Sitting of 3 January 1913

Preamble
The House met at Eleven of the clock.

MR. SPEAKER'S ABSENCE.
The Clerk at the Table informed the House of the unavoidable absence of Mr. SPEAKER from this day's Sitting:—
Whereupon Mr. WHITLEY, the Chairman of Ways and Means, proceeded to the Table, and, after Prayers, took the Chair as Deputy-Speaker, pursuant to the Standing Order.

TREATY SERIES (No. 26, 1912).
Copy presented of Ratification by Denmark of the International Copyright Convention, signed at Berlin, 13th November, 1908/1st July, 1902 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
NATIONAL INSURANCE ACT, 1911.
Copy presented of Letter, dated 18th December, 1912, from the Chancellor of the Exchequer to the National Insurance Practitioners Association [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.

SHOPS ACT, 1912.
Copy presented of Order made by the Council of the urban district of Barry, and confirmed by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, extending the provisions of Section 4 of The Shops Act, 1912, to certain classes of Shops within the district, and fixing the early closing day and the closing hours on the other days of the week for the same Shops [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
Copy presented of Orders made by the Councils of the boroughs, of Bath and Pudsey, and the urban district of Edmonton (two), and confirmed by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, extending the provisions of Section 4 of The Shops Act, 1912, to certain classes of Shops, and fixing the days on which the Shops are to be closed for the weekly half-holiday [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
Copy presented of Order made by the Council of the county borough of Bolton, and confirmed by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, fixing the closing hours on the several days of the week for certain Shops [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
Copies presented of Orders made by the Councils of the boroughs of Accrington, Exeter, and Haslingden (two), and confirmed by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, fixing the day on which certain Shops are to be closed for the weekly half-holiday and the closing hours on the several days of the week for certain Shops [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.

TRADE REPORTS (ANNUAL SERIES).
Copy presented of Diplomatic and Consular Reports, Annual Series, No. 5034 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table
ORDERS OF THE DAY.
  BILL PRESENTED.
    HERRING FISHERY (BRANDING) BILL.
    "To provide for the branding of barrels filled with cured herrings in England and Wales." Presented by Mr. RUNCTMAN; to be read a second time upon Monday next (6th January), and to be printed. [Bill 346.]

    ESTABLISHED CHURCH (WALES) BILL.
    Further considered in Committee.
    EIGHTH ALLOTTED DAY.—[Progress, 19th December.]
    [Mr. WHITLEY in the Chair.]

  BORDER PARISHES.

    CLAUSE 9.—(Provisions as to Border Parishes.)
    (1) The Welsh Commissioners shall, as soon as may be after the passing of this Act, with respect to any ecclesiastical parish part only whereof is situate in Wales or Monmouthshire, by order determine with reference to the general wishes of the parishioners whether the parish is to be treated as being wholly within or wholly without Wales or Monmouthshire, and the parish shall for the purpose of this Act be treated accordingly, but any parishioner of the parish may appeal against any such order to His Majesty the King in Council, and any such appeal shall be referred to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council.
    (2) The Ecclesiastical Commissioners shall by order attach to an English diocese any ecclesiastical parish which at the passing of this Act is situate in a Welsh diocese, but not in Wales or Monmouthshire, and any such ecclesiastical parish which under this Section is to be treated as being wholly without Wales or Monmouthshire, and may-make any provisions which appear to them necessary or incidental to such attachment, including the transfer to the bishop of the diocese to which the parish is attached of the right of patronage in any case where such right was immediately before the passing of this Act vested in any cathedral or ecclesiastical corporation dissolved by this Act, but no such Order shall come into effect until the date of Disestablishment.
    (3) Any ecclesiastical parish which is at the passing of this Act situate wholly in Wales or Monmouthshire, or is for the purposes of this Act to be treated as so situate, and forms part of an English diocese, shall, as from the date of Disestablishment cease to form part of that diocese, and shall be attached to such Welsh diocese as the representative body may determine.
    (4) Save as by this Section provided, nothing in this Act shall affect any English diocese.
    The CHAIRMAN: Three Amendments to this Clause propose alternative methods of dealing with border parishes. Each of them involves a number of consequential Amendments, and perhaps it would be for the convenience of the Committee if I draw attention to them. The first is that standing in the name of the hon. Member for Kingston (Mr. Cave) which proposes to leave out certain words in the Clause followed by a series of Amendments, the effect of which would be to provide in the Clause that all parishes which are not wholly in Wales or in England should be treated as being outside Wales. The second Amendment is that standing in the name of the hon. Member for the Wycombe Division of Buckinghamshire (Sir A. Cripps), which proposes to do away with the general assent of the parishioners and the appeal to Privy Council, and substitute the Ecclesiastical Commissioners for the Welsh Commissioners. The third Amendment is in the name of the hon. Member for the Lewes Division of Sussex (Mr. Campion), which proposes that the border parishes should be treated as being outside Wales unless by petition they ask to be treated as within Wales or Monmouthshire. Those are the three Amendments, and of them I understand it is desired that I should take the one in the name of the hon. Member for Kingston.
    Mr. BOOTH: Do I understand you to say that something was granted by desire? I do not wish to challenge your knowledge, Mr. Whitley, of the general desire of the Committee, but it is not the universal desire. My preference would be for an Amendment put on the Paper for several days which we have had a chance to study. I do not wish to interfere with your discretion, Mr. Whitley, as to what is the general desire., but a number of us would have preferred the taking of an Amendment which has been longer on the Paper.
    The CHAIRMAN: That is a matter entirely for me to decide, and I have to decide it with a consideration of all the circumstances of the case. The Amendment I have chosen seems to me to raise the clearest issue, and that is one of the reasons I have come to the decision I have just announced.
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: On behalf of those who are watching this Bill most closely, may I say that I do not think we have ever expressed a desire for any particular Amendment to be taken. We regard the time as being so totally inadequate that we prefer the matter should be left in your hands.
    The CHAIRMAN: It is entirely under the powers entrusted to me that I have come to the decision I have announced.
    Mr. CAVE: I beg to move, in Sub-section (1), to leave out the words"(1) The Welsh Commissioners shall, as soon as may be after the passing of this Act, with respect to."
    I regret that my series of Amendments have not been longer on the Paper, but I think I can make clear to the Committee what the effect of them will be. If my four Amendments are adopted Subsection (1) will then read:—
    "Any ecclesiastical parish part only whereof is situate in Wales or Monmouthshire, shall for the purposes of this Act be treated as being wholly without Wales or Monmouthshire."
    These Amendments deal only with the border parishes situated partly in Wales and partly outside, and have no reference to those parishes which are in English dioceses, but are situate wholly in Wales or Monmouthshire. With the latter class of parish I have no desire to deal at all, and I do not want to trench upon the time allotted for the discussion of a different point. There are twenty border parishes in all, and I am taking my figures from the Report of the Royal Commission. Six of them only are in Welsh dioceses, two in the diocese of Llandaff and four in the diocese of St. Asaph. There are none in the other Welsh dioceses. The other fourteen are wholly in English dioceses, two in Chester, and the remaining twelve in Hereford. I do not propose to dwell at length upon the general question of the dismemberment of the Church. That is a point of very grave importance, and one which I quite
    686
    agree fairly arises on this Clause, because nothing can show more clearly the unity of the Church in England and Wales than the striking fact that there is such a large number of parishes partly in England and partly in Wales. That is a very strong illustration of the inadvisability and injustice of endeavouring to tear the Church in Wales from the Church of England. I do not propose to dwell further upon that point. I want to make three points, and three only, in favour of my proposal.
    The proposal in this Sub-section of the Bill is that you shall introduce Disestablishment and Disendowment not only into Wales, but into part of England. This proposal, therefore, is the commencement of Disestablishment and Disendowment in England quite apart from Wales and Monmouthshire. To that proposal I take the strongest objection at the earliest possible moment. All these parishes are partly in England. The majority of them, fourteen out of twenty, are wholly in English dioceses, and therefore these parishes are not covered by the words in Clause 1 of this Bill itself, which provides that the Church of England, so far as it extends to and exists in Wales and Monmouthshire, shall cease to be established by law. These parishes, therefore, are not within the main Clause of the Bill, nor are they within any of the arguments, so far as I know, which have been advanced for the Disestablishment of the Church in Wales. They certainly are not within the demand made by the majority of the people in Wales nor the criticisms levelled against the administration of the Welsh dioceses, and I am at a loss to understand on what principle any parish or any part of a parish which is in England, and especially in an English diocese, is to be brought within the principle or the equity of this Bill. This proposal is in effect a raid across the border into England, and it is an attempt, under cover of a somewhat obscure provision, to make a beginning in regard to the Disestablishment and the Disendowment of the Church of England in England.
    Mr. BOOTH: Oh, no; not an atom of it.
    Mr. CAVE: I hope I have made my point clear. There can be no dispute as to what I say, that the effect of this Clause is to disendow parishes which as to all of them partly and to many of them mainly are in England, subject, of course, to the discretion which is given partly to the Commissioners and partly rests upon the wishes of the parishes themselves. Although the

    687
    Bill does not ipso facto disestablish the Church in these parishes, it does authorise Disestablishment and Disendowment in those parishes subject to compliance with the forms of the Bill. That is my first point, and I want to object most strongly at the very beginning to this attempt, as I conceive it, to begin to extend the principles of this Bill to England apart from Wales.
    The second point I want to make is this. I object very strongly to the proposal of the Bill for dealing with these border parishes. On this point my Amendment differs from the others. What is the proposal of the Sub-section for dealing with the border parishes'? Power to bring them within the Bill is given to the Welsh Commissioners. That is a body of which at present we know nothing, and, if the Amendment on the Paper in the name of the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. McKenna) is adopted, we shall not even know their names before the Bill passes. We are told that one of them will be a member of the Church of England. I believe the right hon. Gentleman himself claims to be a member of the Church of England, and even as to that one we shall know nothing except that very general fact. The other two may be hostile for all we know to the views held throughout the Church of England, and to these three men will be committed the power to disestablish and disendow the Church in any one of these twenty partly English parishes.
    The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. McKenna): Subject to appeal to the Privy Council.
    Mr. ELLIS DAVIES: And to the general desire of the inhabitants.
    Mr. CAVE: I am going to refer to those points in a moment. The only consideration on which the Commissioners are to act is with reference to the general wishes of the parishioners. I rather think that means the Commissioners are to have regard to nothing except the general wishes of the parishioners. In the earlier Bills other considerations were to be taken into account. The tribunal concerned was to take into account the proportion of the population upon the Welsh side of the border, the situation of the parish church, and any other relative subjects. Those considerations, for some reason, are omitted from this Bill, and nothing is referred to
    688
    except the general wishes of the parishioners. Does it mean that the general wishes are to be the only guide to the Commissioners, and therefore the only ground on which the Privy Council can act in the case of an appeal? Is the appeal to the Privy Council to mean nothing but this, that the Council has to satisfy itself as to the wishes of the parishioners, and that, having ascertained that, it has no discretion except to follow those wishes? We would like to know whether that is what the Bill means. In the next place, who are the parishioners referred to in this Clause? Does it mean every resident occupier in the parish? Is it confined to the resident occupiers or does it include all those who inhabit the parish? Does it include women and children? There is no definition of "parishioners" in the Bill, and one would like to know what is the intention of the Government and how they propose to make that intention clear. In the next place, what is the meaning of "general wishes"? How are general wishes to be distinguished from particular wishes? What is the meaning of the phrase and what effect is to be given to it? Then, how is it intended that those wishes shall be ascertained? Is there to be some sort of plebiscite or nothing but an inquiry, as a consequence of which the Commissioners may come to such conclusions as they think fit, leaving no material upon which an appeal can be based?
    All that certainly wants consideration, but apart from those questions there is a much wider question involved in this proposal. The proposal, I suppose, is that in some way or other you shall get the opinion of the parish as to whether there should be Disestablishment or Disendowrment or not. In other words, the parishioners shall be consulted as to whether the funds now belonging to the Church shall continue to belong to the Church or to the incumbent or shall be applied to other local or general purposes. Just let the Committee consider what that means ! It means there is to be a discussion and a contest in each of these parishes as to the application of money. You are to have the spectacle of argument, of canvass, I suppose, and of discussion in each parish as to whether funds now devoted to religious purposes shall continue to be so devoted or shall be diverted to other objects which no doubt will be put before the parishioners in glowing terms by the opponents of the Church. I think this is a most undesirable way of settling this

    689
    matter—[HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"]—a most undesirable way. It is a most undignified and a pitiable thing that these people in these rural parishes should be quarrelling and disputing as to whether a certain annual sum shall be applied to religious or other purposes. We shall have all the bitterness which has been imported even into these Debates introduced in every one of these parishes. There will be a contest, a struggle, and a fight over money, a fight between the application of money to religious and the application of money to secular purposes. The proposal is very ill-conceived and is one likely to do a great deal of harm. I would like to have the matter, not relegated to this sort of local or parochial option, but settled by Parliament or by some tribunal appointed by Parliament, not bound by the result, possibly the chance result, of discussions and votes of that kind. It should be decided on considerations far wider, and, I think, of a far worthier character. One is always open to criticism if he comments upon proposals of this kind, which are pseudo democratic, but, for all that, I have put my view forward, and I think it is the right one. I think the proposal to submit the question to this kind of arbitrament is very unwise and is likely to do a great deal of harm.
    The third point I want to make is a criticism upon the frame of the Bill. These decisions will take time. The ascertainment of the general wishes of the parishioners must take some time, though how many months I cannot say. There may be appeals, and the appeals, of course, will take time. Meanwhile, the 1st July may come and the date of Disestablishment may pass. What is to be the position of these parishes between the date of Disestablishment and the final decision of the question whether the Bill should apply to them or not? I do not think that can have been considered. It seems to me the Bill leaves it, at all events so far as I can interpret it, in great uncertainty. Will there during this interval be any, and, if so, what, check upon the dealings with Church property or Church matters? Will Ecclesiastical Law apply? Must the Ecclesiastical Commissioners and the Governors of Queen Anne's Bounty make their calculations and their adjustments as to these parishes or not? What will be their duty in the matter? If a vacancy occurs in a living, who will nominate? Will the nomination be made by the present patron, or will it be made under Clause 20 of the
    690
    Bill? All those matters, and others which I need not go into, will be left in uncertainty, and I think we ought to know what is the view of the Government. If I am right in my interpretation, the effect is to illustrate once again the unwisdom of leaving the status of all these twenty parishes in uncertainty instead of dealing with it once and for all.
    I have put before the Committee my reasons for objecting strongly to the provisions of the Sub-section itself. My proposal, of course, is a very simple one; it is that you should hold that, unless a parish is wholly in Wales or Monmouthshire it does not come within the Bill. I do not see for the moment any other way in which the whole of my objections can be met. Of course, it may be said with regard to any particular parish that there is nothing but a fraction of it in England and that can be dealt with by an adjustment of boundaries, but as regards many of these parishes that cannot be said. Some of them are almost wholly in England, and as regards one of them the incumbent of the border parish is also the incumbent of a neighbouring parish wholly within. If the Bill passes the effect may be that the same man will be the incumbent of a disestablished parish and of an established parish in two different dioceses. All sorts of questions and difficulties may arise. I want to deal with them, and above all I want to deal with them at once. I do not want to leave the matter open to be fought out and determined hereafter. Above all, I have the strong feeling I have expressed, that in no case ought the Committee to agree to extend the principle of Disestablishment and Disendowment, which has only been supported and defended for Wales, to any English parish.
    Mr. McKENNA: The hon. and learned Member always states his case with such fairness and moderation that one cannot help feeling a certain amount of regret when one is unable to agree with him. On the present occasion I do not think he has established a good case in support of his Amendment. In the first place, he has not done justice to the proposals of the Bill as they stand. What is the scheme of the Bill? We propose that, so far as boundaries allow, the geographical area of Wales and Monmouthshire shall be treated as the area over which Disestablishment shall operate. We have taken the geographical or national boundary. There is no suggestion of an attempt that

