Sovereign ought to take, should, in any sense, be indefinitely postponed.
As a matter of fact, I have looked through all the discussions as regards the Representation of the People Act of 1867, and this particular question was never discussed at all. It never came to the front, and it was never considered, because, as I understand it, the earliest possible day—I put it in that way, and I agree with the hon. Member there—when a Parliament meets is, in that sense of the word, the day of the delivery of any King's or Queen's Speech. The Oath was always made before the first meeting of a Parliament of that kind. Lord Salisbury's view of the matter, however, cannot be disregarded, and he pointed out, in the House of Lords in 1901, that in the case of King Edward VII. the Declaration could not have been altered, because he was bound to make the Declaration at a time when no legislation could have taken place. That is perfectly correct from the constitutional point of view, but then, of course, one is not going to take what I may call a pettifogging legal aspect as to

2387
the particular sanction or steps to be followed. I do not go the length of saying, as my hon. Friend has said, that Acts to which the Royal Assent has been given are not proper Acts. That is not the constitutional position, but the constitutional position is important, quite apart from what is, after all, a mere legal discussion of that kind. The constitutional position is that before ordinary legislation is carried out, and at the first meeting of the King with his new Parliament, the Declaration should be taken. There is one other paint, perhaps, I may call the attention of the Prime Minister to—not entirely controverting what he said, but it is very important that this matter should be made perfectly clear. On the constitutional ground his argument, as I understand it, was that if you had an adjournment it was not necessary, and if you had a prorogation it was necessary. That is rather an important matter. It is quite true that adjournments only provide for a short time, and a short prorogation is a different thing; but I want to call his attention to this: Does he hold the view expressed by Lord Salisbury that as far as Edward VII. was concerned the Declaration was taken at a time rendered obligatory by the old Bill of Rights? In my view it was. Edward VII., when he took the Declaration, took it at the right time, having regard to the obligations then existing. I will not assume—we cannot assume—that a Sovereign of this realm, who was under a solemn obligation to make a Declaration, would refuse to do it. That is quite unthinkable, and therefore we need not deal with that technical point. I agree with a great deal of what the Prime Minister said, but I hope he will go further, and assent that Edward VII. having made the Declaration, that Declaration can in no sense be questioned.
The PRIME MINISTER: I quite agree that the mere fact that a penalty is in no sense attached by the State to the Sovereign for not making the Declaration in no way absolves the Sovereign from making the Declaration at a proper time and in a proper way. It is a monstrous proposition that the mere fact that he does not expose himself to penalties by neglecting to take the Declaration in any way lessens the sacredness of the obligation. I am directing myself to the contention of the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite that the failure of the Sovereign to make the Declaration at the proper
2388
time would invalidate the Royal acts that have been done subsequently, and, amongst other things, the giving of the Royal Assent to Bills which have been passed through both Houses of Parliament. At the time that the Bill of Bights was passed this question could not have arisen, because the demise of the Crown involved automatically the instantaneous dissolution and disappearance of the Parliament that existed, and no doubt the framers of that Act did not contemplate any other state of things. But as a matter of fact the law has changed, first in the reign of William III., temporarily, and then in the reign of Queen Anne, permanently, and it became a part of the Constitution of this country that the Parliament, instead of automatically disappearing at the death of the Sovereign, should survive, or could survive his or her death unless it was dissolved within a period of six months. The Bill of Rights had to be construed and was construed for 150 years in view of that altered state of the law, and I have shown that on three successions, George IV., William IV., and Victoria, our forefathers considered the state of things brought into existence by that subsequent legislation. That is to say they did advise the Sovereign that he had power to go down to the existing Parliament and give his Royal Assent to Bills passed by that Parliament without taking the Declaration. They construed the beginning of the Bill of Rights in regard to the new situation as created by these later Acts as amounting to this: That he must take the Declaration, of course, but he need not take it till he first went, and delivered what we should call a King's Speech and opened the Session of the Parliament then existing, or it might be a new Parliament. And I still think that that is the right moment that he ought to take the Declaration, and I cannot think that Lord Salisbury, when he made the observations which he did in the year 1901 that King Edward VII. had to make the Declaration at once in the then existing Session and then existing Parliament, had in his view the precedents of George IV., William IV., and Queen Victoria. not one of whom made the Declaration at that time although they gave Assents. Therefore, all modern precedents and authority are in favour of the construction I have been suggesting to the Committee. When I am called upon for the advice which I shall give my Sovereign, if it becomes my duty to do so, the advice I shall give to the Sovereign will undoubtedly be that when

2389
he first meets his Paliament, at the conclusion of the present Session, and comes down here to Westminster, either personally or through a Royal Commission, or when he first opens the new Session of this Parliament, he shall then make the Declaration, and I think that is the moment at which he ought to do it, and that is the moment at which he will be advised to do it, if I am in the position I am in at present. I cannot see in the Bill of Rights or other enactments, or the precedents, anything which imposes upon him any obligation to make it at an earlier date.
Mr. MacNEILL: My attention was called to this point by a very distinguished friend, who showed it to me in the "Manchester Guardian," and I have considered it in the best way in my power. I wrote to the "Manchester Guardian" in order to allay, as far as I could, the fears of that journal in regard to this great constitutional question raised by the hon. Member for Armagh (Mr. Moore). I have come to a conclusion in which I think the Prime Minister and the Solicitor-General will agree with me. I have not raised this question before, but I am prepared to argue it from memory. It was not raised by me yesterday, but in April, 1901, I, in the House of Commons, stated, as strongly as I could, that the late King never made that Declaration according to law, or according to the precise terms of the Statute, and I was about to accuse the Government of giving the late King wrong advice by making him make an offensive Declaration at a time when it was unnecessary to do it. I say that so far as the legal contents of the Statute were concerned, he did not do it at all. If I am right, and I believe I am, this will be a strong argument in reference to this new Declaration, that the late King, who undoubtedly made the Declaration unwillingly, made it at time when it should not have been made; also, that it has had no legal validity, this being a penal Statute, as he made the Declaration at a time when he was compelled by his Ministers to make it, but at a time when it was not necessary to do so. May I with great respect state to the Prime Minister how I respectfully differ from him in reference to the construction of the powers under the Bill of Rights? It is the first sitting of the first Parliament that is referred to. And the first Parliament in that way we all admit is the first Parliament of the King that he convenes. Originally it was provided that when the King expired Parliament ought also to expire,
2390
and the first change was of a very tentative character, and was made in the reign of William III. to prolong Parliament for six months. That was an artificial prolongation. Then came the Statute of Anne, and made permanent this six months' arrangement, and thus it became an impossibility under the present conditions for Parliament to meet, and the King to make this Declaration on the first day of his Parliament because there is this extraordinary provision—which is an evidence of panic—that the House of Commons without writ or summons at all should meet automatically. That was the first day of their meeting, and the condition was ostentatiously made that the moment the King died the House of Commons, although adjourned or prorogued, should automatically meet. But the new King would not be there to meet them then to make the Declaration which is to be made on the first meeting of the Parliament. That is the first meeting of Parliament, and strong evidences of this is provided by the Statute of George III., which was brought forward when this country was passing through a revolutionary condition. It is provided by the Statute of George III. that if Parliament had not been prorogued, but dissolved, the Members of a dissolved House of Commons were to meet. Under these circumstances, construing the Bill of Rights in regard to the words, "first day of the first meeting of Parliament," it is clear that these artificial meetings were not of a character to include the first day of the first meeting of his Parliament.
6.0 P.M.
It simply puts the Parliament that is in existence on the demise of the King in the position of a Parliament whose life has been artificially prolonged till the time when it would have expired under the Septennial Act if not otherwise dissolved. The Parliament in which we are now sitting is not the Parliament of George V. but the last Parliament of King Edward VII. It would have expired on his death but is artificially prolonged by the Act of 1867, just as Parliaments were formerly prolonged for six months.
How does this bear on the Declaration question? The Prime Minister knows that this is, if anything ever was, a penal Statute. He has also recognised the great distinction that there is between this and the conditions which follow on the King's marrying a Catholic, that the people are relieved from their allegiance. I state

2391
solemnly that King Edward VII. never made that Declaration according to law. So far as he was concerned quite unwittingly he did not fulfil the law. He made the offensive Declaration on the advice of Ministers at a time when they had no right whatever to give him that advice. If King Edward made it at all, he should have made it, not as he did on 14th February, 1901, but at the first day of the meeting of the first Parliament, which is the Parliament of 1906. This is a strong proof of the great attention which should be given to this Declaration. I would ask the right hon. Gentleman to give me his opinion on a matter of law as to what is the first Parliament. Is this the first Parliament of the present Sovereign? So far as I might have any little knowledge I would stake it on this fact, that it is not the first Parliament of this Sovereign, because any Parliament which is his Parliament must be convened by him alone.
Mr. LAURENCE HARDY: I think the hon. Gentleman himself reads into the Act words which do not exist in it. He says it must be the King's Parliament. There is nothing stating that it is to be the King's Parliament in any way. I ask him to tell us whether these Acts which received the assent after the demise of the Crown were the Acts, say, of George I., who had died, or of George II., who was a living King? We find these Acts are George V.'s, and therefore we presume they are the Acts of the first Parliament of his reign, therefore it seems to me that the more natural rendering is that the first Parliament is the one which he has to meet in the sense that he meets it every time he sends a Commission to give the Royal Assent to Acts. That is the commonsense view of the question. It is one which was acted on in the only precedent we have since the alteration in the law in 1867. Parliament was prorogued. It was on the first meeting of the first Parliament after Edward VII. came to the Crown that he made the Declaration. It was on the advice of his Ministers, and the advice was approved by the Prime Minister; and yet when King George met his Parliament by giving assent to the Act he did not carry out that advice to the logical issue. After all, we have to remember, when the Prime Minister puts forward that question of no sanction, that there is an unwritten sanction behind this Act which has not been alluded to by the Prime Minister. At the
2392
time the Bill of Rights was passed the Crown had been established on a Parliamentary title at a very recent date, and the result was that when the King had to come down, and as his first act, make this Declaration, it is quite clear that a King who owed his Crown to a Parliamentary title was not likely to refuse to Members of Parliament this particular Oath or Declaration. Therefore there was a very great safeguard in the fact that the Bill of Rights demanded that he should come down to Parliament and make this declaration at the very first moment. After all, the whole point is that, if this matter is of any importance, it is to be taken in the very first instance before legislation comes. That was the intention of the promoters of the Bill of Rights, though it may have been to some extent ignored in subsequent legislation. But the object which was aimed at then still exists, and there is very considerable weight in the constitutional point which has been put forward, and it still requires a little more consideration than the Government seem to have given to it in the past; and it is certainly desirable, now that this Bill is passing in the shape of an amended Declaration, that we should see that in future at all events the Declaration is made at the earliest possible moment by the Sovereign, and there shall not be the delays which are now suggested in connection with making the Declaration.
Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORD: There are two little words in the original Act which throw considerable light on the subject, they are "next after"—the first Parliament "next after" his coming to the Crown. That is clearly not the Parliament which is sitting at the time. It is also clear that these words would be given effect to in one way at the time they are embodied in the Statute, and if they are taken exactly as they stand they will be given effect to another way altogether. I think it is clear that in the words as they now stand in the Act, the true construction would be that this Declaration would not require to be taken at any point in the Parliament which happened to be sitting at the demise of the Crown. Under these circumstances, the Prime Minister has told us that, in his view, the first Parliament next after the coming to the Crown would be either a new Parliament or a prolongation of the existing Parliament. It seems to me that it is scarcely useful to discuss whether Acts of Parliament to which the Royal Assent has been given are or are not

2393
valid, because no one would dream of suggesting, from the practical point of view, that any of these Statutes were not valid. Yet at the same time the discussion and the arguments on both sides are exceedingly useful, and it has been made clear that the intention was when the Bill of Rights was passed that at the very first moment, before any legislation could be passed whatever, this Declaration should be made. But as Acts have been passed extending the life of the existing Parliament, and this point has not been in any way dealt with, we must assume that they intended that it was not necessary during the continuance of the existing Parliament that the Sovereign should make the Declaration, but that the Declaration should be made on the first day of the meeting of the first Parliament next after.
Mr. T. M. HEALY: I wish to say a few words on the question of Ireland, which has been omitted from consideration in the White Paper. It is an instance of the fact of how completely the position of Ireland as a separate country, with separate rights and separate Sovereignty, is ignored in this matter. I acknowledge the manner in which the Government, and especially the Prime Minister, has acted in regard to this Bill, and I owe a debt of obligation to him and to his Administration, for the straightforward and honourable manner in which they have brought this measure forward, and also because of the advice, which I think was strictly legal advice, which he tendered to the Crown in regard to the definition of this word Parliament; nor can I think it is a question on which lawyers alone can really confidently offer opinion, and I think it will require, in view of the storm which has been directed at the heads of the Government, some little element of common sense as well as of courage, to have tendered the advice which the right hon. Gentleman gave as to the meaning of the word "Parliament." I think the manner in which the House as a whole on both sides—because I have watched the action of Conservative Members with just as much keenness as the action of the Government—has done it credit, and it has sent a real message of peace not merely to Ireland, but everywhere where the Catholic religion is maintained and practised. It is impossible to say what the effect of this will be on the allegiance of your Catholic soldiers and sailors. I should like to have seen this Oath read out to Catholic soldiers as they were going into action in South Africa, and ask them if they were going to imperil
2394
their lives for a King who declared that their religion was idolatrous and hateful.
It is nowhere recognised in this White Paper, though the Government has stated that, in their opinion, if the King became a Roman Catholic his subjects were dissolved from their allegiance. I believe that to be true as regards England, and possibly as regards Scotland. I certainly say it is not true as regards Ireland, and no constitutional lawyer would maintain anything of the kind. The one doubt I have in regard to this measure is that it is a measure applicable to the three countries. Of course, I do not take any objection to it, but I wish distinctly to repudiate the proposition, as a lawyer, that if the King became a Catholic it would dissolve, so far as the Crown of Ireland is concerned, the Irish people from their allegiance. It is not to be found or supported in any Statute. The Statutes upon which it depends in Ireland are the Statute of Henry VIII., which gave the King the title of King of Ireland, followed by the Statute of William III. In the Act of Henry VIII. nowhere is there any condition whatsoever attached to the taking on of the Crown of Ireland. The Act of William III. dealt with England alone, and did not apply to Scotland. There may be Scottish Acts no doubt which confirm the English Acts. I do not pretend to have any acquaintance with the laws of Scotland. It is probably so. At any rate, the Bill of Rights did not apply to Ireland. The Act of Settlement in one sense can be supposed by construction to apply to Ireland, but to my mind it is a wrong assertion to say that a change of religion on the part of the Crown would have any such effect in regard to Ireland as the right hon. Gentleman says. The Act of 1542 simply says: The King, his heirs and successors, Kings of England, being Kings of Ireland as united and knit to the Crown of England. I respectfully maintain that all through the discussions on the question of the validity of the Statutes to which the King's sign - manual is attach d there might arise the question as to whether they are English or Irish Acts. I only rose for the purpose of preventing it being said again that in any Parliament in which there are over a hundred Irish Members we are in any way bound to assent to the doctrine which has been laid down above the Gangway, even if that doctrine had not been so powerfully supported by the argument of the Prime Minister from which I respectfully dissent.
Mr. MOORE: I do not propose to go to a Division on the Amendment. We recognise the courtesy of the Prime Minister in this matter, but we do not profess to be convinced by his arguments. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORDhad given notice of an Amendment to leave out the words "the Sovereign" ["and audibly repeated by "the Sovereign"] and to insert instead thereof the words "every King and Queen of this Realm who at any time hereafter shall come to and succeed in the Imperial Crown of this Kingdom."
The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member can move this Amendment, but I would point out that the words he proposes would really make no difference.
Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORD: I desire to move this Amendment and to say a few words upon it. I submit respectfully that the Amendment is in Order.
The CHAIR MAN: I have explained to the hon. Member that he will be in Order in moving it, but the question I wish to ask is what difference it will make?
Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORD: I desire to point out that the words in the first section of the Bill are "The Declaration to be made, subscribed, and audibly repeated by the Sovereign under Section one of the Bill of Rights, and Section two of the Act of Settlement shall be that set out in the Schedule of this Act instead of that referred to in the said Sections." If you refer to Sections 1 and 2 of the Acts you will find no reference whatever to "the Sovereign," but you will find the Declaration is to be made by "every King and Queen of this Realm who at any time hereafter shall come to and succeed in the Imperial Crown of this Kingdom"—exactly the words which are contained in Section 3 of the Act. My point is this. I believe, after a careful examination of these Statutes, that the word "Sovereign" is an adjective. You will find it used for lord or lady. Here we are dealing with exact words, and I submit that when dealing with such Statutes as the Bill of Rights, the Act of Union, and the Act of Settlement, it is absolutely essential that you should use correct language.
In referring to the Declaration to be made by the Crown, I submit, in the first place, that as a matter of good draftsmanship the words of the Amendment are
2396
better than the words now in the Clause; and, in the second place, the language is more precise. I cannot find in the Statutes referred to that the word "Sovereign" is anywhere used as a substantive. If the Government do not choose to amend the Bill in this way in order to make it accurate, I shall not press the Amendment. I beg to move.
The PRIME MINISTER: The hon. Member opposite has stated that the object of the Amendment is to preserve the purity of our Statutes. It does not involve a question of substance. It is purely a matter of expression. I like as much as anyone to get rid of prolixity and verbiage. In these more businesslike and less picturesque days we have got into the habit of using abbreviated expressions, and I cannot think that the words "the Sovereign" would give rise to any ambiguity in any quarter. That form of expression is shorter than the form suggested by the hon. Member, and it has exactly the same meaning.
Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORD: As I have no desire to waste the time of the Committee, I ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The CHAIRMAN: The next Amendment stands in the name of the hon. Member to leave out from the word "be" ["Act of Settlement shall be"] and to insert instead thereof the words, "altered by omitting the words 'superstitious and idolatrous,' and inserting the words in lieu thereof 'contrary to the Protestant religion with which I am joined in communion.'" This Amendment deals with the Schedule, and the question will coma up when we reach the Schedule.
Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORD: A large number of us say that the whole question could be decided now if you would allow the Amendment to be put in this way. Many of us are willing that the words "superstitious and idolatrous" should be left out, and the words indicated in the Amendment inserted at another place. We thought that would meet the susceptibilities of a large number of people who have written to us, and at the same time do substantial justice and save trouble in dealing with the Declaration altogether. Of course, it would be our desire to assist you, Mr. Chairman, in any ruling you lay down for the convenience of the Committee, and

2397
with the desire of seeing that every substantial point has an opportunity of being discussed. That is all we want. There are a number of Amendments standing in various names on the Notice Paper, and if every substantial point gets an opportunity of being discussed on the Schedule we would heartily concur in your ruling that all these Amendments should be taken on the Schedule. I submit that the whole question could be disposed of now under this Amendment, and that the Schedule could be entirely omitted. I respectfully submit that you might allow this Amendment to be moved.
Mr. CHARLES CRAIG: Having passed the Second Reading of the Bill, we have got to the point that some alteration is to be made in the Declaration. It is desirable that the form of Declaration should not be too long. The Amendment standing in my name would meet that point, and it would remove the words which the Roman Catholics consider the objectionable part of the Declaration. Therefore I submit that this is the proper place to alter the terms of the Declaration.
The CHAIRMAN: I have not said, in regard to these Amendments that they are in themselves out of order even at this stage, but what I do say—and I always act on this principle when there are a large number of Amendments to be moved in reference to any part of a Bill—is that they must be moved either on the Clause or on the Schedule. That could be done
in this case if there was a general agreement that there was to be a discussion of a particular Amendment, and then the question would be finished, but the absence of any such general agreement as that obviously leaves this and other Amendments on the Schedule, and it would be better to have the discussion of all on the Schedule and not here.
Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORD: In submitting to your ruling, am I to understand that all these Amendments can be dealt with on the Schedule?
The CHAIRMAN: I do not know what the hon. Member means by that question. Any Amendment which would have the same effect as this Amendment which he seeks to move on this Clause can be moved on the Schedule. The Amendment of the hon. Member for East Down (Mr. Mitchell-Thomson) appears to be out of order, as it retains the old form of Declaration which negatives the principle adopted by the Second Reading. The Amendment of the hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Laurence Hardy) is, I think, outside the scope of the Bill. The Bill only deals in, its title and in its drafting with altering the form and not with the time or the manner in which the Declaration should be made.
Question put, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
The Committee divided: Ayes, 340; Noes, 60.

Division No. 145.]

AYES.

[6.30 p.m.

Abraham, William (Dublin Harbour)

Boyton, J.

Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

Adkins, W. Ryland D.

Brady, P. J.

Cowan, W. H.

Agnew, George William

Brigg, Sir John

Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

Allen, Charles P.

Brocklehurst, W. B.

Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet)

Arbuthnot, G. A.

Bryce, J. Annan

Crean, Eugene

Armitage, R.

Bull, Sir William James

Crosfield, A. H.

Ashley, W. W.

Burden-Coutts, W.

Cullinan, J.

Ashton, Thomas Gair

Burke, E. Haviland-

Dalziel, D. (Brixton)

Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry

Burns, Rt. Hon. John

Dawes, J. A.

Baird, J. L.

Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

Delany, William

Baker, H. T. (Accrington)

Butcher, J. G. (York)

Devlin, Joseph

Balcarres, Lord

Buxton, C. R. (Devon, Mid)

Dickinson, W. H. (St. Pancras, N.).

Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, N.)

Dillon, John

Banbury, Sir Frederick George

Buxton, Rt. Hon. Sydney C. (Poplar)

Donelan, Captain A.

Barclay, Sir T.

Byles, William Pollard

Doris, W.

Baring, Captain Hon. G.

Carr-Gomm, H. W.

Duffy, William J.

Barlow, Sir John E.

Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich)

Duke, H. E.

Barnes, G. N.

Cawley, Harold T. (Heywood)

Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

Barran, Sir J. (Hawick)

Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

Dunn, Sir W. H. (Southwark, W.)

Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.)

Cecil, Lord Hugh (Oxford University)

Edwards, Enoch

Bathurst, Charles (Wilton)

Chancellor, H. G.

Elibank, Master of

Beale, W. P.

Chapple, Dr. W. A.

Ellis, Rt. Hon. John Edward

Benn, Ion H. (Greenwich)

Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

Elverston, H.

Bentham, G. J.

Clancy, John Joseph

Esmonde, Sir Thomas

Bentinck, Lord H. Cavendish-

Clough, William

Falconer, J.

Bethell, Sir John Henry

Collins, G. P. (Greenock)

Farrell, James Patrick

Bird, A.

Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

Fell, Arthur

Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

Compton-Rickett,

Sir J. Fenwick, Charles

Bowerman, C. W.

Condon, Thomas Joseph

Ferens, T. R.

Boyle, D. (Mayo, N.)

Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

Ffrench, Peter

Field, William

Lardner, James Carrige Rushe

Raphael, Herbert H.

Fisher, W. Hayes

Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.)

Rawlinson, John Frederick Poel

Flavin, Michael Joseph

Lawson, Hon. Harry

Reddy, M.

Foster, J. K. (Coventry)

Leach, Charles

Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

France, G. A.

Lehmann, R. C.

Redmond, William (Clare)

Furness, Stephen

Levy, Sir Maurice

Rendall, Athelstan

Gardner, Ernest

Lewis, John Herbert

Ridley, Samuel Forde

Gelder, Sir W. A.

Llewelyn, Venables

Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

George, Rt. Hon. David Lloyd

Lloyd, G. A.

Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

Gibbs, G. A.

Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

Gibson, Sir James P.

Low, Sir F. (Norwich)

Robinson, S.

Gilhooly, James

Lowe, Sir F. W. (Birm., Edgbaston)

Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

Gill, A. H.

Lundon, T.

Roche, Augustine (Cork)

Glanville, H. J.

Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

Roe, Sir Thomas

Glover, Thomas

Lyell, Charles Henry

Ronaldshay, Earl of

Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

Lynch, A. A.

Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

Goldman, C. S.

Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. A. (Hanover Sq.)

Sanders, Robert A.

Gooch, Henry Cubitt

Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

Scanlan, Thomas

Goulding, Edward Alfred

Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

Schwann, Sir C. E.

Greenwood, G. G.

MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

Scott, A. H. (Ashton-under-Lyne)

Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

MacVeagh, Jeremiah

Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

Griffith, Ellis J. (Anglesey)

M'Callum, John M.

Seely, Col., Rt. Hon. J. E. B.

Guest, Major

M'Kean, John

Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

Gulland, John William

McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

Sheehy, David

Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

Mallet, Charles E.

Sherwell, Arthur James

Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne)

Marks, G. Croydon

Shortt, E.

Hackett, J.

Masterman, C. F. G.

Smith, H. B. (Northampton)

Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

Hall, Frederick (Normanton)

Meehan, Patrick A. (Queen's Co.)

Snowden, P.

Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis (Rossondale)

Middlebrook, William

Soames, Arthur Wellesley

Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

Mildmay, Francis Bingham

Soares, Ernest Joseph

Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

Millar, J. D.

Spicer, Sir Albert

Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

Molloy, M.

Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, W.

Montagu, Hon. E. S.

Steel-Maitland, A. D.

Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N.E.)

Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

Strauss, Arthur

Harwood, George

Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

Sutherland, J. E.

Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

Morpeth, Viscount

Sutton, John E.

Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

Morrison-Bell, Major A. C.

Sykes, Alan John

Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

Mount, William Arthur

Talbot, Lord E.

Haworth, Arthur A.

Muldoon, John

Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

Hayden, John Patrick

Murray, Capt. Hon. A. C.

Tennant, Harold John

Hayward, Evan

Muspratt, M.

Terrell, G. (Wilts, N.W.)

Hazleton, Richard

Nannettl, Joseph P.

Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

Healy, Maurice (Cork, N.E.)

Neilson, Francis

Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

Healy, Timothy Michael (Louth, N.)

Newdegate, F. A.

Thynne, Lord A.

Helme, Norval Watson

Newman, John R. P.

Tobin, Alfred Aspinall

Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

Newton, Harry Kottingham

Toulmin, George

Henderson, J. M. (Aberdeen, W.)

Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncaster)

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

Henry, Charles S.

Nolan, Joseph

Twist, Henry

Herbert, Col. Sir Ivor

Norton, Capt. Cecil W.

Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

Higham, John Sharp

Nugent, Sir Walter Richard

Verney, F. W.

Hillier, Dr. A. P.

Nussey, S Willans

Verrall, George Henry

Hindle, F. G.

Nuttall, Harry

Vivian, Henry

Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)

Hodge, John

O'Brien, William (Cork, N.E.)

Walton, Sir Joseph

Hogan, Michael

O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

Ward, Arnold (Hert, Watford)

Holt, Richard Durning

O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

Wardle, George J.

Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

O'Doherty, Philip

Waring, Walter

Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)

O'Grady, James

Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

Horne, C. Silvester (Ipswich)

O'Kelly, Edward P. (Wicklow, W.)

Waterlow, D. S.

Horne, W. E. (Surrey, Guildford)

O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.)

White, Major G. D. (Lancs., Southport)

Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

O'Malley, William

White, Sir George (Norfolk)

Hughes, S. L.

O'Neill, Dr. Charles (Armagh, S.)

White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire)

Home-Williams, W. E.

Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

White, Sir Luke (York, E.R.)

Hunter, Sir C. R. (Bath)

O'Shaughneesy, P. J.

White, Patrick (Meath, North)

Illingworth, Percy H.

O'Shee, James John

Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.

Isaacs, Sir Rufus

Daniel Palmer, Godfrey Mark

Whyte, A. F. (Perth)

Jessel, Captain H. M.

Parker, James (Halifax)

Wilkie, Alexander

Johnson, W.

Pearce, William

Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea)

Pease, Rt. Hon. Joseph A.

Williams, P. (Middlesbrough)

Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil)

Peel, Hon. W. R. W. (Taunton)

Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthen)

Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)

Peto, Basil Edward

Williamson, Sir A.

Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

Philipps, Sir Owen C. (Pembroke)

Wilson, Hon. G. G.(Hull, W.)

Jowett, F. W.

Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

Joyce, Michael

Pickersgill, Edward Hare

Wilson, J. W. (Worcestorshire, N.)

Keating, M.

Pointer, Joseph

Wilson, T. F. (Lanark, N.E.)

Kelly, Edward

Pollard, Sir George H.

Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

Kennedy, Vincent Paul

Pollock, Ernest Murray

Wood, Hon. E. F. L. (Ripon)

Kilbride, Denis

Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

Wood, T. M'Kinnon (Glasgow)

King, Sir Henry Seymour (Hull)

Power, Patrick Joseph

Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

King, J. (Somerset, N.)

Priestley, Sir W. E. B. (Bradford, E.)

Kinlock-Cooke, Sir Clement

Pringle, William M. R.

TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Dudley Ward and Mr. Wedgwood Benn.

Kirkwood, J. H. M.

Radford, G. H.

Lambert, George

Raffan, Peter Wilson

Lane-Fox, G. R.

Rainy, A. Rolland

2400

2401

NOES.

Agar-Robartes, Hon. T. C. R.

Gilmour, Captain J.

Molteno, Percy Alport

Banner, John S. Harmood-

Gordon, John

Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

Barnston, H.

Grant, J. A.

Munro, R.

Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry, N.)

Hall, E. Marshall (L'pool, E. Toxteth)

Nield, Herbert

Boyle, W. L. (Norfolk, Mid)

Hamilton, Marquess of (Londonderry)

Primrose, Hon. Neil James

Brunskill, G. F.

Harmsworth, R. L.

Quilter, William Eley C.

Carlile, E. Hildred

Henderson, Major H. (Berks, Abingdon)

Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall

Castlereagh, Viscount

Hickman, Col. T.

Rutherford, Watson

Chaloner, Col. R. G. W.

Hohler, G. F.

Smith, F. E. (Liverpool, Walton)

Chambers, James

Horner, A. L.

Stewart, Gershom (Ches., Wirral)

Clyde, J. Avon

Houston, Robert Pat rson

Stewart, Sir M'T. (Kirkcudbrightsh.)

Cory, Sir Clifford John

Kerr-Smiley, Peter

Thompson, Robert (Belfast, North)

Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.)

Kyffin-Taylor, G.

Thomson, W. Mitchell (Down, North)

Dairymple, Viscount`

Law, Andrew onar (Dulwich)

Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire)

Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott

Locker-Lampoon, O. (Ramsay)

Warde, Col. C. E. (Kent, Mid)

Duncannon, Viscount

Lockwood, Rt. Hon. Lt.-Col. A. R.

Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

Falle, B. G.

Lonsdale, John Brownlee

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

Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey

MacCaw, William J. MacGeagh

Fletcher, J. S.

Mackinder, H. J.

TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Captain

Foster, H. S. (Suffolk, N.)

M'Calmont, Colonel James

Craig and Mr. W. Moore.

Foster, P. S. (Warwick, S.W.)

Meysey-Thompson, E. C.

Clause 2 added to the Bill.
Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORD: I beg to move that the following new Clause be added to the Bill:—

NEW CLAUSE.—(Saving of Rights and Provisions.)
"Nothing in this Act contained, or in the altered form of Declaration, shall operate to absolve the Sovereign from the other obligations expressed or implied in the Bill of Rights, the Act of Settlement, the Act of Union (Scotland) and the Act of Union (England), and other statutes of the Realm for securing the religion, laws, and liberties of the people and the Protestant Succession to the Throne."
I desire to move the insertion of the new Clause, not that I think it is in itself of any particular value, but we are dealing on this occasion with the religious susceptibilities of a large number of people both of the extreme Protestant section on the one hand and the Roman Catholic on the other, and there is an impression abroad among a certain section of the people that in practically tearing up the old Declaration which was the basis of the Bill of Rights and which was imposed by the Act of Parliament upon the Sovereign acceding to the Throne, we are doing something which will seriously impair the provisions of these other Statutes. There are a number of other obligations imposed upon the Sovereign by these Acts of Parliament in addition to this Declaraation. These obligations are to make a number of promises which are solemnly put to the Sovereign, and they have to be audibly made. Then there is the Coronation Oath, and there are, as I have said, in these five Acts of Parliament a considerable number of obligations on the part of
2402
the Crown for the protection of the Protestant Succession to the Throne, and, in particular, the liberties and religion of the people. I want to make it clear by this new Clause that we put on record in the Act of Parliament which is going to be passed for the purpose of altering the Declaration, that none of these other obligations, which are most important, are in any way interfered with by the present Bill. After all we ought in the House of Commons to bear in mind the susceptibilities of the bulk of the people of the country. I shall be told that this new Clause is absolutely unnecessary and that safeguards were already provided. But even if that be so, I would invite the Prime Minister seriously to consider whether its incorporation in the Statute would not have the effect of ameliorating the blow which the passing of this Bill will inflict upon a large section of the community. If it would have such an effect, then I would ask the right hon. Gentleman whether it is not necessary and desirable to incorporate the Clause. It is in that spirit and for that purpose that I put it before the Committee, though in the altered form suggested by the Chairman, namely by putting the word "other" before the word "obligations."
The PRIME MINISTER: I hope the hon. Gentleman will not press this new Clause, not because I in any way differ from him in the view of its being desirable to maintain, and maintain clearly, all the affirmative provisions in regard to the Protestant Succession in the various Acts of Parliament which are referred to in the Clause. But I should very much deprecate, in the change we are making in the form of Declaration, that it should be suggested it would have any effect in the direction

2403
of impairing those obligations. The view I take is that the Declaration is entirely independent of the other provisions of the Acts. The affirmative provisions of the Bill require that the Sovereign to be a Protestant, and absolves his subjects from further allegiance if he becomes a Roman Catholic. The obligations in the various Acts are entirely unaffected by any change in the Declaration. I must deprecate the suggestion contained in the new Clause proposed by the hon. Gentleman that the Declaration might impair those obligations. I submit it is far better not to insert any additional security, because it ought not to be forgotten that beyond all question there is ample security in the statutory safeguards contained in the Acts of Parliament to which reference has been made. I hope the hon. Gentleman will not press his Clause to a Division.
Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORD: If it has done nothing else my proposing this Clause has had the effect of eliciting from the Prime Minister a statement which, I am quite sure, will do something, at all events, to remove the impression to which I have referred. In the circumstances, I respectfully ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Proposed Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

SCHEDULE.
I [here insert the name of the Sovereign] do solemnly and sincerely in the presence of God profess, testify, and declare that I am a faithful member of the Protestant Reformed Church by law established in England, and that I will, according to the true intent of the enactments which secure the Protestant Succession to the Throne of my Realm, uphold and maintain the said enactments to the best of my powers according to law.
Mr. NIELDhad an Amendment on the Paper to leave out from the word "Sovereign" ["name of the Sovereign] to the end of the Schedule, and to insert "by the grace of God, King (or Queen) of Great Britain and Ireland, defender of the faith, do solemnly and sincerely in the presence of God profess, testify, and declare that I do believe in the sacrament of the Lord's Supper there is not any transubstantiation of the elements of bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ at or after the consecration thereof by any
2404
person whatsoever. And that the invocation of the Virgin Mary or any other saint, and the sacrifice of the Mass as they are now used in the Church of Rome, are contrary to the Protestant religion in which I believe. And I do solemnly, in the presence of God, profess, testify, and declare that I do make this Declaration and every part thereof unreservedly."
Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSON: I rise to a point of order. As I understood the ruling of the Chairman, it was that it would be for the convenience of the House that the Amendments on the Paper to omit the words "superstitious and idolatrous" and to insert words more convenient to the House, should be raised on the Schedule. The Amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing (Mr. Nield) would incorporate a large part of those Amendments. I wish to ask you whether, in the event of this Amendment being taken, the rest of the Amendments which we wish to move subsequently would be affected. The Amendment of my hon. Friend includes several points which appear subsequently on the Paper in separate Amendments. I wish to know whether, if we discuss this Amendment as a whole, we will afterwards be able to raise separate points by separate Amendments later? There may be Members in the House who would subscribe to one or two of these separate points, but who could not see their way to subscribe to the whole of them. I should like to know, in the first place, whether we shall be able to raise the Amendments spoken of originally as to the omission of the words "superstitious and idolatrous," and, in the second place, whether we will be able to raise separate points on these Amendments?
Mr. WALTER LONG: There does appear to be some difficulty about the taking of these Amendments. For instance, there is one standing in the name of the hon. Member for St. Pancras (Sir William Collins), which attracts a good deal of attention. Would it be competent for the hon. Gentleman to move that Amendment after the one which is now about to be moved has been put and negatived? I do not know that those who wish to amend the Bill are agreed about those Amendments. Some may prefer one and some another. The question I wish to ask is: Whether those different suggestions are in themselves sufficiently dissimilar to allow two or more of them being put, or whether the Debate will have to be taken on one?
Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORD: The point which a considerable number of Members on both sides of the House are desirous of having discussed upon a specific Amendment is that the words "superstitious and idolatrous" should be left out and the words "contrary to the Protestant religion" substituted. If that were put, we could then get on with the general Debate on the Amendment containing words of that character, and I very respectfully submit that it would do a great deal to prevent a number of discussions later.
The PRIME MINISTER: I think there is great force in what the hon. Gentleman has just said. I imagine the substantial point raised by the great bulk of those Amendments is that we should retain the Declaration in a negative and in a repudiatory form. I do not suppose any great stress is laid on singling out this or that particular doctrine, so long as you single out some specific doctrine and require the Sovereign to repudiate it. I do not say there may not be some other point, but that is the main point. You propose to continue the Declaration in a negative form in what I would call civil language instead of vituperative language. On the other hand, the counter-proposition is that the Sovereign should no longer repudiate or negative any specific doctrine of the Roman Catholic faith at all, but can declare himself a Protestant affirmatively. Surely if that could be discussed it would get rid of an enormous amount of surplusage and we should have a clear issue.
Sir W. COLLINS: The Amendment which stands in my name differs from other Amendments in that it mentions no particular doctrine, but merely says that the Sovereign shall not be a member of a particular Communion. This, by my Amendment, is secured without the use of any offensive language, but by the language which is used in the Bill of Rights.
Mr. C. CRAIG: The Prime Minister is not quite familiar with our views on this subject, when it comes to the question of what is "civil language." We have two proposals. First of all, that the Declaration should stand with the words "superstitious and idolatrous" taken out and the words "contrary to the Protestant religion" inserted. I would like to know whether, if that proposition should be rejected, the Declaration contained in the Report of the Committee of 1901 will be substituted. It
2406
differs, of course, from the present not only in having the words "idolatrous and superstitious" taken out, but also in having the Declaration very considerably altered. I think it is, "I make the Declaration unreservedly," or something of that sort.
The PRIME MINISTER: Which Amendment is it?
Mr. C. CRAIG: The Amendment of the hon. Member for Ealing (Mr. Nield).
Mr. NIELD: There is another suggestion which I make later on the Paper which would dispense altogether with any reference to dogmas in the Oath itself.
The CHAIRMAN: With regard to the various points of Order which have been raised, of course the ordinary rule of order is, if an Amendment like this of the hon. Member for Ealing is moved and settled, and if the various dogmas to which it refers are discussed, then clearly those various dogmas as different propositions cannot be debated again. In reference to the points dealt with by separate Amendments, of course, if it is necessary, those points can be raised separately, but only in the case of an Amendment of this kind, if the words which are proposed to be left out are left out. If the words proposed to be left out are kept in, then, of course, these different points cannot be raised separately, because the Amendment does not itself become subject to amendment. With regard to the question of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Strand Division (Mr. Walter Long) as to the Amendment of the hon. Member for St. Pancras (Sir William Collins), I should say, without having heard the Debate, in all probability that would be in order, as its object would be somewhat different from that of the hon. Member for Ealing. But it has occurred to me that there is an objection to the form of the hon. Member for Ealing's Amendment, because it is really proposing a new Schedule altogether, and it will be much more convenient, I think, and more in order, indeed, to pass over this Amendment now and call on the others.
7.0 P.M.
Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORD: I beg to move, after the word "do" ["I do solemnly and sincerely"], to insert the words "without any evasion, equivocation, or mental reservation whatever, and without any dispensation."

2407
I do not think that this Amendment trespasses upon anybody else's preserves, and I do not think it will give us any difficulty in discussing it. The old Declaration made it quite clear that the declarant stated that he had no dispensation.
Mr. T. M. HEALY: On a point of Order. We have passed the first clause of the Bill, and the First Clause declares: "The Declaration to be made, subscribed, and audibly repeated by the Sovereign under Section one of the Bill of Rights and Section two of the Act of Settlement shall be that set out in the Schedule to this Act instead of that referred to in the said Sections." I respectfully submit, now that we have carried that provision, that the Declaration in the Bill of Rights is gone, and that it would not be in order for my hon. Friend above the Gangway to move piecemeal to reinsert the whole or any part, any substantial part, of the Declaration of the Bill of Rights, which we have already negatived. We are upon the Schedule of the Bill, and the Schedule has never been regarded as the real operative part of the measure. The real operative part of a measure is the clauses. I suggest my hon. Friend is attempting to restore piecemeal and bit by bit, and that is the intention of the Opposition, the whole of this Declaration which we have by the Bill declared as gone.
The CHAIRMAN: I do not think that objection can arise to this particular Amendment. It is quite possible that a series of Amendments, if they were accepted, might eventually bring the form of Declaration in the Schedule very nearly back to the original form in the Bill of Rights. Provided those Amendments were in order, that is a result which would be arrived at in a perfectly orderly way. Of course, it would not be in order to propose that the form of Declaration in the Bill of Rights should be inserted in this Bill. On the other hand it is certainly not out of order to take individual phrases provided they do not put back the whole Declaration again.
Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORD: My Amendment does not come under the contention of the hon. Member, even if his contention were correct. The words of the original Declaration on this point are these: "I doe make this declaration and every part thereof in the plaine and ordinary sence of the words read unto me as they are commonly understood by English
2408
protestants, without any evasion, equivocation, or mentall reservation whatsoever and without any dispensation.…" We do not propose in this new form of Declaration that that elaborate form of repudiation of dispensation shall be inserted. At all events I do not, though some of my hon. Friends say that they do. What I am proposing is that there should he inserted the following words, "Without any evasion, equivocation, or mental reservation whatever, and without any dispensation." I submit to the Committee that the idea and the motive at the bottom of the Clause in the Bill of Rights was correct. We do not wish to put it in an offensive way, or in a way that could reasonably be objected to, but I do suggest that the idea and the motive should be retained, and that in the clearest and most unobjectionable language that that object should be maintained. It is with that object I propose the Amendment.
Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSON: May I ask whether this Amendment, which includes the question of mental reservation as well as the question of dispensation, will have the effect of preventing us from presenting those words separately at a later stage, because a great many people are in favour of putting in some words in regard to the question of mental reservation and not as regards dispensation, and a great many in favour of the reverse?
The CHAIRMAN: My answer is the same as before. If this Amendment is moved and its points are debated, those points cannot be raised separately again. On the other hand, this being an Amendment to insert words, it is possible to amend the Amendment itself.
The PRIME MINISTER: I, of course, cannot agree to the insertion of these words, for two reasons. In the first place, they are wholly unnecessary. When the Sovereign solemnly and sincerely, in the presence of God, professes, testifies and declares, that ought to be sufficient. If you cannot believe him when he says that, put in any number of words. This addition seems to me to be totally unnecessary. The other objection is equally strong. It is this, that the real abject for which these words are inserted is, as anyone can see, to suggest that there is a power or a right claimed by the head of the Roman Catholic Church to absolve members of that Church who make Declarations, from their binding force. This is really, though it is not

2409
so phrased in its present sense, a repudiation, an express repudiation on the part of the Sovereign of a supposed claim of the Roman Catholic Church to enable people, to put it quite frankly, to tell lies, or make professions with the intention of not carrying them into effect. That, of course, goes to the very root of the change we propose in this Bill, that change being just as desirable in the interests of Christian charity as for a thousand other reasons, which I think have been generally agreed upon, and that it is desirable in these days in a matter of this kind to proceed without giving any unnecessary offence to the consciences of our Roman Catholic fellow-subjects. To make the suggestion that a Roman Catholic Sovereign of this country, seated upon his Throne, in the presence of his Parliament, and in the face of the Empire, could solemnly and sincerely profess before God that he was a faithful Protestant, having all the time in his pocket a dispensation from some foreign potentate, to make that suggestion is as injurious and as wounding to the consciences of our Roman Catholic fellow-subjects as any suggestion that could be made. You may say you object to the Bill and that no change ought to have been made in the Declaration, but having once assented to the principle of the Bill to remove the cause of offence, while at the same time maintaining the repudiation as to the Sovereign's profession, you might as well make no change in the Declaration at all. Upon those two grounds I hope the Committee will negative the Amendment.
Mr. C. CRAIG: I am afraid, from our point of view, the position is very unfortunate. We understand clearly the point of view of the Prime Minister and the Government that they intend to change the character of the Declaration altogether from a repudiatory one to one affirming belief in the Protestant religion. While that is his view, and that of the Government, and possibly the view of the majority of this House, it is equally true that a large number of Members of this House are not prepared to go nearly so far as the Prime Minister, and yet are prepared to go some distance in modifying the Declaration as it stands at present. Why I say it is a most unfortunate position we find ourselves in, and perhaps we ought to have been a little more far-seeing as to the Rules of the House, is we are not able to take the old Declaration, I will not say piece by piece or in two or three stages,
2410
but in the first place to leave out the so-called offensive words, and then take the Declaration which was proposed in 1901. So far as I can see we will not be able to do that. I think, taking into consideration the gravity of this matter, which has been admitted by all parties in the House, that we ought to make an arrangement, and to be given an opportunity of making these two points, which I conceive to be the vital points. I suggest we should be allowed on some or other of the Amendments to discuss this question, taking the Declaration as it stands with the alteration of those two words and taking the proposed Declaration of 1901. Because if we are to take the Amendment that has just been moved and the subsequent Amendment the answer of the right hon. Gentleman will be precisely the same to each one of them. I submit we ought to be given the opportunity of taking Divisions on the two Declarations at any rate. I hope the Prime Minister will consent to allow of a general discussion on the two points.
The PRIME MINISTER: I have already indicated my opinion as to the most convenient way of getting a discussion. I think there are two points, as the hon. Member said, it is possible there may be three, but certainly not more, which govern the whole of these Amendments. I would have to repeat the same arguments in regard to each of them, as would other hon. Members, and nobody wants that on either side of the House. Therefore I shall be very glad to accede to the hon. Member's request if we can agree on what he calls typical Amendments in regard to the three points. As regards this particular Amendment we cannot assent to it in any shape or form.
Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORD: I am very sorry at the order in which the Amendment has come on, because it would have been more convenient if we could have discussed an Amendment like this: "The Schedule shall be the old Declaration with the words 'idolatrous' and 'superstitious' left out and 'contrary to the Protestant religion' put in." If we could discuss an Amendment like that it might cover a large number of the other points. I think everybody is desirous, as the Prime Minister is, that that should be done. Should I be in order in proposing an Amendment of that kind?
The CHAIRMAN: I should be very glad to consult the convenience of the Committee in any way I could, and to assist

2411
them in arriving at an Amendment which would really raise those points which they desire to discuss; but in the circumstances in which I am placed I can only deal with the Amendments before me in the ordinary way. If the present Amendment was disposed of, perhaps some Amendment could be raised which would provide some way of meeting the difficulty.
Mr. T. M. HEALY: Might I suggest that a typical way of doing it would be by an Amendment concerning purgatory?
Mr. NIELD: In view of the circumstances in which the Second Reading was taken yesterday, and the Committee stage is being proceeded with to-day, it is most unfortunate that the Rules of the House prevent the reasonable alternatives being put as a straight issue. But since that cannot be done——
The CHAIRMAN: That really does not arise on this Amendment.
Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORD: I would rather not let the Amendment go to a Division if it will prevent the matter being discussed in the simple way which has been suggested. Between us we ought to be able to arrange such a form of Amendments as to enable two or three discussions to complete the whole matter. In order that I may not cause any difficulty or embarrass the Committee, however much I may support the proposal I have made, I will ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The CHAIRMAN: If the hon. Member for West St. Pancras (Sir William Collins) moves his Amendment he will require to add the word "and" in order to connect it with the rest of the Declaration.
Sir W. J. COLLINS: I beg to move, after the word "declare," to insert the words "that I do not, and will not, hold communion with the See or Church of Rome."
Up to this stage I have loyally supported the Government in their endeavour to effect legislation upon this question. I entirely associate myself with those who wish to remove any cause of offence to our Roman Catholic fellow-subjects, and, above all, to get rid of the irritating, grievous, and shocking words which at present are to be found in the Declaration. I voted gladly for the Second Reading, because I understood from the Prime
2412
Minister that an opportunity would be afforded freely to consider whether the particular form suggested by the Government should be adopted, or whether some alternative form such as I now propose might not be considered preferable. I understood you to say, Sir, that if this Amendment was carried it would be necessary to add words connecting it with the rest of the Declaration. I am not sure that if my proposal were adopted it would not render superfluous the additional words with reference to being a "faithful Protestant." I understand that there is general agreement that some form of Declaration should be required, although some of the arguments used in the Second Reading Debate rather served to show that a Declaration of any kind was superfluous. But if a Declaration be desired, if it is part of the machinery by which a disability is to be placed on members of the Roman Catholic communion to occupy the position of Sovereign of this country, I suggest that we had better follow, as far as possible, the wording found both in the Bill of Rights and in the Act of Settlement—words simply and explicitly disconnecting the Sovereign from a particular communion, which disability I again understand it is generally agreed, even by our Roman Catholic fellow-citizens, should exist. I suggest that it should be stated as an explicit disavowal rather than an implicit disavowal by attempting to set up a profession of faith on the part of the Sovereign. For my own part, I should have thought the day had gone by for endeavouring by Act of Parliament to require compulsorily a profession of faith from either the highest or the lowest in the land.
In submitting this simple form of disconnecting the Sovereign from a particular communion from which, having regard to experience and to the particular claim of that communion to universal supremacy, it has been thought expedient to make that disconnection, I suggest that the simplest and most inoffensive words making that disconnection should be those which are put into the Sovereign's mouth. I propose also to put the Declaration in the form "I do not and will not," because it has been suggested as a weakness in the existing form of words that it is not an abiding Declaration. It is because I think it is impossible to set up a profession of faith for the Sovereign in the words "faithful Protestant," in regard to which probably no two persons in the

2413
Anglican community will agree, that I suggest it is better to take this form of simply disconnecting the Sovereign from the particular communion from which it is desired to disconnect him, than to attempt to erect a profession of faith upon which there may be great disagreement if anyone attempts to define it. I should desire to insert these words whether others are retained or omitted; and I put forward this humble contribution as a way out of the difficulty, and as containing not the least degree of offensiveness to my friends, of whom I have many, both inside and outside this House, belonging to the Roman Catholic communion.
The PRIME MINISTER: I quite agree that, as might have been expected, my hon. Friend has proposed this negative form of Declaration in a manner which could not give the least possible offence to those who are in communion with the Church of Rome. He does not select any specific doctrine for repudiation, but merely requires the Sovereign to state that he does not hold communion with the See or Church of Rome. Nevertheless I cannot consent to the insertion of these words. I have given reasons over and over again, and I think they are reasons which commend themselves to a large majority of the House, why, now we are making a change in the form of Declaration we should proceed by affirmation rather than by negation. Those reasons are obvious; they have been frequently reiterated, and for good or for ill all Members in all quarters of the House may now appreciate their value. This form of words, colourless as it is, is yet an express repudiation by the Sovereign of the particular form of religious belief held by a very large number of his subjects. If it were necessary for him to make a Declaration in order to safeguard his own Protestantism or the Protestant Succession to the Throne, I should agree it ought to be made and it could not be made in a less offensive way than that suggested by my hon. Friend. But in our view, and it is a view I think which is generally accepted, it is sufficient for the Sovereign to say, "I am a faithful Protestant." That is to say, "from my heart and in my conscience I hold those doctrines and believe in those practices which are associated with the term Protestant"—a term which in its origin and existence makes it impossible for anyone honestly to label himself a Protestant
2414
unless he dissents from the cardinal or some of the cardinal doctrines of the Roman Catholic Church. Therefore you have all that you want when the Sovereign declares that he is a faithful Protestant, and on the other hand you avoid the express repudiation of any particular faith.
When my hon. Friend suggests, as I ather gather ha did, that by requiring the Sovereign to declare himself a Protestant you are establishing a new religious test, that is not the case. As I pointed out yesterday, under the Act of Settlement no one can hold the Throne in this country who does not join in communion with the Church of England. I think the form of Declaration in the Schedule has been improved by the omission of those words, and by the suggestions generally accepted yesterday, that we should be content with requiring the Sovereign to declare that he is a faithful Protestant. You cannot get over the fact that by law, and until the law is altered, the Sovereign's religious faith is already prescribed for him by Act of Parliament. Under these circumstances, I cannot help thinking that my hon. Friend might be content with the words we propose, the insertion of which covers the whole of the ground really requiring to be covered, which words could not be conscientiously uttered by any Sovereign who was holding communion with the Church of Rome, and which therefore sufficiently safeguard all the objects for which Declarations of this kind is required.
Mr. J. A. CLYDE: I propose to support the Amendment, because, consistently with my own obligation to those who sent me here, it represents the extreme limit of revisal of the form of Declaration to which I can give my assent. There is no length within that limit to which I would not willingly and gladly go for the purpose of securing a unanimous as well as a decent solution of an unpleasant controversy. But there does come to every demand for concessions a limit. The limit is reached, but not passed in this Amendment; it is reached and passed by the proposal to which the Government insist upon adhering. It has been said already that the Prime Minister has certainly nothing in the form of popular authority for his proposed change, and I would venture to say, from my own experience of the General Election, which experience I understand was not universally shared by Members of this House, that if he had gone to the people of the country and told them that

2415
the change which he wanted to make was the change upon which he insists to-day, he would have failed to win popular support for it. I do not think I was allowed to escape from a single public meeting in the course of the election without being questioned upon this matter; nor have I ever received in connection with any proposal before Parliament so many letters from members of both parties, many of them known to me to be moderate and reasonable people, so moderately and so insistently arging objections to the course to which the right hon. Gentleman says he is tied, and will adhere. I venture to say that the right hon. Gentleman is acting in opposition to general popular sentiment and popular opinion in refusing even to consider—because that is what it comes to—even to entertain proposals which would preserve what he calls a repudiatory, but what I prefer to say is a negative, attitude against Roman Catholicism, and insists upon taking a course which it is somewhat difficult for anyone to define. I do not want to recur to topics which are more appropriate to a Second Reading Debate than to the present Debate, but I do want to say just a word upon the attitude which the right hon. Gentleman has asked the House to take, on his advice, with regard to the form of Declaration. At the bottom of the advice which he has given to the House his suggestion is that, after all, the Declaration is a very immaterial matter; that it is not—so he said—really a part, or at least a substantial part, of what are called the safeguards of the Protestant Succession. That is one of those doses of anæsthetics which nobody knows better than he how to administer to his followers when their scruples make them hesitate on an occasion like the present. I agree that if the Declaration is a superfluity it will not matter very much whether you destroy it by abolition or destroy it by distorting it. In my belief, and the belief of those who sent me here, it is not superfluous. On the contrary, it is one of three things which constitute the fabric of what are called the safeguards of the Protestant Succession. These safeguards do not consist alone in a disability. I agree that disability is a very important element in them, but there are three things that compose these safeguards, of which disability is only one. The other two are Oaths taken, in England at the Coronation, and in Scotland at the Accession. Then there is the Declaration taken at the Accession. The Oaths
2416
relate only to the public policy of the King. They are political Oaths. He undertakes in both, so far as in him lies, to maintain the Protestant complexion of the Government of this country, to uphold the Church, and so on. He does that both in England and in Scotland. Those Oaths have reference entirely to public acts. A disability is incurred whenever a certain set of conditions are fulfilled.
The Declaration, and the Declaration alone, concerns the personal relation of the Sovereign to the particular matters of faith that are in question. It is, to my mind not maintainable to say that that Declaration is other than a material part of that structure. The fact is that it is the foundation of it. It is obvious that the Sovereign could perfectly well take the Coronation Oath, and loyally fulfil it, although he had any faith or no faith. I quite agree you would not ring down the curtain on the Protestant Succession if you were to abolish the Declaration, but most assuredly you would have dropped Hamlet out of the play. The truth is that the Declaration is very near the foundation of the whole structure. It does not therefore seem to me surprising, although I fully admit the changed importance which applies to these things owing to changed conditions, and to the lapse of time, that in the minds of the people of this country the Declaration is regarded as of importance, and that a material distortion of it does not meet with favour. It is perfectly true, I think, that to a very large extent the importance of this whole question is traditional, rather than actual. I do not, speaking for myself, believe for a moment that we would have a controversy such as this is if we were for the first time proceeding to define the conditions upon which the Succession to the Throne was to be regulated. Speaking for myself, I would have nothing to do with the erection of a Catholic disability at all if we were beginning with a clean sheet. But what has led me to say what I have about this matter is when you come to popular belief, and when you touch matters of public sentiment, you are inevitably and necessarily dealing to a very large extent with matters in which tradition plays a powerful part. Although it may be quite true for the Prime Minister to say that, after all, this is, comparatively speaking, unimportant from a directly practical point of view, it is not unimportant from a traditional point of view. On the contrary, you are tampering with what, although traditional, has come to be

2417
woven into the very texture of religious belief and religious adhesion in this country.
That is why public opinion dues not lightly accept the changes which the right hon. Gentleman proposes. I venture to suggest that there are two principles which the right hon. Gentleman might well have kept in mind. One is that if you are dealing with a Declaration of personal faith at all, it is far wiser to stick to unequivocal words and plain speaking than to seek refuge in the evasive verbiage of generalities. If one is called upon owing to necessity—which I am the first to admit—to revise the terms of this Declaration, if the Declaration be a document traditional in character, of historical importance, and both traditionally and historically of constitutional importance, the less you change its terms, consistently with adding the words necessary, the better, because you erect once more into importance things traditional which in many aspects I am sure we would far rather forget. You accordingly give importance to this traditional question, which, I am the first to admit, as a matter of practical politics it does not really bear. If these two principles had been generally more kept in mind, and if the right hon. Gentleman had applied his mind to purging this Declaration of everything that could give offence, and to maintaining in plain terms its real purpose without which its effect is gone, namely, the stating in definite terms that the articles of faith which find acceptance in the Roman Catholic Church are not the articles of faith of the Sovereign, he would have been, I think, far more likely to have secured what I am sure he would greatly desire—an absolutely unanimous solution of the present question. Therefore I support the Amendment of the hon. Gentleman who puts in plain terms the fact that the Sovereign has to declare that he does not hold communion with the See or the Church of Rome. That is a plain fact. I wonder what they who drew up the Act of Settlement would have thought of the right hon. Gentleman's form? One of the eccentric things which might have formed a fitting adornment for the after-dinner oration which the Secretary for Ireland gave us last evening—one of the fantastic things about the right hon. Gentleman's proposals is that in a day, and at a time when liberty of religious thought and decay of religious authority are characteristic of the time he
2418
is actually proposing a restriction on the religious position of the Sovereign which did not exist in the Act of Settlement, and was certainly not in the minds of a great many of the Puritans who had a good deal to say with the course of legislation in those days. "Puritan" is a weighty word. There were a great many people who were Agnostics amongst the Puritans. I say it is fantastic that for the first time a Sovereign of liberal religious views, and, it may be, a Sovereign of Agnostic tendencies, will find himself in great difficulties when he is asked to take the Declaration that he has got to be a faithful Protestant. Many Agnostics—probably there are Members in this House who are Agnostics—are generally in communion with the Church of England from time to time. They might find it a little difficult to take a Declaration that they were faithful Protestants. In conclusion, it appears to me that if the right hon. Gentleman even now should revise his Resolution, and make it to the effect that the Sovereign's position is not the Roman Catholic position, I think he might even now secure practical unanimity in this House.
Mr. WILLIAM REDMOND: I think it may be useful if in a word or two I once more state perfectly plainly and frankly what the Catholic position in this matter really is. The hon. Gentleman who has last spoken says that if the Prime Minister had adopted another method, something akin to the Amendment which is now under discussion, that he would have received practically unanimous support. The first thing that the Prime Minister would have achieved, if he had done that, would have been to defeat the object of the whole of this movement, because he would have left the grievance of the Catholic population exactly where it was before. Hon. Gentlemen above the Gangway seem to think—and possibly sincerely—that the whole grievance in this matter is that, in the words of the old Declaration, Catholics are denounced in vulgar and violent terms. It seems to be considered that what we entirely complain of is that the words "superstitious" and "idolatrous" are directed against us. It has been stated more than once in the course of these controversies that the real Catholic grievance is not in connection with these words "superstitious" and "idolatrous" at all. It is offensive that terms of this kind should be directed towards one, but really it does not affect

2419
us or injure us in any way. It rather injures the people who use language of that description. The real grievance is, and it is a grievance which the Amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for St. Pancras would leave quite untouched, is that the King is required at the commencement of his reign, at the most solemn moment of his life, when the whole wide world is looking on and listening, to single out from the beliefs of the whole wide world the one belief of the Catholic Church, and to use in regard to it language of violence and bitter repudiation. That is the Catholic grievance; that is what the Bill of the right hon. Gentleman proposes to remove. I venture to point out to my hon. Friend the Member for St. Pancras that if his Amendment were carried it would still leave untouched our grievance, because it would still compel the Sovereign to select the Catholic religion of all the religions of the world for what really amounts to an insult as well as repudiation. The hon. Member for St. Pancras truly stated he has many Friends upon the Nationalist Benches and that he would be the last person to press anything which would be in the least degree offensive to the Catholic Members of this House or to the Catholic community. I am sure he has no such intention, but I impress upon him the fact that his Amendment would really re-enact the grievance which this Bill is proposing to remove.
It seems to me that underlying all these attempts to extend the Declaration of the King that he is a Protestant and maintains the Protestant religion, there is a spirit of distrust which I certainly, as an Irishman, should be very sorry to express in reference to the present King or to any King. One is almost driven to the belief that some hon. Gentlemen in this House do not trust the honour and integrity of their Sovereign. Many of the speeches delivered would lead one to the conviction that there was at the back of the minds of some hon. Members always the doubt and the fear that the King should not be trusted, and even though he said he was a faithful Protestant, in his Coronation Oath and solemnly swore to maintain the Protestant religion, he might perhaps break his word; he might by some extraordinary dispensing power not do what he has solemnly pledged himself before his people and before the world to do. That is a most unworthy attitude for English-
2420
men to take up in reference to their Monarch, and I cannot conceive it could be considered otherwise than a personal insult to the honour and integrity of the King not to be satisfied with the plain statement he makes as to his profession and belief.
Reference has been made to the fact that the King or anybody else might by this concession and favour from His Holiness the Pope or the authorities of the Roman Catholic Church say one thing and do the other. Well, I think it is a happy thing that even in these Debates there have been no very acrimonious references made to dogma or religion. Very few offensive things have been said with reference to the Catholic Church, and I certainly think Catholics have refrained from saying anything in the least degree offensive to Protestants in any shape or form. But I must be allowed to say, and I say it with some little indignation, that there is absolutely no warrant for the statement so frequently made that there is any power or intention whatever on the part of the Pope or the Church to dispense anyone in the sense that they are to be allowed publicly to make one statement, and then in secret to entirely belie what they have publicly professed. There is no foundation for any statement of that kind, and I must, without importing any heat into the discussion, be allowed to point out that assertions of this kind are most offensive to Catholics in this Empire and the world over, and I think they ought not to be made. But in any case, even though you believe in any such dispensing power, I certainly think we ought to have sufficient faith and confidence in the personal honour and public integrity of our Sovereign to believe that when he says he is a faithful Protestant, and swears, in Westminster Abbey, before the Crown is put upon his head, to maintain the Protestant form of religion, to believe his word, and not to nurse this haunting suspicion that the King may at some time break not only his word but also the solemn oath which he has taken.
I hope the Prime Minister will not accept the Amendment of the hon. Member for St. Pancras. I ask the right hon. Gentleman to realise if this Amendment is carried it will defeat the whole object of the Bill, and I impress not only upon the Prime Minister but upon every Member of the House that if this thing is really worth doing it is worth doing thoroughly and well. There is no use in half measures in the matter. It is a grievance not only

2421
affecting the Catholics of this country but it is a grievance which has moved the Parliament of the Dominion of Canada and the Commonwealth of Australia to pass strong resolutions praying the King to move in this matter. If you believe this feeling is genuine and is worth responding to, do not attempt to meet it in any half-hearted or niggardly manner. This Bill as it stands is satisfying; it was passed by a majority of very large dimensions; it was voted for by 410 Members in all parts of this House, because it was felt that the old Declaration, while not in the slightest degree needed as an historical guarantee for the Crown, it was an admitted grievance to millions of the Catholic subjects of the King. To remedy that grievance this Bill has been brought in, and for that reason I hope it will become law in its present form, and in no other, for as it stands it meets the objections for which it was intended.
Sir CLIFFORD CORY: While the hon. Member for Clare (Mr. W. Redmond) is very indignant with my hon. Friend the Member for St. Pancras for proposing this Amendment, I should like to recall to his mind the letter which he wrote the Prime Minister upon this very subject. The hon. Member wrote:—
"You may remember that upon the Second Reading of the Catholic Disabilities Bill, moved by me last year, you spoke very strongly in favour of removing from the Royal Accession Oath the words which are so offensive to Catholics. That view of yours so well expressed, met with. I believe, favour from all quarters of the House, with some few exceptions. Under the present sad circumstances the matter becomes immediately pressing, and I venture to ask you to take such steps as may be necessary to relieve the new King of such obligation."
So that the hon. Member will see that at that time he seemed to be desirous of having removed from the Declaration those words which he thought objectionable.
Mr. WILLIAM REDMOND: I am sure the hon. Gentleman does not in the slightest degree wish to misrepresent me, but when I spoke in that letter of words I meant, as has been meant all along, the words not merely which are violent and offensive—namely, "superstitious and idolatrous," but the words as a whole, that single out the doctrines of the Catholic Church from all religions for denunciation.
Sir CLIFFORD CORY: This Amendment does not single out any particular religion for denunciation; it only declares that the King is not in communion with the See or Church of Rome.
Mr. STUART-WORTLEY: I am one of the Members who said they would resist any alteration in the formula of 1687. I feel myself now placed in circumstances in which the House made it necessary by a large vote that there should be some alteration. I have to choose between an alteration that seems to bring us more near or less near to that of 1687. The Amendment of the hon. Member for St. Pancras does not seem to me to be exactly the form of words that I myself would have chosen. Still, his Amendment does bring us nearer to the old words than the Amendment submitted in the Schedule of the Bill, and on that ground I can support the Amendment of the hon. Member for West St. Pancras.
Mr. JAMES HOPE: I ask the attention of the Committee to what is really critical point. As a Catholic I draw a distinction between two positions that have been set out. I fairly and absolutely accept the Protestant Succession; I accept the principle that the majority of the people in this country have a right to demand that their Sovereign shall be of the same faith as themselves, and I hope to show that that is fully carried out by the words of the proposed amended Declaration. But the position I will not accept is that one religion alone should be singled out for denunciation, whether in polite or in offensive terms. It cannot be denied that, whether under the old Declaration or under this Declaration, if the Amendment were accepted one religion is specially singled out. If the views I hold are to be set apart for repudiation, I confess I think I should like to be in some company, if only in the company of the Mahomedans and Buddhists. Some of my friends with whom I have often acted in other matters, and hope to act again, seem to regard the words as having something occultly dangerous about them. They seem to think there is something behind them to be guarded against. I think that view seemed to find expression in the speech of the hon. Member for North Down. I will not speak about theological matters in any degree similar to that in which they have been referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for North Down. He seemed to me to be suffering under one or two rather serious misconceptions. Either he or another hon. Member spoke about the infallibility of the Pope. That is a highly technical and complex matter—quite as technical and complex as the English legal doctrine of the impeccability of the King, and it certainly cannot have

2423
any bearing upon the present controversy. Whatever it may involve, it applies only to the foundations of doctrine, and not to any concrete political act, and to bring this doctrine in in connection with this Bill is entirely beside the mark. My hon. Friend referred to an old Bull of 1832, but I think he has entirely misinterpreted the sense of that. Others have referred to the temporal power of the Pope. There is a total verbal misconception in this matter. It is quite true temporal power is asserted, but the words "temporal power" mean the historical claim of the Pope to certain territories in Italy, not to temporal jurisdiction in foreign countries. It is not a matter of faith at all. As to the Deposing Power, I never met anyone who held this doctrine. It rested in former times on a jurisdiction of the Pope by consent. The people of Europe wanted an arbitrator, and they agreed that the Pope should be the arbitrator, but this was no part of his prerogative, and since this general consent has been withdrawn the jurisdiction falls through.
8.0 P.M.
Most of these matters seem to me to be entirely irrelevant, because everybody fully accepts the proposal that the Sovereign must be a Protestant; the point is whether the proposed definition is sufficient to that end. As far as I understand theology, I am absolutely convinced that it would be impossible for any Catholic to make this new Declaration. It could not be done. It could no more be done in the case of the old form than in the new form. You might find an unscrupulous Sovereign who would be willing to make either Declaration or both of them, but against a man like that you cannot have any safeguards. In this respect the two Declarations are absolutely on a par, because no Catholic could take either. With regard to dispensations they are only valid as against ecclesiastical law, and not against the moral law. To take either of those Declarations in the case of a Catholic would be perjury, and no question of dispensation could be raised. I confess it is rather against the grain with me to support the Government, but on the present occasion I feel bound to do it. I think they have done right. I am not dealing with the narrow point about the Establishment, but I think they are right in their general formula. It is without offence, and I hope the House will see its way to discontinue imposing a stigma on a reli-
2424
gious body to whom loyalty to their Sovereign is not only compatible with, but expressly enjoined by their religion.
Mr. LAURENCE HARDY: As I have an Amendment on the Paper almost in similar terms to the one under discussion, I wish to say a few words on the Amendmend moved from the opposite side of the House. I entirely agree with what was said by the hon. Gentleman on the Front Bench as to this really being the minimum which is desired by the people who take an interest in this matter. If this proposal is accepted I shall be very glad, and so would all my hon. Friends, to refrain from moving those Amendments on the Paper which pick out special dogmas and matters in connection with the Roman Catholic religion. I think it is far safer to follow the lines of this Amendment. The hon. Member for East Clare says he cannot accept the position that one special religion should be picked out, but may I point out that this Declaration of the Government picks out one special religion quite as much as the Amendment we are discussing. You make the Sovereign declare he is going to secure the Protestant Succession, how can anybody possibly say that the Declaration is necessarily against one particular form of religion? That is what the country desired, and that is what we are willing to accept because it is desired by the majority of the people. I do not think it can be said, as the hon. Member for East Clare asserted, that the terms of this Amendment are violent or in any way insulting. It merely states the definite fact as stated in the Bill of Rights, the Act of Settlement, the Act of Union, and all the other great Acts of our Constitution. I think what is proposed is the easiest way of securing our object. It is certainly the clearest and most definite way, and it avoids those difficulties which we are landed in when you begin to discuss what the word "Protestant" means. I hope our discussion may be centred in this Amendment as being the best form in which we can obtain that distinct repudiation from the Sovereign. If any other words can be proposed to secure this object which will not arouse any feeling of injustice on the part of Roman Catholics, I shall be perfectly willing to consider them. I believe what we suggest is something which the country will say is the best course to take, and for those reasons I put down the Amendment which stands in my name on the Paper.
Mr. PRIMROSE: The Prime Minister referred to the question of dispensation. I have here a book which I think is authentic which gives a specific instance of the Pope giving a dispensation to an Oath. It is a quotation from Dr. Michael Gedde's "Miscellaneous Tracts."
"Charles V., in the coronation oath of Aragon made a certain declaration. He was absolved by Pope Clement VII. The words were: 'And we do further release your Majesty from the obligation of the oath which we are informed was taken by you in the General Estates of the said Kingdoms and Principalities, never to expel the said Infidels; absolving you from all censures and penalties of the guilt of Perjury, which you might incur thereby, and dispensing with you, as to that promise, so far as it is necessary.'"
Lord HUGH CECIL: I think my hon. Friend opposite has fallen into a mistake. The question is not one of absolving a person from an Oath which, in the opinion of the absolving authority, he ought not to have taken. The question now is whether the Pope can give a dispensation to break a promise before the promise is made. I do not think there is any authority quotable to show that the Pope has ever given a dispensation to break a promise before the promise was undertaken.
Mr. C. CRAIG: I do not think the point which the Noble Lord made covers all the cases which could possibly arise We do not suggest that any King should go to the Pope beforehand and say, "I am going to take an Oath; give me a dispensation from it." We think it is quite possible, though not probable, that a King might take the Oath and go to the Pope afterwards and ask for absolution. If that cannot be done, I am glad to hear it. I am afraid, however, that I shall retain that idea. With regard to the speech made by the hon. Member for East Clare, he argues that we ought to have sufficient confidence and trust in our King to believe that if he says he is a faithful Protestant we ought to rest satisfied that he is not going to be a Roman Catholic. In this matter I do not feel we are legislating for the present King or the next King, but we are legislating for all Kings for all times. We have heard of many of the bad qualities which have distinguished a number of Kings in the past, and it is against such a contingency that we are now trying to safeguard ourselves. Therefore it is quite beside the question to say that we ought to have sufficient confidence in the present King when he subscribes to this particular form of words. The hon. Member for East Clare said the objection of the Roman
2426
Catholic community in this matter was not confined to the objectionable words which have been referred to, but to the whole repudiatory character of the Declaration. I state most emphatically that when this matter was before Parliament in 1901 it was to the two words which have been singled out that the Roman Catholic community objected. Lord Llandaff in another place said that he preferred the old form rather than consent to a form which it would be impossible to get rid of. What he meant was that if a less strong Declaration was introduced he feared that Roman Catholics would be unable to remove the injustice altogether. I believe that the object of the Roman Catholic community is to do away with this Declaration altogether. After the statement of the Prime Minister and other hon. Members, that they see no usefulness in this Declaration, I venture to predict with considerable confidence that very few years will elapse before another agitation is got up by the Roman Catholics to do away with this Declaration altogether. The reply of the Prime Minister was, of course, exactly what we expected. He has taken up his stand against a repudiatory Declaration, and, therefore, it is not to him we appeal when we go to a Division on this Amendment. It is to that other part of the House which is not satisfied in its mind that we should give up everything in the shape of repudiation, be it strong or mild, of the Roman Catholic religion that we have to appeal for assistance in the Lobby. The Amendment is the very minimum of what those who are still in favour of a repudiatory Declaration in some form or other could possibly accept, and, of course, while supporting the hon. Member in his Amendment, it must not be taken that I and some of my Friends around me consider this is by any means as strong a repudiation as we would like to see, but, inasmuch as it does contain the germ of that repudiation which we hold to be absolutely necessary if the Declaration is to be of the slightest use at all, we shall vote for it.
I still maintain that repudiation is necessary, and we consider the expression on which the right hon. Gentleman has pinned most of his faith in this revised Declaration, namely, "a faithful Protestant," is not worth the breath with which it is spoken, because, as has been said innumerable times, it would pass the wit of any man in this or in any other Assembly to

2427
say exactly what a faithful Protestant is. I ventured yesterday to disagree with both the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition in their view of what a faithful Protestant was. They said it is obviously an expression which meant a man disagrees with and repudiates the whole or, at any rate, many of the chief points in the Roman Catholic religion. That is a very broad description of it. There are a great many people who, though not particularly fond of the word, call themselves Protestants and yet believe in transubstantiation. We have chosen transubstantiation as one of the things we desire our King to repudiate, and how can you say that any person who believes in transubstantiation is such a Protestant, at any rate, as the Protestants of the whole of this Kingdom desire to see on the Throne. There are High Churchmen who believe in some of the other leading tenets and doctrines of the Church of Rome in which by far the larger proportion of the Protestant community do not believe, and I say it would be dangerous to allow a person to become the occupant of our Throne who believes in such tenets. We know perfectly well that hardly a week passes without some member of what we call the High Church in this country going over to the Church of Rome. Sometimes they go over in whole batches I am told.
I have always said that it is not the Roman Catholic religion, from a religious point of view, to which I object in the slightest degree; it is simply to the Roman Catholic Church as a political machine, and we should be very glad indeed if this political machine could be excluded absolutely from having any interference in our civil affairs without introducing religion in any shape or form. Unfortunately, what is primarily, I suppose, a religious body and a Church takes upon itself powers which we consider no Church ought to take upon itself. I believe a very superficial reading of history will show that the Roman Catholic Church has for centuries interfered in civil and political matters in a way in which we Protestants do not think any Church ought to be allowed to interfere. It is because of that and because of the probability which I hope will never come that the Roman Catholic Church may some day acquire some of the powers it used to have in days gone by, and which, if it did, it would assuredly seek to exercise by an interference in our civil and political
2428
affairs precisely as in days gone by, that we desire to make it absolutely plain our Sovereign is not a member of the Roman Catholic Church. We believe we can only do that by making him repudiate some of the essential doctrines of the Roman Catholic Church. I regret we are not going to have what I may call graduated Divisions on this point, but I support the hon. Member opposite because his Amendment certainly approximates more to what we desire than the emasculate and futile Declaration which the Government seek to enforce upon the House. The beet proof, I think, that it is emasculate and futile is that the Prime Minister and the Chief Secretary have both declared they consider no Declaration at all is necessary. It therefore does not matter very much to them what Declaration we pass. For those reasons it will give me great pleasure to support the Amendment.
Mr. ROBERT HARCOURT: I have one small piece of evidence supplementing that given by the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down which I think is worth the attention of the Committee, from the point of view that apparently, on the face of it, the claims of my hon. Friend the Member for East Clare (Mr. William Redmond) has advanced in recent years. I take from Hansard, 18th February, 1901, the following question he asked the then Leader of the House:—
"Mr. William Redmond to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether His Majesty's Government intend to take any steps to eliminate from His Afajesty's Coronation Oath that portion which describes the religion of His Majesty's Catholic subjects as idolatrous and superstitious?"
That seems, on the face of it, to bear out the contention that at that time the claims made—subsequently they developed—were narrowed to the leaving out of the offensive words, and at that time went no further. The Leader of the House gave a certain answer, and my hon. Friend put a somewhat vigorous supplementary question:—
"Arising out of the answer of the right hon. Gentleman, I beg respectfully to point out that as long as this Oath is in existence and His Majesty swears that Catholics are idolatrous—"
There, again, the point is the narrow one:—
"I will for one oppose His Majesty's salary."
I put it to my hon. Friend that, on the face of it, he appeared to be confining himself to that very narrow point.
Mr. WILLIAM REDMOND: As a matter of explanation and as the hon. Gentleman has referred to me and has been good enough to give me notice,