    691
    we are endeavouring to introduce Disestablishment into England. On the contrary, parishes which are situated in England but are attached to Welsh dioceses have been cut out from the operation of the Bill.
    Sir ALFRED CRIPPS: What about the English parishes in Wales?
    Mr. McKENNA: It follows almost morally if you treat the geographical area of England as the area in which Disestablishment shall not operate, you treat the geographical area of Wales and Monmouthshire as the area in which it shall operate. We have strictly, so far as circumstances permit, carried out the intention declared in the first Clause of the Bill to Disestablish and Disendow the Church of England in the territory of Wales and Monmouthshire. But there are parishes which are partly in Wales and partly in England. We do not look to their diocesan relationship, because we have already accepted the geographical area as the dividing line. We have refused to claim the Welsh parishes in England although they may be connected with a Welsh diocese. We have abandoned the diocesan area. Quite regardless of their diocesan connection, how are we to treat these parishes which are partly in England and partly in Wales? The hon. and learned Gentleman suggests that we should cut them off from Wales altogether and leave them to England. But he has given no reason for such a proposal. What is our proposal? We say that in all these parishes the Establishments and Endowments are made for man and that man is not made for them, and we propose to consult the people who live in those parishes and allow them to determine whether they shall be treated as being either wholly English or wholly Welsh. We say we will consult the inhabitants and let them decide whether they will come under the English scheme of Establishment and Endowment or under the Welsh scheme of Disestablishment and Disendowment, and I submit to the Committee you cannot in a matter like this have a better guide to the wishes of the people. The hon. and learned Gentleman says we are? departing from our own principles and that we founded our case for the Bill on the desire of the people in Wales. He adds that we are cutting off the parishes which are not in Wales at all. But we propose to consult the desires of the in-
    692
    habitants of certain parishes and let them decide the point whether or not they shall come under the scheme of Disestablishment and Disendowment. We give to the people who will be affected, we give to the parishioners themselves, the power to decide whether or not they will come under the Bill. The hon. and learned Member pointed out, with perfect truth, the difficulties in the way of determining this point. But in any scheme of government there is nothing so easy as in advance to give illustrations which show how impossible it would be to work the scheme. Parliamentary institutions themselves, unless they existed, could never be justified. Will it really in practice prove such a very difficult matter to discover what is the opinion of 400 or 500 people on the whole in regard to this Bill?
    Lord ROBERT CECIL: What do you mean by "on the whole"?
    Mr. McKENNA: The majority.
    Lord ROBERT CECIL: Then why do you not say so?
    Mr. McKENNA: Whether they are to be men, women, or children, I have no doubt competent persons will have common sense enough to be able to discover the desires of the inhabitants without any difficulty. It does not lie in the mouth of hon. Members opposite to emphasise the difficulties in this case. They have told us day after day that if the inhabitants were only consulted they would almost unanimously—and they produce their petitions as evidence of it—they would almost unanimously express their determined desire to remain—
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: Who said "unanimously"?
    Mr. McKENNA: The words I used were "almost unanimously." At any rate, it is suggested that they would, by a large majority, declare their desire to remain under the Established Church. Are we really going to have any serious difficulty in this comparatively trifling number of cases in determining what the wishes of the inhabitants would be? Let me call the attention of the Committee to one or two of these cases of startling difficulty. I have here a list of the parishes. I find a parish partly in England and partly in Wales in the diocese of St. Asaph. Let me take two cases, one pointing in one direction, and one in the other. The first is the parish of Llanymynerch, in which

    693
    out of a population of 1,017 there are no less than 265 communicants, and counting in with the communicants their children—when I speak of communicants I mean communicants of the Church of England—I think there can be no doubt that there would be no kind of difficulty in determining the general desire of the parish.
    Lord ROBERT CECIL: It depends on who they are.
    Mr. McKENNA: I will take another parish—Threapwood. Out of a population of 305 there are twenty-six communicants. Then I come to the case of the parish of Cwmyoy, in the diocese of Llandaff, where out of 426 inhabitants there are thirty-six communicants. I can, too, give a parish the other way, where out of 970 inhabitants there are 201 communicants—a parish also in the diocese of St. Asaph. In the majority of the thirty parishes affected there cannot be the slightest difficulty in determining what the desire of the inhabitants is, and certainly in parishes where there is a very large proportion of communicants compared with the total of the inhabitants it is quite clear that the view of those communicants would be in favour of the Establishment.
    Mr. BOOTH: No, no.
    Mr. McKENNA: At any rate I will assume that. I agree with my hon. Friend that it may not be a certainty. But let us consider what is the difficulty as a whole. What does it amount to? There are only twenty parishes which are going to be affected in Wales and Monmouthshire. Altogether there are upwards of 1,000 parishes in the Principality. Surely those twenty parishes can be disposed of with the greatest of ease. Let us assume that they become divided, that half go to England and half to Wales. What is the prolishment and Disendowment for over 1,000 portion that ten parishes bear to upwards of 1,000. Here we are carrying Disestab-parishes. Are we to be stopped on the threshold because of the difficulty of determining whether some twenty parishes shall come within the scheme? I submit to the Committee that the hon. and learned Gentleman has not made out his case. Nobody is more likely to recognise than those who have the responsibility for conducting this Bill through the House that there are many local difficulties, and that local feeling may in many cases be deeply affected. But that is an inevitable condition in connection with a Bill which affects
    694
    a large area, and, so far from looking upon it as an objection to this measure, I should say that, as far as Wales and Monmouthshire are concerned the difficulties of this kind are so trifling in relation to the feeling of the whole Principality that really the House ought not to be called upon to devote very much time to discussing this point. The next point made by the hon. and learned 'Gentleman was that the decision is to be made by the Commissioners, but that it is now proposed not to include the names of the Commissioners in the Bill. The reason for that can be discussed when we reach Clause 10. Of course I do not object to the hon. and learned Gentleman having drawn a certain inference. But he was not right in that inference. He said the names of the Commissioners would not be known until the Bill had passed. I presume he meant until it had passed into law. But they will be published before that time.
    Mr. ALFRED LYTTELTON: Before the Bill leaves this House?
    Mr. McKENNA: No.
    The CHAIRMAN: That point arises at the beginning of the next Clause It was quite right that the hon. and learned Member should ask the question, but we cannot debate it now.
    Mr. McKENNA: I have no intention of dealing with it now. The reasons will be given when we come to the next stage of the discussion. The last point raised by the hon. and learned Gentleman was on the question of time. He suggested that the time between the passing of the Act into law and the date of Disestablishment would not be sufficient to enable the wishes of the inhabitants of those twenty parishes to be discovered. I can assure the hon. and learned Gentleman that every step will certainly be taken within six months to discover the wishes of the inhabitants. After all, the task is not so very difficult. We can obtain a General Election in far less time. These are small parishes. There is hardly any one of them which has as many as 1,000 inhabitants. Presteign has 1,700 inhabitants, and there is another which I have already named with 1,017. There is one other, Lache in Saltney, partly in Flint and partly in Chester, which has 3,500. With these three exceptions there is not a single border parish, which is partly in England and partly in Wales, which has more than a few hundred inhabitants. To say that the

    695
    Commissioners could not determine what the sense of the inhabitants is within six months, even allowing time for an appeal, is, I think, to make a suggestion which really is not founded upon fact. I believe the Committee will find that in practice in four out of five of these parishes the question will be settled without the smallest difficulty. In the small remainder there may be a certain amount of difficulty and an appeal, but six months, and certainly a year, is far more than ample time for the work that has to be done. For these reasons, I submit the Committee should not accept the Amendment.
    Sir A. CRIPPS: I have listened very carefully to the argument of the Home Secretary, but it appears to me that he has in no way answered the points raised by my hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Cave). If I may say so, without discourtesy, the right hon. Gentleman, when he is speaking on this Bill, fails to realise that we are dealing, not only with a Disendowment and Disestablishment Bill, but with a Dismemberment Bill. It is when we come to the dismemberment question that we meet with great complexity and difficulty, for, so far as I know, since the Toleration Act of William and Mary of 1688 or 1689, there has not been a proposal in this country where, by political action, we have sought to break up a religious organisation. A matter of that kind has always been considered as outside the sphere of political action altogether. I am not going into that general question upon this Clause, but it seems to me that this Clause reveals the complexity which meets you when you are dealing with a novel suggestion of this kind. It is the most reactionary and sectarian suggestion that has been brought forward in the House of Commons for at least 200 years. I have no hesitation whatever in saying that. Let us see how the Home Secretary attempts to deal with it. This Clause is an entirely novel Clause. I will ask anyone who is going to speak from the other side whether he can find any precedent in any legislation which has been passed for the last 200 years in this country that has any similarity whatever to the proposals in this Clause. I feel quite confident that he will not be able to do it. This is the first time that intervention by statutory action to break up a religious organisation has ever been sanctioned or allowed in this country.
    When we come to the question of dismemberment, surely all the arguments
    696
    which have been used by my hon. and learned Friend inevitably apply; yet not one of them has been answered. The general scheme of the Amendment is this: that if you are to have dismemberment as regards these border parishes, the method of dismemberment and the extent of dismemberment ought to be decided and determined by the House itself. I entirely agree with that. If you are to introduce a novel principle of this kind into our religious life, this House ought to take the responsibility itself and decide, once and for all, whether these parishes are to be within the Established or Disestablished area. It would be out of order to go into my own Amendment, except to mention it. My proposal was that if this matter could not be carried out by the House itself, it should be carried out by the Ecclesiastical Commissioners. I suggested that body because it is their daily routine, not, of course, to deal with the dismemberment of a Church, but to deal with the rearrangement of parochial conditions. If that body had been inserted instead of the Welsh Commissioners, some of the objections which we feel might have been overcome. [HON. MEMBERS: "NO, no."] Yes, to a certain extent. The first thing I want to ask the Home Secretary is this: What answer has he given to what was said by my hon. and learned Friend that this Clause, as it stands, does, in effect, introduce Disestablishment and Disendowment into the English area. That is an extremely important point, so far as Churchmen are concerned. It is said by the Home Secretary to be only a little matter; but when we are dealing with what constitutes a precedent—this will be a precedent for the first time—I say it is wholly unjustifiable by a side wind—that is what is done—to attempt to introduce Disestablishment and Disendowment within the English area. It is no answer for the Home Secretary to say, "What other way could we do it?" It is no answer for him to say, "It is a small matter." When he says there is no other way of doing it, the answer to that is this: That if you start on the unjust principle of compulsory religious dismemberment, you will find yourselves in difficulties, inconsistent with true principle, in every direction when you attempt to carry out what, in itself, is unjust and unfair. It is no answer whatever to say that we must be unjust and unfair in this Clause because we started from a principle which, in itself, is essentially unjust and unfair.

    697
    Does the Home Secretary deny that this is introducing Disestablishment and Disendowment into the English area? Can he deny it? I want to ask him, Has any argument been brought forward in support of this Bill which would not condemn this proposal of introducing Disestablishment and Disendowment into the English area? What becomes of the doctrine of nationality? What becomes of the doctrine of representation in this House? What becomes of the whole principle—I quite appreciate what the principle is, and I do not shut my eyes to it, although I disagree with it—on which this Bill has been brought forward in this House? The right hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that Churchmen, although they desire to give every weight to the national feeling in Wales, yet say most distinctly that the Church and religious divisions have never depended either upon nationalities or geographical areas. Their overriding consideration is religious, which has nothing to do with nationality or geographical areas at all. I appreciate and understand the view that is put forward as regards nationality from the Welsh side. No Churchman has asked to stand in the way of Welsh nationality. He only says that where nationality and religious conviction come into conflict, religious conviction ought to be the ruling principle. I think he is right in saying that. If anyone is going to speak from the other side, I ask if he will deny what was said by my hon. and learned Friend that the Clause, as it stands, allows, by a side wind, the principle of Disestablishment and Disendowment to be introduced into the English area. Unless hon. Members can deny that, I say the whole fabric of a Clause of this kind is essentially iniquitous, reactionary, and sectarian. What is the next principle underlying the Clause? The decision is to be given with reference to the general wishes of the parishioners. Does the right hon. Gentleman consider that any religious community or organisation—I do not take the Church, but take the Wesleyan or any other religious community with its own oganisation—can possibly maintain that organisation if you allow each district or parish to become independent and go off in some other direction? Conceive what is being suggested here. Are we to have this principle, that where you find some parish, perhaps in Cornwall or the West Riding of Yorkshire, where the general wish of the parishioners is for Disendowment and Disestablishment, they are to
    698
    have it? The Home Secretary has spoken sometimes of the wishes of the parishioners and sometimes of the wishes of the inhabitants. Is he going to propose to this House that where you have an Established Church, as we have it in England and Wales, I will take it in England for the moment, that in his view in any parish where the general wish of the parishioners happens to be adverse to the Church organisation you are to have Disestablishment and Disendowment in that parish? If he does not say that, how can he support the present proposal?
    I agree with what my hon. and learned Friend said—that it is a pseudo-democratic notion. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Can you deal with any organisation, either political or religious, if you allow separate parishes to go off into separate organisations according to the general wishes of the parishioners of that particular parish? I deny that any such scheme of Church organisation is possible. When we are talking about precedents, are we to establish here for the first time—this is the idea of the Home Secretary—a reactionary Erastian notion that the general wish of the inhabitants of the parish is to overrule the religious views of what may be a majority, in order to determine whether or not they are to be excluded from the religious organisation to which they belong? That is a monstrous proposition, an iniquitous proposition, a proposition which, if carried to its logical result, will put an end to all religious organisation, as well as to all religious feeling in every part of the country. I feel, myself, strongly that the doctrine of introducing notions of this kind into our religious life and organisation is inconsistent with what we mean by religious feeling, religious faith, and religious conviction. It is absurd to say that I or any other Churchman is to have his Church life determined because in the particular parish in which he lives there happens to be for the time being a majority who desire either the Disestablishment or Disendowment of the Church. That is what is being done. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why not?"] I say it is inconsistent with every notion of religious faith and religious conviction, to subordinate religion to the mere vote or the mere general wish of the parishioners of a particular parish. I go further than that, and say that you ought not to subordinate it to political considerations at all. I say-that the doctrine of dismemberment of the