2429
I may be allowed to read the following two or three words, which, I think, will clearly explain the position I have taken up and the position, as far as I know, which all Catholics have taken up. Speaking on the Bill I introduced on 14th May, last twelvemonth, I said:
"I have heard it stated that Catholics should be satisfied if the language of this Declaration is modified. In reply to that I say that we do not merely object to the vulgar violence of the language that is used against ourselves and our religion; we object to the fact that of all religions in this Empire, in this world, the Catholic religion, the ancient Catholic religion, once the religion of the people and the Kings of England, is to be singled out for special denunciation and repudiation."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 14th May, 1909, col. 2160.]
I can assure the hon. Gentleman that, notwithstanding the words he has quoted, there has from the very beginning been a grievance in Catholic circles, not merely because they were called "idolatrous," but because their religion was singled out in this manner. If the word "idolatrous" appears more frequently than any other phrase, it has been because it is a strong one. Still, the grievance has always been there. The House of Lords introduced a Bill with the very object of leaving out the words "idolatrous and superstitious," but that Bill never became law, because it was rejected as wholly insufficient by the Catholics.
Mr. GEORGE FABER: I cannot but regret that the Prime Minister has found himself unable to accept the Amendment proposed by the hon. Member on his own side of the House. I have voted for the Bill up to the present because I have come to the conclusion that, in a matter of this momentous importance, it is highly desirable, in the interests of the House and of the country generally, we should find—I will not say some common ground, but some spot approaching nearly to that most desirable consummation. Opposition would, no doubt, not have been altogether removed from this Bill if the Prime Minister had found it possible to accept the words of this Amendment, but I will say with a certain amount of confidence that there would have been comparatively little soreness left behind in the country if the words of this Amendment had been accepted. Surely it is not desirable that there should be any soreness such as there will be if the country is made to be content with the words which I understand the Prime Minister is going to move later on this evening—the words "faithful Protestant." I think that they are not a desirable alternative to the words proposed by this Amendment. Let us look at the history of this Declaration. For the last 200 years or
2430
more one particular form of religion has been singled out for condemnation by the Sovereign on his accession to the Throne. I realise times have changed, and that we do not now stand where we stood 200 years ago. The Sovereign is nowadays a Sovereign with a widely extended Empire, and with millions of loyal Catholic subjects, and therefore it is most undesirable that any words which can give pain to those subjects should be put into his mouth. But there is a middle course, and that is to avoid words which give pain or offence to Roman Catholics, but at the same time to retain words in some form which will meet the views of the millions of Protestant subjects. That is what I mean when I suggest that this Amendment seems to have struck the golden middle line. It can legitimately give no offence to Roman Catholics and neither will it offend Protestants. There is not a word in it against the Catholic religion, because it simply provides that the Sovereign shall say he does not and will not hold Communion with the See or Church of Rome. The word Protestant, of course, means that you protest against something, and, read in the context of the Acts of Parliament passed in connection with this matter, it means that you protest against the tenets of the Roman Catholic Church. Would it not be much better from the point of view of the country generally, and would it not give more general satisfaction, if you were to translate that indeterminate phrase "faithful Protestant" into something that he who runs may read? Would it not be better for the Sovereign to say in so many words, "I do not and I will not hold communion with the See or Church of Rome"? This does not need further argument. The whole matter has been thoroughly gone into. I may have given offence to many hundreds of my Constituents by the course I have taken in so far voting for this Bill, but we do not want to give offence, and I, at any rate, as a humble and loyal subject of the King, would not allow the Sovereign by his Declaration to give offence to any man's religious opinions, legitimately held. I think it is fair, however, in considering the history of this question to ask that the Sovereign should, as far as possible, preserve the continuity of the Declaration.
Mr. SANDERSON: I am sure the Prime Minister must recognise the earnestness with which this Debate has been carried on and the moderation of hon. Members

2431
who have spoken. It has not been conducted in a party spirit. Neither should it, and I appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to give Members a free hand in regard to this matter, and enable them to come to a decision in accordance with their feelings without the intervention of the Government Whips. As this Amendment only appeared on the Paper this morning we have not had much time to consider it. I propose to support it, however. Nobody wants in any shape or form to be in the least antagonistic to the Catholic community. But the law of this country is that nobody who is in communion with the See or Church of Rome shall be capable of wearing the Crown. That is the law of the country which is contained in the Bill of Rights. The person who is to wear the Crown has to make a Declaration. Is it not therefore reasonable that it should contain a statement that he does not hold communion with the See or Church of Rome, which is the one object against which this statute is directed? As I understand this Amendment that is all that is proposed by the hon. Gentleman opposite. He, like myself, is most anxious to avoid every particle of offence to the Roman Catholics, and I will put it to the Prime Minister, with the greatest possible respect, why in the world should not this proposal be accepted? Nobody can deny that the reason why the existing Declaration had to be altered was because it was felt that the form of it unnecessarily gave offence to a great number of His Majesty's subjects, both in this country and abroad. Can anybody deny that that was the reason? Does anybody suggest that the proposal of my hon. Friend opposite can give offence to anybody, when you remember that the words of the statute provide that a person who is in communion with the See or the Church of Rome shall not sit upon the Throne? If it were not the law, of course nobody would suggest that these words should be put in, but it is the law, and as the Declaration has to be made in accordance with that law I should have thought that these words should be put in.
There is another point I should like to allude to. The Chief Secretary for Ireland said last night that the main object—or, at any rate, one of the main objects—of the Government was to see if they could not get a very large majority of opinion in the country to agree with them,
2432
but I am informed that at the present moment there are a very large number of people in this country who are not satisfied with the form of Declaration which the Prime Minister has brought before this House. It is all very well for my hon. Friend behind me to get up and say that no Catholic could possibly take the form of oath which is now proposed. I dare say it may be so. I am not in a position to say whether it is so or not, but a great number of people throughout the length and breadth of the country believe it is possible, and we are not legislating for ourselves, but for the whole of the people of this country, and as the form of Amendment is not open to doubt and can not give offence, I will again ask the Prime Minister what can possibly be the objection to it. It is said that those who are supporting this Amendment are not trusting in the honour of His Majesty the King. With the greatest possible respect to the hon. Member below the Gangway who made that statement there is no foundation for it, we are the last persons to think anything of that kind. We are only asking for this Amendment to carry out the law of the country. That is the whole point, and we believe it will carry out the law of the country without any offence to any single one of His Majesty's subjects. I for one do not see why it should not do it. I want to end as I began by assuring hon. Members that I am perfectly certain that those of us who support this Amendment are as anxious as anybody in this House to make it plain that we do not want to be offensive to the Roman Catholics at all, and from the information which I have I believe that the Roman Catholics would not, as a body, object to this form when they recognise that it is simply in accordance with the law of the land.
Mr. VERNEY: I certainly had intended to vote for this Amendment was it not for one fact, and that is that it is practically repudiated by the Roman Catholics. There is no desire to offer the slightest reasonable offence to Roman Catholics, and I utterly repudiate any words which would offend them, and in the Amendment which stands in my name any words which can be properly indicated as offensive I should like myself to withdraw them, and I should be the first to do so. It is, however, almost surprising to hear a Roman Catholic Member get up in this House and say that the real grievance was in the use of the name Roman Catholic. It seems to

2433
me far from being intentionally offensive, and that faith is named because their are many millions of Roman Catholic subjects in the Empire. All other forms of religion may go without being named. Why? Because, comparatively, there are so few British subjects who belong to other faiths other than the Protestant and the Roman Catholic. I should have thought it anything but offensive to the Roman Catholics that their faith should be named in the way in which it has been in this House. I quite agree with those who have said that the tone of this Debate has been on a very high level, and no one on either side has attempted to cast the slightest slur upon the faith which is professed by so many, not only Englishmen, but by so many of the finest minds in the whole of Europe, and not only in this age, but through very many centuries past. I think those of us who have studied at all the effects and influence of the Roman Catholic faith must, at all events, acknowledge its wonderful power over the human race, and those of us who have studied history would not say one single word which would be in any way reasonably offensive to that creed. But there is one thing which strikes me as absolutely essential if we are going to make this Declaration final and effective, and that is that the common people of this country should thoroughly understand what the Declaration means.
Up to this time it has been considered necessary that there should be a repudiation of the chief doctrines of the Roman Catholic faith, not, as I interpret it, that we doubt the honesty and the honour of at all events by far the greater majority of the Sovereigns of this country, still less because any of us doubt the honour
of our present Gracious Sovereign the King, but because we wish that the Declaration should be so worded that there should be no doubt whatever in the minds of everybody who reads it as to its meaning in regard to the Roman Catholic religion. It does seem to me that that point is of extreme importance. It is not, as an hon. Member said a few moments ago, for ourselves that we are legislating, but we are legislating for every subject of the King, and for a great number of people who have not had an opportunity of studying the meaning of theological phrases. At all events, however, they understand the English language, and they understand the meaning of the words "repudiate" and "disbelieve," and if you take some of the chief doctrines of the Roman Catholic faith which are best known and considered the most sacred, and put the words of repudiation into the mouth of the Sovereign, our object will be achieved. It seems to me that the words used should be clear and well understood.
The DEPUTY - CHAIRMAN (Mr. Whitley): I think the hon. Member is discussing, or attempting to discuss, the next Amendment on the Paper.
Mr. VERNEY: I will not go further on the subject. I will merely say that if the Amendment had been accepted by the Roman Catholic Members of the House I should have been inclined to vote for it.
The PRIME MINISTERrose in his place and claimed to move "That the Question be now put."
Question put, "That the Question be now put."
The Committee divided: Ayes, 249; Noes, 108.

Division No. 146.]

AYES.

[8.50 p.m.

Abraham, William (Dublin Harbour)

Brocklehurst, William B.

Cullinan, John

Adkins, W. Ryland D.

Bryce, John Annan

Dawes, James Arthur

Agnew, George William

Burke, E. Haylland-

Delany, William

Ainsworth, John Stirling

Burns, Rt. Hon. John

Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas

Allen, Charles Peter

Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

Devlin, Joseph

Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry

Buxton, C. R. (Devon, Mid)

Dickinson, W. H. (St. Pancras, N.)

Baker, Harold T. (Accrington)

Buxton, Rt. Hon. S. C. (Poplar)

Dillon, John

Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.)

Byles, William Pollard

Donelan, Captain A.

Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich)

Doris, William

Barclay, Sir Thomas

Cawley, H. T. (Lance. Heywood)

Duffy, William J.

Barlow, Sir John Emmott

Chapple, Dr William Allen

Edwards, Enoch

Barnes, George N.

Clancy, John Joseph

Elibank, Master of

Barran, Sir John N. (Hawick)

Clough, William

Ellis, Rt. Hon. John Edward

Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.)

Collins, Godfrey P. (Greenock)

Elverston, Harold

Beale, William Phipson

Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

Esmonde, Sir Thomas

Benn, W. (Tower Hamlets, S. Geo.)

Collins, Sir Wm. J. (St. Pancras, W.)

Falconer, James

Bentham, George Jackson

Compton-Rickett, Sir J.

Farrell, James Patrick

Bethell, Sir John Henry

Condon, Thomas Joseph

Fenwick, Charles

Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

Ferens, Thomas Robinson

Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, N.)

Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

Ffrench, Peter

Brady, Patrick Joseph

Crean, Eugene

Field, William

Brigg, Sir John

Crosfield, Arthur H.

Flavin, Michael Joseph

France, Gerald Ashburner

Lynch, Arthur Alfred

Robinson, Sidney

Furness, Stephen

Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

Gelder, Sir William Alfred

Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

Roche, Augustine (Cork)

George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd

Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

Roe, Sir Thomas

Gibson, Sir James

Puckering MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

Gill, Alfred Henry

MacVeagh, Jeremiah

Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland)

Glover, Thomas

M'Callum, John M.

Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

Mallet, Charles Edward

Scanlan, Thomas

Greenwood, Granville George

Marks, George Croydon

Schwann, Sir Charles E.

Griffith, Ellis John

Meagher, Michael

Scott, A. H. (Ashton-under-Lyne)

Guest, Major

Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

Gulland, John William

Meehan, Patrick A. (Queen's Co.)

Sheehy, David

Hackett, John

Middlebrook, William

Sherwell, Arthur James

Hall, F. (Yorks, Normanton)

Millar, James Duncan

Shortt, Edward

Hancock, John George

Molloy, Michael

Simon, John Allsebrook

Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)

Montagu, Hon. E. S.

Smith, H. B. Lees (Northampton)

Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

Muldoon, John

Snowden, Philip

Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

Munro, Robert

Spicer, Sir Albert

Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)

Murray, Capt. Hon. Arthur C.

Strachey, Sir Edward

Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N.E.)

Muspratt, Max

Sutherland, John E.

Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

Nannettl, Joseph P.

Sutton, John E.

Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

Neilson, Francis

Talbot, Lord Edmund

Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncaster)

Taylor, Theodore C.(Radcliffe)

Haworth, Arthur A.

Nolan, Joseph

Tennant, Harold John

Hayden, John Patrick

Norton, Capt. Cecil W.

Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

Hayward, Evan

Nugent, Sir Walter Richard

Thomas, James Henry (Derby)

Hazleton, Richard

Nussey, Sir T. Willans

Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

Healy, Maurice (Cork, N.E.)

Nuttall, Harry

Toulmin, George

Healy, Timothy Michael (Louth, N.)

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

O'Brien, William (Cork)

Twist, Henry

Henderson, J. M. (Aberdeen, W.)

O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

Henry, Charles S

O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

Verney, Frederick William

Herbert, Col. Sir Ivor (Mon. S.)

O'Doherty, Philip

Vivian, Henry

Higham, John Sharp

O'Kelly, Edward P. (Wicklow, W.)

Wadsworth, John

Hindle, Frederick George

O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.)

Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)

Hodge, John

O'Malley, William

Walton, Sir Joseph

Hogan, Michael

O'Neill, Dr. Charles (Armagh, S.)

Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)

Holt, Richard Durning

O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay

Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)

O'Shee, James John

Waterlow, David Sydney

Horne, Charles Silvester (Ipswich)

Palmer, Godfrey Mark

Watt, Henry A.

Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

Parker, James (Halifax)

White, Sir George (Norfolk)

Hughes, Spencer Leigh

Pearce, William

White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire)

Isaacs, Sir Rufus

Daniel Pease, Rt. Hon. Joseph A.

White, Sir Luke (York, E.R.)

Jones, Edgar R. (Merthyr Tydvil)

Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

White, Patrick (Meath, North)

Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

Pickersgill, Edward Hare

Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.

Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

Pointer, Joseph

Whyte, A. F. (Perth)

Jowett, Frederick William

Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

Wiles, Thomas

Joyce, Michael

Power, Patrick Joseph

Wilkie, Alexander

Keating, Matthew

Priestley, Sir W. E. B. (Bradford, E.)

Williams, John (Glamorgan)

Kelly, Edward

Pringle, William M. R.

Williamson, Sir Archibald

King, Joseph (Somerset, North)

Radford, George Heynes

Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

Lambert, George

Raffan, Peter Wilson

Wilson, J. W. (Worcestershire, N.)

Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.)

Rainy, Adam Rolland

Wilson, T. F. (Lanark, N.E.)

Leach, Charles

Raphael, Herbert H.

Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

Lehmann, Rudolf C.

Reddy, Michael

Wing, Thomas

Levy, Sir Maurice

Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

Wood. T. M'Kinnon (Glasgow)

Lewis, John Herbert

Redmond, William (Clare, E.)

Yoxall, Sir James Henry

Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

Rendall, Athelstan

Lundon, Thomas

Roberts, Charles H. (Llncoln)

TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Soares and Mr. Illingworth.

Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

Roberts, George H. (Norwich)

Lyell, Charles Henry

Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

NOES.

Adam, Major William A.

Colefax, Henry Arthur

Gilmour, Captain John

Agar-Robartes, Hon. T. C. R.

Cooper, Capt. Bryan R. (Dublin, S.)

Goldman, Charles Sydney

Ashley, Wilfred W.

Cory, Sir Clifford John

Gooch, Henry Cubitt

Baird, John Lawrence

Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.)

Goulding, Edward Alfred

Baker, Sir Randolf L. (Dorset, N.)

Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

Grant, J. A.

Banner, John S. Harmood-

Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet)

Gretton, John

Baring, Captain Hon. Guy Victor

Craik, Sir Henry

Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne)

Barnston, Harry

Cripps, Sir Charles Alfred

Hall, D. B. (Isle of Wight)

Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton)

Croft, Henry Page

Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashford)

Benn, Ion Hamilton (Greenwich)

Dalrymple, Viscount

Henderson, Major Harold (Berkshire)

Boyle, W. Lewis (Norfolk, Mid)

Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. S. (Glasgow, E.)

Hickman, Colonel Thomas E.

Boyton, James

Du Cros, Arthur P. (Hastings)

Hillier, Dr. Alfred Peter

Brunskill, Gerald Fitzgibbon

Duke, Henry Edward

Horne, Wm. E. (Surrey, Guildford)

Carlile, Edward Mildred

Faber, George D. (Clapham)

Horner, Andrew Long

Castlereagh, Viscount

Fell, Arthur

Houston, Robert Paterson

Cave, George

Felherstonhaugh, Godfrey

Hume-Williams, William Ellis

Chaloner, Col. R. G. W

Fletcher, John Samuel

Kimber, Sir Henry

Clay, Captain H. H. Spender

Foster, Harry S. (Lowestoft)

King, Sir Henry Seymour (Hull)

Clyde, James Avon

Gardner, Ernest

Kyffin-Taylor, G

Coates, Major Edward F.

Gibbs, George Abraham

Lane-Fox, G. R.

2436

2437

Llewelyn, Venables

Nield, Herbert

Stewart, Gorshom (Ches., Wirral)

Locker-Lampson, O. (Ramsay)

Ormsby-Gore, William

Stewart, Sir M'T. (Kirkc'dbr'tsh.)

Lockwood, Rt. Hon. Lt.-Col. A. R.

Parkes, Ebenezer

Sykes, Alan John

Lonsdale, John Brownlee

Peel, Hon. W. R. W. (Taunton)

Thomson, W. Mitchell (Down, North)

MacCaw, Wm. J. MacGeagh

Peto, Basil Edward

Thynne, Lord Alexander

Mackinder, Halford J.

Pollock, Ernest Murray

Tobin, Alfred Aspinall

Macmaster, Donald

Primrose Hon. Neil James

Tryon, Captain George Clement

M'Calmont, Colonel James

Quitter, William Eley C.

Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire)

Magnus, Sir Philip

Rice, Hon. Walter Fitz-Uryan

Ward, A. S. (Hems, Watford)

Moore, William

Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

Warde, Col. C. E. (Kent, Mid.)

Morpeth, Viscount

Rutherford, Watson

Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E.R.)

Morrison-Bell, Major A. C.

Salter, Arthur Clavell

Wood, Hon. E. F. L. (Yorks, Ripon)

Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

Sanders, Robert Arthur

Wood, John (Stalybridge)

Mount, William Arthur

Sanderson, Lancelot

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

Newdegate, F. A.

Stanley, Hon. G. F (Preston)

Newton, Harry Kottingham

Starkey, John Ralph

TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr H. Barrie and Mr. Bridgeman.

Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)

Steel-Maitland, A. D.

Question put accordingly, "That those words be there inserted."
The Committee divided: Ayes, 107; Noes, 250.

Division No. 147.]

AYES.

[9.0 p.m.

Agar-Robartes, Hon. T. C. R.

Falle, B. G.

Mount, William Arthur

Ashley, W. W.

Fell, Arthur

Munro, R.

Baird, J. L.

Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey

Newdegate, F. A.

Baker, Sir R. L. (Dorset, N.)

Fletcher, J. S.

Newton, Harry Kottingham

Banner, John S. Harmood-

Foster, H. S. (Suffolk, N.)

Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)

Baring, Captain Hon. G.

Gardner, Ernest

Nield, Herbert

Barlow, Sir John E.

Gibbs, G. A

Parkes, Ebenezer

Barnston, Harry

Gibson, Sir James P.

Pollock, Ernest Murray

Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry, N.)

Gilmour, Captain J.

Primrose, Hon. Neil James

Bathurst, Hon. A. B. (Glouc., E.)

Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

Quilter, William Eley C.

Bathurst, Charles (Wilton)

Goldman, C. S.

Rice, Hon. W.

Beale, W. P.

Grant, J. A.

Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

Benn, Ion H. (Greenwich)

Gretton, John

Rutherford, Watson

Boyle, W. Lewis (Norfolk, Mid)

Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne)

Salter, Arthur Clavell

Boyton, J.

Hall, D. B. (Isle of Wight)

Sanders, Robert A.

Brunskill, G. F.

Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashford)

Sanderson, Lancelot

Bryce, J. Annan

Henderson, Major H. (Berks, Abingdon)

Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

Carlile, E. Hildred

Hickman, Col. T.

Starkey, John R.

Castlereagh, Viscount

Horne, W. E. (Surrey, Guildford)

Steel-Maitland, A. D.

Cave, George

Horner, A. L.

Stewart, Gershom (Ches. Wirrall)

Chaloner, Colonel R. G. W.

Houston, Robert Paterson

Stewart, Sir M'T. (Kirkcudbrightsh.)

Clay, Captain H. Spender

Kerr-Smiley, Peter Kerr

Sykes, Alan John

Clyde, J. Avon

Kimber, Sir Henry

Thomson, W. Mitchell (Down, North)

Coates, Major E. F.

King, Sir Henry Seymour (Hull)

Tobin, Alfred Aspinall

Colefax, H. A.

Kyffin-Taylor, G.

Tryon, George Clement

Cooper, Capt. Bryan (Dublin, S.)

Llewelyn, Venable,

Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire)

Cory, Sir Clifford John

Locker-Lampson, O. (Ramsay)

Warde, Col. C. E. (Kent. Mid)

Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.)

Lockwood, Rt. Hon. Lt.-Col. A. R.

White, Sir Luke (York, E.R.)

Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

Lonsdale, John Brownlee

Whyte, A. F. (Perth)

Craik, Sir Henry

MacCaw, William J. MacGeagh

Wiles, Thomas

Cripps, Sir C. A.

Mackinder, H. J.

Wood, John (Stalybridge)

Croft, H. P.

Macmaster, Donald

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

Dairymple, Viscount

M'Calmont, Colonel James

Yoxall, Sir James Henry

Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott

Molteno, Percy Alport

Du Cros, Arthur P. (Hastings)

Moore, William

TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Sir W.

Duke, H. E.

Morrison-Bell, Major A. C.

Collins and Mr. Bridgeman.

Faber, George Denison (Clapham)

Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

NOES.

Abraham, William (Dublin Harbour)

Burke, E. Havlland-

Crosfield, Arthur H.

Adkins, W. Ryland D.

Burns, Rt. Hon. John

Cullinan, J.

Agnew, George William

Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

Dawes, J. A.

Ainsworth, John Stirling

Buxton, C. R. (Devon, Mid.)

Delany, William

Allen, Charles P

Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, N.)

Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas

Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry

Buxton. Rt. Hon. Sydney C. (Poplar)

Devlin, Joseph

Baker, H. T. (Accrington)

Byles, William Pollard

Dickinson, W. H. (St. Pancras, N.)

Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich)

Dillon, John

Barclay, Sir T.

Cawley, Harold T. (Heywood)

Donelan, Captain A.

Barnes, G. N.

Chapple, Dr. W. A.

Doris, W.

Barran, Sir J. (Hawick)

Clancy, John Joseph

Duffy, William J.

Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.)

Clough, William

Edwards, Enoch

Benn, W. (Tower Hamlets, St. Geo.)

Collins, G. P. (Greenock)

Elibank, Master of

Bentham, G. J.

Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

Ellis, Rt. Hon. John Edward

Bethell, Sir John Henry

Compton-Rickett, Sir J.

Elverston, H.

Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

Condon, Thomas Joseph

Esmonde, Sir Thomas

Boyle, D. (Mayo, N.)

Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

Falconer, J.

Brady, P. J.

Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

Farrell, James Patrick

Brigg, Sir John

Craig, Norman (Kent)

Fenwick, Charles

Brocklehurst, W. B.

Crean, Eugene

Ferens, T. R.

Ffrench, Peter

Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

Rendall, Athelstan

Field, William

Lundon, T.

Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

Flavin, Michael Joseph

Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

France, G. A.

Lyell, Charles Henry

Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

Furness, Stephen

Lynch, A. A.

Robinson, S.

Gelder, Sir W. A.

Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd

Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

Roche, Augustine (Cork)

Gill, A. H.

Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

Roe, Sir Thomas

Glover, Thomas

MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

Gooch, Henry Cubitt

MacVeagh, Jeremiah

Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland)

Goulding, Edward Alfred

McCallum, John M.

Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

Griffith, Ellis J. (Anglesey)

M'Curdy, C. A.

Scanlan, Thomas

Guest, Major

Mallet, Charles E.

Schwann, Sir C. E.

Gulland, John W.

Marks, G. Croydon

Scott, A. H. (Ashton-under-Lyne)

Hackett, J.

Meagher, Michael

Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

Sheehy, David

Hall, Frederick (Normanton)

Meehan, Patrick A. (Queen's Co.)

Sherwell, Arthur James

Hancock, J. G.

Middlebrook, William

Shortt, Edward

Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis (Rossendale)

Millar, J. D.

Simon, John Allsebrock

Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

Molloy, M.

Smith, H. B. (Northampton)

Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

Morpeth, Viscount

Snowden, P.

Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, W.)

Muldoon, John

Spicer, Sir Albert

Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N.E.)

Murray, Captain Hon. A. C.

Strachey, Sir Edward

Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

Muspratt, M.

Sutherland, J. E.

Hasiam, Lewis (Monmouth)

Nannetti, Joseph P.

Sutton, John E.

Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

Neilson, Francis

Talbot, Lord E.

Haworth, Arthur A.

Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncaster)

Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

Hayden, John Patrick

Nolan, Joseph

Tennant, Harold John

Hayward, Evan

Norton, Captain Cecil W.

Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

Hazleton, Richard

Nugent, Sir Walter Richard

Thomas, J. H. (Derby)

Healy, Maurice (Cork, N.E)

Hussey, Sir Willans

Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

Healy, Timothy Michael (Louth, N.)

Nuttall, Harry

Thynne, Lord A.

Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

Toulmin, George

Henderson, J. McD. (Aberdeen, W.)

O'Brien, William (Cork)

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

Henry, Charles S.

O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

Twist, Henry

Herbert, Col. Sir Ivor

O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

Higham, John Sharp

O'Doherty, Philip

Verney, F. W.

Hindle, F. G.

O'Kelly, Edward P. (Wicklow, W.)

Vivian, Henry

Hodge, John

O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.)

Wadsworth, J.

Hogan, Michael

O'Malley, William

Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)

Holt, Richard Durning

O'Neill, Dr. Charles (Armagh, S.)

Walters, John Tudor

Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

Walton, Sir Joseph

Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)

O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

Ward, A. S. (Herts, Watford)

Horne, C. Silvester (Ipswich)

O'Shee, James John

Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)

Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

Palmer, Godfrey

Waterlow, D. S.

Hughes, S. L.

Parker, James Halifax

Watt, Henry A.

Hume-Williams, W. E.

Pearce, William

White, Sir George (Norfolk)

Isaacs, Sir Rufus Daniel

Pease, Rt. Hon. Joseph A.

White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire)

Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil)

Peto, Basil Edward

White, Patrick (Meath, North)

Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)

Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.

Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

Pickersgill, Edward Hare

Wilkie, Alexander

Jowett, F. W.

Pointer, Joseph

Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

Joyce, Michael

Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E.R.)

Keating, M.

Power, Patrick Joseph

Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

Kelly, Edward

Priestley, Sir W. E. B. (Bradford, E.)

Wilson, J. W. (Worcestershire, N.)

Kilbride, Denis

Pringle, Wiliam M. R.

Wilson, T. F. (Lanark, N.E.)

King, J. (Somerset, N.)

Radford, G. H.

Wilson. W. T. (Westhoughton)

Lambert, George

Rattan, Peter Wilson

Wing, Thomas

Lane-Fox, G. R.

Rainy, A. Rolland

Wood, Hon. E. F. L. (Ripon)

Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.)

Raphael, Herbert H.

Wood, T. M'Kinnon (Glasgow)

Leach, Charles

Reddy. M.

Lehmann, R. C.

Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. Soares and Mr. Illingworth.

Levy, Sir Maurice

Redmond, William (Clare)

Lewis, John Herbert

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The next Amendment, I understand, is ruled out by the decision at which we have just arrived. I understand that the Committee desire to have a Debate on the question whether the old Declaration with verbal amendments would be the alternative to the one proposed in the Bill. I notice an Amendment on the Paper in the name of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wimbledon (Mr. Chaplin) which raises that point, and I would suggest, if it is
2440
agreeable to hon. Members of the Committee, that a short Debate might be allowed on that.
Captain CRAIG: I may point out, on a point of order, that the next Amendment to the Amendment just dealt with which stands in my name does deal with this particular point, and covers the first point of the right hon. Gentleman's longer Amendment. I think it was understood, and the right hon. Gentleman agreed, that we might have a Debate on this par-

2441
ticular point, and I respectfully say that the Amendment of mine is on one of the important points upon which so much depends.
The PRIME MINISTER: On a point of Order. It is quite true, as the hon. and gallant Gentleman says, that we are on both sides quite agreed that there should be an opportunity for discussing, I think he said, two or three points. One of them has been discussed just now on the Amendment of my hon. Friend behind me. There still remains the question of the particular doctrines to be singled out for repudiation, which is the question, I think, raised by the next Amendment, and there is the further question as to what I may call reservation, equivocation, or dispensation forming part of the Declaration. If we can come to an agreement to have those two points settled by discussion of selected Amendments, I think it does not much matter which particular ones are taken as subjects of discussion.
Captain CRAIG: This particular one deals with the strongest of all, transubstantiation.
Mr. SCOTT DICKSON: There are several broad points to be discussed, and one of them undoubtedly is in the first part both of the Amendment of the hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Verney) and the Amendment of my hon. Friend behind (Captain Craig), namely, the transubstantiation question. We undoubtedly should like a discussion on that. We should also like a discussion on the next point, not so much upon whether that particular doctrine should be referred to specifically as whether the words "superstitious and idolatrous" should be taken out and the words "contrary to my belief" substituted. That raises quite a distinct and separate point, and, as the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister said, these, with the question of reservation, are very large points on which we should like discussion.
The PRIME MINISTER: I quite agree.
Mr. VERNEY: On a point of Order. I would call your attention to the fact that in my Amendment there is another point made, the question of temporal supremacy, which many of us think perhaps looms larger than anything else, and which Members of this House would like to see discussed and properly considered.
The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: That can be separately raised.
Mr. T. M. HEALY: I would respectfully submit, before the Amendment dealing with transubstantiation is taken, you and the House should look at the Statute of the first of Edward VI of England.
Mr. MOORE: If an agreement is come to to limit the discussion to three or four heads, we should be allowed to discuss it. because, I am sure, it was not in the knowledge of the Prime Minister when the closure was moved just now that a lot of my hon. Friends wished to speak.
The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: That is a matter for the Chair.
Mr. MOORE: When the Chair in its discretion grants the closure the Chair does not suggest doing it. I am directing my attention to the conduct of the Minister who moved it.
The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is reflecting both on the Chair and on the decision which has been come to.
Mr. MOORE: The conduct of business, subject to the control of the Chair, is in the hands of Ministers, and we should have an understanding with Ministers if there is to be an agreement to cover all the ground.
The PRIME MINISTER: I never move the closure until I have satisfied myself that the discussion has, in fact, been exhausted. Since I have been Leader of the House I have always heard both sides; I have been very slow in moving the closure, and I never do it, I think, without a considerable amount of reason.
The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: On the various points of Order I would suggest that the Amendment in the name of the hon. and gallant Gentleman raised the specific question, and although the Debate could not cover the whole ground covered by the last Amendment, I should be inclined to allow it with the repudiation of its specific doctrine.
Captain CRAIG: I will move it down to the word "whatsoever."
The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: On points not covered by the last decision of the House the hon. and gallant Gentleman may move the whole of his Amendment.
Captain CRAIG: I understand there was to be a separate discussion as to "superstitious and idolatrous" later on.
Mr. SCOTT DICKSON: We do not propose to discuss the doctrinal matter on what follows about invocation and adoration of the Virgin Mary, as I understand there are some words in the Clause in the present Declaration dealing with that matter which are specially objected to by hon. Members below the Gangway. If we took the Amendment of my hon. and gallant Friend as a whole, would it have the effect of excluding the discussion of other Amendments to leave out the words "superstitious and idolatrous" and insert "contrary to the Protestant religion"?
The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: There is to be a discussion on these two matters with the separate Declarations taken together.
Captain CRAIG: I beg to move, after "I," at the beginning of the Schedule, to insert the words "do believe that in the sacrament of the Lord's Supper there is not any transubstantiation of the elements of bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ, at or after the consecration thereof by any person whatsoever; and that the invocation or adoration of the Virgin Mary or any other saint, and the sacrifice of the mass, as they are now used in the Church of Rome, are repugnant to me and against my religious belief, and that."
In moving this, according to the ruling from the Chair, as it appears on the Paper, I would like to say, first of all, that since I addressed the full House on the First Reading of this Bill, I have taken particular pains to ascertain in various parts of the country, and in town here, whether it was possible in any way to substitute for the words of the old Declaration taken by the Crown another form of words. I have consulted some old Parliamentary barristers, and I asked them what new Declaration could be drafted that would not hurt the susceptibilities of our Roman Catholic fellow-countrymen, and in every instance I was told by those to whom I put the problem that it was practically impossible to secure the object by altering the terms of the Declaration, excepting with regard to the two or three words "superstitious and idolatrous." It will be seen I have taken the precaution, at all events, of consulting those learned in the law in order to be able, if possible, to draft something which would be acceptable to those who desire a change of some sort, and at the same time not in the slightest degree to weaken the old form of Declaration, which has stood us in such
2444
good stead for a couple of hundred years. Every one of them said it was impossible to do it. In the course of these discussions, to which I have listened carefully, in my opinion not one argument has been advanced in any quarter of the House, no substantial argument, at all events, for making the slightest alteration in the old Declaration. I have listened to hon. Members and right hon. Members on both sides, and I may say that my attitude would be exactly the same, no matter which party in power proposed to alter this Oath. The Chief Secretary for Ireland made a speech last night on the subject. I have heard a great many of his speeches, and after I heard that which he delivered last night I was more strongly than ever impressed by the necessity of maintaining the old Declaration. In fact, from what the right hon. Gentleman said one would have actually thought he was advocating the maintenance of the old Declaration. All his arguments went to strengthen the view which some of us hold upon the matter. The hon. Member for East Clare (Mr. W. Redmond) especially complimented the House on the tolerance with which they approached this subject. I do not think he was quite sincere in that—[HON. MEMBERS "Oh, oh!"]—because he knows perfectly well that there is not one Member from Ulster, not an Orangeman in Ireland, who desires in the slightest degree to interfere with the Roman Catholic faith. We desire to view the question in a spirit of tolerance, but as far as Protestants are concerned, the whole quarrel in this matter arises out of the temporal power claimed by the Roman Catholic Church, and it is with the very object of meeting that claim that we insist on the strongest Declaration, in order to prevent the spread of Roman Catholic temporal power. I should like to quote a small article which puts this matter in narrow compass, as to why the Roman Catholic Church is anxious to maintain the old form. It is written by a Roman Catholic who is vice-president of St. Edmund's Roman Catholic College. He says:—
"When the last vestiges of disabilities are removed, and the restrictions on the Sovereign and those in direct line of descent are abolished, we shall enter upon one full inheritance of freedom."
I do not say that particular argument has any great weight with Roman Catholics, but everywhere you go, and to whatever literature on this subject you refer, you find that Roman Catholics hold unalterably to the opinion which was held 200 years ago, when this Oath was

2445
framed, and they still claim this temporal power in England, just as in Italy, Spain, or any other Roman Catholic country. First of all I ask this question, Will any Roman Catholic in the House rise up in his place and say that the Roman Catholic Church has ceased to make its temporal claim just as it was made 200 years ago? Failing an answer to that, we say that any other form of Oath, such as is suggested by the Prime Minister, will not secure what we desire. I need hardly say that I am not referring to the present Sovereign, or to any Sovereign in particular. But we have handed down to us this trust, a trust which has been maintained so far faithfully by the Protestants of this country, and, indeed, the most grave reasons should be given before any step is taken to alter it. The Chief Secretary last night said a man in the street might jump up and say, "I am a Protestant."
The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I would point out to the hon. and learned Gentleman that the discussion must be limited to the two forms of Declaration which it is agreed are to be debated.
Captain CRAIG: What I wish to point out is that it is of no use the Sovereign simply saying, "I am a Protestant," because in our opinion the Crown in future might possibly devolve on somebody who would be quite ready to take the Declaration, and at the same time be hand-in-glove with the Roman Catholic Church. That is the whole matter in a nutshell. By simply saying, as we propose to do here, that the Crown is not in agreement with those doctrines, leaving out the words idolatrous "and" "superstitious," it seems to me that we make a positive certainty of the change in the direction suggested by this new Bill. Without that we are running very grave risk indeed.
The reason I have picked out these two particular parts, that as to transubstantiation, and that as to the invocation and adoration of the Virgin Mary, is because we know that no form of dispensation can be given by any authority whatever, by the Church of Rome, or the Pope himself, to excuse any person for having taken that particular form of cath. I do not quite agree with the view of the hon. Member for North Louth (Mr. T. M. Healy), because I have got as much literature here as would bury him on the subject of what the Pope can give a dispensation for. If his own writers are to
2446
be believed he can readily give a dispensation if what is aimed at is for the good of Holy Mother Church, as it is called, but he cannot give it in this particular instance where these two doctrines are picked out and fixed upon, that is the two I have referred to here. No Roman Catholic could take that oath and remain a Roman Catholic; it is that particular point which makes us positively safe and secure. As the Chief Secretary said last night, people in the country do not perhaps understand the various forms which secure the Protestant Succession, but they do surely understand that we are proposing to tamper with these two particular Oaths, and that we are taking them off the Statute Book. The issue is a perfectly simple one, and I am very pleased to be in a position to get a vote of the House upon it, because I fear not only Roman Catholics, but others of the Anglican Church who are gradually approximating to a point in which they also will believe in this thing. Therefore, this makes it perfectly sure that in any High Church, in any Anglican Church having reached a state in which it is the accepted belief of their Church that these doctrines are the same as those of the Roman Catholics at the present time, this also debars the Crown to any person who thinks so. I hope there will be some Members bold enough to stick up for the old form and go into the Lobby with us for what has been good enough for two hundred years for our forefathers, and what is perfectly safe for this generation and for the future, instead of this milk and water and wretched substitute which has been brought forward by the Government.
Dr. HILLIER: It is with very considerable reluctance I find myself on this point not in agreement with hon. Gentlemen whose views I usually share in political questions and with whom I am in the habit of voting. I do, however, venture to submit in this matter what is really raised by this Amendment is the question whether on this Declaration, on a change in favour of which this House has decided by a very large majority, that change should take the form of a simple avowal of Protestant faith, or whether there should be combined with that avowal a repudiation of certain Roman Catholic doctrines, the form of which would cause real pain to many Roman Catholics here and throughout the King's Dominions. That is the question at issue, and speaking as a member of the Church of England, and as a

2447
Conservative, I am bound to say that I believe that the truest cause of Christianity, in any of its forms, will be served by the simple form of Declaration, which merely avows Protestantism in the simplest terms that can be used. I would venture with all deference to point out to hon. Members who take a different view, and I know a very large number of people in the country feel very strongly on this question, that it is perfectly obvious that this avowal of Protestantism does necessarily include, I was going to say to any sane man, but certainly to any honourable man, a repudiation of those other doctrines. That being so, I think there is every reason why this Committee should decide in favour of the more moderate and the simpler form of Declaration, the mere avowal, which will have this advantage, that it will on the whole meet the sentiments of a larger portion of His Majesty's subjects than any other form of declaration which could be adopted. I venture to say if we follow this course we shall be taking what I regard as a step forward in the path of civilisation, we shall be promoting that charity which it is the boast of both sections of Christianity to promote, and we shall be doing something which will meet and satisfy the sentiment of many conscientious and loyal subjects of His Majesty now resident within the British Empire.
Mr. T. M. HEALY: I should like to say one or two words on this point, because, as I understand your ruling, Sir, you have decided that what I may call a capital question shall be selected for Debate so that our Friends above the Gangway, whose convictions I sincerely respect, though I entirely differ from them, that they may have the opportunity of debating this question from what is called the ultra-Protestant point of view. The hon. and gallant Member who has moved this Amendment, and who, if he will allow me to say so, and all his Friends I regard with entire esteem, and with nothing in the nature of what I may call political or national or racial feeling—the hon. and gallant Member, if he will allow me to say so, I think has spent too much of his life on the battlefield to be entirely competent to deal with this question. It is a question of enormous difficulty, even from the Protestant point of view, and if I take it from the international point of view I am quite sure that his researches have not gone sufficiently far to entitle him
2448
to declare himself a maestro on the subject. He first said that this Declaration had served our forefathers in good stead. Whose forefathers? If he is speaking of himself as an Irishman, and I am sure he is, I assert that this Declaration was never taken by the King of Ireland in right of his Irish Crown. No doubt when you made the English Monarch King of Ireland, you may say that he took it in respect of his Irish Crown. I deny it. It is a matter that must be considered when you are dealing with the question of the Crown of these Realms. Remember what the Scotch did. They at one time, in the reign of Queen Anne, die-severed the Crown of Scotland from the Crown of England, unless they got certain concessions; thereby asserting that the Scotch were entitled, as of right by their Parliament, to declare the Crown of Scotland to go, in a sense, antagonistic to the Succession to the Crown of England. That was after the Bill of Rights. That is the important point.
The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is now dealing with a question which is not open on this Amendment. We are dealing here with the repudiation of two doctrines.
Mr. T. M. HEALY: I am coming to the point I was about to make. I propose to show that this is a Declaration which the hon. Gentleman himself (Captain Craig) could not take. I question whether any man above the Gangway would take the Declaration. I have watched quietly through the whole of the proceedings, and there is not a single Member of the Conservative party who has declared that he himself would, upon his own honour and conscience, take the Declaration.
Captain CRAIG: I would willingly take it.
Colonel SANDYS: So would I.
Mr. T. M. HEALY: The King must be a Member of the Church of England. That is admitted. He is bound to be a Member of the Church of England in accordance with the Bill of Rights. What is the doctrine of the Church of England? It is settled by law, by 1 Edward VI., and 1 Edward VI. remains the law of England and the law of Protestant England. I do not know to which Communion of the Protestant faith the hon. Member belongs: it is not for me to inquire. But you must remember that the King of England is by law a member of the Church

2449
of England. In England, at all events, he has to be a member of the Church of England, and I am dealing with this matter from the English point of view. The awful words of the Act of Edward VI. seem to me to be entirely forgotten by hon. Members. It is natural that my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, being a Scottish Member, should not be acquainted with the English Statutes in this behalf. The Committee will pardon me for recalling what those words declare to be the faith of the Church of England. Though it is painful to have to read them in a lay and mundane Assembly, yet it is essential that those who declare themselves to be in favour of this Amendment should be taught what the doctrines of the Church of England are. I am about to read from the Act of] 547, which has never been repealed, which is the law of the land, which binds every communicant of the Church of England, which binds every English clergyman and every English, bishop, and which bind the English King. I will omit the preamble:—
"Yet considereth and perceiveth that in a multitude all be not on that sort, that reason and the knowledge of their duties can move them from offence, but many which had need have some bridle of fear, and that the same be men most contentious and arrogant for the most part, or else most blind and ignorant: By the means of which sort of men many things well anti godly instituted, and to the edification of many, he perverted and abused, and turned to their own and others great loss and hindrance, and sometime to extreme destruction: The which doth appear in nothing more or sooner than in matters of religion and in the great and high mysteries thereof, as in the most comfortable Sacrament of the Body and Blood of our Saviour Jesus Christ, commonly called the Sacrament of the Altar, and, in Scripture, the Supper and Table of the Lord, the Communion and partaking of the Body and Blood of Christ: Which Sacrament was instituted by no less Author than of our Saviour, both God and Man, when at His last Supper amongst His Apostles He did take the bread into His holy hands, and did say, 'Take you and eat, this is My Body, which is given and broken for you.' And taking up the chalice or cup, did give thanks, and say, 'This is my Blood of the New Testament, which is shed for you, and for many, for the remission of sins"—
and so on, taking the words of Scripture. Then it goes on to provide for those "blind and ignorant" persons of whom, perhaps, some are not absent from this House:—
"That whatsoever person or persons, from and after the 1st day of May next Coming, shall deprave, despise or contemn the most blessed Sacrament, in contempt thereof, by any contemptuous word, or by any words of depraving, despising or reviling; or what person or persons shall advisedly in any other wise contemn, despise or revile the said most blessed Sacrament. … he or they shall suffer imprisonment of his or their bodies, and make fine and ransom at the King's will and pleasure."
That prescribes the law of the land for England and for Orangemen. Remember the time when this Declaration was made.
2450
It was a time of great strife and commotion. We are now in a time of learning and calm. We are in a time when the Dominions of the King are spread far and wide, and when this Parliament has renounced the right to legislate for any Colony or district outside the United Kingdom. You cannot, legislate in this House for Australia; you have renounced the right. You do not legislate in this House for Canada; you have renounced the right. You do not legislate any longer in this House for Africa; you have renounced the right. Yet, having renounced dominion over these different places, in the teeth of your own Statute, which is in existence, and at a time when the bishops of your Church in Australia are practically bound by the Statute still, the hon. and gallant Member, with, I assume, an entire unacquaintance with what is the Statute law governing a member of the Church of England, proposes this Amendment by which the King is to say contrary to the Statute, that he does believe that in the Sacrament of the Last Supper there is not any transubstantiation of the elements. I know what will be said. The casuist may say that they were referring to consubstantiation and not to transubstantiation. Will any man tell me that a judge would not be entitled to pronounce that the words I have read cover transubstantiation equally with consubstantiation. It is perfectly plain. No lawyer would assert differently. Therefore I say, and say it with confidence, that the hon. and gallant Gentleman, in suggesting that the King of this realm is debarred by Statute, or should be debarred by Statute, from a Declaration in favour of transubstantiation, is contravening the law as laid down for the last 300 years. One other remark, and my last. As the hon. and gallant Gentleman does not know the Statutes of the realm of which he is so proud, it would, of course, be too much to expect that he would know anything of the doctrines of the Catholic Church. Well, the humblest Catholic in this House is as good a Catholic as the Pope. There is no difference. The humblest Catholic that says his rosary in Ireland is as well entitled to know what are the doctrines of the Catholic Church as all the Popes and Cardinals that ever lived. It is an insult to these humble Catholics—of course, you can insult the Pope in Porta-down if you like; that is a matter of your own amusement—but it is an insult to say that the Pope or any dignitary can give any dispensation, release, or indulgence

2451
from any form of lying, blasphemy, perjury, or any other sin. These are the delusions upon which you have fed for hundreds of years. But when you take into your Armies Catholics, when you take into your Navies Catholics, when you make Catholics Privy Councillors and Governors, it does not occur to you at the same time to question their honour, their dignity, and their truth. Yet you intend to level these insults at your own King who is a Protestant. What a conception you must have of Protestantism! What a conception you must have of your own King! Why, in this House you are obliged to accept the word of any hon. Gentleman, even of an Irish Member, even of a Labour Member. But the whole process of this evening's Debate has gone upon this: there is only one man on earth that a loyal Orangeman would not trust, and that is his own King!
Captain CRAIG: If I may interrupt the hon. and learned Gentleman, I would just like to give that an emphatic denial. I thought I made it very clear to-night that I was speaking in the abstract, and as regards the Crown in general, and that I was not referring to any particular King at all. I do not want the hon. and learned Gentleman to misconstrue what I said. There is no more loyal body in the whole Empire than the Orangemen.
Mr. T. M. HEALY: I do not in the least intend to be offensive to the hon. and gallant Gentleman in this matter, but he must allow us poor Catholics, who have been under the harrow for three centuries, a little amusement at him and his Friends. For the first time in three centuries you are relieving your King—I would not call it an obligation—of making a most humiliating and offensive Declaration from his own point of view. You must allow us some little freedom, when you charge our Pope—that is, charge ourselves—for there is no difference between the Pope and the humblest Catholic as far as doctrine is concerned. We know what the Pope can do just as well as the Pope knows what he can do. I will not go further, but the suggestions contained in this Amendment are contrary to Catholic doctrine, are false to Catholic doctrine, and are absurd from every point of view. We have been taught if there was one thing of all others that Protestants were proud of it is what is called the right of private judgment. John Mitchell, a well-known Irishman of long ago termed it "the right of private
2452
stupidity." I will not label it by that offensive expression. But now we Catholics this Session are being taught by two Acts of Parliament, one of which I believe is already law, the Regency Bill, and now by this Bill as regards the King, that there are two persons in Great Britain to whom Protestants absolutely decline to concede the Prostestant right of private judgment. Those persons are no less than the King and Queen of Great Britain and Ireland. These are the only people you would not trust. You propose to tie them up in a black knot, and you are not satisfied—at any rate, the Government are not satisfied—with the Declaration. It is not enough for the King to say, "I am a true and faithful Protestant." He must declare in addition, not a disbelief in Mahomedanism, Buddhism, or any other religion or person connected with religion, but that the great doctrine of the right of private judgment must, as regards the King, be put on one side. You compel him, by this Amendment, to deny doctrines made Statutory by the King's own laws in the time of Edward VI.
Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSON: The hon. and learned Gentleman, in his speech, has put forward a proposition which I dispute absolutely and entirely. I say that at once, because while it is rather a difficult thing to go into questions of doctrinal theology in this House—it is not the place for those questions—the speech of the hon. and learned Gentleman makes it necessary for me at once to say that I do not accept in the slightest degree his reading of the Statute of Edward VI. The hon. and learned Gentleman has cited that Statute before now. I remember him reading it in the House once before. He knows what our answer will be: that to the doctrine of transubstantiation that Statute does not refer at all. I will prove that, and at once. The hon. and learned Gentleman says: "It is no use singling out the doctrine of transubstantiation and taking that as a decisive test, because the doctrine of transubstantiation is not a distinctive test, it is a doctrine which may be admissible, and," he says, "it is actually by Statute imposed upon the Church of England." My answer to that is that neither upon the Church of England nor upon the Presbyterian Church is the doctrine of transubstantiation imposed. I go further; I say that the foundations of the doctrines of these churches essentially repudiates transubstantiation in any form.

2453
Here is my authority. As regards the Church of England my authority is the 28th of the Articles of Religion.
Mr. T. M. HEALY: What is the Statute?
Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSON: They are the general Articles of the Church. The hon. Gentleman will doubtless concede this, that at the time these Articles were framed it is highly improbable that the framers would have any intention of expressly flying in the face of the Statute to which he referred. The Article reads:—
"Transubstantiation (or the change of the substance of bread and wine) in the supper of the Lord, cannot be proved by Holy Writ; but it is repugnant to the plain words of Holy Scripture, overthroweth the nature of a Sacrament, and bath given occasion to many superstitions."
That is what the Church of England says. Now what about the Presbyterian and Nonconformist Church? Here is the 29th Chapter of the Westminster Confession of Faith:—
"That doctrine which maintains a change of the substance of bread and wine into the substance of Christ's body and blood (commonly called transubstantiation) by consecration of a priest, or by any other way, is repugnant not to Scripture alone, but even to common sense and reason; overthroweth the nature of the Sacrament; and hath been and is the cause of manifold superstitions, yea of gross idolatories."
I never like to refer in this House in explicit terms of repudiation, which would give offence to the susceptibilities of other hon. Members, but the action of the hon. Member and learned gentleman who has just sat down for the second time, citing the Statute of Edward VI., made it necessary for me to make those two references from statements of authority which are the foundation of the Church of England and the Presbyterian Churches in this country, and according to the plain meaning of the English language both these repudiate precisely anything in the nature of transubstantiation. The hon. and learned Member has dogmatised to some extent about the Protestant religion. I will not retaliate by attempting to dogmatise about a religion which I do not practise myself. I think it is always wearisome for one to dogmatise about one's own religion, but to dogmatise about someone else's religion is wearisome both to oneself and to those who have to listen.
There is good ground, if I have portions of the canon law of the faith to which the hon. Gentleman belongs, for believing that in the past, whatever may be the case in the present day, high dignitaries of his Church have maintained the power in the head of the Church of releasing by dispensation both from vows and
2454
oaths. They have also maintained quite explicitly that they could not give a dispensation against anything which denounces the articles of their faith. That is the real reason why my hon. Friend and I am anxious to secure that there shall be repudiation of one at least of the particular doctrines of the faith which are comprehended in the articles of that faith. The hon. and learned Gentleman has made a rather unfair attack upon us. He has charged us with want of belief in the faith of our King. I had occasion to say on a former occasion, on behalf of my colleagues and myself, we were arguing in point of fact not with any applicability to any particular individual, but to all who come under the description of abstract sovereignty as a whole. I say therefore, to the hon. Gentleman, what a King has done in the past a King may do in the future, and therefore we are bound to take that case into consideration. I hope the hon. Gentleman will at least acquit us of any charge of commenting upon any possible action of the present occupant of this Throne, or any possible occupant of the Throne so far as we can see at present. We are bound to provide against contingency, and we are doing our best to keep out the name of the Sovereign, and I think it is a little unfair that the hon. Gentleman should bring against us such charges as he has brought.
Mr. MACKINDER: I have reason to know that in expressing the view which I propose to express I am stating the views of a great number of people and of a very considerable majority of my Constituents. The hon. Member for West Edinburgh said a short time ago that no question was more pressed upon him at the General Election than this question. The Prime Minister said he was not pressed at all on this matter, and therefore I think it is pertinent for me to say that in my Constituency in Glasgow there was no question upon which I was more sincerely pressed than upon the question of the Royal Declaration.
It is very remarkable that that should have been the case, for there was no obvious reason for urgency for the question at that time. There is complete evidence that, so far at any rate as certain parts of Scotland are concerned, the question was before the electorate at the time of the General Election, and upon it we who represent such constituencies speak with something of the strength of a mandate. This demand for including specific

2455
doctrines in the Declaration is based, I frankly admit, upon distrust. There is very prevalent distrust, and I ask hon. Members to look at the matter from the point of view of those who distrust, and not merely from the point of view of the Sovereign on whom the Declaration is imposed. We have heard a great deal from the point of view of the Sovereign who is called upon to take this Declaration. We heard it suggested that we are throwing upon him an obvious indication of distrust, but I venture to point out it would be a far more serious thing if any large number of the subjects of that Sovereign felt distrust in the position he might take up. My hon. Friend who spoke last, spoke of not having to legislate for the present King or for any special tenant of the Throne, but for a Sovereign who might come to the Throne. Obviously if you once dispense with the safeguard that has come down to us from history you would find it impossible at the moment when it was necessary to avail yourself of that safeguard to reintroduce it. Therefore we are bound to consider possible eventualities. Speaking for those whom I represent I feel certain they would take the speech of the hon. and learned Member for Louth as reinforcing the view which they hold of the necessity of the repudiation of specific doctrines. The hon. and learned Member read what he called a fundamental Statute governing the Church of England, and he interpreted it in the sense that at any rate the large number of Presbyterians in Scotland believed, and in the sense that some of the members of the Church of England would interpret it. In other words, he showed that from outside the Church of England the same meaning was attached to the words that many of those whom I represent believe that the High Church party attach to those words. I can only say from the speech he has made that his words will be taken as reinforcing the opinion held by Presbyterians and other strong Protestants as to the necessity of not trusting to any vague form of words. It is because I feel it is essential that you should not only have no real ground for mistrust, but that you should not have any large body of people in the country liable to mistrust that I put forward this view. The point has been urged that we are repudiating the doctrines of one Church only. I confess myself that I would not have chosen this particular form of words for this particular purpose. I
2456
have an Amendment down which comes under the same category as the one we are now discussing, on page 47 of the Amendment Paper, which I believe would accomplish the same end without doing injury to the tender feelings of those who hold Catholic views. No doubt it would have been legislation by reference, but if ever legislation by reference was allowable it should be on a problem of this kind. It is the principle that is in question and is raised by this Amendment, although myself I would have chosen other words and other methods of putting the point. The question has been asked, Why should you repudiate the particular doctrines of this particular Church? Simply because in the repudiation of those doctrines you are really seeking a political end. It is no use talking to us of Mahomedanism and Buddhism and other creeds of the world, because this is a historical question. All the forms of faith which are grouped under the word "Protestant" in this country are in one form or another derived from the Church of the West of Europe in the Middle Ages, and it is because that Church has never forsaken her claims that it is felt to be necessary to maintain the repudiation of those claims. There being deep distrust on the part of those I represent, even as against the Church of England, it is felt that there is no alternative but to press for the repudiation of definite doctrines. You cannot substitute any new form which will have the same effect.
Mr. BRIDGEMAN: This is the first time I have had an opportunity of taking part in this Debate, and I approach the question as one totally unpledged by any electioneering promises, and as one who has found the greatest difficulty in deciding which is the right way to vote on this very difficult question. I have followed the Debate with some care, and I voted for the Second Reading of this Bill because I felt if I voted against it I should have declared myself opposed to any change whatever in the Declaration. I confess that I find myself in a difficulty on the Committee stage by the very stiff action which the Government have adopted with regard to any Amendments on this question. As far as I can understand the arguments of the Debate yesterday they all tend to prove, if they proved anything at all, that the Declaration is not necessary. The Prune Minister said himself that he is not able to dispense with the Declaration because the people of this country require it,

2457
and because it would be misunderstood if the Declaration was dispensed with altogether. Therefore we are in the position that we have got to decide that there shall be a Declaration, and what form the Declaration shall take. It appears to me that if we are to have a Declaration which is to be reassuring to the public, as the Prime Minister seems to think, it should be perfectly plain and clear, and should declare either for some great principle or doctrine or against it. The Government have thought fit to give way to the pressure of some of those who sit behind them, and they have watered down the original form of the Declaration. In my opinion, a Declaration in favour of any particular faith is less offensive than a Declaration against any faith. I confess that I should have preferred a Declaration in favour of the faith for which the King is bound by law to belong. That would have been a very simple thing and it would have caused no offence, and in my opinion would have been a better solution of this question. That being out of the question, we have now to decide whether the Declaration shall take the very nebulous form which it possesses now or whether it shall be in the form of a distinct repudiation of certain doctrines with which those of us who call ourselves Protestants disagree. I for one must confess that I think this Declaration should be clear and should therefore repudiate the doctrine which it is really intended to repudiate. A great deal has been said about the offensive words, but except the words "superstitious and idolatrous" I can find nothing offensive in the old Declaration. I cannot see anything offensive in the statement of those who believe in one particular faith that they disbelieve in any other particular faith on certain definite points. Hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway will not regard me as an advanced or bigoted Protestant. We have fought together for religious liberty on educational questions many a time, and a few years ago we had to fight against the present Chief Secretary, who last night posed as an apostle of tolerance, and who then said:—
"Minorities must suffer."
Therefore, I am sure they will acquit me of any desire whatever to take an offensive line if I say I think this should be made more clear than it is. Tolerance to my mind does not rest on trying to deceive people as to what your own views are, but in stating your own views and in understanding the views of those who differ
2458
with them and allowing them full opportunity to indulge in their views in return for the liberty which you expect for your own. I think it far better to speak plainly and be tolerant than to try and invent a form of words which apparently is intended to deceive somebody who may disagree with you. We are told these words, "a faithful Protestant," are really meant to convey that the Monarch of this country is a believer in the doctrines of the Church of England as by law established, and a disbeliever in doctrines such as those which are mentioned in the Amendment now under consideration. If that is so, then what is the harm of saying so plainly? If it is to be, as the Prime Minister seemed to suggest, a Declaration for the benefit of the public, I venture to think the public would prefer it to be shed of any offensive words, but perfectly clear and plain, either for the doctrines in which the King is supposed to stand, or against the doctrines from which, not for religious reasons but for reasons of public policy, we wish to dissociate ourselves.
Mr. RUNCIMAN: The hon. Gentleman who has just sat down has delivered a speech which would be more appropriate to the Amendment in the name of the Prime Minister a little later down on the Paper, but the point we have been discussing for nearly an hour really bears on the kernel of the whole principle of this Bill. The suggestion has been made that the Declaration should be denunciatory and repudiate some of the doctrines of the Roman Catholic Church. In so far as repudiation is concerned, I would point out to those who wish to maintain the Protestant Succession, what ought to be clear after the Second Reading Debate, that this Declaration has no value and cannot bind. The security for the Protestant Succession is not to be found in a Declaration at all, but in the enactments. The safety of the Protestant Succession would no more be secured if the Sovereign every day in his life were to publicly and solemnly make the denunciatory Declaration. The Declaration may be a comfort to a great many of the hon. Member's Friends, and I would not wish to deprive them of any comfort it may afford them, but I assert there is no more suitable time than the King's Coronation for the Sovereign to solemnly announce to the whole world the Protestant character of the Throne. The whole of the arguments which have been used to-night were fairly summarised in one respect by the hon. and

2459
learned Member for Louth (Mr. Timothy Healy) when he said the only reason put forward for asking for a denunciatory Declaration was that the Sovereign, in the abstract could not be trusted, and that, having made the Declaration, he might prove deceptive, unless the nation was secured against repudiation of Protestantism by his having put himself completely out of court with the Church of Rome. But such a thing is beyond all the realms of reason. The truth is the Sovereign is secured to the Protestant faith so long as the enactments are sufficient for that purpose. The reason why the Declaration is being amended is apparent to the whole House—even to the hon. Members from the North of Ireland. It is that we wish to remove from the Declaration those portions which are really offensive, not only to Nationalist Members, but to a very large number of our fellow-subjects in other parts of the Empire. Hon. Members talk of this matter as if it only concerned the South and West of Ireland. Let me remind them that there are far more Catholics in the Dominion of Canada than there are in the United Kingdom. The form of the Declaration has given offence in Canada, and no one can wonder at it. All of us who hold to special forms of religion would be grossly insulted if our doctrines were gibbeted in the same way. We want to relieve our fellow-subjects from that strain on their feelings, and therefore we are proposing a new form of Declaration. Nothing which has been said in these Debates has shown that any greater security is obtained by denouncing these doctrines as proposed in the Amendment which we cannot accept. Let the committee adopt the more affirmative form suggested by the Government.
Mr. SCOTT DICKSON: The Amendment before the Committee does not contain any denunciation of any doctrine. It declares simply that the Sovereign believes, "That in the sacrament of the Lord's Supper there is not any transubstantiation of the elements of bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ, at or after the consecration thereof by any person whatsoever; and that the invocation or adoration of the Virgin Mary or any other saint, and the sacrifice of the Mass, as they are now used in the Church of Rome, are repugnant to me and against my religious belief." I confess I cannot see how anybody can take exception to that, particularly after the speeches yes-
2460
terday of the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition, as, according to their view, the use of the term "faithful Protestant" involves equally the denunciation and repudiation of those doctrines. When it is said that what is objected to is the selection of the Roman Catholic religion for special treatment, the same argument would apply, not only to the Declaration, but also to the Bill of Rights and the Act of Settlement, because in both of those that religion is selected for special treatment. [An HON. MEMBER: "It does not apply to Ireland."] I am speaking mainly for those on this side of the Channel, and if that argument is sound at all for abolishing the Declaration it is just as sound for a radical change in the Bill of Rights and the Act of Settlement. I confess I am amazed at the argument put forward that when we are asking for a Declaration of this kind it involves a want of confidence in the word of the Sovereign, as the whole force of the Declaration is because we believe in the word of the Sovereign so far as we are dealing with these three matters—transubstantiation, the invocation or adoration of saints, and the Mass. Nothing more is asked for than the word of the Sovereign, and we are content to take his word. The truth of the matter is this, that we are now recognising what the position involved in this alteration of the Declaration means. It means that from this side of the House below the Gangway we are now told that the Church of England possesses as one of its doctrines the doctrine of transubstantiation and you are also compelled to say that we do not want the Sovereign to say he does not believe in transubstantiation, in the invocation and the adoration of the Saints, and in the mass. I think that will startle a great many people in this country. There are those who say they do not want any such Declaration from the Sovereign, and let me remind the Committee that the reason why we have the day after the Second Reading been engaged in considering these Amendments instead of having time to think over them is because the apologists of the Government say—although I do not know that they say it themselves—"we want this thing hurried through before the country has had time to think over it." They do not want, it is said, to discuss the matter because they see the discussion would be inconvenient and there would be a great rousing of public opinion upon it. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] I carefully said that I did not know that any Member of the

2461
Government had said it; but is it, not a fact that their apologists in the Press have said it, and that the leading organs which support them have put that forward as a reason why this matter should be hurried forward, because you are afraid to have a discussion in the country for fear that the volume of public opinion might be such that you would not be able to carry the Bill——
The CHAIRMAN: The right hon. Gentleman is going away from the Amendment.
Mr. SCOTT DICKSON: I accept your ruling, Sir, and will only say this, that the principles which have led to the repudiation and the refusal to accept this Amendment are akin to those which led to the present form of the Declaration. For my part I cannot understand how many Gentlemen opposite, who, I suppose, are going into the Lobby against the Amendment, will be able to meet their constituents, and say, "We sat in the House of Commons, we heard the discussion, and we voted that we were not willing to put it upon the Sovereign of these lands that he should say he was against transubstantiation, against the invocation of the Saints, and against the Mass." I hope one can say all that. I say it in all seriousness, without in the least desiring to offend the sympathies of any of my Roman Catholic fellow-subjects. I differ from them toto cœlo in these matters, just as I know they differ from me. They can express their views, and I hope I can mine, without any offence, and I shall vote in favour of the Amendment with a clear conscience. and I believe that in so doing I am representing the views of the vast majority of my Constituents.
Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: I oppose this Amendment as strongly as it has been supported by the right hon. Gentleman, because I think any denunciation of purely theological doctrines is ridiculous unless you define those doctrines. I cannot understand why the right hon. Gentleman should have launched forth into such violent invective against transubstantiation without telling us what transubstantiation really is. That applies to the other doctrines in this Amendment. To show how ridiculous it is to have any specific denunciation of purely theological doctrine we have but to look at the old form of the Declaration, where it began in denouncing transubstantiation, and then in that Declaration the Sovereign was made
2462
to say that he understood every word and every part of the Declaration as it is commonly used by English Protestants. What is the English Protestant's idea of transubstantiation? I contend that it is fundamentally different from the idea of transubstantiation as defined either in the thirteenth century or by St. Thomas Aquinas. I do not want to go into the whole gamut of mediæval philosophy, but it is absolutely necessary when you are carrying invective against a particular doctrine that you should know substantially what the doctrine is. This Amendment does not denounce the Mass, it denounces the sacrifice of the Mass. I believe a few English Protestants believe in the sacrifice of the Mass. I do not personally, but I know some faithful members of the Church of England, in communion with the Church of England, who believe in it. In the first Prayer Book of Edward VI. you had "the Holy Communion in English, the revised Protestant Liturgy, and the Holy Communion, commonly called the Mass." That is why I say it is singularly absurd to denounce particular doctrines without defining them. If the House accepts the Prime Minister's Amendment precisely the same difficulty will occur. What is the definition of a Protestant? And the whole of this discussion, after all, is a discussion of the definition of words, and that is why we have had a very long and a very difficult discussion. I oppose this Amendment strongly because it is a denunciation of specific theological doctrines without defining those theological doctrines and stating what they mean in plain words as commonly understood by Protestants.
Mr. C. CRAIG: The logic of the hon. Member (Mr. Ormsby-Gore) holds good not only against this Amendment, but against the whole Bill. He says his reason for voting against this Amendment is that it is foolish to condemn a doctrine unless you define what that doctrine is. The sacrifice of the Mass and transubstantiation are doctrines of which I think we have all a less hazy idea than we have of the Prime Minister's expression "faithful Protestant." Therefore the hon. Member must take his choice of the lesser of two evils. I think the House will agree with me that they ought to repudiate the doctrines of transubstantiation and the sacrifice of the Mass. There is a certain amount of certainty about that, but I venture to repeat for about the tenth time in these Debates that nobody either in

2463
this House or anywhere else can define what a faithful Protestant is. The right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Education, in answer to an interruption of my hon. Friend, said it was perfectly well known why the Government was having a Declaration at all. He said it was to give some comfort to persons like my hon. Friend and myself who thought a Declaration of some sort was necessary. He said that in one breath, thereby meaning in reality that there was no necessity for a Declaration at all. In the next breath he told us that there was no time when it was more necessary, solemn, and impressive than the time when the King
was crowned that he should state once and for all that he was a Protestant and a believer in the Protestant religion. A moment later the right hon. Gentleman informed us that the Declaration was only binding on the Sovereign at the time he made it. If that is so—and I admit that it is so, and that he can go back on the Declaration at any time—it proves what I have said, that it is absurd for the Government to propose a ridiculous Declaration like this when they believe it is useless and in no way called for.
Question put, "That those words be there inserted."
The Committee divided: Ayes, 58; Noes, 291.

Division No. 148.]

AYES.

[10.45 p.m.

Agar-Robartes, Hon. T. C. R.

Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey

Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

Armitage, Robert

Foster, Harry S. (Lowestoft)

Mount, William Arthur

Bagot, Captain J.

Foster, Philip S. (Warwick, S.W.)

Munro, Robert

Banner, John S. Harmood-

Gilmour, Captain John

Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)

Barlow, Sir John Emmott

Grant, J. A.

Primrose, Hon. Neil James

Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks

Hamersley, Alfred St. George

Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

Boyle, W. Lewis (Norfolk, Mid)

Hamilton, Marquess of (Londonderry)

Rutherford, Watson

Bridgeman, William Clive

Harmsworth, R. Leicester

Salter, Arthur Clevell

Brunskill, Gerald Fitzgibbon

Hickman, Col. Thomas E.

Sandys, Lt.-Col. T. M. (Bootle)

Bryce, John Anna

Horner, Andrew Long

Starkey, John Ralph

Castlereagh, Viscount

Houston, Robert Paterson

Stewart, Gershom (Ches., Wirral)

Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

Kerr-Smiley, Peter Kerr

Thompson, Robert (Belfast, North)

Chaloner, Col. R. G. W.

Keswick, William

Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire)

Clay. Captain H. H. Spender

Kyffin-Taylor, G.

Warde, Col. C. E. (Kent, Mid)

Clyde, James Avon

Llewelyn, Venables

Willoughby, Major Hon. Claude

Cooper, Capt. Bryan R. (Dublin, S.)

Lockwood, Rt. Hon. Lt.-Col. A. R.

Willoughby de Ereshy, Lord

Cory, Sir Clifford John

Lonsdale, John Brownlee

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

Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.)

MacCaw, Wm. J. MacGeagh

Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

M`Calmont, Colonel James

TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Hugh Barrie and Mr. Mackinder.

Dairymple, Viscount

Moore, William

Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. S. (Glasgow, E.)

NOES.

Abraham, William (Dublin Harbour)

Bytes, William Pollard

Elibank, Master of

Adkins, W. Ryland D.

Carr-Gomm, H. W.

Ellis, Rt. Hon. John Edward

Agnew, George William

Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich)

Elverston, Harold

Ainsworth, John Stirling

Cawley, H. T. (Lancs. Heywood)

Esmonde, Sir Thomas

Allen, Charles Peter

Cecil, Lord Hugh (Oxford Univ.)

Falconer, James

Ashley, Wilfred W.

Chancellor, Henry George

Farrell, James Patrick

Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry

Chapple, Dr. William Allen

Ferens, Thomas Robinson

Baker, Harold T. (Accrington)

Clancy, John Joseph

Ffrench, Peter

Balcarres, Lord

Clough, William

Field, William

Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

Collins, Godfrey P. (Greenock)

Flavin, Michael Joseph

Banbury, Sir Frederick George

Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

France, Gerald Ashburner

Barclay, Sir Thomas

Compton-Rickett, Sir J.

Furness, Stephen

Barnes, George N.

Condon, Thomas Joseph

Gardner, Ernest

Barran, Sir John N. (Hawick)

Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

Gelder, Sir William Alfred

Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.)

Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd

Beale, William Phipson

Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

Gibson, Sir James Puckering

Benn, Ion Hamilton (Greenwich)

Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet)

Gill, Alfred Henry

Benn, W. (Tower Hamlets, S. Geo.)

Crean, Eugene

Glanville, Harold James

Bentham, George Jackson

Croft, Henry Page

Glover, Thomas

Bentinck, Lord Henry Cavendish

Cullinan, J.

Gooch, Henry Cubitt

Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

Dawes, James Arthur

Goulding, Edward Alfred

Bowerman, Charles W.

Delany, William

Greenwood, Granville George

Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North)

Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas

Gretton, John

Brady, Patrick Joseph

Devlin, Joseph

Griffith, Ellis Jones

Brocklehurst, William B.

Dickinson, W. H. (St. Pancras, N.)

Guest, Major C. H. C.

Burke, E. Haviland-

Dillon, John

Hackett, John

Burns, Rt. Hon. John

Donelan, Captain A.

Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

Doris, William

Hall, F. (Yorks, Normanton)

Butcher, John George (York)

Duffy, William J.

Hancock, John George

Buxton, C. R. (Devon, Mid)

Duke, Henry Edward

Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)

Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, North)

Dunn, Sir W. H. (Southwark, W.)

Harcourt, Robert V.(Montrose)

Buxton, Rt. Hon. S. C. (Poplar)

Edwards, Enoch

Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

Middlebrook, William

Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)

Mildmay, Francis Bingham

Sanders, Robert Arthur

Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N.E.)

Millar, James Duncan

Scanlan, Thomas

Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

Molloy, Michael

Schwann, Sir Charles E.

Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

Montagu, Hon. E. S.

Scott, A. H. (Ashton-under-Lyne)

Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

Haworth, Arthur A.

Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

Sheehy, David

Hayden, John Patrick

Morpeth, Viscount

Sherwell, Arthur James

Hayward, Evan

Morrison-Bell, Major A. C.

Short, Edward

Hazleton, Richard

Muldoon, John

Simon, John Allsebrook

Healy, Maurice (Cork, N.E.)

Murray, Capt. Hon. Arthur C.

Smith, H. B. Lees (Northampton)

Healy, Timothy Michael

Muspratt, Max

Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

Nannetti, Joseph P.

Soares, Ernest Joseph

Henderson, J. M. (Aberdeen, W.)

Neilson, Francis

Spicer, Sir Albert

Henry, Charles S.

Newdegate, F. A.

Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N.W.)

Herbert, Col. Sir Ivor (Mon. S.)

Newton, Harry Kottingham

Stanley, Hon. G F.(Preston)

Higham, John Sharp

Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncaster)

Strachey, Sir Edward

Hillier, Dr. Alfred Peter

Nolan, Joseph

Sutherland, John E.

Hindle, Frederick George

Norton, Capt. Cecil W.

Sutton, John E.

Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

Nugent, Sir Walter Richard

Talbot, Lord Edmund

Hodge, John

Nussey, Sir T. Willans

Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

Hogan, Michael

Nuttall, Harry

Tennant, Harold John

Holt, Richard Durning

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

Terrell, George (Wilts, N.W.)

Hope, James Fitzalan (She)

O'Brien, William (Cork)

Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)

O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

Thomas, James Henry (Derby)

Horne, Charles Silvester (Ipswich)

O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

O'Doherty, Philip

Thynne, Lord Alexander

Hughes, Spencer Leigh

O'Grady, James

Tobin, Alfred Aspinall

Hume-Williams, Wm. Ellis

O'Kelly, Edward P. (Wicklow, W.)

Toulmin, George

Illingworth, Percy H.

O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.)

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

Isaacs, Sir Rufus Daniel

O'Malley, William

Twist, Henry

Jones, Sir D. Brynmer (Swansea)

O'Neill, Dr. Charles (Armagh, S.)

Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

Jones, Edgar R. (Merthyr Tydvil)

Ormsby-Gore, William

Verney, Frederick William

Jones, Henry Haydn (Merloneth)

O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

Vivian, Henry

Jones, William (Cernarvonshire)

Paget, Almeric Hugh

Wadsworth, John

Jowett, Frederick

William Palmer, Godfrey Mark

Walker, H. de R. (Leicester)

Joyce, Michael

Parker, James (Halifax)

Walters, John Tudor

Keating, Matthew

Pearce, William

Walton, Sir Joseph

Kelly, Edward

Pease, Rt. Hon. Joseph A.

Ward, A. S. (Herts, Watford)

Kennedy, Vincent Paul

Peto, Basil Edward

Waring, Walter

King, Sir Henry Seymour (Hu)

Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

King, Joseph (Somerset, North)

Pickersgill, Edward Hare

Waterlow, David Sydney

Lambert, George

Pointer, Joseph

Watt, Henry A.

Lane-Fox, G. R.

Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

White, Major C. D. (Lancs. Southport)

Lardner, James Carries Rushe

Power, Patrick Joseph

White, Sir George (Norfolk)

Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.)

Priestley, Sir W. E. B. (Bradford, E.)

White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire)

Lehmann, Rudolf C.

Pringle, William M. R.

White, Sir Luke (York, E.R.)

Levy, Sir Maurice

Radford, George Heynes

White, Patrick (Meath, North)

Lewis, John Herbert

Raffan, Peter Wilson

Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.

Locker-Lampoon, O. (Ramsay)

Rainy, Adam

Rolland Whyte, A. F. (Perth)

Low, Sir Frederick (Norwich)

Raphael, Herbert H.

Wiles, Thomas

Lundon, Thomas

Reddy, Michael

Wilkie, Alexander

Lyell, Charles Henry

Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

Williams, John (Glamorgan)

Lynch, Arthur Alfred

Redmond, William (Clare, E.)

Williams, Penry (Middlesbrough)

Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

Randall, Athelstan

Williamson, Sir Archibald

Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

Ridley, Samuel Forde

Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E.R.)

MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

Wilson, Hon. G. G. (Hull, W.)

MacVeagh, Jeremiah

Roberts, George H. (Norwich)

Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

M'Callum, John M.

Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

Wilson, T. F. (Lanark, N.E.)

M'Curdy, Charles Albert

Robinson, Sidney

Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

Mallet, Charles Edward

Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

Wing, Thomas

Marks, George Croydon

Roche, Augustine (Cork)

Wood, Hon. E. F. L. (Yorks, Ripon)

Masterman, C. F. G.

Roe, Sir Thomas

Wood, T. M'Kinnon (Glasgow)

Meagher, Michael

Royds, Edmund

Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. Gulland and Mr. Dudley Ward.

Meehan, Patrick A. (Queen's County)

Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland)

Mr. BRUNSKILL: I beg to move after the word "am" ["am a faithful Member"] to insert the words "and will remain."
What is the use of the declaration, "I am a faithful Protestant," if it is quite possible five minutes afterwards, or a day afterwards, that the Sovereign might change his mind? According to the Act of Settlement and the other Acts it is necessary that the King not only should be at the time he takes the oath a Protestant,
2466
but that should he afterwards become a Roman Catholic he would forfeit his right to sit on the Throne. I cannot, therefore, see that there is any objection whatever to these words, and I ask that there should be added to the Declaration that "I am" the words "I will remain a Protestant." If the Declaration is to be of any value at all it should be a Declaration which would show at any rate that the Sovereign is not a member of the Roman Catholic

2467
Church. Consequently I ask the Prime Minister to accept this Amendment. A number of Members speaking here last night said that no Declaration was worth anything, because the Sovereign who made the Declaration might change his mind a few hours afterwards, and though it was a perfectly good Declaration at the time it was made, that it would be of no use if he became a Roman Catholic. I think the words I propose will strengthen the Declaration, and that consequently there should be no objection whatever to asking the King to make the Declaration.
The PRIME MINISTER: I think a moment's reflection will satisfy the hon. Gentleman that this Motion could not possibly be accepted. It is something entirely new and not required in the old Declaration. Even in the old Declaration all the Sovereign was required to do was to declare that he did believe "I do believe." He was never required to make any profession as to what might happen in the future with regard to his own convictions. If those convictions should change, a sufficient security against the imaginary dangers that the hon. Member has depicted is to be found in the Bill of Rights and the Act of Settlement. If, having made the Declaration in good faith and being a Protestant at the time he made it, he subsequently, by the operation of religious conviction, becomes a member of the Roman Catholic Church, though he is not debarred from doing so in the exercise of his religious convictions, he thereby forfeits his right to the Crown and vacates the Throne of England, and all his subjects are immediately absolved from allegiance to him. So that there is absolutely no necessity for this.
Mr. MOORE: I must say I cannot understand the Prime Minister's argument. His argument is based on the form of the old Declaration, and that because this is not in the old Declaration we ought not to put it in the new. I cannot understand the Prime Minister's argument seeing that he is proceeding to abolish that Declaration. The present Bill is called a Bill to Amend the Accession Declaration or to alter it. It does more than alter it, it abolishes it. Yet the Prime Minister asks the House to follow a Declaration that is deliberately abolished in order to combat the Amendment of my hon. Friend. I understand the Prime Minister's attitude is that we have drawn a sponge over the slate on which the old Declaration was written, and that we are starting de novo. If we are starting de novo, as the Liberal Government are fond of doing in all matters affecting the Constitution, I do not see why there should not be in the Declaration a safeguard as to the future as well as regards the present. The fact that there are penalties in the Bill of Rights and in the Act of Settlement if the Monarch changes his mind, is beside the point entirely. They are there whether the Amendment is accepted or not. The Amendment has been treated by the representatives of the Government in the cursory way in which they treat all Amendments from this side, trying to impose safeguards for the Protestant religion, in favour of the preservation of which the Chief Secretary admitted last night there was a strong feeling in the country. I shall gladly support my hon. Friend if he goes to a division.
Question put, "That those words be there inserted."
The Committee divided: Ayes, 77; Noes, 282.