    699
    Church is the most reactionary and the most sectarian ever brought forward in this House for at least two centuries.
    12.0 M.
    Let me deal with, the other point which my hon. and learned Friend referred to, to which no answer has been given. I agree that there is the suggestion of the appeal to the Privy Council. What does that mean? Just conceive a poor parishioner who is convinced of the truth of his Church, who wishes to live and die under the organisation to which he is traditionally attached, and I will assume that that poor parishioner is in one of these border parishes, and that the Welsh Commission has given a decision against him. It is an absolute mockery to tell him that he has any right as regards the appeal to the Privy Council, and the Home Secretary knows it, and so does the Under-Secretary know it. Do you mean to say that a poor man, perhaps a man who is earning his £1 a week or thereabouts, can make effective in a Bill of this kind an appeal to the Privy Council? You are holding out to him what is nothing more than a mockery and a farce. You are telling him he has a right of appeal which you know, and everyone knows, a poor man can never exercise in a case of this kind at all. It is, I suppose, on the mistaken doctrine that we are a rich Church that this appeal is to be formulated in favour of the rich man so far as the Church is concerned. I cannot conceive any other reason for putting in this appeal. It may be, possibly, that a rich man might take advantage of it. You do not care for the poor Churchman. You are constantly talking of our Church as though it were a rich man's Church. It is a poor man's Church. There are hundreds of thousands of poor men devoted to its faith and its doctrine, and not one of these poor men, as you know perfectly well, has the slightest chance of taking advantage of an appeal of this kind. What would the appeal come to? What is the Privy Council to decide? Are they to decide whether the general wish of the parishioners in a parish has been properly represented by the Welsh Commissioners or not? I want to know what you are giving the appeal about. I speak strongly on this because in my alternative Amendment I struck out this right of appeal because I think it is a mockery and a farce as regards poor men, and a mockery and a farce as regards pro-
    700
    cedure generally, and I cannot conceive any question which could really be brought before the Privy Council after the Welsh Commissioners have given a decision, whatever it may be.
    It has already been pointed out as regards the Welsh Commissioners that we shall discuss their constitution on the next Clause. Therefore, I do not intend to deal with that, but has any hon. Member opposite ever heard of a case where a man is to be excluded from his Church by the decision of an outside secular body over which he has no control at all? Has that ever been heard of before this Bill? I do not care how the Welsh Commissioners are constituted. Constitute them in the best way possible. Are you going compulsorily to drive a poor man out of a religious organisation to which he is attached and to which he desires to belong at the dictation of three Commissioners over whom he has not the least control? What becomes of religious love and religious conviction? We have been told more than once that religious matters are very seriously considered within the Principality. I agree with that, but ought not we to have a logical result? Is there a man within the Principality of Wales or in Monmouthshire of real religious conviction who would allow questions of his religious organisation to be left in the hands of three outsiders in reference to whose appointment he has no voice at all? That is the proposition we have to face, and we have to face it, because this appeal is an unprecedented appeal as regards this question of dismemberment. If it was not dismemberment we should not have any border parishes at all. Border parishes only come into operation because there is a dismemberment Bill. I will ask again, is this to be taken as a precedent for putting on one side on political grounds all religious convictions in order to carry out the monstrous principle, so far as religious life is concerned, of breaking up by compulsory action an existing religious organisation? I have looked carefully and I can find no precedent whatever in any Act for any Clause resembling this. If we have to deal with a matter of this kind, the House ought to take its own responsibility, the House ought to give the decision itself. It is not a matter which ought to be delegated to any body, however appointed, much less to Welsh Commissioners, who have to decide what is called the general wishes of the parishioners of the particular parish.
    Mr. BECK: No one will deny the earnestness and sincerity of the hon. and learned Gentleman, but I think any stranger who entered into this House and heard the Debate would be extraordinarily surprised to find that a speech of that character was made on the simple proposition that the majority of the people in a parish should be consulted as to whether they are to come within the Establishment or not. It is views like those of the hon. and learned Gentleman which make the position of Liberal Churchmen so difficult. Intolerance and privilege breathed through every word of his speech. It is a crushing calamity to religion that the people who are ministered to by the Church should be consulted as to the government and the organisation of their Church. Surely that takes us back to the Middle Ages, to the days when to question the authority or the fiat of the Church was an offence for which one could be burned at the stake, and indeed some of us felt grateful that the hon. and learned Gentleman had no power over our souls and bodies or else we should have thought we were in grave danger of a very painful and degrading end. He talks about poor men. He says we on this side do not consider the poor man. Who are the majority in these cases? Do these parishes consist of rich men? There may be two or three rich men, but, as everyone knows, in any area of this country, wherever you take it, the vast majority of persons are poor men.
    Sir A. CRIPPS: I said the religious opinion and conviction of poor men.
    Mr. BECK: Yes, they are going to be consulted. I want to approach this question with the utmost sincerity and good feeling, but it seems to me such a remarkable contradiction of everything they have said that they should oppose this Clause with such heat and such anxiety. What is the object of all these petitions which we have had day after day? It is surely to prove that there are vast numbers of people in Wales who object to Disestablishment and Disendowment, and yet here is a Clause which will give those people who are supposed to be seething with discontent against the Bill an opportunity of deciding whether they are to be Disestablished and Disendowed or not, and yet we have been taunted with being a mechanical majority carrying out a policy which is not approved of by the Welsh people. It really is a crushing exposure of the real opposition to Disestablishment and
    702
    Disendowment. We have heard speeches from two of the most convincing and weighty speakers in this House, and it is a crushing exposure of the fact that what is objected to is that the people of Wales should take a part in the government of their own Church. Every free Church is governed on the principle which the hon. and learned Gentleman says is destructive of religion, and so extraordinary does he object to democracy that he says he would have minded less if the Ecclesiastical Commissioners had been the body to decide this. Let us quote the hon. and learned Gentleman's own language. He said this was a novel and iniquitous suggestion, and he said it would be a terrible thing to extend the principle of Disestablishment and Disendowment to any portion of England, however small. But, then, why should it be any better for the Ecclesiastical Commissioners to start these novel and iniquitous suggestions and to start the principle of Disestablishment and Disendowment in any small part of England? I do not say hon. Members are not sincere, but if they dig into their minds they will find their objection to the Clause is not so much in the fact that it dismembers and all the rest of it, but that there is a real and genuine-opportunity to the parishioners of these parishes to be consulted. These are the Gentlemen who have asked for a religious census of Wales. In twenty parishes we shall have a religious census of Wales, and I hope hon. Members opposite may be satisfied with the result. As a Liberal Churchman I am most anxious not to do anything in any way to hamper or hurt the Church to which I belong, but it seems to me that nothing is better for the Church—and I think experience in every corner of the world except this teaches us that it is so—than to have the free winds of democracy blowing through its dark and dusty corners, and for my part I support this Clause as it stands with all sincerity and with every confidence.
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I hope, before the Debate on the Amendment concludes, we shall have some attempt on the part of the Government to explain the machinery under which this Clause is going to be worked. The right hon. Gentleman was,. I think, intentionally obscure in his speech as to the way in which the opinion of the people concerned is going to be taken. What we want to know, and what we have have a right to know, is whether this inquiry is going to be a public or a secret inquiry. Is it going to be carried on as a

    703
    public inquiry or like the Land Inquiry? Who are the people who are going to conduct the inquiry? I suppose the Welsh Commissioners are not going themselves to ask the opinion of each parishioner? Whom are they going to depute to find it out, and what question is going to be put to them, and who are going to be consulted? Is it going to be adults, is it going to be men, is it going to be women, is it going to be every parishioner of every age? The right hon. Gentleman entirely fails to tell us any of these points, which we are absolutely entitled to know, and upon which very likely the votes of some people might depend. All he does is to say, "We are going in for the magnificent principle of consulting the people," and he also went so far as to say "the people who will be affected." The hon. Member (Mr. Beck), who has spoken in such a feeling way about the benefits of the draughts of democracy moving dust from the corners of the Church, has also advocated this principle of consulting the people now, I think, for the first time in regard to this Bill. Why did not the Liberal Churchmen adopt the principle of consulting the people in the parishes of Wales, where we might have had a majority in favour of the Church? You talk about majorities! The only argument you have in favour of the Bill is that there is a majority of Welsh Members in favour of it.
    Mr. BECK: My point is surely very plain. We are thoroughly satisfied with the majority, because we see nothing but Welsh Liberal Members sitting around us. Hon. Members opposite deny that there is a majority of the Welsh people in favour of the Bill, and the moment they get the opportunity of testing that they fight against the very Clause which will give the opportunity.
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: The hon. Gentleman said exactly what I thought he said, and he has repeated it. This is a question in each border parish. Why did you not do that in each parish in Wales? Why did not the hon. Gentleman advocate it at an earlier stage if he is so keen about it? Why were the Cardiff Boroughs and the Denbigh Boroughs left out of the proposal? If this is a question of consulting the people, it only goes as far as the hon. Gentleman wishes it, and he does not consult all the people. I should like to know how any of the Nonconformist bodies, if they were in a minority in a
    704
    parish, or if their position was doubtful in any parish, would like to submit to the parishioners the question whether they wish to remain in their community and whether they would agree to their Endowments being taken if they were in a minority. We consider ourselves entitled to our Endowments. How would Nonconformists like to have their Endowments taken away in places where it is doubtful if they have a majority by submitting the question to people who have no concern in their community at all? I should like to know, if this is a question of dealing with religious convictions, which I deprecate most solemnly, why it was that the Government introduced a new safeguard in the Government of Ireland Bill providing that the Irish Parliament cannot alter the constitution of any religious body except where the alteration is approved by the governing body thereof, or divert from any religious denomination any property which they possess. If it is right not to take away property without the consent of the body concerned, and if it is right not to dismember a body without their consent, what is the point of putting this into the Irish Bill, and why have the Government not adopted the same principle in regard to Wales? I call it almost cant to talk this way about consulting the people at this stage of the proceedings. It is unworthy to come from the mouths of hon. Gentlemen opposite who up till now have never suggested in any way, except in those particular parishes, that the real voice of the people in each parish should be consulted.
    Mr. LLEWELYN WILLIAMS: I confess I am very much surprised that the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Bridgeman) of all Members should object to the provisions of this Clause, because he is the Member for the Oswestry Division, and he knows that this Clause, of all Clauses in the Bill, is one which applies in that Division. There are portions of the Oswestry Division which are now in the diocese of St. Asaph and which are expressly excluded from this Bill.
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: That has nothing to do with this Sub-section. I was only talking of the border parishes.
    Mr. LLEWELYN WILLIAMS: Then I take it that on the first Sub-section the hon. Gentleman has no grievance. The whole of his grievance, as I understood him, is only with respect to the Subsection which deals with the border

    705
    parishes, part of which are in England and part within the limits of Wales. I should like to see what are the dimensions of the problem with which we are dealing. I understand that there are fourteen parishes in England which belong to Welsh dioceses. These are excluded from the Bill. On the other hand, there are twelve parishes in Wales which belong to English dioceses, and these come within the operation of the Bill. There are also twenty parishes which are called border parishes. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] I am not, surprised to hear the figure twenty challenged. I have taken the figure from Powell and Dibdin's book as correct. In a book which they have published they say that that is the number of border parishes. I do not know whether they are correct or whether the Home Secretary is correct in saying that there are only eighteen.
    Mr. McKENNAindicated dissent.
    Mr. LLEWELYN WILLIAMS: Then there are twenty parishes which are called border parishes. Of these twenty thirteen are altogether in English dioceses, and do not come within the operation of the Bill at all. Therefore, there are only five left. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] I am only asking for information. I think it is right that the true circumstances should be understood in this Debate. According to the book published by Powell and Dibdin only five of the parishes will come within the operation of this Bill. But I do not care myself whether the number is twenty, or eighteen, or five. I do submit that, though the Government have been perfectly right so far as the fourteen and the twelve parishes are concerned, they are quite wrong with regard to the way in which they suggest the other twenty parishes, which are border parishes, should be treated. How did these border parishes come to exist at all? Hon. Members opposite seem to think that the fact that there are border parishes is rather an argument against this Bill, but no one who knows anything of the history of Wales will agree with that. What really happened was this: After the Norman Conquest of England it was found impossible to conquer Welshmen as easily as William conquered Englishmen. After the battle of Hastings there was hardly any opposition offered to the conquering arms of William in England. Ever since 1066 England has always been governed by foreign dynasties—Norman, Angevin, Welsh, Scotch and Dutch.
    The CHAIRMAN: The Clause we are now discussing deals with the border parishes, and I cannot see the relevancy of the hon. Member's observations.
    Mr. LLEWELYN WILLIAMS: The course of things in Wales was quite different. Wales had to be conquered piecemeal, and grants were given by the English Kings to the Norman barons of all the land in Wales which they could conquer. That went on from the time of William Rufus to the time of Edward I., and altogether there were 143 Lordship Marchers established there.
    The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member, I think, has not observed my ruling. I do not think it is relevant to go into these matters. We have to deal with the border parishes.
    Mr. LLEWELYN WILLIAMS: With great respect, what I wish to point out is how the border parishes came to exist. I think the history of how the border parishes came to exist is relevant to the Amendment. I shall not take two minutes to state what I wish to say on the subject. These 143 Lordship Marches were not all on the border. They were spread all over Wales, and there were some on the border counties of Wales. After Wales had conquered England by putting a Welsh dynasty on the throne, Henry VIII., determined to deal on different terms with Wales. Up to then Wales was not a geographical expression. In 1535—
    Sir A. CRIPPS: As the time is limited, surely this historical statement is not relevant to the point we are now discussing.
    The CHAIRMAN: I am not able yet myself to see the connection, but the hon. Member seems to think that there is a connection.
    Mr. LLEWELYN WILLIAMS: I am sorry if I have hurt the historical conscience of the hon. Member. Parliament did not look at the ecclesiastical divisions in existence when it constructed modern Wales. What Parliament did by Sections 10, 11 and 12 of the Act of 1535 was to say that certain of these Lordship Marchers were to be added to the counties of Hereford. Gloucester and Shropshire and others were used to form the counties of Monmouth, Radnor and Montgomery. They did not ask whether the dioceses were coterminous with these marchers. They took the marchers

    707
    as they stood and added them to the counties. That is why we are to-day met with this difficulty. Undoubtedly there are twenty parishes, part of which are in England and part of which are in Wales, and I protest against the way in which the Home Secretary has acted in this matter. What did we find the day before yesterday when the Government of Ireland Bill was under discussion? When the case of Ulster came up there was no suggestion that a plebiscite of Ulster should be taken. We all remember the eloquent speech of the hon. and learned Member for Waterford (Mr. J. Redmond) in which he said, "We stand for Ireland as a nation"—
    Lord ROBERT CECIL: On a point of Order. May I ask whether the hon. Gentleman is not evidently wasting the time of the Committee?
    The CHAIRMAN: I think I may express the hope that hon. Members taking part in the Debate will adopt the greatest possible conciseness in presenting their arguments.
    Mr. LLEWELYN WILLIAMS: I thought I was stating an argument which supports the contention of hon. Members opposite, and. I am surprised that the Noble Lord should object. I was trying to prove that the Government are treating Wales differently from the way they are treating Ireland. I say that what the Government ought to have done was to have taken geographical Wales entirely, and Disestablished and Disendowed all that part of the Church which is in Wales. The fact that there are twenty parishes, a portion of which is in England and a portion in Wales, does not affect the matter at all. Those parts of the parishes which are in Wales should be Disestablished and Disendowed. That would remove the objection of the hon. Member for South Bucks, because he would not then see any part of England Disestablished or Disendowed. That is the proper way to treat Wales. We Welshmen stand for Wales a nation, exactly as the Irishmen stand for Ireland a nation. I look forward to this Bill as one further step in the consolidation of Wales; but since our wishes in this matter have not been met by the Government, I quite agree that the proposal in the Section is probably the best way out of it, that is, to ask the majority of the parishioners in the twenty parishes affected what their views are. But I
    708
    would like to point out that it may be a very unfair thing for those inhabitants of the twenty parishes who live in Wales. It may be that the bulk of the inhabitants are over the English border, and therefore the wishes of the Welsh section of the community in those parishes will be overborne by the unenlightened conservatism of the inhabitants of the English parts of the parishes. It may work very unfairly towards the Welsh parts of those parishes to have this reference made to the parishioners themselves; but since the Government have accepted that solution of what is undoubtedly a somewhat difficult problem, I, for one, though I disagree with that solution, am not prepared to carry the matter any further.
    Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWENrose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put"; but the Chairman withheld his assent, as it appeared to him that the Committee was prepared to come to a decision very shortly without that Motion. Debate resumed.
    Mr. BOOTH: I rise to support the hon. Member for Saffron Walden (Mr. Beck). It is not necessary to say much more than that I believe he faithfully represents the views, not only of Libera! Churchmen in this House, but of Liberal Churchmen and democratic Churchmen throughout this country, as well as in Wales. The point is rather a small one, and I am not quite sure as to the amount of attention which should be given to it. The hon. and learned Member for South Bucks (Sir A. Cripps) got up with such sound and fury as seemed to me totally misplaced, and I concluded from that that the Opposition attached some little importance to this proposal. The hon. and learned Member contradicted himself again and again. At one time he spoke against this Parliament having any right to touch a religious matter at all; then he said he wanted this Parliament to decide this particular point, then the parishioners; and so he wandered about, contradicting himself, I am sure, to the amazement of all his admirers in this House, and they are many. But the hon. and learned Member for Kingston (Mr. Cave) was a little more moderate in his tone Our view, on this side, is that when you touch the real Conservative or Tory upon this question you see an impossible gulf between the two sections of Churchmen, those who believe in the parishioners having a voice in the conduct of their own

    709
    parish church, and the High Church ecclesiatical Tories who do not. There is no use in saying that those two points of view can ever be reconciled. The ideas of the hon. and learned Gentleman, I know, are quite sincere; but he shrinks with horror not so much from this Bill in its other phases as from this particular point that you are getting in the thin edge of the wedge with regard to having the voice of the parishioners being heard, as he sees quite well that if once the parishioners in this country taste that little measure of freedom the principle will go further. That is why we rejoice at this Bill. There are some aspects of it I say to Welsh Radicals which I consider are more or less of a compromise that scarcely can be justified by a democratic Parliament, except on the ground of tactics and trying to get through the Bill smoothly. But this particular point not only commends itself to Non-
    conformists and Free Churchmen, but is one of the reasons why the Liberal Churchmen support this Bill. I think that when these parishioners have been called together to decide this particular point as to the boundaries they will then ask for more reforms and for far greater power for the laity, and so by that means the Church will become not merely more democratic but more spiritual. In settling this question of the border parishes we say quite frankly let the parishioners decide. In the name, not merely of scriptural religion, but of the welfare and progress of our own Church, I appeal to the House to pass this very sensible arrangement.
    Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 204; Noes, 56.

    Division No. 481.]

    AYES.

    [12.38 p.m.

    Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour)

    Field. William

    Lambert, Rt. Hon. G. (Devon,S.Molton)

    Acland, Francis Dyke

    Fitzgibbon, John

    Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

    Addison, Dr. Christopher

    Flavin, Michael Joseph

    Lardner, James Carrige Rushe

    Alden, Percy

    Furness, Stephen

    Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, West)

    Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbarton)

    Gilhooly, James

    Leach, Charles

    Atherley-Joncs, Llewellyn A.

    Ginnell, L.

    Levy, Sir Maurice

    Baring, Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple)

    Gladstone, W. G. C.

    Lewis, John Herbert

    Barnes, G. N.

    Glanville, Harold James

    Low, Sir Frederick (Norwich)

    Beale, Sir William Phipson

    Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

    Lundon, Thomas

    Beck, Arthur Cecil

    Greenwood, Granville G. (Peterborough)

    Lynch, A. A.

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

    Griffith, Ellis J.

    Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

    Bentham, G. J.

    Guest, Major Hon. C. H. C. (Pembroke)

    McGhee, Richard

    Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

    Guest, Hon. Frederick E. (Dorset, E.)

    Maclean, Donald

    Boland, John Pius

    Guiney, P.

    Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J.

    Booth, Frederick Handel

    Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

    MacNeill, J. G. Swift (Donegal, South)

    Boyle, D. (Mayo, N.)

    Hackett, J.

    Macpherson, James Ian

    Brady, P. J.

    Hall, F. (Yorks, Normanton)

    MacVeagh, Jeremiah

    Bryce, J. Annan

    Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)

    M'Callum, Sir John M.

    Burke, E. Haviland-

    Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

    McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

    Burns, Rt. Hon. John

    Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire)

    Marshall, Arthur Harold

    Byles, Sir William Pollard

    Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

    Mason, David HI. (Coventry)

    Carr-Gomm, H. W.

    Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

    Masterman, Rt. Hon. C. F. G.

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

    Hayden, John Patrick

    Meagher, Michael

    Chancellor, H. G.

    Hazleton, Richard

    Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

    Chapple, Dr. William Allen

    Healy, Maurice (Cork)

    Molloy, M.

    Clancy, John Joseph

    Healy, Timothy Michael (Cork, N.E.)

    Mond, Sir Alfred Moritz

    Clough, William

    Helme, Sir Norval Watson

    Morgan, George Hay

    Collins, G. P. (Greenock)

    Henry, Sir Charles

    Morrell, Philip

    Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

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

    Morison, Hector

    Conden, Thomas Joseph

    Higham, John Sharp

    Muldoon, John

    Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

    Hinds, John

    Munro, R.

    Cotton, William Francis

    Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

    Murray, Capt. Hon. A. C.

    Crawshay-Williams, Eliot

    Hogge, James Myles

    Nannetti, Joseph P.

    Crean, Eugene

    Holmes, Daniel Turner

    Neilson, Francis

    Crooks, William

    Home, C. Silvester (Ipswich)

    Nolan, Joseph

    Crumley, Patrick

    Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

    Norton, Captain Cecil W.

    Cullinan, J.

    Hughes, S. L.

    Nugent, Sir Walter Richard

    Davies, E, William (Eifion)

    Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus

    O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

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

    John, Edward Thomas

    O'Brien, William (Cork)

    Denman, Hon. R, D.

    Jones, Rt.Hon.Sir D.Brynmor (Swansea)

    O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

    Devlin, Joseph

    Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil)

    O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

    Dillon, John

    Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)

    O'Doherty, Philip

    Donelan, Captain A.

    Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)

    O'Donnell, Thomas

    Doris, W.

    Jones, Leif Stratten (Rushcliffe)

    O'Dowd, John

    Duffy, William J.

    Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

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

    Edwards, Clement (Glamorgan, E.)

    Jones, W. S. Glyn- (T. H'mts, Stepney)

    O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.)

    Edwards, John Hugh (Glamorgan, Mid)

    Joyce, Michael

    O'Malley, William

    Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

    Keating, Matthew

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

    Esslemont, George Birnie

    Kellaway, Frederick George

    O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

    Falconer, J.

    Kennedy, Vincent Paul

    O'Shee, James John

    Farrell. James Patrick

    Kilbride, Denis

    O'Sullivan, Timothy

    Ffrench, Peter

    King, J.

    Parker, James (Halifax)

    Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

    Roche, Augustine (Louth)

    Verney, Sir Harry

    Pease, Rt. Hon. Joseph A. (Rotherham)

    Rowlands, James

    Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)

    Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

    Russell, Rt. Hon. Thomas W.

    Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay

    Power, Patrick Joseph

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

    Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

    Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

    Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

    Webb, H.

    Pringle, William M. R.

    Scanlan, Thomas

    White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)

    Raffan, Peter Wilson

    Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)

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

    Raphael, Sir Herbert Henry

    Sheehy, David

    White, Patrick (Meath, North)

    Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

    Sherwell, Arthur James

    Whitehouse, John Howard

    Redmond, William (Clare, E.)

    Shortt, Edward

    Whyte, A. F. (Perth)

    Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)

    Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

    Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

    Richards, Thomas

    Soames, Arthur Wellesley

    Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthen)

    Roberts, Charles H, (Lincoln)

    Sutherland, J. E.

    Wood, Rt. Hon. T. McKinnon (Glas.)

    Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)

    Taylor, Thomas (Bolton)

    Young, William (Perth, East)

    Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

    Tennant, Harold John

    Robinson, Sidney

    Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr.

    Roch, Walter F.

    Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

    Illingworth and Mr. Gulland.

    NOES.

    Baird, J. L.

    Eyres-Monscll, B. M.

    Pollock, Ernest Murray

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

    Fitzroy, Hon. Edward A.

    Pryce-Jones, Col. E.

    Balcarres, Lord

    Gardner, Ernest

    Rees, Sir J. D.

    Banbury, Sir Frederick George

    Glazebrook, Capt. Philip K.

    Samuel, Sir Harry (Norwood)

    Barnston, Harry

    Gordon, Hon. John Edward (Brighton)

    Sanders, Robert A.

    Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton)

    Goulding, Edward Alfred

    Smith, Rt. Hon. F. E. (L'p'l, Walton)

    Bennett-Goldney, Francis

    Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne)

    Spear, Sir John Ward

    Boscawen, Sir Arthur S. T. Griffith-

    Harris, Henry Percy

    Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

    Bridgeman, W. Clive

    Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

    Steel-Maitland, A. D.

    Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred

    Helmsley, Viscount

    Sykes, Mark (Hull, Central)

    Cassel, Felix

    Henderson, Major H. (Berks, Abingdon)

    Talbot, Lord E.

    Castlereagh, Viscount

    Hewins, William Albert Samuel

    Wheler, Granville C. H.

    Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

    Hoare, Samuel John Gurney

    Wolmer, Viscount

    Cecil, Lord R. (Herts, Hitchin)

    Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)

    Wood, John (Stalybridge)

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

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

    Worthington-Evans, L.

    Clay, Capt. H. H. Spender

    Lyttelton, Hon. J. C. (Droitwich)

    Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

    Clive, Captain Percy Archer

    Malcolm, Ian

    Craik, Sir Henry

    Mount, William Arthur

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr.

    Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott

    Orde-Powlett, Hon. W. G. A.

    Cave and Sir A. Cripps.

    Duke, Henry Edward

    Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

    Mr. W. G. GLADSTONE: I beg. To move, in Sub-section (1), after the word "Monmouthshire"["situate in Wales or Monmouthshire"], to insert the words "or whereof the whole is situate in Wales or Monmouthshire but forms part of an English diocese, or whereof the whole is situate in England but forms part of a Welsh diocese."
    The Amendment, I need not say, is one which is friendly to the Bill, and if any hon. Member has any doubt in his mind on that point I will ask him to read the letter which was written by the Bishop of Hereford in the "Times" the other day, and which, I think, would set the mind of any hon. Member at rest, that this Amendment is in no way opposed to any principle of this Bill. The Amendment only asks on behalf of parishes wholly in England but yet in Welsh dioceses, and also on behalf of parishes wholly in Wales yet in English dioceses—that is to say, on behalf of parishes wholly in one country and yet in a diocese of the other country—that they should have precisely the same treatment that is already extended by this paragraph of the Clause to parishes which are partially within and partially without the border of Wales, and that the same system, as we have already learned from
    712
    the discussion which we have just had, is that the Welsh Commissioners shall have power to determine, with reference to the wishes of the parishioners, whether or not the parishes concerned shall be included in the Bill. Let me say here that so far as I am concerned I am certainly content with the Government proposal in regard to the machinery as applied to the parishes partially within and partially without Wales. I am perfectly satisfied that the Government mean to establish machinery to carry out a bonâ-fide inquiry into the general wishes of the parishioners. It never occurred to me, I must say, to doubt that. I am perfectly willing to take that machinery for the parishes on behalf of which I now move this Amendment.
    In the first place, the acceptance of this Amendment will not open the door to further concession, because it applies to parishes which are in English dioceses, and which, therefore, incur what is to them a decided hardship under this Bill, whereas any demand that may or may not arise in the future in any other part will be in respect to parishes in Wales which do not incur the same hardships as parishes which are wholly in Wales but yet in English dioceses. The second point is that this Amendment carries with it the idea of

    713
    a consultation of the parishioners. We have also seen, from the discussion we have just had, that that is not an innovation in the Bill; it already exists in the first- paragraph as applied to parishes partially within, and partially without Wales. It is not at all an innovation which we propose by this Amendment. We do not seek to substitute a new boundary; we only seek to modify the boundary that already exists. So for these reasons I submit to the Government that, from the point of view of maintaining their consistency, and from the point of view of not doing this by any further concession, this Amendment is quite unobjectionable. Under these circumstances I do not think it can be said that this Amendment asks for very much at the hands of the Government, yet I admit that it means a good deal to a certain number of border parishes. I therefore earnestly hope that the Government, in confronting and overcoming the vast problems which are raised by this question, will not overlook this opportunity to set at rest the acute anxiety and uncertainty of what may be a comparatively small number of parishes. Of course, I do not suppose, if the Government accept this Amendment, that they will elicit any thanks from the Opposition or any admission that it is an improvement of the Bill; nevertheless, I beg of them to deal with the Amendment on its merits, and not let their judgment be obscured or prejudiced by the uncompromising hostility of the Opposition.
    Certainly this Amendment does cover a grievance put forward during previous discussions on this particular subject by the hon. Member for Denbigh Boroughs, and I am sure we are all free to congratulate him on the cause of his absence. He attacked the policy of the Government as applied to the border parishes on rather unexpected ground. He attacked it because it excluded from the operation of the Bill a parish in the diocese of St. Asaph, but wholly in England, which was in sentiment and tradition largely a Welsh parish. I hope that he and those who think with him on that subject are still of the same mind. If they are, I shall certainly claim them as supporters of my Amendment. After all our object should be, broadly speaking, to apply this Bill where it is wanted, that is to say, to cases where there is an overwhelming and sustained demand on the part of the Welsh democracy for this measure. I cannot see myself that we are bound, I cannot see the particular
    714
    necessity to apply it inconsiderately to border parishes which may be Anglicised, which may be thoroughly of English sentiment, character, and tradition, which are attached to English dioceses, and which only in the most purely geographical sense can be called Welsh. In that connection I should like to refer the House to the parishes which answer to this description in the diocese of Hereford. There are seven or eight parishes of that nature in the diocese of Hereford, and I observe in the letter which the Bishop of Hereford addressed to the "Times" the other day—I trust all hon. Members on this side will take that into consideration—he said:—
    "They are not Welsh speaking, and so far as I know there are no Welsh services held in them; they are in fact thoroughly Anglicised, and all their associations and traditions connect them immemorially with the diocese of Hereford."
    It is in these parishes that people regard this paragraph in the Clause with particular alarm and anxiety. It severs them from a diocese to which they have been attached perhaps for generations, and it is impossible, I think, if we put ourselves in the position of the parishioners, not to have some sympathy for them. Take the words of the rector of New Radnor, which I venture to offer to the House. He says:
    "There is a deep resentment among my parishioners against being forcibly severed from the diocese of Hereford. One generation after another has looked to Hereford Cathedral as the Mother Church. Such an association is held sacred. Hereford is twenty-six miles distant. St. David's, the proposed new religious centre, is close upon a hundred miles.'
    1.0 P.M.
    I would put it to the Government that when they ask hon. Members on this side of the House, Established Churchmen on this side of the House, to take away a parish which is so Anglicised, which for generations has been attached to the diocese, the religious centre of which is only twenty-six miles away, and attach it to a religious centre which is a hundred miles away, they are asking Members on this side of the House to do more than they ought or can do. Take again, the parish of Montgomery. This paragraph as it now stands does affect the feelings and traditions of that parish. I am told that since 1282 that parish has had an uninterrupted connection with the diocese of Hereford. I am told that before that day there is no evidence that it was ever incorporated in the Welsh diocese. There is no evidence that it was ever claimed by the Welsh bishops, although other parishes not very far off were claimed by them. I do not want to labour these instances too far, but I might go on to show that the