Division No. 149.]

AYES.

[11 p.m.

Agar-Robartes, Hon. T. C. R.

Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.)

Hickman, Colonel Thomas E.

Ashley, Wilfred W.

Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

Horne, Wm. E. (Surrey, Guildford)

Bagot, Captain J.

Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet)

Horner, Andrew Long

Baird, John Lawrence

Croft, Henry Page

Houston, Robert Paterson

Balcarres, Lord

Dalrymple, Viscount

Kerr-Smiley, Peter Kerr

Banner, John S. Harmood-

Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. S. (Glasgow, E.)

Kyffin-Taylor, G. (Liverpool)

Baring, Captain Hon. Guy Victor

Du Cros, Arthur P. (Hastings)

Llewelyn, Venables

Barlow, Sir John Emmott

Fell, Arthur

Lloyd, George Ambrose

Barnston, Harry

Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey

Lansdale, John Brownlee

Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry, N.)

Fletcher, John Samuel

MacCaw, Wm. J. MacGeagh

Bird, Alfred

Foster, Harry Seymour (Lowestoft)

Mackindier, Halford J.

Boyle, W. Lewis (Norfolk, Mid)

Foster, Philip S. (Warwick, S.W.)

Macmaster, Donald

Bryce, John Annan

Gastrell, Major W. Houghton

M'Calmont, Colonel James

Carlile, Edward Hildred

Gilmour, Captain John

Morrison-Bell, Major A. C.

Cave, George

Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

Chaloner, Col. R. G. W.

Grant, J. A.

Munro, Robert

Clay, Captain H. H. Spender

Gretton, John

Newdegate, F. A.

Clyde, James Avon

Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne)

Newton, Harry Kottingham

Colefax, Henry Arthur

Hamilton, Marquess of (Londonderry)

Nield, Herbert

Cory, Sir Clifford John

Harmsworth, R. Leicester

Primrose, Hon. Neil James

Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

Sykes, Alan John

Wiles, Thomas

Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

Thompson, Robert (Belfast, North)

Willoughby, Major Hon. Claude

Rolleston, Sir John

Thomson, W. Mitchell (Down, N.)

Wood, John (Stalybridge)

Rutherford, Watson

Thynne, Lord Alexander

Sanders, Robert Arthur

Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire)

TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Brunskill and Mr. Moore.

Sandy,, Lt.-Col. T. M. (Bootle)

Wheler, Granville C. H.

Stewart, Gershom (Ches., Wirral)

White, Major G. D. (Lancs., Southport)

NOES.

Abraham, William (Dublin Harbour)

Gibbs, George Abraham

MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

Adkins, W. Ryland D.

Gibson, Sir James Puckering

MacVeagh, Jeremiah

Agnew, George William

Gill, Alfred Henry

McCallum, John M.

Ainsworth, John Stirling

Glanville, Harold James

M'Curdy, Charles Albert

Alden, Percy

Glover, Thomas

Mallet, Charles Edward

Allen, Charles Peter

Gooch, Henry Cubitt

Marks, George Croydon

Arbuthnot, Gerald A.

Goulding, Edward Alfred

Masterman, C. F. G.

Armitage, Robert

Greenwood, Granville George

Meagher, Michael

Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry

Griffith, Ellis Jones (Anglesey)

Meehan, Francis E.(Leitrim, N.)

Baker, Harold T. (Accrington)

Guest, Major C. H. C.

Meehan, Patrick A. (Queen's Co.)

Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

Hackett, John

Middlebrook, William

Banbury, Sir Frederick George

Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

Mildmay, Francis Bingham

Barclay, Sir Thomas

Hall, F. (Yorks, Normanton)

Millar, James Duncan

Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.)

Hamersley, Alfred St. George

Mitchell, William Foot

Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton)

Hancock, John George

Molloy, Michael

Beale, William Phipson

Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)

Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

Benn, W. (Tower Hamlets, S. Geo.)

Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

Bentham, George Jackson

Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

Morpeth, Viscount

Bentinck, Lord Henry Cavendish

Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

Muldoon, John

Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)

Murray, Capt. Hon. Arthur C.

Bowerman, Charles W.

Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N.E.)

Muspratt, Max

Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North)

Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

Nannetti, Joseph P.

Brady, Patrick Joseph

Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

Neilson, Francis

Bridgeman, William Clive

Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncaster)

Brocklehurst, William B.

Haworth, Arthur A.

Nolan, Joseph

Burke, E. Hayiland-

Hayden, John Patrick

Nugent, Sir Walter Richard

Burns, Rt. Hon. John

Hayward, Evan

Nussey, Sir T. Willans

Butcher, John George (York)

Hazleton, Richard

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

Buxton, C. R. (Devon, Mid)

Healy, Maurice (Cork, N.E.)

O'Brien, William (Cork)

Buxton, Rt. Hon. S. C. (Poplar)

Healy, Timothy Michael (Louth, N.)

O'Connor, John(Kildare, N.)

Byles, William Pollard

Helme, Norval Watson

O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

Carr-Gomm, H. W.

Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

O'Doherty, Philip

Castlereagh, Viscount

Henderson, J. M. (Aberdeen, W.)

O'Grady, James

Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich)

Henry, Charles S

O'Kelly, Edward P. (Wicklow, W.)

Cawley, H. T. (Lancs. Heywood)

Herbert, Col. Sir Ivor (Mon. S.)

O'Kelly, James(Roscommon, N.)

Cecil, Lord Hugh (Oxford Univ.)

Higham, John Sharp

O'Malley, William

Chancellor, Henry George

Hillier, Dr. Alfred Peter

O'Neill, Dr. Charles (Armagh, S.)

Chapple, Dr. William Allen

Hindle, Frederick George

Ormsby-Gore, William

Clancy, John Joseph

Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

Clough, William

Hodge, John

O'Shee, James John

Collins, Godfrey P. (Greenock)

Hogan, Michael

Paget, Almeric Hugh

Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

Holt, Richard Durning

Palmer, Godfrey Mark

Compton-Rickett, Sir J.

Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

Parker, James (Halifax)

Condon, Thomas Joseph

Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)

Pearce, William

Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

Horne, C. Silvester (Ipswich)

Pease, Rt. Hon. Joseph A.

Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

Hughes, Spencer Leigh

Peel, Hon. W. R. W. (Taunton)

Cowan, William Henry

Hume-Williams, William Ellis

Peto, Basil Edward

Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

Illingworth, Percy H.

Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

Crean, Eugene

Isaacs, Sir Rufus Daniel

Pickersgill, Edward Hare

Cullinan, John

Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea)

Pointer, Joseph

Dawes, James Arthur

Jones, Edgar R. (Merthyr Tydvil)

Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

Delany, William

Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

Power, Patrick Joseph

Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas

Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

Priestley, Sir W. E. B.(Bradford, E.)

Devlin, Joseph

Jowett, Frederick William

Pringle, William M. R.

Dickinson, W. H. (St. Pancras, N.)

Joyce, Michael

Radford, George Heynes

Dillon, John

Keating, Matthew

Raffan, Peter Wilson

Donelan, Captain A.

Kelly, Edward

Rainy, Adam Rolland

Doris, William

Kennedy, Vincent Paul

Raphael, Herbert Henry

Duffy, William J.

Keswick, William

Reddy, Michael

Dunn, Sir W. H. (Southwark, W.)

King, Sir Henry Seymour (Hull)

Redmond, John E.(Waterford)

Edwards, Enoch

King, Joseph (Somerset, North)

Redmond, William (Clare, E.)

Ellis, Rt. Hon. John Edward

Lambert, George

Rendall, Atheistan

Elverston, Harold

Lane-Fox, G. R.

Ridley, Samuel Forde

Esmonde, Sir Thomas

Lardner, James Carrigo Rushe

Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

Falconer, James

Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.)

Roberts, George H. (Norwich)

Farrell, James Patrick

Lehmann, Rudolf C.

Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

Ferens, Thomas Robinson

Levy, Sir Maurice

Robinson, Sidney

Ffrench, Peter

Lewis, John Herbert

Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

Field, William

Lockwood, Rt. Hon. Lt.-Col. A. R.

Roche, Augustine (Cork)

Flavin, Michael Joseph

Low, Sir Frederick (Norwich)

Roe, Sir Thomas

France, Gerald Ashburner

Lundon, Thomas

Ronaldshay, Earl of

Furness, Stephen

Lyell, Charles Henry

Royds, Edmund

Gardner, Ernest

Lynch, Arthur Alfred

Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

Gelder, Sir William Alfred

Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland)

George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd

Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

2470

2471

Scanlan, Thomas

Terrell, George (Wilts, N.W.)

White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire)

Schwann, Sir Charles E.

Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

White, Sir Luke (York, E.R.)

Scott, A. H. (Ashton-under-Lyne)

Thomas, James Henry (Derby)

Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.

Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

Whyte, A. F. (Perth)

Sheehy, David

Toulmin, George

Wilkie, Alexander

Sherwell, Arthur James

Trevelyan, Charles Phillps

Williams, John (Glamorgan)

Shortt, Edward

Twist, Henry

Williams, Penry (Middlesbrough)

Simon, John Allsebrook

Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

Williamson, Sir Archibald

Smith, H. B. Lees (Northampton)

Verney, Frederick William

Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

Vivian, Henry

Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E.R.)

Soares, Ernest Joseph

Wadsworth, John

Wilson, Hon. G. G. (Hull, W.)

Spicer, Sir Albert

Walters, John Tudor

Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N.W.)

Ward, A. S. (Herts, Watford)

Wilson, J. W.(Worcestershire, N.)

Stewart, Sir M'T. (Kirkc'dbr'tsh.)

Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)

Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

Strachey, Sir Edward

Waring, Walter

Wing, Thomas

Sutherland, John E.

Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay

Wood, Hon. E. F. L. (Yorks, Ripon)

Sutton, John E.

Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

Wood, T. M'Kinnon (Glasgow)

Talbot, Lord Edmund

Waterlow, David Sydney

Taylor, T. C. (Radcliffe)

Watt, Henry A.

TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Master

Tennant, Harold John

White, Sir George (Norfolk)

of Ellbank and Mr. Gulland.

Mr. LAURENCE HARDY: I have an Amendment on the Paper, but as part of it has been disposed of, I propose to move in this form, after the word "am" ["and declare that I am"] to insert the following words: "In communion with the Church of England by law established, and a." The object of the Amendment is to try and restore the words of the Act of Settlement instead of the new Declaration.
Mr. T. M. HEALY: I think the general understanding was that if the Amendment we have discussed was given ample time that was to dispose of the larger question.
The CHAIRMAN: I was not in the chair when that arrangement was made, and I do not understand that it covers this particular point. The hon. Member for the Ashford Division now desires, instead of the words proposed by the Prime Minister, to add the words, "And am in communion with the Church of England by law established, and a." I think the hon. Member can move his Amendment at this point.
Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORD: Are the intermediate Amendments out of Order?
The CHAIRMAN: I do not know what the hon. Member means. This is the very next Amendment after the one we have just disposed of.
Mr. T. M. HEALY: I understand that you rule out of Order the Amendment of the hon. Member for the West Derby division of Liverpool, "Joined in communion with the Church of England as by law established within the meaning of Section 3 of the Act of Settlement, and." Surely there is no difference between this and the Amendment of the hon. Member for Ashford.
Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORD: There are two Amendments down in the name of the hon. Member for Ashford, and we are in doubt which one he is going to move, because there are two papers of a different colour.
The CHAIRMAN: At first I thought both these Amendments were in the wrong place, but the hon. Member for Ashford pointed out to me privately that he would be prevented from moving his Amendment if the Prime Minister's Amendment came before his. I admit that both the Amendments are the same, and had the hon. Member for West Derby appealed to me I should have allowed him to move.
Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORD: I have not the slightest intention of embarrassing the Chair.
Lord HUGH CECIL: Would it not be better that the words proposed by my hon. Friend should be moved after the words of the Prime Minister have been moved? I think that would be a more natural and smooth way of dealing with it.
The CHAIRMAN: I think the suggestion made by the Noble Lord would be the better way.
Mr. LAURENCE HARDY: I am willing to bow to your decision. I only wish to protect myself in regard to the moving of my Amendment.
The CHAIRMAN: The words "a faithful Protestant" are by no means inconsistent with those words.
The PRIME MINISTER: I beg to move to leave out the words "Member of the."
I beg to move to leave out these words with the object of subsequently moving to leave out the words "Reformed Church by law established in England," so that this part of the Declaration will run: "I

2473
do solemnly and sincerely, in the presence of God, profess, testify, and declare that I am a faithful Protestant." The schedule, as originally framed, contained the words which I am moving to omit and which required that the Sovereign should declare himself "a faithful member of the Protestant Reformed Church by law established in England." That is not, as I pointed out yesterday, going beyond the requirements of the existing law. By the Act of Settlement the Sovereign is required to join in communion with the Church of England. The reason I am proposing to the Committee to alter the form in the schedule and to substitute for it this simpler expression is that the Government have satisfied themselves during the considerable time which has elapsed since this Bill was first introduced that in various quarters and, indeed, in all quarters except the Roman Catholics themselves, objections were taken to the form of words which we had put down in the Schedule. Objections were taken to the words, "By law established in England," because they seemed to give some Statutory colour to the notion that the Church of England, as a church, owed its existence to some Act of Parliament, and did not possess or claim to possess historic continuous identity. They were objected to by my Nonconformist friends because they excluded a large number of Protestants, and singled out the Church of England as entitled to be regarded as the Protestant religion, and they were objected to still more strongly by Presbyterians in Scotland because they appeared to put the Church of England in priority to the Church of Scotland and other religious communions in Scotland and other parts of the kingdom as the foremost type and symbol of Protestantism. It was in deference to those convergent views, convergent in their end though, as the House and Committee will see, directed in their initiative to totally different points, that the Government have been led to adopt the simpler formula which I now propose, and which, as I gathered yesterday, meets with general acceptance from all quarters of the House. The only objection which I know or have heard of as capable of being suggested against the simpler formula I am now suggesting is that it is indefinite. It requires the Sovereign simply to declare he is a faithful Protestant. There are some hon. Gentlemen, with whose views about the errors and the imperfections of the doctrines and practices of the Church
2474
of Rome I am myself in entire agreement, who think this is too vague, too equivocal, or, at any rate, too indefinite a form. What does Protestant mean? Is there any difficulty about that?
Mr. MOORE: What does it mean?
The PRIME MINISTER: Does the hon. and learned Member suggest he does not know what it means? He will have a bad time of it in Ulster if that view gets abroad. What is its historical origin? It may mean, as between two different Protestant communities of this and other countries, a considerable divergence in theology, in ceremonial, in ritual, in ecclesiastical discipline and organisation, but wherever the word "Protestant" is used, and to whatever religious community it is applied, it is a protest against certain distinctive doctrines of the Church of Rome. Therefore a man cannot be a faithful Protestant within the meaning of this Declaration if, in his heart, he entertains and believes in the doctrines which have been mentioned in the course of these Debates, and which are characteristic of the essential and discriminating teachings and ceremonial practices of the Church of Rome. Here you have a simple and most compendious, and yet least offensive form of Declaration on the part of the Sovereign, that he is prepared to defend the Protestant successia—a position which, in his heart and conscience, he shares to-day with the majority of his people. What more can any reasonable man desire? If I may venture to make an appeal to hon. Members whose opinions I entirely respect—hon. Members for Ulster and other parts where Protestantism is deeply engraved and where Protestant sentiments are jealously cherished—what more, I ask, can they desire than that a Sovereign, speaking on the most solemn occasion of his life, solemnly and sincerely before God and in the presence of the people of his Empire, declares himself to be a faithful Protestant?
Mr. MOORE: We do not know what you mean by Protestant.
The PRIME MINISTER: I have endeavoured to explain what everybody means by Protestant: that it is a person who, whatever his beliefs, protests against certain distinctive doctrines and practices and, as he thinks, errors of the Church of Rome. No man could make this Declaration who, in his conscience and heart, is a

2475
member of the Church of Rome or in sympathy with its essential characteristics and discriminating doctrines.
Mr. MOORE: But the Government will not allow an Amendment which would exclude a man in communion with the Church of Rome?
The PRIME MINISTER: Could a man be a faithful Protestant who was in communion with the Church of Rome? It is a contradiction in terms—it is an absurdity. In fact it could never occur except in the case of a man whose life gave the lie to his professions. In our opinion this is a simple form, adequate for the purpose, and satisfactory to the highest authorities—the Church of England. It is certainly not repugnant to the views of English Nonconformists, it is accepted by the Presbyterians of Scotland, and it unites Protestant opinion in this country in its support. I therefore ask the Committee to accept it.
Captain COOPER: I am not an Ulsterman, I am not an Orangeman, and I think that hon. Gentlemen behind me will admit that I am not in the habit of using any language offensive to the feelings of those who disagree with me, either in religion or politics; but in this matter I feel in a position of very great difficulty. Like many of my co-religionists in Ireland, I am not opposed to altering language which appears wantonly offensive to Roman Catholics, and if it had not been for the fact that the Prime Minister more or less suggested this change in the Bill, I do not think I should have opposed the Measure on the Second Reading; but when the Prime Minister announced these very momentous views I felt, without consultation with anybody, but simply from respect to my own views, that I was bound to oppose the Bill, because he disclosed that the Sovereign was to declare himself "a faithful Protestant." What does that mean? He has explained that as meaning that he is a man who protests against certain doctrines of the Church of Rome. Are the Greek Church Protestant? They protest against the Church of Rome. The late Mr. Bradlaugh also protested against many errors of the Church of Rome and also of the Church of England. I think this Declaration should be one which should be clearly understood by people, and there is no clear way of understanding what the word Protestant
2476
means. I know what a member of the Church of England believes. He believes the Thirty-nine Articles. I should not object to "a faithful Presbyterian" because I think a Presbyterian believes the Westminster Confession, but no man can say what are the dogmas of a Protestant. There is no known code by which you can ascertain what the views of a Protestant are. Therefore, I am compelled not only to vote against this Amendment, but against the Bill as well, because I believe that this Amendment shows that the Prime Minister attaches no importance to the Declaration or to the form of words, and is prepared to adopt any form which will meet with the least resistance in the House.
Mr. MOORE: I should like to say a few words upon this matter, because the Prime Minister has gone out of his way, quite unnecessarily, to cast reflections upon the devotion to Protestantism which is felt among my colleagues. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] I take it in that way. He has suggested that we do not know what Protestantism is. I wish the Liberal Government knew what it is. It is perfectly well understood by those whom I represent. Our definition of Protestant is that which is found in many important works and authorities. He is a Protestant who denies the temporal and spiritual authority of the Pope, and when we try from these Benches this evening, without any offence to my countrymen below the Gangway, to put into the words of the Bill what the word Protestant means, and only to carry out the dictionary meaning, which is that the person who professes himself to be a Protestant shall not be in communion with the Church of Rome, that is rejected by the Government, and I ask what does the Government understand by the word Protestant? I agree that if you take the word Protestantism strictly or technically it is not any religion; it is negation of certain doctrines which are held by the Church of Rome. In all Christian religions there is a great deal in common with the Church of Rome, and the Protestant community and any Christian religions have much in common with the Church of Rome, but what distinguishes them from the Church of Rome is this, that in regard to certain ideas and dogmas they protest against what they call the errors of the Church of Rome, and as long as I live I shall always protest against them. When we try to make that position clear, which is a historical and a logical

2477
position, the Government, which professes itself anxious to make a Protestant Declaration for a Protestant Sovereign, says, "That is not what we mean by Protestanism, the words 'faithful Protestant' covers everything. It is perfectly well understood by the Protestants." We have no doubt about our position, but after this Debate there will be the gravest doubt about the position of the Government.
These are new words only introduced to-day. They were brought forward in a night as the settled and matured considerations of the Government which introduced the Bill so long ago as 28th June, with words which the Prime Minister said could not be altered because they were in the Act of Settlement. These words are sprung upon us at a moment's notice, and we are asked to make what we can out of them, having nothing in the Statute but merely a declaratory statement last night by the Chief Secretary, whom in Ireland we do not accept as an exponent or defender of Protestantism, or a statement from the Prime Minister that in his opinion "faithful Protestant" meets the whole difficulty of the situation. It might have met the difficulty if we had not had these Amendments so rudely and abruptly rejected by the Government, who are pinning their faith to this word "Protestant" as if it were a sort of talisman or password. We want something more than that. We want these limitations set forth in the Statute to provide that a Protestant will be a man who is not in communion with the Church of Rome, and thereby protests against these doctrines which the Prime Minister did not hesitate to call errors. I did not hear any challenge below the Gangway that that was offensive. All the offensive remarks are from this side. A Liberal Prime Minister can say what he likes about it. The Prime Minister says the word "Protestant" covers everything and we are not allowed any limitation. I hope my hon. Friend will move one which will make clear exactly not what the Government mean, but what the House of Commons means by the word "Protestant." The Chief Secretary made a reluctant admission that after all the country behind the House was entirely Protestant, and wants to secure a Protestant success, as far as the declaration is concerned. I therefore object very strongly to the Amendment as inadequate in view of all circumstances which have occurred and of the great uncertainty in which the Government have left us.
Mr. PETO: It seems to me that there is a little difference of opinion among one or two hon. Members as to what this word "Protestant" means and what the people of the country understand by it. I am entirely in accord with the Amendment which leaves out the words in the original Schedule of the Bill, because as the Declaration will remain it will be an absolutely simple, sufficient, efficient, honest, plain, English Declaration, something which I believe the people, be they high or low, as soon as the turmoil of this present moment has passed, will understand and will agree with, and if there is some doubt in the minds of some hon. Members above the Gangway as to what the word "Protestant" means, that doubt will not be shared to any general extent by any part of His Majesty's dominions. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Central Division of Glasgow said that if these words were in the Bill of Rights they must be in the Declaration. I entirely disagree with the right hon. Gentleman. I say there is a place for everything.
There are times and seasons, and what is in perfectly good taste and perfectly correct in one situation may in another situation be altogether out of place. There is a time to reap and a time to sow. The moment of the King's Coronation is the most solemn of his whole reign. It is a time not to sow discord or anything which, be they Roman Catholic subjects or Nonconformist subjects, shall place in their minds the slightest feeling of estrangement or want of union between them and their Sovereign. Any such thing is absolutely out of place. It is a time to reap the harvest of unbounded loyalty which finds its greatest expression in the loyalty which is due to the Crown at all times and which particularly goes forward at that moment. Therefore I am entirely in accord with the cutting out from the Declaration not only of anything regarding the belief of Roman Catholics, but also of anything which would identify the Sovereign, surreptitiously even as it might appear to some people, with the Church of England as by law established. I believe the Establishment is perfectly safe. At any rate, I do not believe that by putting words into the mouth of the Sovereign we shall gain anything whatever. I think a plain simple declaration as it will be understood throughout the length and breadth of the Empire that the King is a "faithful Protestant," is amply sufficient, and all that is either necessary

2479
or suitable on the great occasion. There should be no single word or syllable which would indicate that there is any difference between the King and his subjects.
Mr. PRIMROSE: From the discussion on the first Amendment this afternoon I found that the acute legal minds in the House were at variance. I think, therefore, that in a Bill of this sort we should take the greatest care as to its legal significance and meaning. I venture to think that the Prime Minister in his speech fairly contradicted himself. He first of all said that the repudiation was unnecessary, because in the original form of the Declaration in the Bill the Sovereign declared himself a member of the Church of England, and that that entailed belief in the Thirty-nine Articles, and then by the Amendment he has cut out—quite rightly in my view—the words "member of the" and left the word "Protestant" alone. Therefore, by his own confession, there is no corresponding denial of the doctrine of transubstantiation. That point was raised yesterday, but the Chief Secretary for Ireland never dealt with it. He dealt with the Declaration as if it were a sort of Aunt Sally, having a shot at it on every possible occasion. I do hope that to-night we shall have an answer to some of the issues raised in the Debate. I should like to make a quotation from the late Mr. Gladstone There seems to be a general opinion that the word "Protestant" is not sufficient. That apparently was the view of the late Mr. Gladstone as appears from an extract from one of his letters which has been published. The word "Protestant" was, he held, not sufficient, but necessarily entailed some repudiation of the doctrine of the Church of Rome. I have no doubt that a large majority in this House is in favour of the Government proposal, but I do hope that Members, before they give a final vote to decide the fate of this Bill, will realise, whatever their views may be, that their constituents are of a different opinion.
Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: I voted loyally for the Second Reading of this Bill, and I voted against every Amendment moved to-day, and I shall also vote against this Amendment, because I suport the Declaration as introduced by the Government and laid on the Table. It seems to me that the original form of the Declaration that was proposed was definite. It was accepted by
2480
the Roman Catholics, and I cannot understand how it is offensive to the Nonconformists to whom the Prime Minister's Amendment is a mere sop. When it is laid down in the Act of Settlement that the Sovereign of this country is to be in communion with the Church of England, as by law established, I think that we members of the Church of England have the right to say that if the Sovereign is to be in communion with us he shall be a faithful member of the Church of England. Change the Statute if you like, and then I will consider changing my opinion on this Amendment of the Prime Minister, but until then I cannot understand the volte face of the Prime Minister when he tears up his own definite declaration supporting the Church of England as by law established. The Act of Settlement there introduces a phrase which is definite. We have heard from various quarters of the House that they are not satisfied with the word "Protestant" standing alone; and I think that there is something to be said for that. Is not an Agnostic a Protestant? Is not an atheist? We do not want an Agnostic on the Throne of this country.
I say emphatically when you have in the Act of Settlement a law which says that the Sovereign of this country shall be in communion with the Church of England it is a mockery to come to the Church of England and say, "the Sovereign shall be in communion with you, but he may be an Agnostic or an atheist"; and I think that the argument is entitled, therefore, to some consideration. I respect the opinions of the Agnostic. I do not set up to be infallible; but as long as you have an established church the Sovereign must be a faithful member of that church, and there should be no possibility of his being an Agnostic, an atheist, or a member of any other sect. With regard to the word "Protestant," the Prime Minister did refer to what he said was the historical origin of the word. I submit to him that the historic origin of the word "Protestant" does not support his contention. The first mention of the word "Protestant" was at the Diet of Spires about the year 1529. Certain German princes, some of whom were faithful Roman Catholics, or believed in the dogmas of Roman Catholics, protested against certain restrictions passed by the Diet of Spires against private worship in their own chapels. That protest was the origin of the word "Protestant," which, as left by the Prime Minister, may mean something

2481
perfectly clear to him, but we know very well how words change, and therefore I shall, as I have done throughout, vote loyally for the Bill and against the Amendment.
Mr. CHARLES BATHURST: The value of this amended Declaration depends, in my opinion, partly on the fact that the word "Protestant" is spelt with a capital P, and possibly also on the fact that it is to be not merely orally uttered but also subscribed, and therefore, I presume, it is to appear in writing with a capital P. I entirely agree with what the hon. Member has said as to the meaning of the word "Protestant." The Prime Minister speaks with confidence as to the meaning of "Protestant," but I wonder whether he has conducted any research in the dictionaries or elsewhere as to its meaning. I have done so, and I find in all the English dictionaries that there are two important meanings attached to the word "Protestant." One is positive and affirmative in character, and the other is negative and repudiatory. I find from the dictionary that the negative meaning of the word which the Prime Minister led us to believe was its only possible meaning, has no greater force than its positive and affirmative meaning. The Protestant Dictionary, the great authority among Protestants on the subject of religious phraseology, by the Rev. Charles Bright and the Rev. Charles Neil, leaders of the Protestant Reformed Church of England, points out the following facts. They say, first of all, that a Protestant means one who makes a protestation or declaration of belief or opinion or resolution. The second meaning it has is that of protest against the declaration of any belief or opinion or action—that is to say, the first meaning is positive, and it is only the secondary meaning which is negative. They say the positive and affirmative meaning of the word "Protestant" is too much ignored and forgotten, and that it is its primary signification. They go on further to say that German theologians and parties of reform used the word in its positive sense. Their protestation was not a string of negatives, but a declaration of their faith, positive and negative. From them the word and its meaning passed into England. The word was not originally used in contrast with the word "Catholic," nor, at first, with "Popish." The seventeenth century divines all unhesitatingly
2482
called themselves Protestants. It must be a fact perfectly familiar to all those who have studied history at all that a very large number of the seventeenth-century divines in this country were not such persons as we now call Protestants. I say the word "Protestant" standing by itself, without some such explanatory words as it is now endeavoured to introduce into the Declaration, renders it impossible for us to realise exactly what is meant by the Prime Minister's amended formula.
Lord HUGH CECIL: I wish to explain why I support the Prime Minister on this Amendment. There are two objections raised to the Amendment. In the first place it is said the word "Protestant" is vague, and they do not know what it means. The answer I make to that is that it is quite true we do not know what it means, but we do know what it does not mean. We know who is a Protestant and who is not a Protestant. We know a Roman Catholic is not a Protestant. The purpose of this Declaration is to give some security that the Sovereign is not a Roman Catholic. It is quite sufficient for us that he should say he is not a Roman Catholic. My hon. Friend said that he objects to this Amendment because it excludes the mention of the Church of England. Of course, this Declaration, as has been repeatedly pointed out, makes no difference as to the statutory requirements on the Sovereign. He is exactly in the same position as he was, and, therefore, he must still join in communion with the Church of England, and when he partakes of the Sacrament he certainly must not be an atheist or Agnostic, but must be a faithful member before he can properly receive the Sacrament. Therefore, I do not think any words are required in the Declaration in reference to the Church of England. I should have preferred that the words of the Act of Settlement should have been exactly copied. That is declaring, "I am a Protestant and do join in communion with the Church of England." I greatly prefer that there should be no mention of the Church of England than the mention in the original draft of the Bill. I think there was much more serious objection to that, and, on the whole, the Prime Minister's Amendment is a decided improvement. This will still have to go to another place, and it will be open to the Bishops to say whether they think the

2483
Church of England is badly treated or not. I see no reason why this House should not accept the Amendment.
Mr. MORTON: I think this Debate ought to satisfy the mind of the Government that they ought not to have brought in this Bill at all. Even if that is not so they ought certainly to have given the country more time to consider it. We have a right to complain of how this Bill is being rushed through, and I make that complaint especially with regard to the altered Declaration we have before us. The Prime Minister has told us that the Church of England and the Roman Catholics are in favour of this and support it, and that the Nonconformist bodies in England are satisfied that it is throwing the Church of England overboard. Therefore I am not surprised that the Nonconformists of England are satisfied, but I am rather surprised that the Noble Lord the Member for Oxford University (Lord Hugh Cecil) should also be satisfied with the Church of England being thrown overboard. The Prime Minister seemed also to suggest that the Presbyterians in Scotland were in favour of this. How can he suggest they should be in favour of something they had never seen I cannot understand, unless some of those people had second sight. I venture to say we have evidence of the Petitions presented right up to to-day from Presbyterians that they have not gone in favour of this thing that they have never seen. There is a large body of Presbyterians in England now and they have not said anything in favour of it either as it originally appeared or as it is altered. Nobody has a chance to consider this new form of Declaration. There is no mandate from the country for this Bill.
The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is not confining himself to the Amendment, but is talking about the Bill.
Mr. MORTON: Several hon. Gentlemen spoke about the Thirty-nine Articles. One hon. Member said, and of course I am in order now, because he was allowed to say it, that the Members of the Church of England did not believe in the Thirty-nine Articles. A so-called Churchman who does not believe in the Thirty-nine Articles cannot be an honest member of the Church of England.
Captain COOPER: If the hon. Member refers to me, I said a faithful member of the Church of England did believe in the Thirty-nine Articles.
Mr. MORTON: That is what I believe myself. The Thirty-nine Articles are in support of Protestantism from beginning to end, and that is why a certain view is taken of them by people who are called Anglicans at one time, High Churchmen at another, and Ritualists at another. I once asked an educated Roman Catholic, not a wild Irishman, what he thought of a Ritualist, and he simply said "mock-turtle." In the City of London we do not believe in mock-turtle. That is why the City is so strongly Protestant. It is said that there are some offensive words in the old Declaration.
The CHAIRMAN: Will the hon. Member apply himself to the Amendment? He is saying nothing whatever about it at present.
Mr. MORTON: The Prime Minister is proposing to insert the words "faithful Protestant," and it is to the word "Protestant" I wish to refer. We are told that the words "idolatrous" and "superstitious" are offensive. But they are not nearly so offensive as the word "Protestant." The word his Holiness the Pope does not like is the word "Protestant," which means one who protests against the errors of Rome. Presently we should be asked to take out that word, and then to take away a good many of the Thirty-nine Articles. It is much to be regretted that this matter should have been brought forward. It is not fair to the people in the north of Scotland, whom I represent, and who have had no opportunity of considering this proposal. It is not fair for any Government to spring these things on the country. The Government has no mandate from anybody, except, I suppose, the Pope, and that is what we object to in this country. I trust that even now the Prime Minister will allow the matter to go over, at any rate, until November, so that he can say and we can say that he is neither ashamed nor afraid to allow the people of the country to consider the measures he brings forward.
12.0 M.
Mr. J. G. BUTCHER: I rise for the purpose of expressing my hearty agreement with the Amendment of the Prime Minister—[HON. MEMBERS: "Agreed" and "Divide"]—for this simple and sufficient reason, that it follows the words of the Act of Settlement. Some hon. Members who object to the word "Protestant" forget that it is taken from Section (1) of

2485
the Act of Settlement itself, so that when the King is asked to make a declaration that he is a Protestant he is simply saying that he is, on his accession to the Throne, complying with one of the conditions of the Act of Settlement. I confess I wish the Prime Minister could see his way to go a little further and follow the Act of Settlement, Section (2), which declares that the King must join the Church of England. I am not quite in agreement with my friend the hon. Member for Denbigh in saying that joining in communion with the Church of England means the same thing as being a member of the Church of England. I do not think it does. So far as this Amendment is concerned it is absolutely unanswerable.
Question, "That those words stand part of the Schedule," put, and negatived.
Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: I put down an Amendment on the Paper in order to try and obtain some further definition of the word "Protestant" from the Prime Minister, but I do not wish to press it.
Mr. BRUNSKILL: I beg to move, after the word "Protestant" to insert the words "meaning thereby a Christian who denies the authority of the Pope in matters temporal and spiritual."
We know very well the meaning of the word "Protestant" in Ulster, but we want to know what the Prime Minister means by the word "Protestant" in his Amendment. There is no doubt, judging from the Prime Minister's original draft Bill, that he did not believe the word "Protestant" by itself was a sufficient term to use in the Declaration, for he added on to it the words "faithful member of the Protestant Reformed Church by law established in England." He must have felt if something else was not added to the word "Protestant" that it would be quite possible for an atheist to say, "I am a Protestant," though he protested against the doctrines of the Church of England just in the same way as he protested against the doctrine of the Church of Rome. I think the words as they stood in the Prime Minister's original Schedule were far better than the word "Protestant" by itself. It was only under the pressure of the Nonconformists and the Presbyterians who sit upon the other side of the House that the Prime Minister jettisoned the Church of England. It was owing to that pressure that he eventually found salvation in the use of
2486
the term "Protestant." In Acts of Parliament, when you use a loose term like "Protestant," you require to have a Definition Clause. I think the Definition Clause which I am now proposing is one which the Prime Minister cannot object to, and I do not believe that any Roman Catholic Member of this House will object to it. It has been pointed out that a Protestant is one who denies Roman Catholic doctrines. If that is so, why is the Prime Minister afraid to put it into the Bill?
An hon. Member has asserted that the, word "Protestant" is an insult. I suppose the Prime Minister evolved this new form out of his own head, and I suppose he must have known that the great objection of Roman Catholics to the Declaration of the King is not so much because they object to the words in that Declaration and its harsh language, but because they see in it a kind of peg upon which to hang an excuse to, get rid of the Declaration altogether. Nationalists consider it is an insult to them that a Roman Catholic is not allowed to be the King. In a few years' time the Nationalists will be saying, "Everybody knows that the word 'Protestant' is an insult to Roman Catholics, and we must have the word 'Protestant' out." If the Prime Minister believes that a Protestant is a man who objects to the doctrines of the Church of Rome, why does he object to my interpretation in which there is no insult? Will the right hon. Gentleman agree to insert an Interpretation Clause to show what he and the Liberal party mean by the word "Protestant?" I will tell the Committee why I distrust the Prime Minister and the Liberal party in this matter. The right hon. Gentleman told us the other night that he believed the Declaration was absolutely useless, and that it ought to go. If that is his opinion why does he not go the whole hog and take away the Declaration altogether? He was afraid to do that because there were so many of his supporters whose minds are, in the graphic language of the Chief Secretary, "centred in their seats," and consequently they knew that in England there was a determination that at any rate the King of England should remain a Protestant, and that he should make some declaration of this kind. The Prime Minister has framed a Declaration which he does not believe is necessary and his heart is not in it. For these reasons I distrust the Declaration as it stands at

2487
present. When I first saw the original draft of the Prime Minister's proposal I thought he had deliberately brought in the Church of England so as to create a storm amongst his friends and supporters of the Nonconformist faith, so that he would be able to say, when they began to get angry about it, "We have dropped this mention of the Church of England and fallen back on the word 'Protestant.'" I am not myself a Roman Catholic, and I am glad I am not.
Mr. MacVEAGH: So are we.
Mr. BRUNSKILL: I believe they would be very glad to receive me in their faith. I want to have the word "Protestant" defined in an Act of Parliament, because if you look in the dictionaries you will find any number of definitions. The Standard Dictionary of the English language gives two. First:—
'A member of one of those bodies of Christians that adhere to Protestantism as opposed to Roman Catholicism."
And, secondly,
"A Christian who denounces the authority of the Pope, and holds to the right of Bible judgment in matters of religion."
If you go to the Century Dictionary you find a number of other meanings given. First of all you find it given as
"One who protests"
without saying what he protests against, and. secondly, as
"One who makes a protestation."
and if you look at the word "Protestation" you find it is
"A solemn or formal declaration."
The King, therefore, in saying, "I am a faithful Protestant," might as well say, "I am a man who is faithfully making a protestation." It gives another definition:—
"A member or an adherent of one of those Christian bodies which are descended from the Reformation of the 16th century."
I do not ask the Prime Minister to put in the Bill any of these definitions, but I do ask him to put in a definition that the word "Protestant," as used here, is the definition of a Christian. It is useless for the Prime Minister to say that because I introduce the Pope or the Roman Catholic religion into this Amendment it is insulting. The term "Protestant" is just as insulting as if I say one does not believe in Roman Catholicism.
The PRIME MINISTER: The hon. Member has repeated at very great length arguments which have been addressed to
2488
the Committee on previous Amendments. Although I listened to his speech carefully, I could not find a single new argument. I am not going to repeat the arguments I have used. The term "Protestant" is, I believe, perfectly well understood in Ulster as it is elsewhere. It is only apparently from the representatives of Ulster that we have any doubt expressed. It is certainly perfectly well understood in Great Britain, and I believe it is equally well understood in Ireland. These words, "a faithful Protestant," are accepted by the authoritative representatives of the Church of England, by English and Welsh Nonconformity, by the Presbyterians of Scotland, and, so far as I know, of Ireland also. There is no doubt in any quarter what "Protestant" means, and it is absolutely superfluous to introduce any definition.
Viscount CASTLEREAGH: I am sorry that the Prime Minister has taken up this attitude of entirely refusing any Amendment. I am sure the right hon. Gentleman will admit that the term "Protestant" may include an Agnostic or an atheist. The words suggested by my hon. Friend would make the matter far simpler than it is at the present moment. There is no doubt that the action of the Prime Minister in bringing in this Bill has excited a storm of indignation all over the country, upon which I do not think he calculated. Indeed, a great many of us did not believe there existed so strong a feeling, and I think the right hon. Gentleman would be well advised, seeing that this Bill is going through, to—if I may use the expression—pander to the susceptibilities of the very strong body of Protestants in this country by putting in some such words as those suggested in the Amendment, and so relieving the question of many of the difficulties and a great deal of the bitterness which exists at the present time.
Captain CRAIG: The Prime Minister appears to be most indignant because my hon. and learned Friend merely proposes to put into the Schedule the right hon. Gentleman's own definition of Protestantism. He declares that the only people who do not understand the meaning of the word are those who come from Ulster. I would suggest, however, that he should study the remarkable speech made by the Chief Secretary for Ireland yesterday, in which he confessed that he did not know what a Protestant was. It was that right hon. Gentleman who started this whole

2489
trouble. But the indignation of the Prime Minister must surely be assumed. The discussion which has gone on to-day is simply crystallised in the short Amendment of my hon. and learned Friend. It is unfortunate we have not the Amendment in print, but that is due to the wretching bungling by the Government of their business. They have given such short notice of their own Amendments that hon. Members have not had time to put down the Amendments they desire to suggest. It is not fair that a Bill which is
possibly the most striking measure of the session, altering, as it does, part of the constitution, should only have three days set apart for it. I rose more to support my colleague than to contribute anything to the Debate, but I think hon. Members who cry "divide" have very little idea of what they are doing.
Question put, "That those words be there inserted."
The Committee divided: Ayes, 58; Noes, 242.