    715
    natural formation of the country cuts off these parishes from the rest of Wales. I would prefer, however, to leave that point to be made by hon. Members who are better acquainted with that part of the country than I am. I am sorry to bore the House with particular details, but it is necessary to give instances to vindicate my Amendment. I will take two instances in my own county of Flint. There is a geographically peculiar little island in Flintshire which lies quite isolated from its parent county in the joint embrace of Shropshire and Cheshire. Within that island there are at least two parishes which are excellent examples of parishes which have become Anglicised, which are an English diocese, and which for some time have been wholly English or almost English in sentiment and tradition and character, and which only in the purely geographical sense can be said to be Welsh. The two parishes I refer to are the parishes of Whitewell and Penley. I do not think that anyone will maintain that the parish of Whitewell is not Anglicised, and little wonder that it is. It is part of the island which is a small outpost of Wales situated between the two English counties, and it is inevitable and manifest that it cannot be affected by its geographical position.
    Whitewell is English in an economic sense; it is English in its market town, which is Whitchurch in Shropshire, and in respect of local government it has been admitted to be English as it is in the union of Whitchurch. Its diocese is Chester, and its endowments are possibly of a unique description because it derives tithe to the extent of over £100 per year from three Cheshire townships. It is not so long since it was cut off from the Cheshire parish of Morpeth. If that had not occurred it would have come in under the option given to parishes partially within and partially without the border of Wales. I do not think the case is really less strong for the other parish of Penley, which was formed out of the ancient parish of Elsmere. Its Church was a Chapel of Ease or Mission Church to Elsmere, and was served by the Elsmere clergy, and the patron of the living is the Vicar of Elsmere. In character its people are Shropshire people, and, as is occasionally found on the borders between two countries, the people actually resent being thought other than English, and of that resentment I could, if necessary, speak from personal
    716
    experience. No Welsh, I am told, is spoken or taught in this parish, and it is in the diocese of Lichfield. Having regard to instances like those, I make bold to say it was not to include such parishes that this Bill was conceived or brought in, nor is it from those parishes that the overwhelming demand from the Welsh people comes for this Bill.
    To my mind parishes like those prove conclusively that the geographical boundary, as it stands without further modification, is not a full or sufficiently satisfactory boundary for the purposes of this Bill. The line of demarkation, in my opinion, should rather run between where there is and where there is not a preponderance of Welsh sentiment and Welsh sympathy. That, I submit, is the idea boundary for this Bill. If I am told that my Amendment does not make the boundary coincide with the boundary of Welsh sentiment, I can only frankly and fully admit that it does not go the whole way, but, at the same time, I do feel that it goes some distance, and that it takes a very important step in that direction, having regard, as this Amendment does, to the parishes which will, if this Amendment is not accepted, suffer what appears to them the greatest hardship under this Bill. I want to make it clear we do not desire to substitute a new boundary and to abandon the geographical boundary of Wales. But we do say there is good reason for modifying it a little further in respect of parishes which are wholly in one country and yet in the diocese of the other country. I think it ought to be remembered that the boundary between England and Wales, fixed I do not know how long ago, no longer divides what is Welsh from what is English either satisfactorily or accurately. There have been inroads on the boundary at different times and places. England has crossed the frontier and invaded Wales and has not been altogether repulsed, while at other places Wales has retaliated. If the geographical boundary of Wales is chosen without further modification as the boundary of this Bill, what will happen is this: Parts of the country wholly English in sentiment and only in a pure geographical sense Welsh will be cut off from English dioceses and forced into an atmosphere and an ecclesiastical organisation which is wholly uncongenial and unsympathetic too, and, however convinced we may be that Disestablishment and Disendowment, even within limits, is right, I submit that we do not want, unless we are

    717
    compelled to do so by the circumstances of the case, or the locality, or because we otherwise endanger the success of the whole scheme, to force this measure upon small sections of the country which still view it with disapproval.
    Likewise the parts of the country which may be Welsh in sentiment will, by the Bill as it now stands, be cut off and forced into an atmosphere wholly uncongenial to them. I really do not know which will be worse, the part of the country which is Welsh in sentiment forced into the Established Church, or the part of the country English in s6ntiment forced into the Established Church or the part know which will be more deplorable, but I think that the result is sufficiently serious to induce the Government to see that there is something to be said for making some further modification in the boundary as it now stands. That, I venture to submit, will be the result of taking the geographical boundary for this Bill. Of course it will produce disturbance and, on the whole, reasonable irritation in places where it could have been avoided, and where it could have been avoided in the worst and most distinct places by the acceptance of this Amendment. If I were asked to name the particular reason why I most desire to press the merits of this Amendment, I would say without hesitation that otherwise the Bill will hinder the work of the Disestablished Church in Wales in future. Her chance of real and greater success in the future lies, in my judgment, in shaking off English influences and making itself thoroughly and wholly Welsh and national. I say that the more Anglicised portions you include in the Welsh Church in the Disestablished Church, the more you will hinder that process of nationalisation through which the Disestablished Church in Wales will have to go if it is to attain that record of greater success which I feel sure is wished for by every hon. Member in this House.
    Captain CLIVE: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment, to leave out. the words "or whereof the whole is situate in England but forms part of a Welsh diocese."
    I think we all agree that we have heard a very eloquent appeal on behalf of the Amendment by the hon. Member who has moved it. I hope that appeal will carry all the more weight with his own party as it comes from the name he bears, and also because it is brought in by the Bishop of the diocese which is
    718
    affected by this Amendment, who is, like the Mover of the Amendment, a strong Liberal and in favour of the general principle of this Bill. Many of the arguments of the hon. Member might, I think, have been used against the Bill itself if you substituted the word "diocese" for the word "parish," and "the province of Canterbury" for the word "diocese."
    I agree cordially with that part of his speech in which the hon. Member emphasised the undesirability of transferring to the operation of this Bill those parishes on the borders of Wales which are prepondcratingly English. I mean in the religious sense; I do not wish to deny any pride they may possess in being Welshmen. I notice that the hon. Member did not devote much of his speech to that portion of the Amendment which seeks to include within the scope of the measure certain English parishes which are not now in the Bill. The Amendment originally on the Paper did not touch those parishes at all, and I presume it is only in deference to opinion on that side of the House that the hon. Member has added the latter portion of the Amendment. As the hon. Member has been allowed to move the Amendment, I understand that it is in order, but I should have thought there was some doubt on the subject, as it is difficult to see at first sight how you can include fourteen parishes wholly in England within the scope of a Bill entitled the Established Church (Wales) Bill.
    I do not feel any great enthusiasm in supporting the Amendment, because I do not care about bringing more parishes within the machinery of this Clause—machinery which at the best is thoroughly, vague. No one can understand it; no one knows what the legal definition of the word "parishioner" is; no one knows who are to be the Welsh Commissioners. The definition as regards these matters seems to depend on the Welsh Commissioners, whose names are being withheld from us until the Bill has passed through the House. But I am ready to support the Amendment, because I look upon it as a lesser evil that this complicated and vague machinery should be applied to these parishes rather than the absolute fate of Disestablishment and Disendowment. I should prefer the Amendment in the form in which I have placed it upon the Paper, and therefore I shall move to omit the latter part. I hoped from his speech on the previous Amendment that the Home Secretary might have

    719
    looked more favourably on this proposal than he is evidently inclined to do. When you are bringing in a drastic change of this sort would it not be more generous at any rate, and more in accordance with English principles, to leave those parishes untouched which are not definitely in Wales? Supposing on this point it was conceivable that there should be an even division and you had to give a casting vote, I should expect to find that vote gievn in favour of the status quo. I should have thought that that might well have been the attitude of the Government if they had any desire to meet opinion on this side of the House, and to deal generously with those parishes which are not wholly Welsh, and which therefore might be considered as deserving of separate treatment. While agreeing generally with the Amendment, I beg to move the omission of the words to which I have referred.
    The CHANCELLOR of the DUCHY (Mr. Hobhouse): Any proposal coming from the hon. Gentleman who moved the original Amendment would, I am sure, be listened to in every part of the House both with respect and with sympathy. But the very fact that the moment a proposal of this kind is made there comes an Amendment cutting it in half, which from the hon. Member's own point of view would deprive it of half its value; shows at once the difficulty of in any way departing from the original plan of the Government as set forth in the Bill. There are four kinds of parishes dealt with under this particular Clause, namely, parishes partly in England and partly in Wales belonging to a Welsh diocese: parishes partly in England and partly in Wales belonging to an English diocese; parishes wholly in Wales belonging to an English diocese; and parishes wholly in England belonging to a Welsh diocese. The plan of the Bill is to leave the last two classes of parishes untouched, and to depute to the Welsh Commissioners, in the case of parishes which overlap geographically, the duty of allotting those parishes, after consulting the people concerned, either to the Disestablished Church in Wales or to the Established Church in England. When earlier in these Debates it was proposed to confine the Disestablishment proposals of the Government to the four Welsh dioceses and not to the area of Wales and Monmouthshire, so impressed was the whole Committee by the difficulty of departing from the geographical area that the proposal was with-
    720
    drawn and the Amendment not further pursued. Therefore, the House has from the commencement set its seal upon the division which we propose, namely, that Disestablishment should be confined to the geographical area of Wales, and that the question of dioceses should be left out entirely.
    This Amendment has been moved and supported largely in the interests of the Church, but, as a matter of fact, it might not serve the interests of the Church at all. There are, I think, twenty-four parishes which spiritually are divided between Welsh and English dioceses. The greater number of them are in England geographically, but belong to Welsh dioceses, and they might out of attachment to their present bishops or organisation follow them into Disestablishment; while the smaller number, ten, I believe, moved by the same impulses, might decide to join the Establishment in England. Once you attempt either to abandon or to modify the geographical area, see what difficulties you get into. The last Amendment turned upon the question of local option, and it was repudiated with a good deal of indignation and force by both the speakers on the other side of the House. Supposing you were to apply local option to certain English parishes, are you to stop only at those parishes which are connected with Wales at present? It is conceivable that a parish in England, wishing to quit its present connection with Hereford or Chester, might desire, for the purpose of getting rid of the Establishment, to attach itself to one of the Welsh Disestablished dioceses. From my individual point of view, not speaking on behalf of the Government, I should welcome such a proposal, because I have always been in favour of Disestablishment, not merely for the Church of England in Wales, but for the whole of the Church of England. But that is not the proposal here. For the reasons I have given, the Government cannot accept the Amendment. We think that it would be of no advantage to the Church, but it would be a very serious inconvenience to the working of the Bill.
    Mr. ALFRED LYTTELTON: I am not surprised at the rejection of the Amendment by the Government, but I trust that there are some Liberal Churchmen present who heard the very enthusiastic speech in which the hon. Member for Saffron Walden affirmed with great vehemence the immense belief of the Liberal party in the principle of local option and the principle

    721
    of parishioners having a voice in the affairs of the Church. Those who heard and cheered that speech must be very surprised that the Government when confronted with the principle in so strong a case as the present, absolutely refuse to recognise it. I am not, personally, in favour of the parishioners of a parish having an unqualified vote upon the affairs of the whole Church, but I have been for many years a great supporter of the principle of parishioners having more voice than they have at present in the local affairs of the parish. How can that principle be resisted here. The right hon. Gentleman has not given us any reason whatever. In an eloquent speech the Mover of the Amendment pointed out the enormous hardships that will arise. He is supported by the Bishop of Hereford and the bishop of the diocese affected, both of whom are strong supporters of this Bill and convinced Disestablishers and Disendowers. Yet, although there are cases in which parishes have become completely Anglicised, parishes which belong and wish to belong to an English diocese, and actually detest the idea of being considered Welsh, even in such cases these democrats on the other side refuse the application of what they call a democratic principle, and decline to allow parishioners to have a say in the matter. I am sorry that the Member for Saffron Walden is not present. Anything more effective as a demonstration of the absolute want of sympathy of the Liberal party, or those who represent it in the Government, with his view and with what he thinks a democratic principle could not possibly be afforded than by the rejection of this Amendment. I must guard myself in supporting this Amendment by saying that at present we have had no explanation whatever, although a most distinct request has been made for such explanation on this side of the House, in regard to the machinery by which this local option shall be made effective. It is confiding on the part of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Kilmarnock, although, of course, he is a supporter of the Government, to say that he thoroughly believes in any machinery set up, although he does not in the least know what that machinery is. I am afraid I am not so confiding.
    Machinery which is perfectly capable of being presented and described clearly on the face of a Statute ought to be so described, and there must be some reason for not so describing it. You have at the
    722
    present time Welsh Commissioners whose names are unknown, and about whom we know nothing. They are to make decisions in reference to the general opinion of the parishioners. Nobody has explained what these words mean. I must, in supporting this Amendment, and the further Amendment of my hon. Friend behind me, put in this caveat: I reserve to myself complete freedom of action in regard to the machinery which is to be imposed by this Bill. I think it is very unsatisfactory that it is so vague. With regard to that part of the Section which deals with appeals to the Privy Council, everybody who has the slightest knowledge on these points must regard it as perfectly ludicrous. I cannot understand why a Government that professes to be democratic could have introduced such a Clause as this. No one can possibly defend it. Subject to these observations, I do think the Amendment is thoroughly worthy of support, so qualified as it is by the Amendment of my hon. Friend behind me, and I shall certainly, if necessary, support it in the Lobby.
    Mr. POLLOCK: Since the Chancellor of the Duchy sat down I have been trying to think what are the reasons on which he asks the Committee to reject this Amendment. He asks the Committee to do so for all the reasons he has given. In thinking over what these are, I can only find one, and that seems to be loyalty to the draftsmen of the Bill. He did not answer a single one of the points made by the hon. Member for Kilmarnock Burghs. He did not meet the case quoted of that portion of Flintshire which is undoubtedly surrounded by Shropshire and Cheshire, and which has no part or lot in Wales, either in history, language, or aspirations. He did not meet any of these cases. He did not meet the case of the parish given us that is twenty-six miles from the Cathedral of Hereford and more than 100 miles from St. David's. He said that the House on a previous occasion had felt the difficulty they would be in if we dealt with the four Welsh dioceses instead of the Bill as it is proposed. That really is only an argument derived from laziness, and nothing else. A real injustice and difficulty has been pointed out, and the Chancellor of the Duchy says, "Do not let us deal with it, for we shall get into some difficulty. See what difficulty you get into if you begin to try and remedy what the Bill proposes." What we say is, "See what difficulty you are already in." In

    723
    addition to that, see what injustice you are already intending to impose upon a number of parishes which have no lot or part with Wales, and ought not to be dealt with at all by the Bill.
    What is the Amendment proposed by hon. Member for Kilmarnock Burghs? He proposes that the same machinery which is provided in other difficult cases shall be adopted in the particular cases under this Amendment. That is to say, where there are a certain number of parishes belonging to a diocese in England but situated geographically in Wales or in Monmouthshire, the same operation should be gone through, and they should have the same opportunity of appearing before the Commissioners who are going to deal with the other cases summarised by the Chancellor of the Duchy. That is a very simple proposal. It is a proposal which will mitigate some of the difficulties which are felt at the present time, and it is a proposal which would certainly meet the wishes of, and give the opportunity to, a number of parishes which no doubt do feel that the Bill as at present drawn imposes a hardship upon them, giving them no opportunity of placing their individual cases before the tribunal, which ought to come to a decision after ascertaining what is called the general wishes of the parishioners ! Are we to say that there is to be no Amendment made in this Bill because you are going to get into further difficulties? Or will you want to have further Amendments later in the Bill? If that is so, we might as well drop the Committee stage. Surely the Committee stage is for the purpose of pointing out cases where the shoe pinches, and, if possible, of moderating the Bill in order to make good the points which have possibly been overlooked when the matter was looked at as a whole, and not in detail. The proposal which has been made has been moved in a very moderate and temperate speech, by an hon. Member who explained that he is a friend of the Bill, and who has given a number of illustrations where the present proposals of the Bill are both unfair and work harshly. All that we ask is that the opportunity mentioned should be given to those parishes in particular cases where there is serious difficulty; that in those cases they should have the opportunity of enjoying the same machinery provided in the other cases in other Sub-sections. No answer of any sort really has been given, and no reason, from
    724
    the Front Bench in answer to the speech of the hon. Member for Kilmarnock Burghs. I hope the Committee will on this occasion support the Amendment, and not say that out of mere lethargy we are not prepared to deal with the real difficulties of the case so ably presented by the hon. Member.
    Mr. CLEMENT EDWARDS: The only reason apparently assigned by the hon. Member who moved this Amendment for parishes which are in Wales having the right to contract out of Disestablishment was the extract from a letter he quoted from the rector of New Radnor. He suggested on the strength of that letter that New Radnor, twenty-six miles from Hereford, and 100 miles from St. David's, should have the right of contracting out. If that were so, it would apply to a great number of parishes. The hon. Member laid down a general principle, however, to which from personal knowledge of New Radnor I will bring its case to the test. He said that it would be well for the Bill, and for future peace in Wales, that only those parishes should be Disestablished where there was a preponderance of Welsh feeling, sentiment, and sympathy. I have no hesitation whatever in saying that the parish of New Radnor which is in Radnorshire, possesses Welsh sympathy and sentiment which is quite preponderating. Applying the general test I should pick out New Radnor as one of the parishes of Radnorshire which has become least Anglicised, except perhaps certain parishes on the Cardiganshire and Breckonshire borders. Cases of English parishes in England which are connected with Welsh dioceses I do not desire to deal with, but I do say that certain evil effects would follow if this proposal were carried. One of them is this: Under the general scheme of Disendowment the Endowments of the parishes are to be given to certain public purposes. Amongst other purposes they are to be given to educational purposes, probably in Radnorshire. You would then have this extraordinary position, if this Amendment were carried, that New Radnor, remaining attached to the Establishment in England, would retain its Endowment, while on the educational side its parishioners, and the children of its parishioners, would be enjoying the Endowments that have been taken from other parishes and administered for educational purposes in Radnorshire. That would undoubtedly lead to a good deal of jealousy, to a good deal of feeling,

    725
    and friction. I think that the Government in this matter are entirely right in ignoring ecclesiastical lines of demarkation and in adhering to the national line of demarkation. Apparently the principle of contracting out, as instanced in the speech of the hon. and learned Gentleman who has just sat down, has really run riot in the Unionist ranks. First of all we have a proposal that a province in Ireland shall be contracted out of the National Scheme of the Government. Now "the principle is so sacred that any parish is to be allowed to contract out of any scheme of the Government, or law, which is good enough for the remaining counties and parishes in the country. I am quite certain of this—to return again to the instance of New Radnor -that the people in Radnorshire, who by returning a Member here are pledged to Disestablishment, would very strongly resent the suggestion that the
    parish which contains the old county town of Radnorshire should be contracted out of the general scheme in which the whole of the other counties and the whole of the other parishes in the counties of Wales, and the whole of the other parishes in Radnorshire are to take part and lot.
    It being a quarter before Two of the clock, the CHAIRMAN proceeded, pursuant to the Order of the House of the 28th November, 1912, to put forthwith the Question on the Amendment already proposed from the Chair.
    Question put, "That the words 'or whereof the whole is situate in England, but forms part of a Welsh diocese,' proposed to be left out, stand part of the proposed Amendment."
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 260; Noes, 131.

    Division No. 482.]

    AYES.

    [40 p.m.

    Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour)

    Devlin, Joseph

    Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

    Acland, Francis Dyke

    Dillon, John

    Hodge, John

    Adamson, William

    Donelan, Captain A.

    Hogge, James Myles

    Addison, Dr. Christopher

    Doris, W.

    Holmes, Daniel Turner

    Alden, Percy

    Duffy, William J.

    Home, C. Silvester (Ipswich)

    Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbarton)

    Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

    Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

    Allen, Rt. Hon. Charles P. (Stroud)

    Edwards, Clement (Glamorgan, E.)

    Hudson, Walter

    Atherley-Jones, Llewellyn A.

    Edwards, John Hugh (Glamorgan, Mid)

    Hughes, S. L.

    Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.)

    Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

    Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus

    Baring, Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple)

    Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wextord, N.)

    John, Edward Thomas

    Barnes, G. N.

    Essex, Sir Richard Walter

    Johnson, W.

    Beale, Sir William Phipson

    Esslemont, George Birnie

    Jones, Rt.Hon.Sir D.Brynmor (Swansea)

    Beck, Arthur Cecil

    Falconer, J.

    Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil)

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

    Farrell, James Patrick

    Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)

    Bentham, G. J.

    Ftrench, Peter

    Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)

    Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

    Field, William

    Jones, Leif Stratten (Notts, Rushcliffe)

    Boland, John Plus

    Fitzgibbon, John

    Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

    Booth, Frederick Handel

    Flavin, Michael Joseph

    Jones, W. S. Glyn- (T.H'mts, Stepney)

    Bowerman, C. W.

    Furness, Stephen

    Joyce, Michael

    Boyle, D. (Mayo, N.)

    Gill, A. H.

    Keating, Matthew

    Brace, William

    Ginnell, L.

    Kellaway, Frederick George

    Brady, P. J.

    Gladstone, W. 6. C.

    Kennedy, Vincent Paul

    Bryce, J. Annan

    Glanville, Harold James

    Kilbride, Denis

    Burke, E. Haviland-

    Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

    King, J.

    Burns, Rt. Hon. John

    Goldstone. Frank

    Lambert, Rt. Hon. G. (Devon, S.Molton)

    Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, North)

    Griffith, Ellis J.

    Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

    Byles, Sir William Pollard

    Guest, Major Hon. C. H. C. (Pembroke)

    Lardncr, James Carrige Rushe

    Carr-Gomm, H. W.

    Guest, Hon. Frederick E. (Dorset, E.)

    Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, West)

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

    Guiney, P.

    Leach, Charles

    Chancellor, H. G.

    Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

    Levy, Sir Maurice

    Chapple, Or. William Allen

    Hackett, J.

    Lewis, John Herbert

    Clancy, John Joseph

    Hall, F. (Yorks, Nermanton)

    Low, Sir Frederick (Norwich)

    Clough, William

    Hancock, John George

    Lundon, Thomas

    Clynes, John R.

    Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)

    Lyell, Charles Henry

    Collins, G. P. (Greenock)

    Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

    Lynch, A. A.

    Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

    Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire)

    Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

    Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J.

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

    McGhee, Richard

    Condon, Thomas Joseph

    Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

    Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J.

    Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

    Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

    MacNeill, J. G. Swift (Donegal, South)

    Cotton, William Francis

    Hayden, John Patrick

    Macpherson, James Ian

    Crawshay-Williams, Eliot

    Hazleton, Richard

    MacVeagh, Jeremiah

    Crean, Eugene

    Healy, Maurice (Cork)

    M'Callum, Sir John M.

    Crooks, William

    Healy, Timothy Michael (Cork, N.E.)

    McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

    Crumley, Patrick

    Helme, Sir Nerval Watson

    M'Laren, Hon. H. D. (Leics.)

    Cullman. J.

    Hemmerde, Edward George

    Marks, Sir George Croydon

    Davies, E. William (Eifion)

    Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

    Marshall, Arthur Harold

    Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

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

    Martin, Joseph

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

    Henry, Sir Charles

    Mason, David M. (Coventry)

    Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardiganshire)

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

    Meagher, Michael

    Delany, William

    Higham, John Sharp

    Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

    Denman, Hon. R. D.

    Hinds, John

    Millar, James Duncan

    Molloy, M.

    Radford, G. H.

    Sutherland, J. E.

    Mond, Sir Alfred Moritz

    Raffan, Peter Wilson

    Sutton, John E.

    Morgan, George Hay

    Raphael, Sir Herbert H.

    Taylor, John W. (Durham)

    Morrell, Philip

    Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

    Taylor, Thomas (Bolton)

    Morison, Hector

    Redmond, William (Clare, E.)

    Tennant, Harold John

    Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

    Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)

    Thomas, J. H.

    Muldoon, John

    Richards, Thomas

    Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

    Munro, R.

    Richardson, Albion (Peckham)

    Thorne, William (West Ham)

    Murray, Cant. Hon. A. C.

    Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

    Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

    Nannetti, Joseph P.

    Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

    Verney, Sir Harry

    Neilson, Francis

    Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

    Wadsworth, J.

    Nolan, Joseph

    Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)

    Walters, Sir John Tudor

    Norton, Captain Cecil W.

    Robertson, Sir G. S. (Bradford)

    Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

    Nugent, Sir Walter Richard

    Robertson, John M. (Tyneside)

    Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)

    O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

    Robinson, Sidney

    Wardle, George J.

    O'Brien, William (Cork)

    Roch, Walter F.

    Waring, Walter

    O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

    Roche, Augustine (Louth)

    Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay

    O'Connor, T. P.

    Rose, Sir Charles Day

    Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

    O'Doherty, Philip

    Rowlands, James

    Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

    O'Donnell, Thomas

    Russell, Rt. Hon. Thomas W.

    Webb, H.

    O'Dowd, John

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

    White, J. Dundas (Glasgow. Tradeston)

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

    Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

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

    O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.)

    Scanlan, Thomas

    White, Patrick (Meath, North)

    O'Malley, William

    Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)

    Whitehouse, John Howard

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

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

    Whyte, A. F. (Perth)

    O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

    Sheeny, David

    Wilkie, Alexander

    O'Shee, James John

    Sherwell, Arthur James

    Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

    O'Sullivan, Timothy

    Shortt, Edward

    Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthen)

    Outhwaite, R. L.

    Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John Allsebrook

    Williamson, Sir Archibald

    Parker, James (Halifax)

    Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)

    Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

    Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

    Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

    Wood. Rt. Hon. T. McKinnon (Glas.)

    Pease, Rt. Hon. Joseph (Rotherham)

    Snowden, Philip

    Young, William (Perth. East)

    Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

    Soames, Arthur Wellesley

    Yoxall, Sir James Henry

    Pointer, Joseph

    Spear, Sir John Ward

    Power, Patrick Joseph

    Spicer, Rt. Hon. Sir Albert

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr.

    Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

    Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N.W.)

    Illingworth and Mr. Gulland.

    Pringle, William M. R.

    NOES.

    Aitken, Sir William Max

    Eyres-Monsell, B. M.

    Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)

    Amery, L. C. M. S.

    Faber, Capt. W. V. (Hants, W.)

    Nield, Herbert

    Archer-Shee, Major Martin

    Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey

    Norton-Griffiths, John

    Astor, Waldorf

    Fisher, Rt. Hon. W. Hayes

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

    Baird, J. L.

    Fitzroy, Hon. Edward A.

    Orde-Powlett, Hon. W. G. A.

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

    Fietcher, John Samuel

    Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

    Balearic, Lord

    Forster, Henry William

    Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

    Banbury, Sir Frederick George

    Gardner, Ernest

    Perkins, Walter F.

    Barlow, Montague (Salford, South)

    Gastrell, Major W. H.

    Peto. Basil Edward

    Barnston, Harry

    Gibbs, G. A.

    Pole-Carew, Sir R.

    Barrie, H. T.

    Glazebrook, Capt. Philip K.

    Pollock, Ernest Murray

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

    Gordon, John (Londonderry, South)

    Pretyman, Ernest George

    Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton)

    Gordon, Hon. John Edward (Brighton)

    Pryce-Jones, Col. E.

    Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks

    Goulding, Edward Alfred

    Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

    Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

    Grant, J. A.

    Rawson, Col. R. H.

    Bennett-Goldney, Francis

    Greene, W. R.

    Rees, Sir J. D.

    Beresford, Lord C.

    Gretton, John

    Rolleston, Sir John

    Blair, Reginald

    Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne)

    Royds, Edmund

    Boscawen, Sir Arthur S. T. Griffith-

    Haddock, George Bahr

    Rutherford, John (Darwen)

    Boyle, William (Norfolk, Mid)

    Harris, Henry Percy

    Samuel, Sir Harry (Norwood)

    Boyton, James

    Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

    Sanders, Robert A.

    Bridgeman, W. Clive

    Helmsley, Viscount

    Sassoon, Sir Philip

    Bull, Sir William James

    Henderson, Major H. (Berks, Abingdon)

    Smith, Rt. Hon. F. E. (L'p'l, Walton)

    Burn, Colonel C. R.

    Hickman, Colonel T. E.

    Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

    Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred

    Hoare, Samuel John Gurney

    Staveley-Hill, Henry

    Cassel, Felix

    Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy

    Steel-Maitland, A. D.

    Castlereagh, Viscount

    Horner, Andrew Long

    Swift, Rigby

    Cator, John

    Hunter, Sir C. R.

    Sykes, Mark (Hull, Central)

    Cave, George

    Knight, Captain E. A.

    Talbot, Lord E.

    Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

    Larmor, Sir J.

    Touche, George Alexander

    Cecil, Lord R. (Herts, Hitchin)

    Law, Rt. Hon. A. Bonar (Bootle)

    Tryon, Capt. George Clement

    Chaloner, Col. R. G. W.

    Lawson, Hon. H. (T. H'mts, Mile End)

    Valentia, Viscount

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

    Lloyd, G. A.

    Wheler, Granville C. H.

    Chambers, J.

    Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)

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

    Clay, Capt. H. H. Spender

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

    Willoughby, Major Hon. Claud

    Craig, Ernest (Cheshire, Crewe)

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

    Wolmer, Viscount

    Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

    Lyttelton, Hon. J. C. (Droitwich)

    Wood, John (Stalybridge)

    Craik, Sir Henry

    MacCaw, Wm. J. MacGeagh

    Worthington-Evans, L.

    Cripps, Sir Charles Alfred

    M'Neill, Ronald (Kent, St. Augustine's)

    Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

    Croft, H. P.

    Malcolm, Ian

    Yate, Col. Charles Edward

    Dalziel, D. (Brixton)

    Mildmay, Francis Bingham

    Younger, Sir George

    Denniss, E. R. B.

    Moore, William

    Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott

    Morrison-Bell, Capt. E. F. (Ashburton)

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Captain

    Doughty, Sir George

    Mount, William Arthur

    Clive and Mr. Hewins.

    Duke, Henry Edward

    Newton, Harry Kottingham

    Question put: In Sub-section (1), after the word "Monmouthshire"["whereof is situate in Wales or Monmouthshire"], insert the words "or whereof the whole is situate in Wales or Monmouthshire, but forms part of an English diocese,
    or whereof the whole is situate in England, but forms part of a Welsh diocese."
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 134; Noes, 254.

    Division No. 483.]

    AYES.

    [1.53 P.m.

    Aitken, Sir William Max

    Faber, Capt. W. V, (Hants, W.)

    Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)

    Amery, L. C. M. S.

    Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey

    Nield, Herbert

    Archer-Shee, Major Martin

    Fisher, Rt. Hon. W. Hayes

    Norton-Griffiths, John

    Astor Waldorf

    Fitzroy, Hon. Edward A.

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

    Baird, J. L.

    Fletcher, John Samuel

    Orde-Powlett, Hon. W. G. A.

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

    Forster, Henry William

    Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

    Baicarres, Lord

    Gardner, Ernest

    Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

    Banbury, Sir Frederick George

    Gastrell, Major W. Houghton

    Perkins, Walter F.

    Barlow, Montague (Salford, South)

    Gibbs, George Abraham

    Peto, Basil Edward

    Barnston, Harry

    Glazebrook, Capt. Philip K.

    Pole-Carew, Sir R.

    Barrie, H. T.

    Gordon, John (Londonderry) South)

    Pollock, Ernest Murray

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

    Gordon, Hon. John Edward (Brighton)

    Pretyman, Ernest George

    Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton)

    Goulding. Edward Alfred

    Pryce-Jones, Col. E.

    Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks

    Grant, J. A.

    Rawson, Col. R. H.

    Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

    Greene, W. R.

    Rees, Sir J. D.

    Bennett-Goldney, Francis

    Gretton, John

    Rolleston, Sir John

    Beresford. Lord C.

    Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne)

    Royds, Edmund

    Blair, Reginald

    Haddock, George Bahr

    Rutherford, John (Lancs., Darwen)

    Boscawen, Sir Arthur S. T. Griffith-

    Harris, Henry Percy

    Samuel, Sir Harry (Norwood)

    Boyle, William (Norfolk, Mid)

    Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

    Sanders, Robert A.

    Boyton, James

    Helmsley, Viscount

    Sassoon, Sir Philip

    Bridgeman, W. Clive

    Henderson, Major H. (Berks, Abingdon)

    Smith, Rt. Hon. F. E. (L'p'l, Walton)

    Buil, Sir William James

    Hewins, William Albert Samuel

    Spear, Sir John Ward

    Burn, Colonel C. R.