Division No. 150.]

AYES.

[12.30 a.m.

Agar-Robartes, Hon. T. C. R.

Grant, J. A.

Munro, R.

Banner, John S. Harmood

Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne)

Newton, Harry Kottingham

Barnston, Harry

Hall, D. B. (Isle of Wight)

Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry, N.)

Horne, Wm. E. (Surrey, Guildford)

Primrose, Hon. Neil James

Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton)

Horner, A. L.

Quilter, William Eley C.

Boyle, W. Lewis (Norfolk, Mid)

Houston, Robert Paterson

Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

Carlile, Edward Hildred

Kerr-Smiley, Peter Kerr

Rolleston, Sir John

Castlereagh, Viscount

Keswick, William

Rutherford, Watson

Chaloner, Colonel R. G. W.

Kirkwood, John H. M.

Stewart, Gershom (Ches. Wirral)

Clay, Captain H. H. Spender

Kyffin-Taylor, G.

Terrell, G. (Wilts, N.W.)

Clyde, James Avon

Llewelyn, Venables

Thompson, Robert (Belfast, North)

Coates, Major Edward F.

Lloyd, George Ambrose

Thomson, W. Mitchell (Down, N.)

Cooper, Capt. Bryan R. (Dublin, S.)

Locker-Lampson, O. (Ramsay)

Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire)

Cory, Sir Clifford John

Lockwood, Rt. Hon. Lt.-Col. A. R.

Warde, Col. C. E. (Kent, Mid)

Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.)

Lonsdale, John Brownlee

Wheler, Granville C. H.

Dairymple, Viscount

MacCaw, William J. MacGeagh

Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. S. (Glasgow, E.)

Mackinder, Halford J.

Wood, John (Stalybridge)

Falle, Bertram Godfray

M'Calmont, Colonel James

Fleming, Valentine

Moore, William

TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Brunskill and Captain Craig.

Foster, H. S. (Suffolk, N.)

Morton, Alpheus, Cleophas

Gibbs, George Abraham

NOES.

Abraham, William (Dublin Harbour)

Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

Agnew, George William

Cowan, W. H.

Hall, D. B. (Isle of Wight)

Ainsworth, John Stirling

Craig, Herbert James (Tynemouth)

Hancock, John George

Allen, Charles P.

Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet)

Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)

Armitage, Robert

Crosfield, Arthur H.

Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

Ashley, Wilfred W.

Cullinan, John

Hardie, J. Keir

Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry

Dalziel, Sir James H. (Kirkcaldy)

Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

Baker, Harold T. (Accrington)

Dawes, J. A.

Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)

Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

Delany, William

Moslem, Lewis (Monmouth)

Barclay, Sir Thomas

Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas

Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

Barlow, Sir John Emmott

Dickinson, W. H. (St. Pancras, N.)

Haworth, Arthur A.

Barnes, George N.

Dillon, John

Hayden, John Patrick

Barran, Sir John N. (Hawick)

Dixon, Charles Harvey

Hayward, Evan

Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.)

Donelan, Captain A. J. C.

Hazleton, Richard

Bentham, George Jackson

Doris, W.

Healy, Maurice (Cork, N.E.)

Bentinck, Lord Henry Cave dish-

Duffy, William J.

Healy, Timothy Michael

Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

Duncannon, Viscount

Helme, Norval Watson

Bowerman, Charles W.

Dunn, Sir W. H. (Southwark, W.)

Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North)

Elibank, Master of

Henderson, J. M. (Aberdeen, W.)

Brady, Patrick Joseph

Ellis, Rt. Hon. John Edward

Herbert, Col. Sir Ivor (Mon. S.)

Brocklehurst, William B.

Elverston, Harold

Higham, John Sharp

Bryce, J. Annan

Esmonde, Sir Thomas

Hillier, Dr. Alfred Peter

Burke, E. Haviland-

Falconer, James

Hindle, F. G.

Burns, Rt. Hon. John

Farrell, James Patrick

Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

Butcher, John George (York)

Ferens, T. R.

Hogan, Michael

Buxton, C. R. (Devon, Mid)

Ffrench, Peter

Holt, Richard Durning

Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, N.)

Field, William

Horne, Charles Silvester (Ipswich).

Buxton, Rt. Hon. Sydney C. (Poplar)

Flavin, Michael Joseph

Hughes, Spencer Leigh

Byles, William Pollard

Gelder, Sir William Alfred

Illingworth, Percy H.

Carr-Gomm, H. W.

Gibson, Sir James Puckering

Jones, Edgar R. (Merthyr Tydvil)

Cawley, H. T. (Lancs., Heywood)

Gill, Alfred Henry

Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

Chancellor, Henry George

Glanville, H. J.

Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

Chapple, Dr. William Allen

Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

Jowett, Frederick William

Clancy, John Joseph

Gooch, Henry Cubitt

Joyce, Michael

Clough, William

Goulding, Edward

Alfred Keating, Matthew

Collins, Godfrey P. (Greenock)

Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

Kelly, Edward

Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

Griffith, Ellis Jones (Anglesey)

Kennedy, Vincent Paul

Compton-Rickett, Sir J.

Guest, Major

King, Sir Henry Seymour (Hull)

Condon, Thomas Joseph

Gulland, John William

King, J. (Somerset, N.)

Corbett, A. Cameron

Hackett, J.

Lambert, George

Lane-Fox, G. R.

O'Neill, Dr. Charles (Armagh, S.)

Spicer, Sir Albert

Lardner, James Carrige Rushe

O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.)

O'Shee, James John

Strachey, Sir Edward

Lehmann, Rudolf C.

Paget, Almeric Hugh

Sutherland, J. E.

Lewis, John Herbert

Palmer, Godfrey Mark

Sutton, John E.

Low. Sir Frederick (Norwich)

Parker, James (Halifax)

Talbot, Lord Edmund

Lundon, T.

Pearce, William

Taylor, T. C. (Radcliffe)

Lyell, Charles Henry

Pease, Rt. Hon. Joseph A.

Tennant, Harold John

Lynch, Arthur Alfred

Peto, Basil Edward

Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

Thynne, Lord Alexander

Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

Pointer, Joseph

Tobin, Alfred Aspinall

MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

Pollard, Sir George H.

Toulmin, George

MacVeagh, Jeremiah

Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

M'Callum, John M.

Power, Patrick Joseph

Twist, Henry

M'Curdy, C. A.

Priestley, Sir W. E. B. (Bradford, E.)

Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

M'Kean, John

Pringle, William M. R.

Verney, Frederick William

McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

Radford, George Heynes

Vivian, Henry

Mallet, Charles Edward

Raffan, Peter Wilson

Walters, John Tudor

Marks, George Croydon

Rainy, Adam Rolland

Ward, A. S. (Herts, Watford)

Meagher, Michael

Raphael, Herbert Henry

Waring, Walter

Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

Reddy, Michael

Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay

Meehan, Patrick A. (Queen's County)

Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

Middlebrook, William

Redmond, William (Clare, E.)

Waterlow, David Sydney

Millar, James Duncan

Rendall, Athelstan

Watt, Henry A.

Montagu, Hon. E. S.

Ridley, Samuel Forde

White, Sir George (Norfolk)

Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

Roberts, George H. (Norwich)

White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire)

Morpeth, Viscount

Robinson, S.

White, Sir Luke (York, E.R.)

Muldoon, John

Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

White, Patrick (Meath, North)

Murray, Capt. Hon. Arthur C.

Ronaldshay, Earl of

Whyte, Alexander F. (Perth)

Muspratt, Max

Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

Williams, John (Glamorgan)

Nannetti, Joseph P.

Samuel. Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland)

Williams, Penry (Middlesbrough)

Neilson, Francis

Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

Wilson, Hon. G. G. (Hull, W.)

Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncaster)

Sanders, Robert A.

Wilson, J. W. (Worcestershire, N.)

Nolan, Joseph

Scanlan, Thomas

Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

Nugent, Sir Walter Richard

Scott, A. H. (Ashton-under-Lyne)

Wing, Thomas

Nussey, Sir T. Willans

Seely, Col., Right Hon. J. E. B.

Wood, Hon. E F. L. (Ripon)

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

Sheehy, David

Wood, T. M'Kinnon (Glasgow)

O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

Shortt, Edward

Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

Simon, John Allsebrock

O'Doherty, Philip

Smith, H. B. Lees (Northampton)

TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. Dudley Ward and Mr. Wedgwood Benn.

O'Kelly, Edward P. (Wicklow, W.)

Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

O'Malley, William

Soares, Ernest Joseph

The PRIME MINISTERmoved to leave out the words "Reformed Church by law established in England."
Amendment agreed to.
Mr. LAURENCE HARDY: I beg to move to insert the words "in communion with the Church of England by law established, and a."
I was not allowed to move this Amendment at an earlier stage, but I think I am now entitled to move it. This is a question we are bound to raise in this House, because, after all, we must remember that these words would not be necessary under the old conditions when we followed a distinctly different policy of repudiation. The Government have adopted a policy of affirmation, and it is, in my opinion, necessary that we should follow the Act of Settlement by putting in words which shall not only affirm that the Sovereign is a faithful Protestant, but also what particular form of Protestant he is. These words will serve as a definition of "Protestant," which has been frequently asked during this discussion. I am glad that we have now emerged from the more debatable part of this matter.
2492
There was a very valuable speech made on behalf of the Nationalist Members by the hon. Member for East Clare (Mr. W. Redmond) in which he said:
"There is, so far as I know, not the slightest objection to these proposed alterations from Catholic Members of this House. Indeed, I would go further, and say that I cannot conceive that, it would be, under any possible circumstances, the duty of Catholics to interfere in the drafting and phraseology of this Bill, in reference to the Protestantism of His Majesty the King. That is entirely a matter for hon. Gentlemen in this House who are Protestants."—OFFICIAL REPORT, 27th July, 1910, col. 2196.
So far as this Amendment is concerned the Nationalist Members stand entirely on one side, and leave us to decide as to the drafting of the words which the Sovereign should use. I would urge very strongly on the Government that they should adhere to the line indicated in the first instance, though I did not like the original words. I think we should adhere to the Act of Settlement, and by that means secure some definition of the words the Government now propose to put in the Declaration. I do not desire to dwell on the point as it has already been dealt with in the speeches of the hon. Member for York (Mr. J. G. Butcher) and the Noble Lord the Member for Oxford University (Lord Hugh Cecil).
The PRIME MINISTER: No doubt, technically, this Amendment is not out of order, because it will read sensibly with the words of my Motion which the Committee has substituted for those which stood originally in the Bill, but substantially it, is asking the House to reverse what it has already decided. The sole objects of the Amendments which I moved—one carried by a large majority and the other without a Division—was to get rid of these words and substitute the simpler formula. What the hon. Member is asking us to do is to reverse the decision already adopted by a large majority.
Mr. LAURENCE HARDY: It is only fair to say that I desired to move my Amendment before the others were moved, and it was owing to pressure from various parts of the House that it was postponed.
The PRIME MINISTER: I am not complaining in the least of the hon. Member's conduct. I am only pointing out that the Committee has come to a decision on the point. But out of respect for the hon. Member I may go further and point out that this Amendment in any view of the matter is totally unnecessary. I will not go into the question which we have already debated to-day as to whether or not it is desirable or necessary to append a definition to the term Protestant. The Committee has decided that it is not. The object of the Declaration proposed by the hon. Member is already amply secured in the first place, as he himself admits, by the Act of Settlement, by which the Sovereign is required to join in communion with the Church of England. Therefore it is not necessary for us to say that he shall join in communion. As to ate sense in which the words "join in communion" are to be interpreted, it has been suggested that they mean a membership or fellowship of the body. But whether they are taken in the larger sense or in the more restricted sense of being a communicant or taking the communion, the Sovereign is equally bound, because, as the hon. Gentleman knows, it is part of the ceremony of coronation that the Sovereign should take the communion in the Church, and, therefore, whichever way you take it, whether in the narrow or the wide sense, it is specially provided for already by Statute law and by custom. On the other hand, objection has been taken in Scotland, England, and elsewhere to the repetition of these unnecessary words in the Declaration. Having regard to those objections, the law as
2494
it stands and the decision which the Committee has already arrived at, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not press his Amendment to a Division.
Mr. J. G. BUTCHER: The House has not arrived at any decision inconsistent with the Amendment of my hon. Friend. The truth is the words "join with the Church of England" are not identical with the words "members of the Church of England." The Church of Scotland can join the Church of England. Members of the Episcopal Church of Ireland, or of every Episcopal Church throughout the world, can join the communion of the Church of England, but it does not follow they are members of the Church of England. Therefore, the point has not been decided. The Prime Minister says these words are unnecessary because they are already in the Act of Settlement. If that argument has force then the word "Protestant" is unnecessary because it is already in the Act of Settlement. In the preamble to Section (3) of the Act, it says, Whereas it is requisite and necessary that some further provision be made for securing our religion, laws, and liberties, from and after the death of His Majesty, be it enacted that whosoever shall hereafter come into possession of the Crown shall join in communion with the Church of England as by law established." The Amendment proposes that inasmuch as we have by the former Amendment decided that the Sovereign shall comply with the condition laid down in the Act of Settlement, that he is to be a Protestant, so now we ask the Sovereign to comply with the second condition in the Act of Settlement by joining the communion of the Church of England. Either neither of these conditions should be referred to in the Declaration or both of them. I can understand the Prime Minister saying he does not want either of them, but he has accepted the word "Protestant," and I say he is absolutely bound, following the terms of the Act, to accept what is proposed by my hon. Friend.
Mr. LAURENCE HARDY: At this late hour I do not desire to put the Committee to the trouble of a Division, though I thought it was necessary to bring this point before hon. Members.
Question put, "That this be the Schedule of the Bill."
The Committee divided: Ayes, 244; Noes, 54.

Division No. 151.]

AYES.

[12.50 a.m.

Abraham, William (Dublin Harbour)

Hackett, John

O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

Agnew, George William

Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

O'Doherty, Philip

Ainsworth, John Stirling

Hall, Frederick (Normanton)

O'Kelly, Edward P. (Wicklow, W.)

Allen, Charles Peter

Hancock, John George

O'Malley, William

Arbuthnot, Gerald A.

Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)

O'Neill, Dr. Charles (Armagh, S.)

Armitage, Robert

Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

Ashley, Wilfred W.

Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

O'Shee, James John

Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry

Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

Paget, Almeric Hugh

Baird, John Lawrence

Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)

Palmer, Godfrey Mark

Baker, Harold T. (Accrington)

Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

Parker, James (Halifax)

Balcarres, Lord

Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

Pearce, William

Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

Haworth, Arthur A.

Pease, Rt. Hon. Joseph A.

Barclay, Sir T.

Hayden, John Patrick

Peto, Basil Edward

Barlow, Sir John Emmott

Hayward, Evan

Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

Barnes, George N.

Hazleton, Richard

Pointer, Joseph

Barran, Sir John N. (Hawick)

Healy, Maurice (Cork, N.E.)

Pollard, Sir George H.

Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.)

Healy, Timothy Michael

Pollock, Ernest Murray

Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton)

Helme, Norval Watson

Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

Benn, Ion Hamilton (Greenwich)

Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

Power, Patrick Joseph

Benn, W. (Tower Hamlets, S. Geo.)

Henderson, J. M. (Aberdeen, W.)

Priestley, Sir W. E. B. (Bradford, E.)

Bentham, G. J.

Herbert, Col. Sir Ivor (Mon. S.)

Pringle, William M. R.

Bentinck, Lord Henry Cavendish

Higham, John Sharp

Radford, George Heynes

Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

Hillier, Dr. A. P.

Raffan, Peter Wilson

Bowerman, Charles W.

Hindle, Frederick George

Rainy, Adam Rolland

Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, N.)

Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

Raphael, Herbert Henry

Brady, Patrick Joseph

Hogan, Michael

Reddy, Michael

Brocklehurst, W. B.

Holt, Richard Durning

Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

Burke, E. Haviland-

Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

Redmond, William (Clare, E.)

Burns, Rt. Hon. John

Horne, C. Silvester (Ipswich)

Ridley, Samuel Forde

Butcher, John George (York)

Hughes, Spencer Leigh

Roberts, George H. (Norwich)

Buxton, C. R. (Devon, Mid)

Jones, Edgar R. (Merthyr Tydvil)

Robinson, Sidney

Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, North)

Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

Buxton, Rt. Hon. S. C. (Poplar)

Jones, William (Carnarvonshlre)

Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

Carr-Gomm, H. W.

Jowett, Frederick William

Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland)

Cawley, H. T. (Lancs. Heywood)

Joyce, Michael

Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

Chapple, Dr. William Allen

Kelly, Edward

Sanders, Robert Arthur

Clancy, John Joseph

Kennedy, Vincent Paul

Scanlan, Thomas

Clough, William

King, Sir Henry Seymour (Hull)

Scott, A. H. (Ashton-under-Lyne)

Collins, Godfrey P. (Greenock)

King, Joseph (Somerset, North)

Seely, Col. Rt. Hon. J. E. B.

Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

Kirkwood, John H. M.

Sheehy, David

Compton-Rickett, Sir J.

Lambert, George

Shortt, Edward

Condon, Thomas Joseph

Lane-Fox, G. R.

Simon, John Allsebrook

Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

Lardner, James Carrige Rushe

Smith, H. B. Lees (Northampton)

Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.)

Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

Cowan, William Henry

Lehmann, Rudolf C.

Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

Lewis, John Herbert

Strachey, Sir Edward

Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet)

Llewelyn, Venables

Sutton, John E.

Crosfield, Arthur H.

Lloyd, George Ambrose

Talbot, Lord Edmund

Cullinan, John

Low, Sir Frederick (Norwich)

Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

Dalziel, Sir James H. (Kirkcaldy)

Lundon, Thomas

Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

Dawes, James Arthur

Lyell, Charles Henry

Thynne, Lord Alexander

Delany, William

Lynch, Arthur Alfred

Tobin, Alfred Aspinall

Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas

Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

Toulmin, George

Dickinson, W. H. (St. Pancras, N.)

Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

Dillon, John

MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

Twist, Henry

Donelan, Captain A.

MacVeagh, Jeremiah

Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

Doris, William

M'Callum, John M.

Verney, Frederick William

Duffy, William J.

M'Curdy, Charles Albert

Ward, A. S. (Herts, Watford)

Duncannon, Viscount

M'Kean, John

Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)

Dunn, Sir W. H. (Southwark, W.)

McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

Waring, Walter

Elibank, Master of

Mallet, Charles Edward

Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay

Elverston, Harold

Marks, George Croydon

Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

Esmonde, Sir Thomas

Meagher, Michael

Wateriow, David Sydney

Falconer, James

Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

Watt, Henry A.

Farrell, James Patrick

Meehan, Patrick A. (Queen's Co.)

Wheler, Granville C. H.

Ferens, T. R.

Middlebrook, William

White, Sir George (Norfolk)

Ffrench, Peter

Millar, James Duncan

White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire)

Field, William

Mitchell, William

Foot White, Sir Luke (York, E.R.)

Flavin, Michael Joseph`

Montagu, Hon. E. S.

White. Patrick (Meath, North)

Fleming, Valentine

Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

Whyte, A. F. (Perth)

Gelder, Sir William Alfred

Morpeth, Viscount

Williams, John (Glamorgan)

Gibbs, George Abraham

Muldoon, John

Williams, Penry (Middlesbrough)

Gibson, Sir James Puckering

Murray, Capt. Hon. Arthur C.

Wilson, Hon. G. G. (Hull, W.)

Gill, Alfred Henry

Muspratt, Max

Wilson, J. W. (Worcestershire, N.)

Glanville, Harold James

Nannetti, Joseph P.

Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

Neilson, Francis

Wing, Thomas

Goldman, Charles Sydney

Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncaster)

Wood, Hon. E. F. L. (Yorks, Ripon)

Gooch, Henry Cubitt

Nolan, Joseph

Wood, T. M'Kinnon (Glasgow)

Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

Nugent, Sir Walter

Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

Griffith, Ellis J. (Anglesey)

Nussey, Sir Willans

Guest, Major

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Soares and Mr. Illingworth.

Gulland, John William

O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne)

2496

2497

Agar-Robartes, Hon. T. C. R.

Falle, Bertram Godfray

Munro, Robert

Banner, John S. Harmood-

Foster, Harry S. (Lowestoft)

Newton, Harry Kottingham

Barnston, Harry

Gilmour, Captain John

Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)

Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry, N.)

Grant, J. A.

Ormsby-Gore, William

Boyle, W. Lewis (Norfolk, Mid)

Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashford)

Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

Brunskill, Gerald Fitzgibbon

Henderson, Major Harold (Berkshire)

Rolleston, Sir John

Bryce, John Annan

Horne, Wm. E. (Surrey, Guildford)

Rutherford, Watson

Carllie, Edward Hildred

Horner, Andrew Long

Seely, Col., Right Hon. J. E. B.

Castlereagh, Viscount

Houston, Robert Paterson

Starkey, John Ralph

Chaloner, Col. R. G. W.

Kerr-Smiley, Peter Kerr

Stewart, Gershom (Ches., Wirral)

Clay, Captain H. H. Spender

Keswick, William

Thompson, Robert (Belfast, North)

Clyde, James Avon

Kyffin-Taylor, G.

Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire)

Coates, Major Edward F.

Locker-Lampson, O. (Ramsay)

Warde, Col. C. E. (Kent, Mid)

Cooper, Captain Bryan R. (Dublin, S.)

Lockwood, Rt. Hon. Lt.-Col. A. R.

Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

Cory, Sir Clifford John

Lonsdale, John Brownlee

Wood, John (Stalybridge)

Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.)

MacCaw, Wm. J. MacGeagh

Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

Mackinder, Halford J.

TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. Mitchell Thomson and Mr. Neil Primrose.

Dairymple, Viscount

M'Calmont, Colonel James

Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. S. (Glasgow, E.)

Moore, William

Dixon, Charles Harvey (Boston)

Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

Bill committed to a Standing Committee.

Bill reported with Amendments; to be considered this day (Friday).

CIVIL LIST BILL.
Order for Third Reading read.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the third time."
Mr. G. N. BARNES: Hon. Gentlemen on both sides will no doubt feel, after the long Debates we have had, that they have earned their repose. [Several HON. MEMBERS: "No."] At any rate, I speak for myself. After the late sitting last night and again to-night, I feel that I have earned my rest, and I am sure that that is the feeling of many Members. I should therefore make my observations as brief as possible; but I feel that I ought to say a few words on the Bill which is now leaving our hands. I wish to refer to one or two points.
I desire to direct attention to the Bill itself and the manner in which it has been put through the House. There is first of all the point made the other day by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in regard to the total amount of money asked by Parliament in respect of this Bill. The other day the Chancellor of the Exchequer stated that the amount of increase would be but small, and that that increase was largely due to a large sum which fell into the expenditure under the Civil List automatically. In that connection I do not think the Chancellor of the Exchequer is right, because the sum which automatically falls into the Civil List is counterbalanced by another sum for which the Chancellor of the Exchequer has made provision in one of the contingent charges in, regard to the present Queen. Therefore, in that way the next Civil List will
2498
be automatically increased by £70,000, just as this one is being increased by £70,000 in regard to the Queen Mother. I think that is a good point. In regard to the younger sons of the King, I am sorry that the Chancellor of the Exchequer still sticks to the fiction that the Prince of Wales Act of 1889 is a precedent in regard to what is proposed in the present Bill. It is no precedent and differs entirely and fundamentally from the proposals now before the House. In 1889 the proposal which was carried and which has been effective since was that provision should be made in respect of those who are called children, but, as a matter of fact, the children were grown up, and moreover, the amount was fixed and put into the hands of trustees and could not be increased. The proposal in this Bill in respect of the younger children of the King is of a different character altogether. As a matter of fact the amount is not fixed, it cannot under the circumstances be fixed, and therefore there is that difference between the 1889 Act and the present Bill. I regret that the Chancellor of the Exchequer should have thought it a precedent. Something is being done which has never been done before in any Bill or in any provision for Royalty. The third point is in respect to the Duchy of Cornwall tenancy.
The Chancellor of the Duchy last night criticised what I had said on a previous occasion in regard to the management of the Duchy, and he took credit to the management of the Duchy from the fact that there were a great many small holders on the property, and that it was very desirable that the property should be retained in exactly the same position as it is now, so that these small holdings should be retained and even, as he said, be increased. It so happens that this very morning I

2499
had a letter from one of the sub-tenants under the Duchy of Cornwall. This man tells me that he and many of his fellow tenants or sub-tenants had been looking forward to the year before the lease was renewed, but to his astonishment and regret, he found that the lease had been renewed at the end of last year for another term of thirty years, the whole island being being leased to one man, and that man in competition with many of the tenants to whom he had sub-let land. That statement is absolutely at variance with the statement of the Chancellor of the Duchy.
I hope that in the future something will be done to make good these statements made from the front Government Bench made regard to small holdings. I have done with the Bill. I want to add just a word of protest in regard to the manner in which the Bill has been put through the House. It is a good few weeks now since the Committee was set up. It seems to me that if the Government had desired a fair and square discussion, and the full light of publicity upon this Bill there ought to have been full information and full time for debate. For instance, to-day I moved for a return which I think will be given, and which I have no doubt will be full and complete when it is given, but that return is of no use now so far as this Bill is concerned. That return was moved for on the first day of the meeting of the Committee set up to consider the matter. I submit the information should have been before the Committee and before the House while this matter was under discussion. Then in regard to the time it has been discussed. We had the Report of the Committee last Friday, and we have had the discussion on subsequent stages of the Bill on every occasion in the small hours of the morning. It might be said by the Government that there was justification for that because of the small number of Members who last Friday indicated interest in the Bill. But you cannot get many Members here on Friday. Many hon. Members I am connected with cannot be here on Friday.
Captain CRAIG: May I ask if this is Friday now?
Mr. BARNES: I am speaking of last Friday, and, as the hon. and gallant Gentleman knows, there are many Members in all parts of the House who cannot get here on Friday. That is why so small a number of Members supported the
2500
Amendments put forward. It was no indication of the real feeling of the House in regard to this measure. In fact, I go further and say that I believe there is a very uneasy feeling on the Benches behind the Front Bench in regard to it. More than that, all the stages were taken when Members were wearied and fatigued by the discussion of important matters. I submit that a Bill of this magnitude, involving the expenditure of a vast sum of money, ought to have been taken at a time and under such circumstances that it could have been fully debated. We have put up, I think, a fair and square opposition. I hope we have not said anything offensive or unfair. I hope, now the thing is all over, any feeling that has been engendered will pass away, and that those primarily concerned in the Bill will have a long and useful life.

PORTSMOUTH AND RYDE MAIL SERVICE.
The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Hobhouse), moved: "That the contract dated the 11th day of June, 1909,between the Postmaster-General and the London and South Western and the London, Brighton, and South Coast Railway Companies for the Mail Steamer Service between Portsmouth and Ryde (printed in Parliamentary Paper, No. 230, of Session 1910) be approved."
Mr. DOUGLAS HALL: I understand this Resolution is to confirm a contract made by the Postmaster-General for the conveyance of the mails. As it is of importance to the constituency I have the honour to represent, I should like to ask how it is that the subsidy has been increased by nearly £1,000 a year? It seems to me that although there may be more mails they do not require a very large extra sum to enable them to be handled. I should like the Postmaster-General to consider whether these joint railways are worthy of the support they get from public funds. It is notorious that they give the public a very wretched service across the Solent. Their boats are nearly thirty years old; there is no accommodation for third class or second class passengers, who may be drenched in wet weather; and they cause great dissatisfaction throughout the island. The joint

2501
railway companies have been approached by the Chamber of Commerce and by the different public bodies in the island, but they can get no redress. I ask that before the Postmaster-General completes the contract he should obtain some assurance, on consideration of the companies getting this large sum of public money, that they should give the public a little better accommodation. The boats are badly lighted, their rates are heavy, and, as the island is largely dependent for its prosperity on visitors, it is a very serious thing that two companies joined together in a monopoly like this should defy all the local authorities.
Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr. Whitley): I do not see how the Postmaster-General can be responsible for the general service given by these companies. The hon. Member must confine himself to the matter of the mails.
Mr. DOUGLAS HALL: My point was that in allocating public money for the conveyance of the mails, the right hon. Gentleman perhaps has other means of conveying them, and in doing this he might consider the public interest at large, not only as regards the mails, but as regards the way the companies serve the public.
Mr. HOBHOUSE: It is quite true that the payment for the conveyance of these mails is very largely increased. The reason is this: the amount of mail matter which now has to be carried is more than double the amount which had to be carried under the old contract. I think it was so far back as 1905 that the companies gave notice of their intention to terminate the contract, and when the Postmaster-General endeavoured to renew that contract the proposals made to him by the steamship and railway companies were so high that he sought in other directions for the means by which to transmit the mails. It was not easy, in fact it was impossible, to find another alternative. Eventually a considerable reduction was made by the companies, and the sum was fixed at the £2,500 mentioned in this contract. As a matter of fact the Treasury were assured that the actual expense incurred in running the day and night services was £2,400. A very small profit, therefore, remains to the companies upon the actual transfer of the mails. It is, of course, unfortunate that the price should have gone up. It is very seldom, and equally fortunate, that the price for the carriage
2502
of mails does go up. This is one of the few exceptions, and it is really because the night and day services must be provided specially for the carriage of the mails that this extra expenditure must be incurred. The contract price is fully justified by the expenses of the contract.
Mr. DOUGLAS HALL: Could not the right hon. Gentleman see that they have newer boats to convey the mails?
Mr. HOBHOUSE: This contract is terminable by six months' notice on either side, but for the money we pay I do not think we could get a faster or better service. The journey is only twenty-five minutes from shore to shore.
Sir H. DALZIEL: I wish to know why this contract, which may be terminated in six months, goes back to 1906. It seems extraordinary that we should go back so many years in the case of a contract which may only last a very short time. Surely there was a contract in force for the last few years. Is it really fair to the House that we should be asked to-night to consider a contract of so retrospective a character? Is the increased sum to date back to 1906 when a lower contract was in force? Unless we have a satisfactory explanation I do not think the Treasury and the Post Office are treating the House quite fairly. It is asking us to endorse something that is going back to 1906.
Mr. HOBHOUSE: The explanation is this. Though notice was given in 1905 to terminate the contract, as a matter of fact the contract was not renewed definitely, but renewed from six months to six months, while negotiations were actually going on in order to arrive at a satisfactory price. The companies would not give way. It was impossible for the Postmaster-General to find other means, at an equally satisfactory price, of carrying the mails. Therefore a temporary contract was carried on until the negotiations could be concluded. As soon as these negotiations were concluded the form of contract was entered into, and this is the result of it. With regard to the apparently short time which the contract has to run I might explain that precisely the same thing happened in 1890. The contract then was made for a period of five years, and that contract ran for fifteen years. I think my right hon. Friend justly anticipates that though nominally the present contract is for five years, of which two or three have elapsed, it will run, under its provisions, for a similar

2503
period of ten or fifteen years. The House has effective control over this contract. My hon. Friend will see that it is not binding until it has been approved by a Resolution of the House of Commons.

EXPIRING LAWS CONTINUANCE BILL.
Order for second reading read.
Mr. T. EDMUND HARVEY: I object.
Mr. C. P. TREVELYAN: May I appeal to the hon Member to withdraw his objection. The Bill is approved of by both sides of the House, and I think the hon. Member is labouring to a certain extent under a misapprehension. It is, perhaps, rather felt that the result of this Bill might be a conflict between the local authorities and the labour exchanges. We have made very careful arrangements, which are also secured by the regulations issued by the Board of Trade recently, which will admit of the co-operation of local authorities with the labour exchanges.
Mr. T. EDMUND HARVEY: If I can have an assurance that there will be an opportunity in Committee to see that there is some arrangement for co-operation with the labour exchanges, I will not object.
Question, "That the Bill be now read a second time," put, and agreed to.
Bill committed to a Committee of the whole House.

MERCHANDISE MARKS (No. 2) BILL
(IN THE COMMITTEE.)
[Mr. WHITLEY in the Chair.]
Clause 1.—
Colonel CHALONER: I beg to move that the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again.
Motion made: That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again.
Motion agreed to.

CIVIL BILL COURTS (DUBLIN) BILL.
Order for second reading read.
And, it being after half-past Eleven of the clock on Thursday evening, Mr. Deputy - Speaker adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
House adjourned at Thirty minutes after One o'clock a.m., Friday, 29th July, 1910.

FINANCE ACT, 1909–10.
  LAND VALUATION.
  LAND VALUATION.
  INCREMENT DUTY.
  INCREMENT DUTY.
  INCOME TAX (MARITAL SEPARATION).
  INCOME TAX (MARITAL SEPARATION).
  IRISH LAND COMMISSION.
  IRISH LAND COMMISSION.
  SPIRIT DUTY.
  SPIRIT DUTY.
  Board of Works, Dublin.
  Board of Works, Dublin.
  Licence Holders (Returns).
  Licence Holders (Returns).
  Super-Tax (Navy Flag Officers).
  Super-Tax (Navy Flag Officers).
  Scottish Universities.
  Scottish Universities.
  Scientific Research (St. Mary's Hospital).
  Scientific Research (St. Mary's Hospital).
  Invalidity Insurance.
  Invalidity Insurance.
  Old Age Pensions.
  Old Age Pensions.
  Excise Officers.
  Excise Officers.
  Direct and Indirect Taxation.
  Direct and Indirect Taxation.
  Estates Acquired.
  Estates Acquired.
  National Schools, Ireland (Assistant Teachers).
  National Schools, Ireland (Assistant Teachers).
  Pakenham-Mahon Estate, Roscommon.
  Pakenham-Mahon Estate, Roscommon.
  Evicted Tenants (Ireland).
  Evicted Tenants (Ireland).
BARON ROTHERHAM.
Sir William Henry Holland, Baronet, having been created Baron Rotherham of Broughton in the County Palatine of Lancaster—Was (in the usual manner) introduced.
PORT OF LONDON (REGISTRATION OF CRAFT) PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
Reported from the Select Committee without amendment, and re-committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Monday next.
BARRY RAILWAY BILL.
Read 3a and passed.
LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (TRAMWAYS AND IMPROVEMENTS) BILL.
  LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (GENERAL POWERS) BILL.

    MIDDLETON CORPORATION BILL.
    THE ACTING CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH): My Lords, with regard to the three Bills on the Paper, I propose to move that they be read a third time, but that can only be done by the suspension of Standing Order No. 143. This Standing Order simply provides that the print of the Bill must be lodged with the Government Department three days before the Bill is read a third time. That is impossible if these Bills are to get the Royal Assent before Parliament adjourns. The Departments concerned are thoroughly aware of all that has been done and the print will be lodged the third day, a but it will not be before the Third Reading. It is quite a usual thing to suspend the Standing Order at this period of the session, and I ask your Lordships to do so.
    Moved, That Standing Order No. 143 be dispensed with in respect of the said Bills.—(Lord Balfour of Burleigh.)
    On Question, Motion agreed to.
    Bills read 3a with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.

HOTELS AND RESTAURANTS (DUBLIN) BILL.
Brought from the Commons.

EDUCATION BOARD PROVISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION (LONDON) BILL. [H.L.]
EDUCATION BOARD PROVISIONAL ORDERS CONFIRMATION (BREEKS, &c.) BILL. [H.L.]
GAS ORDERS CONFIRMATION (No. 1) BILL. [H.L.]
PIER AND HARBOUR PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 2) BILL. [H.L.]
ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 4) BILL. [H.L.]
LOCAL GOVERNMENT (IRELAND) PRO-VISIONAL ORDER (No. 6) BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to.

WATER PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (MONEY) BILL.
LITTLE HULTON URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL.
BRADFORD CORPORATION BILL.
YORKSHIRE REGISTRIES AND DRIFFIELD NAVIGATION BILL.
MIDDLESBROUGH CORPORATION BILL.
PONTYPRIDD AND RHONDDA JOINT WATER BOARD BILL.
RHONDDA URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL (TRAMWAYS EXTENSIONS, &c.) BILL.
FYLDE WATER BOARD BILL.
EASTBOURNE CORPORATION BILL.
LANCASHIRE AND YORKSHIRE RAILWAY BILL.
Returned from the Commons, with the Amendments, agreed to.

ABERTILLERY AND DISTRICT WATER BOARD BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to, with Amendments: The said Amendments considered, and agreed to.
WATER ORDERS CONFIRMATION BILL. [H.L.]
  GAS ORDERS CONFIRMATION (No. 3) BILL. [H.L.]
  Returned from the Commons, agreed to, with Amendments: The said Amendments to be considered on Monday next.
TRAMWAYS ORDERS CONFIRMATION BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to, with an Amendment: The said Amendment to be considered on Monday next.
CENSUS (GREAT BRITAIN) BILL.
Returned from the Commons with the Amendments disagreed to, with a reason for such disagreement: The said reason to be printed, and to he considered on Monday next. (No. 141.)
SMALL HOLDINGS (No. 3) BILL.
Returned from the Commons with the Amendment disagreed to, with a reason for such disagreement: The said reason to be printed, and to be considered on Tuesday next. (No. 145.)??
MOVABLE DWELLINGS BILL. [H.L.]
Report from the Select Committee (with the Proceedings of the Committee) made, and to be printed. (No. 146.) Bill reported with Amendments, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House, and to be printed as amended. (No. 147.)
PORT OF LONDON (PORT RATES ON GOODS) PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
Report from the Committee of Selection, That the Five Lords appointed a Select Committee on the Port of London (Registration of Craft) Provisional Order Bill do form the Select Committee for the consideration of the Port of London (Port Rates on Goods) Provisional Order Bill; read, and agreed to: All Petitions referred to the Committee, with leave to the Petitioners praying to be heard by Counsel against the Bill to be heard as desired, as also Counsel for the Bill.
PORT OF LONDON (PORT RATES ON GOODS) PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
Read 2a (according to order), and committed: The Committee to be proposed by the Committee of Selection.
HIGHLAND RAILWAY ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL.
  FALKIRK CORPORATION GAS ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL.
  Read 3a (according to order), and passed.
ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 2) BILL.
Read 3a(according to order), with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.

LAND DRAINAGE PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 2) BILL.
LAND DRAINAGE PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 3) BILL.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 6) BILL.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 7) BILL.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 8) BILL.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 9) BILL.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 10) BILL.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 14) BILL.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 15) BILL.
Read 3a (according to order), and passed.

OYSTER AND MUSSEL FISHERY (BAY OF FIRTH) ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the Third Reading read.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a.—(Lord Pentland.)
On Question, Bill read 3a.
THE SECRETARY FOR SCOTLAND (LORD PENTLAND)THE SECRETARY FOR SCOTLAND (LORD PENTLAND) moved to amend Clause 8 of the Schedule—
8. No buildings erections embankments or works other than the marks mentioned in Article 6 of this Order shall at any time be commenced or executed within the limits above described without the previous sanction and approval in writing of the Fishery Board for Scotland,
by adding at the end the words "and of the Board of Trade."
Amendment moved—
In the Schedule, Clause 8, line 15, after ("Scotland") to insert ("and of the Board of "Trade")—(Lord Pentland.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD PENTLAND LORD PENTLAND then moved to amend Clause 10 of the Schedule—
10. This Order shall continue in operation for sixty years from its confirmation,
by altering the period mentioned from sixty years to forty years.
Amendment moved—
In the Schedule, Clause 10, line 24, to leave out the word ("sixty") and to insert the word ("forty")—(Lord Pentland.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

WEMYSS AND DISTRICT WATER ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Pentland.)
On Question, Bill read 2a, and pursuant to the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899, deemed to have been reported from the Committee.
LORD PENTLAND: This Order was lodged as long ago as December, 1908. Its progress has been delayed by negotiations, and it is very desirable that it should be confirmed before Parliament rises. I therefore move that Standing Order No. 39 be dispensed with.
Moved, That Standing Order No. 39 be dispensed with.—(Lord Pentland.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a.—(Lard Pentland.)
On Question, Bill read 3a.
LORD PENTLAND LORD PENTLAND moved to amend the provision in the 8th Schedule—
The Beveridge Trustees by themselves or members of the family of the hue Mr. Beveridge and their successors in the estate shall have a joint right along with the Trustees and the other riparian proprietors to fish in the reservoir and they shall have the privilege of putting and using a boat thereon,
by inserting, after the word "estate," the words in his Amendment—
Amendment moved—
Eighth Schedule, page 83, line 22, after ("estate") insert ("without prejudice to the Trustees reserve" their full sporting rights on their side of the "reservoir and")—(Lord Pentland.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Bill passed and sent to the Commons.

COMPANIES (CONVERTED SOCIETIES) BILL.
Read 3a (according to order), and passed.

ISLE OF MAN (CUSTOMS) BILL. [SECOND EADING.]
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
LORD DENMAN: My Lords, This is a Bill which continues in force the existing
540
duties on tea, tobacco, spirits, and beer in the Isle of Man, and I move that it be read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Denman.)
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Monday next.

BISHOPRICS BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee, read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Viscount St. Aldwyn.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH in the Chair.]
Clause 1:
Power to make Orders in Council with re4pect to Bishoprics, &c.
1.—(1) His Majesty may, from time to time, by Order in Council made on the recommendation of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, provide for the foundation of new bishoprics, with a diocese and cathedral church in each case, for the foundation of deans and chapters or of deaneries or residentiary canonries in connexion with any such cathedral churches, for the alteration of the boundaries of dioceses as constituted at the date of the Order, and for any matters for which it appears necessary or expedient to make provision in connexion with those objects or any of them, including the transfer as between bishoprics of patronage and endowments, and the proceeds of sale of any house of residence whether effected before or after the passing of this Act, and the annexation (notwithstanding any enactments to the contrary, but subject to the rights of the incumbent at the date of the Order) of a benefice to a deanery:
Any provisions of the Bishoprics Act, 1878, as originally enacted may be applied with the necessary modifications by an Order made under this Act in connexion with a new bishopric to the case of that bishopric.
(2) A recommendation for the purposes of an Order under this Act shall not be submitted to His Majesty unless—

(a) in the case of the foundation of a new bishopric, dean and chapter, deanery, or residentiary canonry, the Ecclesiastical Commissioners certify to His Majesty under their common seal through the Secretary of State for the Home Department that an endowment in their opinion adequate has been transferred to them or otherwise provided and secured to their satisfaction;

(b) the recommendation has the consent of the archbishop or archbishops of the

541
province or provinces affected and, so far as the recommendation affects any then existing bishopric or diocese, the consent of the bishop; and

(c) in the case of the annexation to a deanery of a benefice of which the right of patronage or any interest therein belongs to a private patron, notice of the proposed recommendation has been given to such private patron, and if within one month of the delivery of such notice such private patron claims compensation for the loss (by reason of such annexation) of the right of patronage, or any interest therein so belonging to him, then unless he has been paid by way of compensation the value of such right of patronage or interest therein, to be assessed in case of disagreement by the Ecclesiastical Commissioners; but a trustee or other person occupying a fiduciary position shall not be bound to claim such compensation.

(3) An Order may be made under this Act with reference to the dean and chapter or deanery of or a residentiary canonry in the cathedral church of any diocese mentioned in the schedule to this Act in the same manner and subject to the same provisions as if the bishopric of that diocese were a new bishopric founded by Order under this Act, and the Order may modify any Act relating specially to any such dean and chapter, but where the Order affects a dean and chapter existing at the date of the making of the Order no such Order shall be made without the consent of that dean and chapter.
(4) Section two of the Bishoprics Act, 1878 (which relates to contributions for the purposes of the endowment of a new bishopric), and section five of the same Act (which relates to the number of bishops sitting in Parliament), shall apply as respects new bishoprics founded or proposed to be founded under this Act, in like manner as they apply as respects the new bishoprics mentioned in the schedule to that Act.
(5) The Ecclesiastical Commissioners shall have the same powers of investing, managing, leasing, selling, and otherwise dealing with funds and property forming part of the endowment fund of any bishopric, dean and chapter, deanery, or residentiary canonry founded or proposed to be founded under this Act as are conferred upon them by the Bishoprics Act, 1878, in relation to the endowment funds of the new bishoprics mentioned in the schedule to that Act; but nothing in this Act shall authorise the Ecclesiastical Commissioners to apply any portion of their common fund towards the endowment of any new bishopric, dean and chapter, deanery, or residential.), canonry save in so far as relates to any part of the endowment of any existing bishopric transferred by Order under this Act to a new bishopric.
(6) Any Order made under this section shall have effect as if enacted in this Act, and may be revoked, varied, or added to by any such Order subsequently made.
(7) Before any Order is made under this section the draft thereof shall be laid before each House of Parliament for a period of not less than thirty days during the session of Parliament, and, if either House, before the expiration of that period, presents an address to His Majesty against the draft or any part thereof, no further proceedings shall be taken thereon, but without prejudice to the making of any new draft Order.
LORD SHEFFIELD: My Lords, I have handed in two or three Amendments, and I regret that your Lordships did not have them circulated. It was impossible, the Bill only having been read a second time last night, that I could get them in earlier. My first Amendment is to subsection (1) and is to leave out the words which appear in the subsection in parentheses—namely, "notwithstanding any enactments to the contrary"—and to insert "with the consent of the patron or patrons." I said last night that it was quite a. new departure to deprive a patron of his right of presentation irrespective of his consent. In previous Acts for creating new Bishoprics there was in each case a clause protecting the rights of patrons. The provision in this Bill, therefore, is not the least essential to the purposes of the Bill, because all previous Bishoprics have been created without this provision.
I would remind your Lordships of the danger of introducing provisions which constitute a serious evasion of legal rights unless those evasions are necessary for some public purpose. As undoubtedly the creation of new Bishoprics can perfectly well be performed without depriving the patron of his rights, I see no reason why this should be put into the present Bill. Of the parish church which was selected as the Cathedral of Liverpool the Rev. Stephen Gladstone was the patron. I can very well imagine that there might have been a very distinct divergence of opinion between the late Bishop and the Gladstone family; and I think it is very hard that people who have strong opinions on these church matters and have a presentation should be deprived of that in the way proposed in this Bill. Your Lordships will notice that further on in the Bill there is a proposal that the Ecclesiastical Commissioners should determine the value of the compensation to be paid to the patron if he demands compensation. The Ecclesiastical Commissioners can be said to be the promoters of these Bishoprics, and to make the persons who are the promoters the judges of the compensation seems to me very undesirable. When dealing with Bills which had reference to Irish land your Lordships felt very strongly that the public body, whether it was the Congested Districts Board or any other body, which was interested in acquiring the land, was not the proper body to determine the price to be paid for the land, and you did secure that it should be the Judicial Commissioner who

543
should determine the price of the land in that case.
But for the moment I am pressing the more important point—namely, that the patron ought not to be deprived of his right unless it is absolutely necessary, which it is not, for the creation of the Bishopric. I am quite sure that if any one of your Lordships were the patron of either of those magnificent churches I mentioned last night and took an interest in ecclesiastical matters, you would feel that no money compensation bearing any relation to the pecuniary value of the living would be any recompense to you for being deprived of that important trust. I feel very strongly that if you adopt this principle of going beyond the purposes of the Bill it will be quoted against you, and you will be establishing a precedent which will be used in cases in which you might very much resent it.
Amendment moved—
Clause 1, page 1, lines 17 and 18, leave out ("notwithstanding any enactments to the contrary") and insert ("with the consent of the "patron or patrons")—(Lord Sheffield.)
THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF YORK: My Lords, I hope your Lordships will not give your assent to this Amendment. The noble Lord has contended that the provision of schemes for the creation of deans and chapters in connection with the Cathedral church is foreign to the main purpose of the Bill. That, I think, can hardly be maintained in view of the fact that a Cathedral church is an essential part of the Bishopric. The Bishop must have his Cathedral church, and it is a matter of great importance not so much to himself as to the working of the whole diocese, where that Cathedral church is situated. Your Lordships will readily understand that it is a matter of great importance that the church selected as the Cathedral of the diocese should be one whose general management would be in harmony with the views, not of any particular section of church people in the diocese, but of the whole diocese itself. The noble Lord has quoted instances in which churches that might be used as Cathedrals have been acquired by trustees or by private patrons who might be very unwilling to part with the patronage. I imagine that in a number of cases the trustees and the patron would be most willing, for the sake of the future of the
544
diocese, to part with their patronage. If it is for the good of the diocese as a whole that there should be a Bishop, then I think it is equally for the good of the diocese that the patronage of the Cathedral church and the deanery within it and the chapter should be in public hands.
I am rather surprised that the noble Lord should have introduced this Amendment, because I am informed that the section which provides for the compensation of patrons who are thus asked to surrender their rights for the good of the Church as a whole was introduced in order to meet the views which he on a previous occasion had expressed. As to his claim that the provision of compensation is inadequate because the Ecclesiastical Commissioners are themselves the promoters of these schemes, I think he has there made a mistake. The Ecclesiastical Commissioners are not the promoters of these schemes. They are rather the judges of their adequacy. It is not the business of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners to promote schemes for the formation of new Bishoprics, but to satisfy themselves that in point of adequate endowment and other essential matters these are schemes which ought to be submitted to the Privy Council and laid before Parliament. Therefore, the Ecclesiastical Commissioners seem to me not to be in the least. in the position indicated by the noble Lord just now. I can imagine no better body than the Commissioners to judge fairly as to the compensation which ought to be asked.
In previous Bishopric Bills no provision has been made for the compensation of patrons. This clause is entirely new, in order to meet the difficulty of the patrons to whom the noble Lord has called attention. In view of the fact that it is of great importance that the Cathedral church of the diocese should be as far as possible a church under the control of public patrons and not under the control of private patrons, I venture to express the hope that your Lordships will not accept the Amendment. I end by saying that this is not a difficulty, I think, that will in many cases arise. My own experience is that arrangements can probably be made, by the exchange of patronage or otherwise, which would render it unnecessary in every case to resort to the expedient of compelling a patron to give up his patronage. In

545
most cases it could be clone by a friendly arrangement; but if it came to the point of a decision having to be made I think it should be made in the direction of giving the control of the church to public patronage.
VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, I do not know whether it is necessary for me to add anything to what has been so well placed before your Lordships by the most rev. Primate, but as the noble Lord who has moved this Amendment had some communication with me on the subject last year, perhaps I may venture to say that I did not agree to the insertion of this provision in the Bill without feeling perfectly certain that it was a necessary provision or might become so in some cases that might arise. After all, it is not so much the Bishop who selects the Cathedral church. It is the wish of the people of the diocese. They would naturally wish that the finest church in the diocese should be chosen. For instance, if a new diocese was to be set up, and, say, Bath Abbey was to be chosen, it might lead to conflict if it were impossible, by exchange or by some procedure under this Bill, to obtain the patronage of what everybody would wish to be the Cathedral church of the diocese. I hope the noble Lord will not press his Amendment.
LORD SHEFFIELD: My Lords, I would point out that the fact of getting the living under public patronage was not considered at all necessary in the past. The most rev. Primate and the noble Viscount have said that it would be very rare that this provision would be required. If it would be very rarely used, why not adhere to the law as it stands at the present time, which requires the consent of the patron?
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (EARL BEAUCHAMP): My Lords, there is no doubt that it is quite possible to discover isolated cases of hardship which perhaps might arise under the provisions of the Bill as now before you. The question is whether in these circumstances we should insert an Amendment which, if I may say so, has not received much support; in fact, I think no support from any quarter of the House except from the noble Lord himself. I venture to think that your Lordships would be well advised
546
in leaving the Bill as it is, and leaving the remedies of the aggrieved patron to that private negotiation which, as has been pointed out, undoubtedly might take place before the Order was submitted to the Privy Council. I think the demand of the patron might be well satisfied by an exchange of benefice. In the circumstances I hope your Lordships will pass the Bill without the Amendment.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
LORD SHEFFIELD: My next Amendment, which was to leave out paragraph (c), is substantially consequential upon the last Amendment, and therefore I do not move it. But I propose by my third Amendment to add, at the end of subsection (3), the words "but nothing in this subsection shall authorise the annexation of a benefice to a deanery without the consent of the patron or patrons." I read this subsection as giving the authorities power to go back, in the case of dioceses which have been already formed, and reopen the arrangements there. It would enable the authorities to say to a patron who had had his right reserved under the law by which the Bishopric was founded, "We will go back on that and claim your advowson." If I am right in that, it is a very strong measure to introduce into this Bill a clause which would enable a settlement which had been come to in a diocese founded for several years to be disturbed.
Amendment moved—
Clause 1, page 2, line 35, at the end of the subsection insert ("but nothing in this subsection" shall authorise the annexation of a benefice to a "deanery without the consent of the patron or "patrons")—(Lord Sheffield.)
VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYN: The point is a new one to me. I cannot say offhand whether the noble Lord is right or wrong, and I am not quite sure that I appreciate his point. Is it that he thinks that where an Act has already authorised the creation of a Bishopric and under the provisions of that Act certain arrangements have been made with reference to deans and chapters, this Bill would enable those arrangements made under the provisions of an old Act to be reopened? Is that his view?
LORD SHEFFIELD: Not exactly. As I read subsection (3) there would be power,

547
where the Statute creating the Bishopric, reserved to the patron all his rights, to enter upon what is practically an old and established Bishopric and to say to the patron, "We now propose to take away your patronage in order to turn the incumbent into a dean." But if the point is a new one to the noble Viscount, I will withdraw the Amendment at this stage, and ask him to consult those who drafted the Bill between now and the Report.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD SHEFFIELD: My final Amendment is to insert a new subsection at the end of the clause. I understood that it was contemplated that a dean would be in the appointment of the Crown, and it seems to me that both deans and chapters should be in the appointment of the Crown. I therefore propose to add a new subsection to that effect.
Amendment moved—
Clause 1, page 3, line 24, after ("order") insert the following new subsection:
(8) Any order made under this clause for the foundations of deans and chapters or of deaneries and residentiary canonries shall provide for the nomination and appointment of such deans, chapters, or residentiary canons by the Crown.—(Lord Sheffield.)
VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYN: I certainly should imagine that deans would be appointed by the Crown, but it would be extremely inconvenient to insert in the Bill a provision that not only deans but all the members of the chapter should be appointed by the Crown. There are some cases where all the canons are appointed by the Bishop, and it might be well that some appointments should be vested in one patron and some in another. I hope the noble Lord will not press the Amendment.
LORD SHEFFIELD: If the noble Lord will accept the Amendment in that form I am quite prepared to stop at the word "deans," and leave the question of canonries open. Certainly the noble Viscount does not dispute that a dean ought to be appointed by the Crown.
THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF YORK: Perhaps I might be permitted to say that I can scarcely imagine circumstances in which the Commissioners would propose
548
a scheme in which it was not provided that the dean, except in one particular case, should be appointed by the Crown, and even in that excepted case it would be indirectly an appointment of the dean by the Crown. It is possible that in the case of some of these new cathedrals the Bishop might wish to be his own dean. That is the case in regard to the new Cathedral of Southwark, and it might exist elsewhere. In such a case indirectly the dean would be appointed by the Crown. I can see no objection to the statement being explicitly made that deans, when they are separate from the bishop, should be appointed by the Crown; but I would press very much that the appointment of residentiary canonries should be left open. It has happened in the case at least of one new diocese that large benefactions and endowments were made for the formation of residentiary canonries with the express stipulation that the patronage should be in the hands of the Bishop.
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES: I wish the noble Lord would specify the Amendment that he proposes to move, because I do not think the Amendment as indicated would read.
LORD SHEFFIELD: There seems to be general agreement that this ought to be done, and I think it is safer to insert it in the Bill. Even if the Amendment does not read and the noble Viscount thinks the language inartistic, it could be put right between now and the Third Reading.
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES: Will the noble Lord read his Amendment as he now proposes to move it?
LORD SHEFFIELD: I propose that the subsection should run. "Any Order made tinder this clause for the foundations of deans shall provide for the nomination and appointment of such deans by the Crown."
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES: Can you make an Order for the foundation of a dean?
THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE: It should be deaneries.
LORD SHEFFIELD: I am not responsible for the wording of the Bill. I took

549
the words from the Bill. If they are clumsy, the people who drafted the Bill are responsible. I move the Amendment in that form, and if it is badly expressed I am not responsible.
THE LORD BISHOP OF BANGOR: My Lords, I would point out that the giving of the appointment of cleans to other persons than the Crown is not new. In all the Welsh dioceses the Bishop has the appointment of the deans.
EARL BEAUCHAMP: I confess that in regard to this point the Amendment of my noble friend has my sympathy. An instance occurs to my mind of a Bishop who is anxious to subdivide his diocese and has selected a collegiate church to which he has appointed a number of canons and a sub-dean. When the moment arrives and the actual division takes place these people will have something of a claim to the position to which they have already acquired a titular claim. I venture to hope that for the moment, at any rate, we might find a way out on the lines suggested by the most rev. Primate the Arch-bishop of York—that this Amendment should apply to those cases where the dean is not to be the same person as the Bishop. 'That, I think, would be a reasonable Amendment, and your Lordships might be well advised in accepting it.
VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYN: After what the noble Earl who represents the Government and the most rev. Primate have said, I do not wish to raise any objection to the Amendment in its modified form. It may require sonic verbal alteration, but that can be made later.
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES: I think it would be better that I should put the Amendment in this form—
"Any Order made under this clause fur the foundation of a deanery shall provide for the nomination and appointment of the dean by the Crown."
LORD SHEFFIELD: I accept that.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.
The Report of Amendment to be received on Monday next, and Bill to be printed as amended.(No. 148).

REGENCY BILL.
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee, read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(The Earl of Crewe.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[Lord BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH in the Chair.]
Clauses 1 to 4 agreed to.
Clause 5:
5. If Her Majesty Queen Mary shall, after becoming Regent, be reconciled to or hold communion with the See or Church of Rome, or shall profess the Roman Catholic religion, or shall marry a person professing the Roman Catholic religion, or shall cease to reside in or absent herself otherwise than temporarily front the United Kingdom, Her Majesty shall no longer be guardian and Regent; and all the powers and authorities which she may have derived under or by virtue of this Act shall thenceforth cease and determine.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I do not know whether the noble Earl the Leader of the House has had time to consider my Amendment since last night. The event which I contemplate is so remote, so exceedingly unlikely, that it would be almost absurd for me to detain your Lordships upon it; but the contingency provided for in Clause 5 is itself so remote and unlikely that it seems fit and proper that if we make any such enactment at all we should make it complete. It appears to me on the face of it that in the event contemplated—namely, that the office of Regent is vacated because of the conversion of the Regent to the Roman Catholic faith or other such analogous proceeding on her part—there would be no provision made for carrying on the Government of the country. There is, of course, also the possible case of the death of the Regent, in which a similar difficulty would arise.
What is really suggested in this clause of the Bill is to put the Regent in a similar position to the Sovereign himself. Under the Act of Settlement, I think it is, if the Sovereign becomes a Roman Catholic the office of the Sovereign is vacated, and the object of the clause is to put the Regent in the same position but there is this difference, that in the case of the Crown Parliament has made provision for what

551
is to be done in that event, because it is provided that it shall be treated as if the Sovereign were dead—that is to say, the next heir to the Throne would necessarily succeed. There is, however, no similar provision if the same circumstances should happen in the case of the Regent. Therefore it certainly seems that some change is required. Moreover, we are not without some historical knowledge of the difficulties. On the first occasion when George III was incapacitated there was considerable difficulty as to how the Regent was to be appointed. I do not Mean to say you can provide for every case, and, of course, Parliament does not attempt to provide for what is to be done in the still more unlikely case of the same misfortune happening to the Sovereign as happened to George III.
When George III was first incapacitated nobody knew what to do, and the two Parliaments—the Parliament of Great Britain and the Parliament of Ireland—acted in totally different ways. The Parliament of Ireland presented a joint address to the Prince of Wales, asking him to assume the office of Regent; but the Parliament of Great Britain, on the other hand, was subject to a difference of opinion between the leaders of the two Parties at that time. As a result they could not agree to present this joint address to the Prince of Wales, and they adopted the rather remarkable device of asking the Lord Chancellor to affix the Great Seal to an Address—I think it was from this House —to the Prince of Wales without authority. That was done. But the fact that that Parliament was driven to such expedients as I have indicated shows how necessary it is in certain events to make provision. With these few words I venture to move the Amendment standing in my name, but I need not say that as far as the words are concerned I am entirely in the hands of His Majesty's Government, and if they agree to the Amendment but would prefer other words, I would willingly accept them.
Amendment moved—
Clause 5, page 3, line 9, after (" determine ") insert the following new subsection—
(2) If the powers and authorities of the Regent cease and determine under the provisions of this section or otherwise than by the attainment by the Sovereign for whom the Regent was appointed of the age of eighteen years, it shall be lawful for both Houses of Parliament to present an address to the Sovereign praying that the person named in such address may be appointed Regent, and there-
552
upon the Sovereign by Order in Council may appoint such person to he Regent, and the person so appointed shall become Regent with all the powers and authorities of that office as if named Regent is this Act, and subject to all the provisions thereof.—(The Marquess of Salisbury.)
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL AND SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (THE EARL OF CREWE): My Lords, since yesterday I have had an opportunity of looking into this matter. Of course, it is one, as the noble Marquess has indicated, on which one is greatly disposed to be bound by precedent. The noble Marquess has mentioned the case of the first attack which affected King George III, and at the time of the second attack, the appointment of the Regency in 1811, a similar procedure was devised—that is to say, authority was given for the Great Seal being put to a Commission without the Sign Manual, because the King was not in a condition to affix it, and the Commissioners were then empowered to give the Royal Assent to the Regency Bill. Of course, that is not what the noble Marquess proposes in this instance. He proposes that it shall be lawful for both Houses to present an Address to the Sovereign praying that a person named in such Address may be appointed Regent.
On the general question I confess that I am in agreement with what was laid down by those who were formerly responsible in some of these cases, that it is inadvisable to attempt to provide for all possible contingencies and that as much as possible should be left to the Parliament which at some future time may conceivably have to deal with it. In 1840, when the Regency Bill was introduced a somewhat similar proposition was made in another place, and Sir Robert Peel said that in his view nothing was so unwise as to go beyond the necessity of the case by attempting to foresee every contingency that could arise, and to tie up the hands of future Parliaments by making provisions for remote contingencies such as the demise of the Regent, and he thought it would be much better provided for by the Parliament in being at the time when the necessity arose. I understand that the noble Marquess would not quarrel with that statement, because in a sense that is what he proposes to do; but, on the other hand, I think I can persuade him that the procedure which he proposes is not necessary. There is no reason, I am given to

553
understand, should such an unfortunate contingency arise, either that contemplated under Clause 5 of the Bill or that of the demise of the Regent., why Parliament should not proceed as it is proceeding now, by Bill. There is no difficulty in the Royal Assent being given by a Sovereign at any time. It can be given by a Sovereign from his or her cradle; and that being so, I think it is on the whole desirable not to introduce the more or less novel procedure suggested by the noble Marquess, but to leave the future Parliament to deal with the question, should necessity arise, by the ordinary method of procedure by Bill.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I am quite satisfied, of course, with what the noble Earl has said. I understand from him that he is advised, on the best authority, that there is no difficulty in obtaining the Royal Assent from a Sovereign, still being an infant, if the case which he and I are bound to contemplate for the purposes of this discussion should really arise. If he is quite satisfied that there is no difficulty in having a valid assent from a Sovereign, being a minor, in the event contemplated, there would be no difficulty at all.
THE EARL OF CREWE: I am certain that is so.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Then I do not press the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 5 agreed to.
Remaining Clause and Schedule agreed to.
Bill reported without amendment, and to be read 3a on Monday next.

PLACES OF WORSHIP (ENFRANCHISE MENT) BILL. [H.L.]
[SECOND READING.]
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN had given notice, on the Order for the Second Reading being read, to move that the consideration of the Bill be postponed until after the autumn recess. The noble Earl said: My Lords, the Motion which I wish to submit to your Lordships has nothing
554
to do with the merits of the Bill, and therefore I will not go into them any further than to say that the Bill effects, as I am sure every one will agree, a considerable change in the law. The objection which I take to proceeding with the Second Reading now is on behalf of the general liberties of the House. We have on frequent occasions objected very strongly to the indecorous, as we thought, and almost indecent way in which Bills were rushed upon this House. This Bill, I must say, appears to me to sin in this direction to a very remarkable degree. It is not as if we were within three or four days of the end of the session. I very much wish we were, but, as that contingency has not arisen, what I want to know is the reason why this Bill is forced upon the House with such insufficient notice. This Bill was only ordered to be printed on July 21. I do not know whether other members of your Lordships' House may have received it, but I do not think I received my copy until Tuesday, certainly not until Monday. As I understand, His Majesty's Government wish to press this Bill with the intention of passing it through all its stages here before we adjourn. Is that so?
THE EARL OF CREWE: We will answer that in clue course.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: Will the noble Earl in charge of the Bill tell me whether I am correct in imagining that it is proposed to pass this Bill through all its stages in this House before we adjourn for the recess?
EARL BEAUCHAMP: I think this kind of question is most inconvenient at this stage, but if the noble Earl insists upon it, I will say at once—
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: I beg the noble Earl's pardon. If it is inconvenient I will withdraw the question. The Bill, as I have said, was circulated on Monday of this week. It is an important Bill and effects an important change in the law. Why are we to be called upon to proceed with this Bill at once? What necessity is there for hurry? We shall meet in November, and, as I understand, we shall probably have nothing to do when we first meet, and there will be ample time to consider the Bill in an orderly and decent manner. It is not even as

555
if this Bill had passed through your Lordships' House on previous occasions. It is not even as if it had passed through the other House of Parliament. It is a Bill introduced here for the first time. I believe it was introduced by the Government in the other House on two occasions, but was not proceeded with on either occasion; and so far as this House is concerned it is an entirely novel Bill. I think I have made my objection pretty plain to your Lordships, and I do not think it necessary to trouble you, at all events just now, with any further remarks. I beg to move.
Moved, That the consideration of the Bill be postponed until after the autumn recess.—(The Earl of Camperdown.)
EARL BEAUCHAMP: My Lords, I will at once reply to the question which was addressed to me by the noble Earl in the course of his remarks. It was difficult at the beginning of the noble Earl's observations to give him a definite answer, because the course which His Majesty's Government will take on an occasion like this must necessarily very largely depend upon the sentiment of your Lordships' House and the opinions which are expressed in various quarters of the House, and I do not think it would have been altogether respectful to your Lordships if we had at once definitely answered the noble Earl either in the affirmative or the negative.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: Hear, hear.
EARL BEAUCHAMP: And perhaps the noble Earl underrates the effect of his own arguments. We might have wished to proceed at once with the Bill, but we might have been persuaded by the arguments of the noble Earl to postpone its consideration. I will confine myself to discussing the Motion now before the House. It is, I think, somewhat unusual that we should discuss a proposal of this kind before the Second Reading has been moved, but it is consequent upon a Standing Order that this Motion in the form moved by the noble Earl must be taken first. May I point out that we are not acting without precedent in this matter? Other Bills were introduced almost at the same time, I think, as this Bill, and your Lordships do not seem to object to passing those Bills without greater time for consideration. The
556
noble Earl omitted to point out that a Bill very similar, though I think with a different title but with the same object, has been introduced into the other House on a previous occasion, and was there read a second time by a majority of two to one. It was introduced again in the following year, and was supported strongly on both sides of the House and passed without a Division. It was carried through Grand Committee, but although brought forward again in the House it never got beyond the First Reading stage. Therefore the matter is not so entirely new as might appear. At any rate the Bill has been on previous occasions before Parliament. It is, therefore, within the cognisance of members of your Lordships' House at any rate who might then have been sitting in another place, and consequently cannot be described as being a wholly new question. In these circumstances I venture to hope that your Lordships will allow the Bill to be proceeded with this evening.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My Lords, I do not think the House can have been surprised that my noble friend behind me should have urged that we were entitled to be given adequate time in which to consider and discuss the provisions of this Bill. It is an important Bill, and it contains certainly a number of highly controversial propositions. My noble friend is correct in saying that it has only been a. very few days before us, and that we have, therefore, not bad full opportunity of examining it. I am not convinced by the noble Earl's argument that the fact of this Bill having been before the House of Commons for some time is of itself sufficient to induce us to dispense with those opportunities of debate which we should otherwise be entitled to insist upon. But my noble friend, I observed, insisted in his argument mainly on the point, that he had been given to understand that His Majesty's Government desired to pass this Bill through all its stages during the few days that remain between to-night and the adjournment for the holidays. I am not aware whether that is so, but I think the noble Earl opposite was fully justified when he told us just now that he is not prepared to make any statement upon that point until he has learned from the discussion which will shortly commence what views are entertained in all parts of the House with regard to this Bill. It seems to me, in these circumstances, that my noble friend

557
would he well advised if he would allow us to proceed with the debate upon the Second Reading of the Bill. His Majesty's Government will then have an opportunity of considering whether they should press the Bill forward now or await a later opportunity.
LORD NEWTON: My Lords, as expressions have been invited from different parts of the House, I venture, with great submission, to support what has fallen from the noble Marquess. Will the Government give an undertaking that if the Second. Reading is passed this afternoon no further stage will be proceeded with before the adjournment? I venture also to point out that you cannot altogether disregard the character of this measure in discussing this particular Motion. If this were a trumpery Bill that involved no particular principle at all, there would be no objection to our proceeding to pass it through all its stages at the present time; but the noble Earl in charge of the Bill has given no reasons whatever for proceeding with what I can only term the indecent haste which he proposes to utilise on the present opportunity. It is no argument to say that this Bill or a similar Bill has been read a second time in the House of Commons; for, so far as that goes, a Female Suffrage Bill was read in the House of Commons a second time the other clay. That is an entirely impracticable argument to apply to present circumstances. Perhaps one of the noble Earl's colleagues will give a reason why this Bill is introduced at the present moment and why the Government are anxious to pass it through all its stages; but I venture to suggest that no reason has been hitherto given, and I hope that the proposal made by the noble Marquess the Leader of the Opposition will be acceded to.
THE EARL OF CREWE: My Lords, I think the observation made by my noble friend the Lord President with regard to the fact that the Bill had been more than once considered in another place has been somewhat misapprehended. Of course, it is true that in a sense that fact need have no particular weight with your Lordships. But what my noble friend desired to indicate was that the subject was no new one. It has been a matter of public discussion for the last twenty years or so, and presumably, therefore, anybody who takes any interest in it at all is familiar with
558
the general outlines of the Bill. I should not go further than that; but it does differ in that respect from an entirely novel proposal brought before the House for the first time.
The noble Lord has asked whether His Majesty's Government will give an undertaking that if the discussion proceeds to-day no further steps will be taken with regard to the Bill until November. As the noble Marquess the Leader of the Opposition very fairly said, any decision upon that subject, so far as His Majesty's Government are able to decide it, must depend on the nature of the comments made on the Bill in the course of the discussion. For all I know, the Bill might pass through without opposition, and without knowing what the character and extent of the opposition to it is likely to be, and whether it is of a kind which could be disposed of in half an hour in Committee or would involve very prolonged discussion—without being able to realise those points by some discussion on the Second Reading it is not possible for us to give a definite answer to that question. We should be glad if it could go through, because it is a. good Bill. But the decision whether the Bill should go through in the course of next week is, of course, one which the House must decide, after, as I say, the nature and strength of the opposition to it or the criticism which may be directed at it have been divulged by what takes place on Second Reading.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: Perhaps with the permission of the House I might say one word with regard to the course I propose to take on this Motion. I quite admit that it was a mistake on my part to ask the Government at that particular stage to say whether they meant to proceed with the Bill. I merely thought that I might save your Lordships' time. The noble Earl and the Leader of the House have quite properly said that they did not feel themselves at that moment able to answer the question. With regard to this Motion, what I propose to do is to accept the advice which was tendered to me by the noble Marquess and withdraw the proposal, so as to allow the House to proceed to discuss the merits of the Bill on Second Reading. But I reserve, of course, full power to myself, after your Lordships have decided what you will do regarding the Second Reading, to make

559
any subsequent Motion at a later stage of the Bill. On that understanding I withdraw my Motion.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
EARL BEAUCHAMP: My, Lords, after the little discussion which has taken place I suppose we may now proceed to discuss the merits of this particular Bill, to which I ask your Lordships to give a Second Reading. Perhaps I might, in beginning, say that I noticed on referring to what occurred in the Standing Committee in another place that two noble Lords on the Front Opposition Bench were members of that Standing Committee—Lord Salisbury and Lord Midleton, who both seem to have taken part in the discussions in the Standing Committee of the other House on this Bill.
To turn to the Bill itself, your Lordships will, I think, see even from a cursory examination of it what its object is. Considerable objection, rightly or wrongly, is taken to the leasehold system up and down this country. There are a great many cases of hardship falling upon individuals, and in connection with that echoes occasionally reach your Lordships' House. We are not, however, dealing on this occasion with any case in which an individual suffers hardship, but with the circumstances which attend a religious body when they find that the lease which they have taken of a certain piece of land, and on which they have built their chapel, falls in and they are unable to secure a renewal of the lease. Under the Bill the landlord will get full value for his land. That is, we think, amply secured by the provisions which assimilate the procedure under this Bill to the procedure under the Lands Clauses Act.
There is this, I think, to be said on behalf of those bodies who are particularly interested in this matter. They are themselves in a peculiar position, because they do not have that privilege which does exist, although I admit it is not often used, in the case of the Church of England. The Ecclesiastical Commissioners have power to acquire any freehold they require for the purpose of building a church. Naturally the Nonconformists of this country have not got that power. What we propose under this Bill is that where the landlord has shown his willingness
560
to lease to them a piece of land they should be able to turn that lease into a freehold so long as the piece of land and the chapel erected thereon continue to be used for the same purposes as those expressed in the trust deed. The grievance such as it is—and it is a considerable grievance—is felt by the Free Churches in all parts of the country. When a similar Bill was brought forward some fifteen years ago it was stated that within the previous fifty years in the metropolis over fifty Congregational chapels had ceased to exist, the land and sometimes the buildings themselves being devoted instead to trading and other purposes; and what has been experienced by one body has also been experienced by the other.
I will give, as an instance, the position in a Welsh county. In one Welsh parish there are twenty chapels and one schoolroom, which have been built upon leasehold land at a cost of more than £45,000. At least eight of the chapels were erected on a thirty years lease; and in the case of a chapel which cost £3,000, when a further sum of £2,000 was spent upon it the lease was renewed for another thirty years. But although this money is spent in order to improve the chapels and to provide this accommodation, there is no security of any sort or kind that at the expiration of the lease the building or land will be available for this purpose. I ask your Lordships to turn to the Bill itself. You will see at once that there is no attempt in the Bill to secure any recognition of the enfranchisement of any land except land held on leases by trustees for the purpose of public worship; and I am sure your Lordships will recognise at once that there is a very clear and distinct difference between leases held for such a purpose as that and leases which are held for residential or trade purposes. The objects for which these leases are held command at any rate the good wishes of your Lordships' House, and can very easily be placed in a category entirely by themselves.
In Clause 1 trustees holding under leases to which the Bill applies, and which are specified in subsection (2), are given the compulsory powers referred to, and the Bill is to apply to existing as well as to future leases. The proviso to subsection (1) contains two exceptions to the right conferred in the preceding subsection—

561

(a) if the premises exceed two acres in extent the trustees shall not be entitled to exercise such right in respect of more than two acres thereof;

(b) this Act shall not apply where the premises are used or are proposed to be used for the purposes of a place of worship in contravention of any convenant contained in the lease.

Clause 2 provides the machinery by which the compulsory powers are to he carried out, and that is modelled upon the procedure prescribed by the Lands Clauses Act, which deals with the manner in which and the conditions under which lands can be compulsorily acquired, for purposes either of national defence, or general government, or of a local or municipal character, and, under certain circumstances—that is to say, in the case of railways or tramways —of a commercial character combined with public utility. So that you see a very similar power is already conferred on a number of companies, and considering the special circumstances of these religious bodies we do not think that it is asking a. very large measure of concession from your Lordships to extend it to places of worship. The sections of the Railway Clauses Consolidation Act, 1845, mentioned in Clause 2, are the sections dealing with the respective rights as to minerals. Clause 3 saves existing covenants. The first part of the clause is framed on Section 65 of the Conveyancing Act of 1881. The definitions in Clause 4 do not, I think, call for special attention front me on this occasion.
I might refer to subsection (d) of Clause 2—
(d) No allowance shall be made on account of the acquisition being compulsory.
There are several precedents for such a provision as this—namely, in the Local Government Act, 1894; the Metropolitan Water Act, 1902; the Small Holdings and Allotments Act, 1907; the Housing and Town Planning Act 1909; and the Development and Road Improvements Fund Act also of last year. The modifications of the Lands Clauses Act set out in the Schedule follow the precedent of the Small Holdings and Allotments Act and the Housing and Town Planning Act. Paragraph (6) follows the precedent of the Public Offices Sites Extension Act, and a similar provision has also been inserted in numerous private Acts passed by the London County Council. One matter in connection with this Bill has been mentioned to me which seems to have
562
caused some fear on the part of various members of your Lordships' House. It has seemed to them possible that trustees who acquired the sites of these places of worship would be able, having once enfranchised them, to sell the land for trading or commercial purposes. That, however, is not so. If your Lordships will turn to the Schedule and look at paragraph (3), you will 'see that it is there provided that if the trustees desire to sell the premises or any part thereof, Sections 127 to 132 of the Lands Clauses Consolidation Act, 1845, shall apply as if the premises or part thereof were superfluous lands within the meaning of those sections. That, in our opinion, entirely safeguards the landlords supposing the trustees were to try and divert the use of this land to other purposes. We also think that it would be impossible for them to let the land for other purposes, although that is a somewhat technical point with which I need not trouble your Lordships at this moment, but with which, if necessary, we could deal in Committee.
Finally, I do not know that it is necessary for me to say more than that the object of the Bill is very plainly set forward in the Bill itself; and in view of the fact that' in all these cases the landlords must have been willing that there should be a place of worship on their land and have therefore leased land for that purpose, we do not think that in continuing that piece of land for the purpose of public worship we are inflicting any hardship on the landlords, who have already, as I have said, expressed themselves willing, and in some cases even anxious, that there should be a place of worship for their neighbours in that particular locality. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Earl Beauchamp.)
LORD CLINTON: My Lords, I should like to say one word on this matter. I personally had hoped that your Lordships might have been able to defer the consideration even of the Second Reading of this Bill until a later period of the session, because it is a Bill which, although not a new one, yet undoubtedly does raise several very important matters. It is, I suppose, almost too late nowadays to oppose a Bill solely on the ground that it interferes with private property or the

563
sanctity of contracts. But there was a time, not very long ago, when that would have been a good argument, and I should like your Lordships to consider for a moment the very rapid progress which Parliament is making in leaving off what no doubt are old-fashioned methods, but what at one time were regarded as methods of honesty. Land could not be taken compulsorily from any one unless for very good reasons given, except for some public purpose, and certainly for no purpose whatever unless the purchase was approved by Parliament itself.
That was in what I may call, I suppose, the good days, before we knew the present Government or their immediate predecessors; but since their advent to power there has really been a very considerable change. It began, I think, with the Act which was mentioned by the noble Earl in moving the Second Reading of this Bill—the Small Holdings Act. In that Act, I think for the first time, land was allowed to be taken compulsorily by an Order of a Department unconfirmed by Parliament. Now under this Bill you reach what really is, I hope, the limit of any possible villainy in this respect. You provide that an individual, of his own volition, may purchase compulsorily land which belongs to his ground landlord, without the approval of any Department or without the approval of Parliament. I venture to say that is a very large advance upon what we have always recognised as the methods of compulsory purchase of land in this country.
There are a large number of details in this Bill, even if we accept the principle, which require careful consideration. In many respects it is a very technical measure. I should like to refer to one instance, and perhaps it is only a minor matter. It may be quite right that a reversion of buildings used as places of public worship should be vested in the leasehold. It may be no real hardship to take away that particular reversion from the ground landlord, because I imagine that in the great majority of cases leases for that class of building are in any case continued. At all events in my experience I have never heard of a case where the landlord has exercised his right. But in the term "place of worship" is included the minister's house "attached to or used in connection with any place of
564
worship." I suggest to the noble Earl that there may be instances where the minister's house, although it is used in connection with a place of worship, does not necessarily adjoin a place of worship. A minister may be occupying a dwelling house which was not intended for a minister's house at all. There are many cases I know of where a house is provided for the purposes of a minister, but the clergyman has let it and taken a smaller house elsewhere. It appears that under this Bill he could claim that the purchase of the freehold should be allotted to him personally. That seems to me a considerable hardship upon the ground landlord. I do not wish to go into the details of the Bill now, but I hope, even if your Lordships do grant a Second Reading to the Bill to-day, you will be prepared to put off the Committee stage until after the autumn.
LORD SHEFFIELD: My Lords, I cannot agree with any noble Lord who says that we are not competent to discuss this Bill now. This Bill in many ways has been urgently needed for years, and in some respects I do not think the Bill goes anything like far enough. The noble Lord who has just spoken complained of the tendency to extend the power of compulsory acquisition of land outside the scope of Parliamentary control. If your Lordships want to preserve your rights of property in land, it is essential that you should recognise the right of the community to come in and acquire land where it is necessary for the convenience and welfare of any substantial body of the population, provided fair and proper compensation is paid. The noble Earl the Lord President of the Council mentioned that the Ecclesiastical Commissioners have power to acquire compulsorily land as sites for churches, and I think it is desirable that other bodies wishing for sites for places of worship should have similar power, subject to a right of appeal to some proper authority being granted to the owners of the land.
I do not see why, when there is a substantial body of the community wanting land which is essential as a site on which to erect a building for the common exercise of their religion, they should not have reasonable opportunities of acquiring it; and I believe there is not one in a hundred among members of your Lordships' House

565
who would refuse a site in these circumstances, however distasteful to him the doctrines of the particular body might be. I think the noble Earl the Lord President made a mistake when he said that you might infer, from the fact that existing landowners or their predecessors had granted the leasehold of sites for religious worship, that they were in sympathy with that object. I believe that many landowners have, from a sense of fair-play, readily granted sites for places of worship which were positively distasteful to them.
The noble Earl mentioned Wales. No doubt if you rake up the past history of Wales there have been many cases of very great grievance. I do not say that you could not rake up some cases of grievance now; but I believe that the number of landowners who would venture to withstand the criticism of public opinion and refuse a site is very small. I should be glad if this Bill went further, and enabled, under suitable protection of the reasonable rights of property, the acquisition of sites for the development of other purposes. Not more than an hour ago I was criticising an attempt to invade the rights of private property beyond what was necessary for the particular purpose to be accomplished, but your Lordships were quite ready cheerfully to interfere with the private rights of patrons, although previous legislation showed that that interference had not been found necessary for the purpose of providing new Bishoprics. I think this Bill is subject to criticism from the same point of view. I entirely agree with simple and cheap machinery for settling the compensation to be awarded. I would negative expressly the customary ten per cent. I think if people wish to enfranchise buildings of this sort, they should be allowed to do so at the real value. I do not see, however, that because the purpose for which any particular property is required is desirable the owner should be compelled to give up the reversion for less than its real value. By enacting, as is proposed in this Bill, that in determining the amount of any compensation the value of any buildings erected by the trustees or improvements made by them shall be excluded, the landlords affected would be made compulsory subscribers to chapel funds, and Parliament would thus be practising a vicarious generosity. If a man takes land on lease-
566
hold, especially on a short lease, it is quite obvious that he pays a much smaller-ground rent than if he took a feu or a, 999 years lease.
Lord Clinton called attention to the power to take the house occupied by the minister as well as the chapel. I assume the Bill means held under the same trust and the same lease. If in a town like Southport the minister of a chapel takes, a house convenient for his chapel from the ground landlord the Bill would not give him a right to enfranchise that house. I think the Bill means where you take one conveyance for the chapel and for a minister's house with it. If that is right if that is a sound principle to adopt, you ought certainly, especially in Wales, to go further, for practically every one of the chapels in the part of Wales that I know has also a chapel-keeper's house attached to it, and it is much more essential to the chapel that you should enfranchise the chapel-keeper's house, which is substantially a necessary part of the building, than the minister's house. If you are to affirm the principle that lessees should have the right to enfranchise the site of' their chapel without the landlord taking into consideration the value of the building, including the minister's house, then I say distinctly that in Committee you ought to extend it so as to include the chapel-keeper's house. If you grant the principle you ought fairly to go furthers. For my part I heartily agree with the principle. I am quite sure many of your Lordships who have property where there are a large number of these chapels have been only too glad to grant the fee simple where you could. This is a thing which all of us are doing as far as we can of our own accord. But it is one thing to do a thing of your own accord and another-for the law to step in and say this shall he done and your legal rights altered whether you like it or not.
There is another provision in the Bill, that the intermediate landowner, as I may call him, may take an annuity of the rent-charge instead of a capital sum, but the ultimate landlord, I think, is bound to be paid off in capital. I may mention that in Lancashire we have chief rent for perpetuity, or in those towns of Lancashire where we do not have chief rent we have a 999 years lease, which is equivalent to a perpetuity. I am

567
quite sure that many landowners would much prefer to get their rent in perpetuity than be paid off and have to reinvest their money. But, my Lords, this Bill in principle ought to be passed. It is very much needed. It is fair and proper, and I hope your Lordships will go a great deal further in recognising that the land on which the people live must somehow or other by law be made much more accessible for any purpose which is reasonably desired by a substantial number. I do not say that A.B. is to be able to go to a farmer and say, "I want this field," and get it. You have gone some way towards that by the Small Holdings Act. But where any reasonable section of the community demand land I think they ought to be able to get it. If, however, it is to be recognised that the lessees of chapel property are to get the property for less than the legal value, why should not a municipality be entitled, if they are fortunate enough to get a reasonably short lease from a landowner—say twenty-seven years—to turn round when the land has developed and acquire it under the law at a price below its value? As your Lordships have shown a disregard of this point in the case of ecclesiastical matters, it may be said that you will show the same disregard as to secular. Whether that will be the result or not, we have set a precedent which I notice your Lordships shuddered at when the question came up with regard to Ireland and Scotland. And if you set these precedents on behalf of the established Church and the Nonconformists, I hope we shall be equally self-sacrificing in the interests of the community at large.
VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, the noble Lord who has just sat down and my noble friend Lord Clinton have found in this Bill at least the germs, if not something more, of some very wide principle with regard to dealing in land. I do not look at it in that way, and I do not think the Bill deserves the denunciation of the noble Lord, Lord Clinton; nor do I find in the Bill any warrant for the proposals the noble Lord who has just sat down has made for a wide extension of the principle of the Bill itself to all kinds of property held for all kinds of purposes by all kinds of bodies. It may be right and proper that some consideration should be given to the necessity, which no doubt exists in some cases, for
568
regular religious bodies to obtain sites for places of worship. That is not a matter dealt with by this Bill, and it does not seem to me, therefore, to be a thing that can be profitably discussed on the present occasion. What this Bill proposes is simply this, as I understand it: that where the landlord or his predecessor has voluntarily given a site on a building lease for a chapel, when that lease comes to an end the persons representing the religious body which owns the chapel shall be entitled to claim the enfranchisement of that site on such terms as are proposed under the Bill. I believe there is a real grievance in this matter that requires to be remedied. I cannot quote a particular instance, but I have certainly heard of cases in which, where such leases have been granted, landlords have declined on any terms to renew them, with the result that the congregations had to discontinue their services in chapels where they and their forefathers had been worshipping, perhaps, for seventy or eighty years. I do not believe for a moment that your Lordships will defend such an exercise of his right on the part of any landlord, and I think the noble Lord is correct in saying that landlords as a rule have shown themselves most generous in these matters, and have readily given sites to religious bodies with whose principles and tenets they themselves entirely disagree. But as these cases to which I have alluded have undoubtedly happened, there is a grievance which Parliament assuredly ought to endeavour to remedy. That is all we are considering, as I understand it, in discussing the Second Reading of this Bill. But what has been said will be enough to point out to His Majesty's Government that there are points in this Bill which do require careful discussion and consideration, and in these circumstances I hope its further stages will be adjourned to the autumn sitting. We shall then have plenty of time to consider such points as have been raised with regard to compensation in respect of particular buildings which may be considered necessary for the purposes of worship in the chapel, whether it be the minister's house or the caretaker's house or anything else which is included in the agreement under which the chapel is held, and the mode in which the compensation should be given, whether by an annual rent-charge to the landlord or a lump sum. Those matters can be considered in detail when the time

569
comes. All we are asked to do to-day is to admit the grievance and give a Second Reading to a Bill which proposes to remedy it. I hope that your Lordships may be disposed to take that course.
THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF YORK: My Lords, I will only trouble your Lordships with a few words in support of this Bill on Second Reading. I think this question may be approached from two points of view—in the interests of religious communities and in the interests of property. Naturally it is chiefly as the Bill affects the interests of religious communities that I venture to say a few words. This is not a matter which directly concerns the Church of England. I should like to remove a misapprehension which might be created by what has been said, I think on both sides of the House, that the Church of England is in the habit of exercising compulsory powers for the acquisition of freeholds for its places of worship. That is not so. It is true that, by virtue of two Acts of Parliament passed in the reign of George III, the Church Building Commissioners, now the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, have such compulsory powers, but those powers are coupled with so many antiquated provisions that I am informed they are never used. I do not know of any instance within recent memory in which the Ecclesiastical Commissioners have compulsorily acquired freehold property for sites. Therefore I should like to make it plain that it is not proposed to bestow upon other religious bodies a privilege which is in the enjoyment of the Church of England and which the Church of England continually exercises. What is true is that in the case of the Church of England no parish church can be consecrated until the freehold has been acquired. Therefore so far as our parish churches are concerned the difficulties contemplated in this Bill cannot arise. They can only arise in the case of unconsecrated buildings.
But I am informed that in many parts of the country there is, as has been pointed out to your Lordships, a very great grievance on the part of many members of other religious communities. They have spent large sums of money upon the building of their chapels. They have become attached to the place in which these chapels are situated, and it is a real
570
grievance if they should be subjected to the risk at the end of the time of being turned out of premises towards the erection of which so much money has been given and to which so much association is attached. It is because I feel that there is this grievance on the part of many Nonconformists that I trust your Lordships may so far as possible be able to remedy it. With regard to the matter as it affects the interests of property, it is obviously not within my competence to deal with that side of the question. I think it has been abundantly made plain that there are points in this Bill that require greater clearness of expression and of definition. With those I do not deal. They have been dealt with sufficiently by noble Lords upon both sides. As a matter of fact, I believe that the grievance alleged only occurs in a few cases, because am satisfied that the great majority of your Lordships would be willing to extend a leasehold in cases where money has been expended on the buildings. But there is, of course, always the possibility of an exception to that general rule, and it is to guard against the grievance that arises if powers are exercised by landlords against the interests of these religious communities that this Bill is directed. I can only say, on behalf of those who sit on these Benches, that we give our cordial support to the general principle of this Bill.
THE DUKE OF NORTHUMBERLAND: My Lords, I cannot help saying one or two words upon the debate we have just heard. We have been told by the noble Earl on the Front Bench opposite that a. great ninny people would very much like to have the fee simple of the site of the buildings which they have erected on lease, and he thinks it a great argument in favour of his Bill that landlords have given their land for this purpose, and therefore in his opinion there is no injustice in annexing the freehold. I know that the ethics of private life and political life are totally different, It would not be possible for noble Lords opposite to treat such matters as these in private life as they treat them in political life. Supposing I lend the noble Earl a horse. I may possibly ask a little money for it by way of hire. The noble Earl's argument comes to this, "I have taken a fancy to this horse and now I intend to buy it"; and he uses my kindness in allowing him to.

571
use the horse for a certain number of months as an argument in favour of my taking no objection to his depriving me of my horse altogether. Those are the ethics of the present proposal.
This proposal is excused upon two grounds. One is that land, as is sometimes said, is a monopoly. It has again and again been stated in this debate that landlords have been liberal in giving their land to various religious denominations, whether they are in favour of the tenets of those denominations or not. Lord Sheffield, who, I think, is partial in such matters, made some reservation in regard to Wales. Of Wales I know nothing. I must confess that I was sorry my noble friend Lord St. Aldwyn should have made the statement that he had heard of several very hard cases. Lord Clinton said he was totally unaware of any instance in which either buildings had been unfairly resumed, or the use of land for the purpose bad been refused. I do think that if assertions such as the noble Viscount made are to be brought forward they should be substantiated.
It has been implied that the monopoly to which I have referred is so great that these denominations cannot get land for their purposes, and I think the noble Lord, Lord Sheffield, said it was a great consideration how many people wanted it. That is an excellent argument for taking land compulsorily for religious purposes, but it is no argument whatever for taking advantage of a landlord's kindness in letting a site for a particular building and saying that that particular site should be taken compulsorily. I must say I was somewhat surprised, if he will forgive my saying so, at what the most. rev. Primate said. He most fairly admitted that the question as it concerned the landlord did not concern him. All he felt was that it was very convenient for religious bodies to get property. That I quite admit. But he went further, and said that it was a great grievance that buildings should be erected on leasehold unless the land could be acquired when wanted in fee simple. That is practically the argument he used. My Lords, how far does that go? It is not a religious argument. These people have erected the buildings on the understanding that it was a leasehold, with the full knowledge that at the termination of the lease they would be liable to be dis-
572
possessed. If that is the canon to be laid down by ecclesiastical authorities as to the way we should treat land, I can only say that it is rather a far-reaching doctrine.
I do not want to detain your Lordships by dealing with the details of this Bill. It is a very ill-drawn Bill and will require a great deal of discussion. It does not refer only to religious buildings. It is called the Places of Worship (Enfranchisement) Bill. I shall have to ask what is a place of worship. When I look at the definition I find that a place of worship means a church, a chapel, or a meetinghouse used for religious worship, and it includes a burial ground, a Sunday-school, and a minister's house. I think that is rather a large series of items to include under the title of this Bill. It does to some extent affect the Church of England, because a great many mission halls are given to the Church of England while the operations of the Church are extending with a view to the building of regular churches afterwards. That is a very good instance. I heard it stated just now in debate that the instances where a landlord would wish to resume the use of a building which had been used for religious worship were very few. But in the case of these mission halls, not a few of them are let on the understanding that when the parish is developed and when the church is built those mission halls shall be resumed for secular purposes. You are, therefore, by this Bill giving a power to religious bodies which they have not only never had before but which they have never dreamt of acquiring. I do not wish to detain the House further on this occasion, but I trust that plenty of time will be given for the consideration of this measure.
THE LORD BISHOP OF BRISTOL: My Lords, may I add a few words in favour of the Second Reading of this Bill? First of all, I have very true sympathy for those who suffer the tremendous hardship of having a building taken away that they have used for public worship for fifty, sixty or seventy years. That is one reason that induces me to vote in favour of the Second Reading. Another reason is that I am most grateful to His Majesty's Government for their attitude in this matter. They have brought before the public, in the most definite and positive way, their sense of the extreme hardship

573
which is inflicted on religious communities in being turned oat of buildings which have been hallowed as a place of worship for a number of years, and the hardship is enormously enhanced in the case of those whom it is proposed to dislodge from buildings the associations with which date back centuries.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My Lords, I certainly do not rise to oppose this Bill on the ground that it necessitates interference with contract. I do not know whether I ought to make an exception in the case of the noble Duke behind me, but I doubt whether any of us on this side of the House would be prepared to vote against, the Bill on the ground merely that it allowed an invasion of contract. My noble friend Lord Clinton spoke rather wistfully of what he called old-fashioned ideas and old-fashioned procedure with regard to these matters. I would be inclined to say that, while the old-fashioned procedure for the acquisition of land for public purposes was very much too slow, too cumbrous, and, above all, too expensive, modern procedure is perhaps tending to become a little too rapid and reckless. I would certainly never resist a well-considered proposal for compulsorily acquiring property in the public interest, making always these reservations—that those who desire to make out their case must first show that there is a real necessity for such acquisition; next, that there should be proper machinery for compensating those from whom the property is taken; and thirdly—and perhaps this is the most important of all—that there should be a trustworthy tribunal for the purpose of determining what that compensation should be. It is upon that last rock, I think, which some of our modern proposals are apt to split.
The particular proposal before us does seem, I must say, at first sight to be a somewhat violent interference with existing contracts, because these are contracts which have been entered into without any duress being applied and between people who are perfectly competent to make contracts and presumably to protect their own interests. And not only will an opportunity be given for disturbing contracts, but they are to be automatically disturbed whether any grievance is alleged or not. On the other hand I freely admit that it seems to me desirable in the
574
public interest that the occupants of these places of worship should be given an amply secure tenure. I do not think it is even necessary that the advocates of these proposals should be able to produce a series of hard cases in order to support them. I would put it simply upon the broad ground that it was not a good thing that those who occupied. public places of worship should feel that they were liable, from one cause or another, to have their tenure rudely interrupted and to be expelled from the place in they and their predecessors may have worshipped for a great number of years. Therefore I think this proposal can be defended on its merits and without those somewhat dangerous excursions made by the noble Lord on the Back Bench opposite (Lord Sheffield), and, I think, also to some extent by the noble Earl who moved the Bill. The noble Earl began by making a very pointed reference to the prevailing dissatisfaction with what he called the leasehold system. That is a very large question, but for the present I do not think that the House need concern itself with more than the very concrete and limited proposal which is before it.
What has happened, I take it, all over the country is that many owners of land —I think I should be inclined to say most owners of land—have been ready to give to the different religious denominations opportunities of building places of worship upon their estates. That having been done, I doubt extremely whether there is any reason for giving them opportunities of resuming these places, because it is part of the scheme of this Bill that the trusts upon which the premises are originally conveyed are to survive. Therefore, all that will happen under the Bill will be that the chapel carried on as a Methodist chapel will continue to be carried on as a Methodist chapel. It seems to me not irrelevant to observe—and I believe I am correct in making the observation—that in the case of the Church of England it hardly ever happens that a new church is built except upon a freehold site.
THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF YORK: It cannot be consecrated unless the site is freehold.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My case is even stronger than I thought. That being the practice in regard to the

575
Church, I can understand the corresponding desire on the part of other denominations for permanency of tenure. I shall, therefore, give my vote for the Second Reading. But I think, after the discussion that has taken place, it must be abundantly clear to His Majesty's Government that there are a number of points in the Bill which require careful examination in detail, and it would be altogether unfair to the House to ask us to take the remaining stages of the Bill during the few days that separate us from the adjournment. The definition of "places of worship" is an extraordinarily loosely-drawn one, and certainly requires to be considered. There is again a. provision which affects not only leases but under-leases which requires to be examined, and I think there probably is a good deal to be said with regard to the whole of the proposals in the Bill relating to procedure. The Schedule is a very difficult document to study. It contains some extraordinary passages. May I read the first two lines of the Schedule? They run thus—
"The use of the premises as a place of worship and for purposes connected therewith shall be deemed to be the undertaking or the railway."
That may be excellent drafting, but at first sight it reads rather curiously. Therefore I do make a very strong appeal to the noble Earl who will follow me to tell us that he will rest content for the present with the Second Reading of the Bill and that the remaining stages will be taken when we reassemble in the autumn.
THE EARL OF CREWE: My Lords, this debate has wandered somewhat beyond the narrow limits of the Bill itself, and in one or two cases has been diverted into a general disquisition upon the rights of property in land. I do not propose to follow those who have made these excursions, because I think this Bill must be taken on its merits and in respect to the particular matters to which it applies. The argument for the Bill is that it applies to places of worship, and certainly I am prepared to maintain, and I should have thought that most, noble Lords in the House would have been prepared to maintain, that a. place of worship is intrinsically different from other buildings of the ordinary kind erected under similar circumstances. I entirely agree with the substance of what has been said by the noble Marquess who has just sat down, and it appears to me to be the main reason for
576
the Bill that the system of short leases is one which in itself is thoroughly inapplicable to an ecclesiastical building. If it had been applied to the churches of the Church of England we should have lost a great deal of that historic sentiment in relation to those buildings which those of us who belong to the Church of England so deeply value.
The most rev. Primate who spoke, as I was glad to observe, so strongly in support of the Bill, alluded to an observation of my noble friend's as to the compulsory powers possessed by the Church of England, and he very truly pointed out that those powers are not easy to exercise, and, as a matter of fact, they are not so far as I know, ever exercised. But, of course, it has to he borne in mind that there is not much reason to exercise them, because freehold land for churches can as a matter of fact always be obtained. I do not know what proportion of the land of England is in possession of members of the Church of England but it must be very large, and I feel almost sorry at this moment that we did not accept the proposition of the noble Lord opposite for a religious census, because it might have enabled us to insert a further table by which we could have come to know how much land belongs to members of the Church of England. It must be undoubtedly a very large proportion of the whole. Therefore the particular difficulties in respect of which this Bill is introduced do not arise in relation to the Church of England.
The noble Duke opposite took a very high line on this subject. He accused us of having an entirely different standard of ethics in public and private life, and asked how we should like to see in private life the principle of this Bill applied. I think the noble Duke has two very distinct standards of ethics—one for the House of Lords and the other as to his own estate management. Here we are familiar with speeches by the noble Duke pressing the rights of property to an extent which, I think, would almost have horrified a French marquis in the reign of Louis XV, whereas I am certain that in the management of his wide estates he does not press those rights, but acts as most, members of your Lordships' House do in giving a reasonable interpretation to the claims which he may possess by law.
THE DUKE OF NORTHUMBERLAND: Would the noble Earl specify in what respect I have to-night put forward any very strong views as to the rights of property?
THE EARL OF CREWE: The noble Duke apparently considered that it was an arbitrary invasion of those rights not to permit a landlord at the expiry of a lease of a place of worship to take it over and to put it to any use that he chose. That I consider to be an assertion of the rights of property which at this time it is impossible to maintain, and I am prefectly certain that the noble Duke on his own estates would not desire to do anything of the kind. I am convinced that if a case came before him he would desire to meet those who worship in a building of that kind, and whose fathers had worshipped there before, in the spirit that such a. case would be met, as I believe, by every member of your Lordships' House. I have no desire to enter into any of the various points of detail Which have been raised in the course of this discussion. The noble Marquess and the noble Viscount, Lord St. Aldwyn, both appealed to us on this side not to ask the House to proceed with the later stages of this Bill before the adjournment. We should have been glad to proceed with them, but I can assure noble Lords opposite that in our desire to do so we had no malignant object in view. The reason why we should have liked to proceed with this measure and to get it through before the adjournment is that the autumn session will, I hope, not be a very long one, but so far as business in another place is concerned it may conceivably be a tolerably crowded session, and it would, in our opinion, have greatly facilitated the passage of the Bill if it could have been got through this House now and taken in another place in one of those intervals of business which, as one knows, always occur even in the most crowded sessions. Therefore, if we respond to the appeal of the noble Marquess and do not proceed with the Bill now, I hope that it may be possible to take the Committee stage at the very beginning of the autumn session. That will certainly give noble Lords interval enough to prepare their Amendments. All I hope is that when we reassemble noble Lords opposite will not ask for more time; otherwise the prospects of the Bill in another place would be in peril, and that, I think, almost all your
578
Lordships would regret, because I think from the debate the general principle of this measure receives the assent of the vast majority of the House.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

TRUSTS (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  LICENSING (CONSOLIDATION) BILL.
  Read 3a (according to order), and passed.
CHILDREN ACT (1908) AMENDMENT BILL.
Read 3a (according to order), with the Amendments and passed, and returned to the Commons.

IRISH LAND LEGISLATION.
THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE rose to call attention to the decision of the Court of Appeal in Dublin on Tuesday, 19th July, in the case of the estate of Sir C. M. Dom-vile, and to ask His Majesty's Government whether this decision carries out the intentions they held when the Bill of. 1909 was introduced, and if not, whether they intend to propose legislation to Parliament mitigating the hardships caused by this decision in this and similar cases; and to move for Papers.
The noble Earl said: My Lords, before I say a few words on the subject of the Notice that I have put on the Paper, I desire to express my regret on two heads to the noble Lord opposite who represents the Irish Office. First, of all, doubtless I owing to the fact that I write a shocking hand, I have been totally unable to induce the printers to spell the name of Sir Compton Dom-vile correctly. I made two attempts, and I do not know which attempt was the worse. Also, owing to a lapse of memory which the noble Lord put right yesterday, I referred to the particular words of the clause in which I am to-day interested and asked the noble Lord whether they expressed the intentions of the Government when the Bill of last year was introduced. The noble Lord reminded me that they were introduced into the Bill on the motion of my noble friend Lord Dunboyne. I have looked up the records and remember the circumstances very well, and I hope this fault of mine in forgetting that fact has in no way inconvenienced the noble Lord in preparing for this afternoon's discussion.

579
If it has, I am anxious to offer him all the apologies I can. The fact, however, that these words were actually introduced as an Amendment from this side of the House I think strengthens my position in making the contention I desire to make this afternoon, for our impression of the significance of these words was very different from what the Courts in Ireland have construed them to mean. The particular words of the clause are—
"in consequence of any direction of the Land Commission a fresh agreement is entered into."
It sometimes happens, not in a case of the sale of tenanted lands but of untenanted lands, that the Land Commission direct an alteration in the price. It may be an alteration in the amount or in the method of payment of the price, and it has been held by the Courts that this direction does not constitute a direction to alter an agreement. It has been held by the Courts that it entails an actual tearing up of the old agreement and the making of a new one. That, we feel is a very substantial grievance, and certainly contrary to what we hoped would be the construction of the Act when it was passed last year.
I am quite aware that the three cases in question are large cases, but this can arise in very small cases and very great injustice will be done if the state of affairs is to he allowed to remain as we fear it may remain as the result of the decision of last week. I may say I know of small cases in which hardship will be caused unless the Government, either by legislation or by administrative action are ready to help us out of the difficulty. Imagine the case of an agreement for the sale of untenanted land, the price being £1,000. The agreement, if it is before the Estates Commissioners now, was probably signed four or five years ago. The Estates Commissioners, when the turn of that estate comes to be considered, may say, "No, we will not advance £1,000 in this case." They need give no reason for saying that. They simply say, "We are only prepared to advance £900." The usual thing then is for the vendor, who may he the landlord or a trustee, to go to the purchaser and say, "The Commissioners will only advance £900; what are you going to do about the balance?" and probably if the man is a substantial man lie gives cash for the £100, or part of it, leaving the remainder on second mortgage. The purchase money would remain exactly the same; the only
580
change would be that the vendor would lose the bonus on the £100 that he takes in cash from the purchaser. All that has happened is that the Estates Commissioners have directed a variation in the method of obtaining the purchase money. But if the Court of Appeal holds in these particular cases—and there is no reason why the same procedure should not be applied to every case of sale of untenanted land in future—that the agreement once varied by the Estates Commissioners is at an end and that a new agreement must be made, it means that the vendor will have to take Stock instead of cash, that the bonus will be reduced in accordance with the new scale, and that the purchaser will have to pay the higher rate of annuity. It does seem unreasonable that merely by this very small variation, in almost every case merely of the method by which the vendor receives his purchase money and not necessarily of the amount at all, all the advantages which were expected at the time the bargain was made should be lost to both vendor and purchaser owing to this, as I think, unexpected decision of the Courts.
These bargains were made years ago, but they have not been carried through owing to the fact, for which no one is to blame, that the administration of the Act of 1903 has not proceeded so fast as the actual signing of agreements under it. I cannot help thinking that by this decision of the Court of Appeal, which I understand is a finaldecision, the Government are every bit as disagreeably surprised as we are, and I hope they will be able to tell us that either by legislation or some alteration in procedure this difficulty will be got over. I am advised that if they gave a direction for the agreement to be altered in a way that might, as the result of negotiation, be suggested by vendor and tenant, the difficulty might be got over, and in that way vendors and purchasers, who certainly in equity are entitled to the benefits of the Act of 1903 in place of the disadvantages of the Act of 1909, would have those benefits secured to them. I hope that the noble Lord who represents the Irish Office will be able to tell us that His Majesty's Government are charitably disposed in this matter.
Moved, That there be laid before the House Papers relating to the decision of the Court of Appeal in Dublin on Tuesday, 19th July, in the case of the

581
estate of Sir C. M. Domvile.—:(The Earl of Donoughmore.)
THE PAYMASTER-GENERAL (LORD ASHBY ST. LEDGERS): My Lords, the noble Earl who moved this Motion has lost no time in bringing this matter to your Lordships' attention. I may say that there is no official report of what took place at the trial by the Court of Appeal in the case of Sir C.M. Domvile's estate, and we have to rely solely on a newspaper report. We have telegraphed to the Estates Commissioners, and they have given us to understand that in substance the report that has reached us is correct, but it must not be supposed as far as the facts are concerned that I am answering on any higher authority than the newspaper report. The noble Earl seems to me, in the speech he has made, to have altered the ground upon which he brings this case before your Lordships. If you refer to his Notice you will see that he at first asked whether this decision carries out the intentions of the Government in the Act of 1909. I understand lie now accepts the fact that the particular words with which he is concerned were not in the original Bill, but were inserted at the instance of Lord Dunboyne. He further, I understand, no longer claims that this particular case, at any rate, is one of hardship.
THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE: Yes, I say it is one of great hardship.
LORD ASHBY ST. LEDGERS: I understood the noble Earl to state a hypothetical case only.
THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE: Only because the hypothetical case was a small case, and these are big cases, I wanted to show that this is not only a matter of big sales and holdings, but a case which will frequently happen, and very often in small cases.
LORD ASHBY ST. LEDGERS: At any rate the noble Earl does not now seem to think that there is any cause for legislation, and that very largely modifies the position he has taken up. I do not know that it is necessary to go very deeply into this case. It is a rather difficult and complicated one. The whole case turns upon the interpretation of words inserted at the instance of Lord Dunboyne, to the effect that the Estates Commissioners may make a direction in cases
582
in which some variation of the terms of purchase are contemplated, and that the effect of such direction on their part is to bring the new purchase under the terms of the old scale. It really turns upon that.
THE EARL OF DONOUGIIMORE: To remain under the terms of the old scale.
LORD ASHBY ST. LEDGERS: Yes, as the noble Earl says, to remain under the terms of the old scale. In this particular case there were three farms belonging to Sir C. M. Domvile, and in the year 1905 Sir C. M. Domvile came to an understanding with his tenants for the sale of those three farms at sums all exceeding £5,000. That was lodged with the Commissioners in 1905. The case was not reached until 1909. Then the Commissioners informed the trustees of Sir C. M. Domvile's estate that they could not advance more than £5,000 in any case. It seems then that the vendor came to an understanding with the tenants by which they were to pay the balance over and above the £5,000, and he applied to the Commissioners to see whether he could still obtain the twelve per cent. bonus and the cash under the old scale. He proposed to effect this in one of two ways, either by endorsing the consent on the existing agreements or by entering into fresh agreements by regarding the action of the Estates Commissioners as amounting to a direction. Upon that the Estates Commissioners applied to Mr. Justice Wylie, the Judicial Commissioner, and asked for a decision as to whether, if they gave a direction, the agreement would come under the old scale; secondly, if they gave no direction, whether it would come under the old scale; and, further, whether their minute saying they could not advance more than £5,000 constituted a direction. The Judge gave no opinion on the first point. He ruled on the other point in the negative—that is to say, that their Memorandum did not constitute a direction, and that, in the failure to give such a direction, the agreement would have to be regarded as a future purchase agreement; and that was confirmed on appeal, as the noble Earl says. But I would point out that there is nothing in this judgment to preclude the trustees front applying to the Commissioners for such a direction. I do not believe they have ever done it. Does the noble Earl know?
THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE: I do not know about this case. I know a case in which an application either has been made or is going to be made in a very few days.
LORD ASHBY ST. LEDGERS: At any rate there is nothing in this judgment to preclude their making such an application; nor is there anything in the judgment to prevent the Commissioners, so far as I know, from making such a direction. Therefore, if I may say so very respectfully, I think that in bringing this forward at this stage the noble Earl is somewhat premature. For all we know the grievance which he thinks exists may have disappeared in the natural course of administrative action. With regard to the question as to whether this is a hard case or not, I am perfectly prepared to admit that if the decision as to this particular purchase had been reached before November, 1908, the vendor and the tenants would have been entitled to the much better terms which then existed. But I should also like to point out that when the parties entered into the agreement for so large a purchase as this, they were aware that, under Section 1, subsection (4), of the Act of 1903, agreements for purchase of over £5,000 could only be sanctioned if the Commissioners regarded such sanction as expedient, and also that a refusal to sanction voided the agreement. They must have known in the year 1905 that they were running great risks of not getting the agreement they had made sanctioned. I may further say, in that relation, that had it not been for the Act of 1909 the hardship, of which they regard this particular case as an example, might have been very much greater, because after September, 1908, the original terms of the Act of 1903 automatically ceased.
It is very difficult to say how far this case is representative. This is the first case of the kind which has been reached. The Commissioners are quite unable to forecast how many similar cases there may be in front of them; but I would point out that it can only apply to a limited number of cases. For instance, all the cases which you may define as zone cases must go through automatically, and the Commissioners would not have any power to vary the terms of the purchases as they have in this case. I may say that it is not at all the intention of the Estates Com-
584
missioners that this should be regarded as a precedent of what is likely to happen in the future, and I think it is really too early to judge as to what the effect of the interpretation of this particular phrase in the clause may be. Meanwhile I cannot see what there is to prevent the trustees from making an application in the ordinary way to the Estates Commissioners, and after they have made that application it will be time for us, I think, to consider what action, if any, it is necessary to take in the matter.
THE EARL OF MAYO: My Lords, it seems to me that the whole crux of this matter lies in the question asked by the Estates Commissioners of the Judicial Commissioner. I can understand him giving no answer. This has happened before. It happened in my case when I sold my property. I arranged with the tenant when the sum was over £5,000 that he was either to find the rest of it or it was to remain on second mortgage. But what I complain of is that His Majesty's. Government have expressed no wish to settle this matter. This is really a test case, and the noble Earl asked what they were going to do in the matter. The Government have referred the matter back, so to speak, to the Estates Commissioners. They say, "If the trustees choose, they can go to the Estates Commissioners." But I must point out that the Estates Commissioners asked a question of the Judicial Commissioner which is the crux of the whole thing, and that question is not answered. I do not see that the Estates Commissioners, if it is going to be referred back to them, can say anything more about the matter. The bargain was made under the 1903 Act; then came the Act of 1909, and when it is a question of the twelve per cent. bonus it is very easy to say, although we do not think it is quite right, "We do not look upon this as the original bargain; there has been a variation by the Commissioners." I can quite understand that upon that variation the Commissioners, or people in authority, may say, "Oh, no, this bonus cannot be paid on the full sum; a new direction has been granted by us." That is the whole reason why Sir Compton Domvile's trustees had to take the matter before the Courts. The answer the Government have given us now is to refer us back to the Estates Commissioners, which I consider most unsatisfactory.
LORD ASHBY ST. LEDGERS: The ease has never been raised in a substantive form. The Judge refused to give a decision on a merely hypothetical case. If the trustees apply to the Estates Commissioners then the case would come forward in a substantive form before the Judicial Commissioner.
THE EARL OF MAYO: Then he can really answer the question that they put to him. Now we have got to the crux of the matter, because that is the thing on which the whole question turns. I hope that the trustees of Sir Compton Domvile will refer it back to the Estates Commissioners, and then I hope the Judicial Commissioner will see his way to give a direct answer. We shall then know where we are. I am much obliged to the noble Lord, Lord Ashby St. Ledgers, for explaining that point, and I have nothing more to say about the matter at present.
THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE: I have to thank the noble Lord for the hint he has given us, as regards this first question, that we should approach the Estates Commissioners, and I hope from the way he has addressed us this afternoon that we may look for as favourable a decision from them as we should get from the noble Lord if we were applying to him.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD CLONBROCK LORD CLONBROCK rose to ask His Majesty's Government for the following information as to the working of the Irish Land Act, 1909, during the period ended June 30, 1910—

1. How many vendors have lodged originating applications for direct sales from landlord to tenant and other sales;

2. What is the total of the advances applied for under such applications;

3. How many purchase agreements at three and a-half per cent. annuities have been lodged;

4. What is the total of the advances applied for under such agreements;

5. How many originating requests have been lodged fur sales of estates direct to the Land Commission;

6. How many holdings are comprised in those requests.

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I rise to put the Questions that stand in my name on the Paper with the object of obtaining information on these various points. At first sight Question 2 and Question 4 might appear to be identical, but they are not so, because Question 2 refers to originating applications which contain besides tenanted land parcels of untenanted land, whereas Question 4 refers only to the advances and the purchase agreements confined solely to tenanted land. I hope the noble Lord will be able to give me the information asked for.
LORD ASHBY ST. LEDGERS: My Lords, the information the noble Lord asks for is as follows. The Estates Commissioners report that from December 3, 1909, to June 30, 1910, thirty-five originating applications were lodged by vendors for the sale of the estates therein comprised direct to the tenants. In answer to Question 2, 352 purchase agreements for the sale of holdings on these estates have been lodged, and the purchase money applied for therein is £106,979. In four of these estates no purchase agreements have yet been lodged. In reply to Questions 3 and 4, 2,379 agreements at three and a-half per cent. annuities have been lodged, and the advances therein applied for amount to £611,226. These figures include those given in answer to the second Question, and the difference represents purchase agreements lodged for sale of holdings on estates in which the originating applications were lodged prior to the passing of the Act of 1909. The reply to Questions 5 and 6 is that fourteen originating requests have been lodged by the vendors for the sale of the estates therein comprised direct to the Land Commission. The estimated number of holdings comprised in these requests is. 480.
LORD CLONBROCK: I should like to ask His Majesty's Government whether they can state how soon the Annual Reports of the Irish Land Commissioners and of the Estates Commissioners respectively for the year ended March 31, 1910, may be expected to be in the hands of the public.
LORD ASHBY ST. LEDGERS: The Report of the Irish Land Commission for the year ended March 31, 1910, has been submitted to the Lord Lieutenant. It is now in the printer's hands, and will be

587
resented to Parliament in the course of a few days. The report of the Estates Commissioners is in course of preparation. The major part of it is already in print, and it will be laid before Parliament as soon as possible.
THE EARL OF MAYO: Will it be laid before Parliament by November?
LORD ASHBY ST. LEDGERS: I cannot say. It will be laid as soon as possible.

HOTELS AND RESTAURANTS (DUBLIN) BILL.
Read 1s; to be printed; and to be read 2a on Monday next (The Lord Ashby St. Ledgers). (No. 149.)
LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 5) BILL—(UNOPPOSED ORDERS).
Reported without amendment.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 5) BILL—(Merthyr Tydfil Order).
Reported from the Select Committee with Amendments.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 5) BILL.
Re-committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Monday next.
House adjourned at a quarter past Seven o'clock, till To-morrow, Six o'clock.