    Hickman, Col. T. E.

    Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

    Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred

    Hoare, Samuel John Gurney

    Staveley-Hill, Henry

    Cassel, Felix

    Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy

    Steel-Maitland, A. D.

    Castlereagh, Viscount

    Horner, Andrew Long

    Swift, Rigby

    Cator, John

    Hunter, Sir C. R.

    Sykes, Mark (Hull, Central)

    Cave, George

    Knight, Captain E. A.

    Talbot, Lord E.

    Cecil, Lord R. (Herts, Hitchin)

    Larmor, Sir J.

    Touche, George Alexander

    Chaloner, Col. R. G. W.

    Law, Rt. Hon. A. Bonar (Bootle)

    Tryon, Captain George Clement

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

    Lawson, Hon. H. (T. H'mts, Mile End)

    Valentia, Viscount

    Chambers, J.

    Lloyd, G. A.

    Wheler, Granville C. H.

    Clay, Capt. H. H. Spender

    Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)

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

    Clive, Captain Fercy Archer

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

    Whyte, A. F. (Perth)

    Craig, Ernest (Cheshire, Crewe)

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

    Willoughby. Major Hon. Claud

    Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

    Lyttelton, Hon. J. C. (Droitwich)

    Wolmer, Viscount

    Crinps, Sir Charles Alfred

    MacCaw, Wm. J. MacGeagh

    Wood, John (Stalybrige)

    Croft, H. P.

    M'Ncill, Ronald (Kent, St. Augustine's)

    Worthington-Evans, L.

    Dalziel, D. (Brixton)

    Malcolm, Ian

    Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

    Denniss, E. R. B.

    Mildmay. Francis Bingham

    Yate, Col. Charles Edward

    Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott

    Moore, William

    Younger, Sir George

    Doughty, Sir George

    Morrison-Bell, Capt. E. F. (Ashburton)

    Duke, Henry Edward

    Mount, William Arthur

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr.

    Eyres-Monsell, B. M.

    Newman, John R. P.

    Evelyn Cecil and Mr. Rawlinson.

    Faber, George Denison (Clapham)

    Newton, Harry Kottingham

    NOES.

    Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour)

    Brace, William

    Crean, Eugene

    Acland, Francis Dyke

    Brady, P. J.

    Crooks, William

    Adamson, William

    Bryce, J. Annan

    Crumley, Patrick

    Addison, Dr. Christopher

    Burke, E. Haviland-

    Cullinan, J.

    Alden, Percy

    Burns, Rt. Hon. John

    Davies, E. William (Eifion)

    Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbarton)

    Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, North)

    Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

    Allen. Rt. Hon. Charles P. (Stroud)

    Byles, Sir William Pollard

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

    Atherley-Jones Llewellyn A.

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

    Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardiganshire)

    Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.)

    Chancellor, H. G.

    Delany, William

    Baring, Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple)

    Chapple, Dr. William Allen

    Denman, Hon. R. D.

    Barnes, G. N.

    Clancy, John Joseph

    Devlin, Joseph

    Beale. Sir William Phipson

    Clough, William

    Dillon, John

    Beck, Arthur Cecil

    Clynes, John R.

    Donelan, Captain A.

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

    Collins, G. P. (Greenock)

    Doris, W.

    Bentham, George Jackson

    Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

    Duffy, William J.

    Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

    Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J.

    Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

    Boland, John Pius

    Condon, Thomas Joseph

    Edwards, Clement (Glamorgan, E.)

    Booth, Frederick Handel

    Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

    Edwards, John Hugh (Glamorgan, Mid)

    Bowerman, C. W.

    Cotton, William Francis

    Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

    Boyle, D. (Mayo, N.)

    Crawshay-Williams, Eliot

    Esmond, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)

    Essex, Sir Richard Walter

    Lardner, James Carrige Rushe

    Redmond, William (Clare, E.)

    Esslemont, George Birnie

    Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, West)

    Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone. E.)

    Falconer, J.

    Leach, Charles

    Richards, Thomas

    Farrell, James Patrick

    Levy, Sir Maurice

    Richardson, Albion (Peckham)

    Ffrench, Peter

    Lewis, John Herbert

    Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

    Field, William

    Low, Sir Frederick (Norwich)

    Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

    Fitzgibbon, John

    Lundon, Thomas

    Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

    Flavin, Michael Joseph

    Lyell Charles Henry

    Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)

    Furness, Stephen

    Lynch, A. A.

    Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

    Gilhooly, James

    McGhee, Richard

    Robertson, John M. (Tyneside)

    Gill, A. H.

    Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J.

    Robinson, Sidney

    Ginnell, L.

    MacNeill, J. G. Swift (Donegal, South)

    Roch, Walter F.

    Glanville, Harold James

    Macpherson, James Ian

    Roche, Augustine (Louth, N.)

    Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

    MacVeagh, Jeremiah

    Rose, Sir Charles Day

    Goldstone, Frank

    M'Callum, Sir John M.

    Rowlands, James

    Griffith, Ellis J.

    McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

    Rowntree, Arnold

    Guest, Major Hon. C. H. C. (Pembroke)

    M'Laren, Hon. H. D. (Leics.)

    Russell, Rt. Hon. Thomas W.

    Guest, Hon. Frederick E. (Dorset, E.)

    Marks, Sir George Croydon

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

    Guiney, Patrick

    Marshall, Arthur Harold

    Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

    Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

    Martin, Joseph

    Scanlan Thomas

    Hackett, J.

    Mason, David M. (Coventry)

    Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)

    Hall, F. (Yorks, Normanton)

    Masferman, Rt. Hon. C. F. G.

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

    Hancock, John George

    Meagher, Michael

    Sheehy, David

    Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)

    Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

    Sherwell, Arthur James

    Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

    Millar, James Duncan

    Shortt, Edward

    Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire)

    Molloy, M.

    Simon. Rt. Hon. Sir John Allsebrook

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

    Mond, Sir Alfred Moritz

    Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)

    Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

    Morgan, George Hay

    Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

    Hayden, John Patrick

    Morrell, Philip

    Snowden, Philip

    Hazleton, Richard

    Morison, Hector

    Soames, Arthur Wellesley

    Healy, Maurice (Cork)

    Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

    Spicer, Rt. Hon. Sir Albert

    Healy, Timothy Michael (Cork, N.E.)

    Muldoon, John

    Stanley, Albert (Staffs., N.W.)

    Helme, Sir Norval Watson

    Munro, R.

    Sutherland, J. E.

    Hemmerde, Edward George

    Murray, Capt. Hon. A. C.

    Sutton, John E.

    Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

    Nannetti, Joseph P.

    Taylor, John W. (Durham)

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

    Nellson, Francis

    Taylor, Thomas (Bolton)

    Henry, Sir Charles

    Nolan, Joseph

    Tennant, Harold John

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

    Norton, Captain Cecil W.

    Thomas, J. H.

    Higham, John Sharp

    Nugent, Sir Walter Richard

    Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

    Hinds, John

    O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenay)

    Thorne. William (West Ham)

    Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

    O'Brien, William (Cork)

    Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

    Hodge, John

    O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

    Verney, Sir Harry

    Hogge, James Myles

    O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

    Wadsworth, J.

    Holmes, Daniel Turner

    O'Doherty, Philip

    Walsh, Stephen (Lancs. Ince)

    Horne, C. Silvester (Ipswich)

    O'Donnell, Thomas

    Walters, Sir John Tudor

    Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

    O'Dowd, John

    Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

    Hudson, Walter

    O'Grady, James

    Ward. W. Dudley (Southampton)

    Hughes, S. L.

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

    Wardle, George J.

    Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus

    O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.)

    Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay

    John, Edward Thomas

    O'Malley, William

    Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

    Johnson, W.

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

    Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

    Jones, Rt. Hon.Sir D.Brynmor (Swansea)

    O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

    Webb, H.

    Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil)

    O'Shee, James John

    White, J. Dundas (Glasgow. Tradeston)

    Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)

    O'Sullivan, Timothy

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

    Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)

    Outhwaite, R. L.

    White. Patrick (Meath, North)

    Jones, Leif Stratten (Rushcliffe)

    Parker, James (Halifax)

    Wilkie, Alexander

    Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

    Pease, Rt. Hon. Joseph A. (Rotherham)

    Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

    Jones, W. S. Glyn- (T.H'mts, Stepney)

    Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

    Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthen)

    Joyce, Michael

    Pointer, Joseph

    Williamson, Sir Archibald

    Keating, Matthew

    Power, Patrick Joseph

    Wilson. W. T. (Westhoughton)

    Kellaway, Frederick George

    Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

    Wood, Rt. Hon. T. McKinnon (Glas.)

    Kennedy, Vincent Paul

    Pringle, William M. R.

    Young, William (Perth, East)

    Kilbride, Denis

    Radford, G. H.

    Yoxall, Sir James Henry

    King, J.

    Raffan, Peter Wilson

    Lambert, Rt. Hon. G. (Devon,S.Molton)

    Raphael, Sir Herbert H.

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr.

    Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

    Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

    Illingworth and Mr. Gulland.

    The CHAIRMAN then proceeded successively to put forthwith the Question on an Amendment moved by the Government of which notice had been given, and the Question necessary to dispose of the business to be concluded at a Quarter before two of the clock at this day's sitting.
    Government Amendment made: In Subsection (3), leave out the words "the repre-
    732
    sentative body may determine," and insert instead thereof the words "may be determined in manner provided by the constitution and regulations of the Church in Wales."—[Mr. McKenna.]
    Question put, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 261; Noes, 131.

    Division No. 484.]

    AYES.

    [2.1 p. m.

    Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour)

    Hall, Frederick (Normanton)

    Neilson, Francis

    Acland, Francis Dyke

    Hancock, John George

    Nolan, Joseph

    Adamson, William

    Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis (Rossendale)

    Norton, Captain C. W.

    Addison, Dr. C.

    Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

    Nugent, Sir Walter Richard

    Alden, Percy

    Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire)

    O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

    Allen, Arthur Acland (Dumbartonshire)

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

    O'Brien, William (Cork)

    Allen, Rt. Hon. Charles P. (Stroud)

    Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

    O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

    Atherley-Jones, Llewellyn A.

    Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

    O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

    Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.)

    Hayden, John Patrick

    O'Doherty, Philip

    Baring, Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple)

    Hazleton, Richard

    O'Donnell, Thomas

    Barnes, George N.

    Healy, Maurice (Cork)

    O'Dowd, John

    Beale, Sir William Phipson

    Healy, Timothy Michael (Cork, N.E.)

    O'Grady, James

    Beck, Arthur Cecil

    Helme, Sir Norval Watson

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

    Benn, W. W. (T. H'mts., St. George)

    Hemmerde, Edward George

    O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.)

    Bentham, George Jackson

    Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

    O'Mailey, William

    Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

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

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

    Boland, John Pius

    Henry, Sir Charles

    O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

    Booth, Frederick Handel

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

    O'Shee, James John

    Bowerman, C. W.

    Higham, John Sharp

    O'Sullivan, Timothy

    Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North)

    Hinds, John

    Outhwaite, R. L.

    Brace, William

    Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

    Parker, James (Halifax)

    Brady, P. J.

    Hodge, John

    Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

    Bryce, J. Annan

    Hogge, James Myles

    Pease, Rt. Hon. Joseph A. (Rotherham)

    Burke, E. Haviland-

    Holmes, Daniel Turner

    Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

    Burns, Rt. Hon. John

    Horne, C. Silvester (Ipswich)

    Pointer, Joseph

    Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, N.)

    Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

    Power, Patrick Joseph

    Byles, Sir William Pollard

    Hudson, Walter

    Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

    Carr-Gomm, H. W.

    Hughes, S. L.

    Pringle, William M. R.

    Cawley, Harold T. (Heywood)

    Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus

    Radford, G. H.

    Chancellor, H. G.

    John, Edward Thomas

    Raffan, Peter Wilson

    Chapple, Dr. William Allen

    Johnson, W.

    Raphael, Sir Herbert H.

    Clancy, John Joseph

    Jones, Rt.Hon.Sir D.Brynmor (Sw'nsea)

    Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

    Clough, William

    Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil)

    Redmond, William (Clare, E.)

    Clynes, John R.

    Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)

    Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)

    Collins, Godfrey P. (Greenock)

    Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)

    Richards, Thomas

    Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

    Jones, Leif Stratten (Notts, Rushcliffe)

    Richardson, Albion (Peckham)

    Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J.

    Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

    Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

    Condon, Thomas Joseph

    Jones, William S. Glyn- (Stepney)

    Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

    Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

    Joyce, Michael

    Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

    Cotton, William Francis

    Keating, M.

    Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)

    Crawshay-Williams, Eliot

    Kellaway, Frederick George

    Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

    Crean, Eugene

    Kennedy, Vincent Paul

    Robertsen, J. M. (Tyneside)

    Crooks, William

    Kilbride, Denis

    Robinson, Sidney

    Crumley, Patrick

    King, J.

    Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

    Cullinan, John

    Lambert, Rt. Hon. G. (S. Molton)

    Roche, Augustine (Louth)

    Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

    Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

    Rose, Sir Charles Day

    Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

    Lardner, James Carrige Rushe

    Rowlands, James

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

    Law. Hugh A. (Donegal, West)

    Russell, Rt. Hon. Thomas W.

    Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardigan)

    Leach, Charles

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

    Delany, William

    Levy, Sir Maurice

    Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

    Denman, Hon. R. D.

    Lewis, John Herbert

    Scanlan, Thomas

    Devlin, Joseph

    Low, Sir F. (Norwich)

    Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)

    Dillon, John

    Lundon, T.

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

    Donelan, Captain A.

    Lyell, Charles Henry

    Sheehy, David

    Doris, William

    Lynch, A. A.

    Sherwell, Arthur James

    Duffy, William J.

    Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

    Shortt, Edward

    Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

    McGhee, Richard

    Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John Allsebrook

    Edwards, Clement (Glamorgan, E.)

    Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J.

    Smith, Albert (Lanes., Clitheroe)

    Edwards, John Hugh (Glamorgan, Mid)

    MacNeill, J. G. Swift (Donegal, South)

    Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim)

    Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

    Macpherson, James Ian

    Snowden, P.

    Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)

    MacVeagh, Jeremiah

    Soames, Arthur Wellesley

    Essex, Sir Richard Walter

    M'Callum, Sir John M.

    Spicer, Rt. Hon. Sir Albert

    Esslemont, George Birnie

    McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

    Stanley. Albert (Staffs, N.W.)

    Falconer, J.

    M'Laren, Hon. H. D. (Leics.)

    Sutherland, J. E.

    Farrell, James Patrick

    Marks, Sir George Croydon

    Sutton, John E.

    Firench, Peter

    Marshall, Arthur Harold

    Taylor, John W. (Durham)

    Field, William

    Martin, Joseph

    Taylor, Thomas (Bolton)

    Fit/gibbon, John

    Mason, David M. (Coventry)

    Tennant, Harold John

    Flavin, Michael Joseph

    Masterman, Rt. Hon. C. F. G.

    Thomas James Henry

    Furness, Stephen

    Meagher, Michael

    Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

    Gilhooly, James

    Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

    Thorne, William (West Ham)

    Gill, A. H.

    Millar, James Duncan

    Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

    Ginnell, L.

    Molloy, Michael

    Verney, Sir Harry

    Glanville, H. J.

    Mond, Sir Alfred Moritz

    Wadsworth, J.

    Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

    Morgan, George Hay

    Walsh, Stephen (Lancs., Ince)

    Goldstone, Frank

    Morrell, Philip

    Walters, Sir John Tudor

    Griffith, Ellis J.

    Morison, Hector

    Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

    Guest, Major Hon. C. H. C. (Pembroke)

    Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

    Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)

    Guest, Hon. Frederick E. (Dorset, E.)

    Muldoon, John

    Wardle, George J.

    Guiey, Patrick

    Munro, Robert

    Waring, Walter

    Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

    Murray, Cant. Hon. A. C.

    Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay

    Hackett, J.

    Nannetti, Joseph P.

    Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

    734

    735

    Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

    Whyte, A. F.

    Wood. Rt. Hon. T. McKinnon (Glas.)

    Webb, H.

    Wilkie, Alexander

    Young, W. (Perthshire, E.)

    White, J. Dundas (Glas., Tradeston)

    Williams, John (Glamorgan)

    Yoxall, Sir James Henry

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

    Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthen)

    White, Patrick (Meath, North)

    Williamson, Sir A.

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr.

    Whitehouse, John Howard

    Wilson, W. T. (Westboughton)

    Illingworth and Mr. Gulland.

    NOES.

    Aitken, Sir William Max

    Faber, George D. (Clapham)

    Nield, Herbert

    Amery, L. C. M. S.

    Faber, Capt. W. V. (Hants, W.)

    Norton-Griffiths, J.

    Astor, Waldorf

    Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey

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

    Baird, J. L.

    Fisher, Rt. Hon. W. Hayes

    Orde-Powlett, Hon. W. G. A.

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

    Fitzroy, Hon. E. A.

    Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

    Balcarres, Lord

    Fletcher, John Samuel (Hampstean)

    Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

    Banbury, Sir Frederick George

    Forster, Henry William

    Perkins, Walter Frank

    Barnston, Harry

    Gardner, Ernest

    Peto, Basil Edward

    Barrie, H. T.

    Gastrell, Major W. Houghton

    Pole-Carew, Sir R.

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

    Gibbs, G. A.

    Pollock, Ernest Murray

    Bathurst, C. (Wilts, Wilton)

    Glazebrook, Captain Philip K.

    Pretyman, E. G.

    Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks

    Gordon, John (Londonderry, South)

    Pryce-Jones, Col. E.

    Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

    Gordon, Hon. John Edward (Brighton)

    Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

    Bennett-Goldney, Francis

    Goulding, Edward Alfred

    Rawson, Col. Richard H.

    Beresford, Lord C.

    Grant, J. A.

    Rolleston, Sir John

    Blair, Reginald

    Greene, W. R.

    Royds, Edmund

    Boscawen, Sir Arthur S. T. Griffith-

    Gretton, John

    Rutherford, John (Lancs., Darwen)

    Boyle, William (Norfolk, Mid)

    Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne)

    Salter, Arthur Clavell

    Boyton, James

    Haddock, George Bahr

    Samuel, Sir Harry (Norwood)

    Bridgeman, W. Clive

    Harrison-8roadlcy, H. B.

    Sanders, Robert Arthur

    Bull, Sir William James

    Helmsley, Viscount

    Sassoon. Sir Philip

    Burn, Colonel C. R.

    Henderson, Major H. (Berks, Abingdon)

    Smith, Rt. Hon. F. E. (L'p'l, Walton)

    Carllie, Sir Edward Hildred

    Hewins, William Albert Samuel

    Spear, Sir John Ward

    Cassel, Felix

    Hickman, Colonel Thomas E.

    Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

    Castlereagh, Viscount

    Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy

    Staveley-Hill, Henry

    Cator, John

    Horner, Andrew Long

    Steel-Maitland, A. D.

    Cave, George

    Hunter, Sir Chas. Rodk.

    Swift, Rigby

    Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

    Knight, Captain Eric Ayshford

    Sykes, Mark (Hull, Central)

    Cecil, Lord R. (Herts, Hitchin)

    Larmor, Sir J.

    Talbot, Lord E.

    Chaloner, Col. R. G. W.

    Law, Rt. Hon. A. Bonar (Bootle)

    Touche. George Alexander

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

    Lawson, Hon. H. (T. H'mts., Mile End)

    Tryon, Captain George Clement

    Chambers, James

    Lloyd, George Ambrose

    Valentia, Viscount

    Clay, Cant. H. H. Spender

    Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)

    Wheler, Granville C. H.

    Clive, Captain Percy Archer

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

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

    Craig, Ernest (Cheshire, Crewe)

    Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. A. (S.Geo.,Han.S.)

    Willoughby, Major Hon. Claud

    Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

    Lyttelton, Hon. J. C. (Droitwich)

    Wolmer, Viscount

    Craik, Sir Henry

    MacCaw, Wm. J. MacGeagh

    Wood, John (Stalybridge)

    Cripps, Sir C. A.

    McNeill, Ronald (Kent, St. Augustine's)

    Worthington-Evans, L.

    Croft, H. P.

    Malcolm, Ian

    Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

    Dalziel, Davison (Brixton)

    Mildmay, Francis Bingham

    Yate. Col. C. E.

    Denniss, E. R. B.

    Morrison-Bell, Capt. E. F. (Ashburton)

    Younger, Sir George

    Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott

    Mount, William Arthur

    Doughty, Sir George

    Newman, John R. P.

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr.

    Duke, Henry Edward

    Newton, Harry Kottingham

    M. Barlow and Mr. Hoare.

    Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M.

    Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)

Part II.—WELSH COMMISSIONERS AND REPRESENTATIVE BODY.
  WELSH COMMISSIONERS.

    CLAUSE 10.—(Appointment of Commissioners.)
    (1) The following persons (that is to say)—
    shall be Commissioners under this Act. If any vacancy among them occurs by death, resignation, incapacity, or otherwise, His Majesty may, by Warrant under His Sign Manual, appoint some fit person to fill the vacancy.
    (2) The said Commissioners (in this Act referred to as the Welsh Commissioners) shall be a body corporate, styled, "The Commissioners of Church Temporalities in Wales" with a common seal, and power to hold land for the purposes of this Act with out licence in mortmain.
    (3) The Welsh Commissioners may act by any one of their body and notwithstanding any vacancy in their number, but if any person aggrieved by an order of one Commissioner so requires, the order shall be reconsidered on rehearing by the three Commissioners.
    (4) There shall be paid to one of the Welsh Commissioners such salary, not exceeding fifteen hundred pounds a year, and to one other of the Commissioners such salary, not exceeding one thousand pounds a year, as the Treasury may direct.
    (5) The Welsh Commissioners may, with the consent of a Secretary of State, and the consent of the Treasury as to number and remuneration, appoint or employ and remove a secretary, and such other officers and persons, and with such remuneration, as appears necessary for enabling the Commissioners to carry this Act into effect.
    (6) The said salaries and remuneration and all incidental expenses sanctioned by the Treasury of carrying this Act into effect shall be paid by the Commissioners out of moneys in their hands in pursuance of this Act, but not so as in any way to diminish the property to be transferred to the representative body or county councils under this Act.
    (7) The powers of the Commissioners shall continue until the end of the year in which this Act is passed and for three years thereafter, and no longer, and the Commissioners shall then be dissolyed; but it shall be lawful for His Majesty from time to time with the advice of His Privy Council, on the application of the Commissioners, to suspend the dissolution of the Commissioners and, subject to revision by the Treasury of the salaries of the Commissioners and the remuneration and number of their officers, to continue their powers for such time, not exceeding in the aggregate two years, as His Majesty thinks fit.
    (8) A paid Commissioners and an officer or other person employed by the Commissioners shall not during his continuance in office be capable of being elected to or sitting as a Member of the House of Commons.
    The UNDER-SECRETARY for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Ellis Griffith): I beg to Move, in Sub-section (1), at the beginning, to leave out. the words "The following persons (that is to say),"and to insert instead thereof the words" Such persons, not exceeding three in number, as His Majesty may by Warrant under His Sign Manual appoint, of whom one at least shall be a member of the Church of England."
    The substance of my Amendment, as hon. Members will see, is to defer the naming of the Commissioners under this Bill. It may be said, and said with truth, that this is departing from the precedent of the Irish Bill, where three names were mentioned, and it is to a certain extent departing from the precedent of the Welsh Bill of 1895, because in that case the names were placed upon the Paper as an Amendment to a Clause similar in form to the one we are now discussing. Therefore, I say quite frankly we are departing from those two precedents. It must not, however, be supposed the precedents are invariably against the course the Government are now taking. There is the precedent of the Local Government (Ireland)
    738
    Act of 1889. There was an appeal to a Commission provided in that Act; and the Act of Parliament, instead of naming the Commissioners, said they should consist of the Vice-President of the Local Government Board and four others, of whom two were to be Members of Parliament nominated by the Lord Lieutenant. There is another precedent, too, in the London Local Government Act of 1899, where an Appeal Commission was referred to the Privy Council. I only mention those two precedents in order to meet to some extent the arguments of those who base themselves to a considerable extent on precedent in a matter of this kind. I want to be quite frank with the House. Really, the difficulty has arisen because of the probability—it is not for me to judge-that the House of Lords may deal with this Bill in such a way that it can only be passed under the provisions of the Parliament Act. I do not think the Government had any right when this Bill was introduced to anticipate such hostility would be shown to it, and it was therefore introduced in this form. During the Debates, however, hostility has been so marked that it now seems extremely probable the Bill will only become law under the provisions of the Parliament Act. Therefore a new situation confronts us, and we had to decide whether we should put the names in the Bill or whether we should defer it to a later stage, and we have come to the conclusion that the names ought not to be put in at this stage. I am going to tell the House why.
    First of all, our view is that these three Commissioners have got very important functions to perform. They have got judicial and they have got administrative functions, and the men who can perform such duties are not to be found every day; at any rate, I do not think they are to be found among the leisured class. The men who will have to perform these functions are men in all probability who are employed on analogous work at the present time. I submit you cannot get men occupying high judicial or administrative positions to allow their names to be put in a Bill for eighteen months before it becomes law, and which hon. Members opposite say quite frankly may never become law. I think hon. Members will agree it is extremely difficult to get first-class men to allow their names to be put in a Bill which, in any event, may not come into force for eighteen months, and which, according to a great body of

    739
    opinion in the House of Commons may never become law at all. There is another matter. I am sure hon. Members will observe that in the Amendment, for the first time, it is made obligatory that one of the three Commissioners should be a Churchman. I know there are Churchmen in Wales bitterly opposed to this Bill who will have no part nor portion in it, but at the same time there are Churchmen in Wales who, if they felt that this Bill were really going to become an Act of Parliament, would like to face the situation and serve their Church in the new position. That is a position with which I am sure Churchmen on that side of the House can sympathise more than I can. If one of these men in the case I am endeavouring to describe allowed his name to be published he would be liable to the retort, "You are opposed to the Disestablishment of the Church, but while the fight is going on you allow your name to be associated with a Bill in which you do not believe." I think we should free him from that position. Really what guides us most in the course we are taking is this: We think we should get better men to act as Commissioners under this plan than would be possible under the plan of the Bill. I should like to say one word to reassure hon. Members opposite. They may think it unsatisfactory that this Bill should become law without the House of Commons even knowing the names of the three men who are to be appointed to perform these very important functions. What I have to say is this: If this Bill becomes law without the intervention or authority of the Parliament Act the House of Commons shall have an opportunity of considering these names before it does become law. But, on the other hand, if the Bill cannot become law except under the provisions of the Parliament Act, then the names will be communicated to the House of Commons before the House loses control of the Bill. Of course, hon. Members are aware that under the Parliament Act it is not possible to introduce new Clauses, and that is why I have suggested this difference of treatment. I think it will be admitted I have dealt quite frankly with the Committee in this matter. We think the course we propose would be in the interests of the Church itself; that better men would offer themselves for these posts than would otherwise be possible. If hon. Members opposite are really satisfied that that is so, I
    740
    would ask them, putting aside small controversial technical points, if they think it would be better for the government of the Church and if better judicial and administrative officers would be secured, I would ask them to put aside their partisan attitude for one moment and give their support to this Amendment.
    Mr. WYNDHAM: I do not approach this question from a partisan point of view. I can understand the difficulties under which the Under-Secretary labours, because I was once myself in a difficulty which was similar but not identical. But I cannot approve of what he proposes to the Committee. It was once my duty to propose an Irish Land Act to this House. In that Land Act there were three Commissioners who were to be charged with responsible functions affecting great classes of separate interests in Ireland. During the discussion of that Bill in the House I was urged, as the Under-Secretary has been urged in this case, to disclose the names of the three Commissioners. I did so. I said I did not wish to create a precedent; I disclaimed the intention of creating a precedent and I now ask the Committee to consider this matter on its merits. The difference in the situation is this: That the Parliament Act has since been passed, and that difference, I think, should count in favour of our having the names disclosed Merely by way of illustration let me take the situation during the Irish Land Act Debates Many interests were involved, and those in this House who were responsible for those interests felt that they could not allow the Bill to proceed unless they knew the names of those gentlemen who were to discharge such important duties. When the names were first given some criticism was brought to bear upon them. Those gentlemen could have said, "Why are we to be exposed to this fire of criticism during all the remaining stages of the Bill?" It would be far better it should not be the case that their names should be disclosed from that point. The Under-Secretary suggests that the result of subjecting them to such criticism is that they will not be as competent to discharge the duties as if the matter were allowed to remain in abeyance. But what is the argument of the Parliament Act? It is that what is now decided by this House must, if the Parliament Act applies, become the ultimate decision of the House with, of course, the safeguarding promises made by the Under-Secretary. The hon. Gentleman is not entitled to complain of this

    741
    Bill coming under the Parliament Act, for the Prime Minister has stated frankly that, in his opinion, where a Bill excites controversy it is only right it should be before the country for two years and be passed in three consecutive Sessions of Parliament. Therefore the Government-are not entitled to make a bargain with us and say, "If you will let the Bill go through you shall have these three names." They must act on their own interpretation of the effect of the operation of the Parliament Act. How can you ask those who have great interests at stake, those whose interests are to be put into the custody and guardianship of these Commissioners, to go blindfold through a period of two years without knowing whether any solution is to be arrived at which they deem to be suitable to the necessities of the case? Against that you have only to place the convenience of the gentlemen who may have to discharge these important duties. If the only comparison is between the rights of the great interests which are to be safeguarded and the convenience of the Commissioners, then I say our decision ought to be in favour of the rights of those interests, whatever the temporary inconvenience may be to those who are asked to accept public offices of great responsibility.
    Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: I protest strongly against the Amendment proposed by the Under-Secretary. I regard it as nothing short of an outrage. What is our position? Most important functions are to be performed by these Commissioners. We have only to remember the discussion we had this morning on the question of the border parishes and whether they shall come within the operation of the Bill. That is a question which the Commissioners will have to decide. Then again, by Clause 14, they will have to decide who are to be entitled to existing interests and who are to get compensation. Yet we are not to be told, apparently, if the Bill comes under the Parliament Act, who are the gentlemen who are to carry through these most important functions which may affect the whole future of the Church in Wales. The argument put forward by the Under-Secretary did not appear to me to be to the point at all. He mentioned various precedents in which the names of the Commissioners had not been brought forward in the Bill. If he had taken the precedents of Church Bills, he would have found that the names of the Commissioners have invariably
    742
    been mentioned. Church Bills are the only precedents for this Bill. We have the case of the Irish Church Act of 1869 and the case of the Welsh Church Bill in 1895. May I remind the Under-Secretary, when he says it is not desirable that the names of the three gentlemen should be in a Bill for eighteen months before it becomes law, that the names of the three gentlemen were inserted in the Bill of 1895? I suppose they are still in that Bill. That Bill never became law, yet their names are there to this day. The Under-Secretary said that some of us expected that the Bill would not become law at all. I am sure we all expected that the Bill of 1895 would not become law. We knew perfectly well it never would, and the Prime Minister of the day defined it as ploughing the sands of the seashore. Notwithstanding that the names were inserted, and I can see no reason whatever in that argument why the names should not be inserted at the present time.
    The Under-Secretary said that when we entered upon this discussion nobody thought that the opposition to the Bill would be so strong, or that the Bill would come under the provisions of the Parliament Act. I do not know where the Under-Secretary has been living for the last two years. I have never thought that the opposition to this Bill was not going to be strong, and if the Under-Secretary had only taken the trouble to ascertain what has been going on in England and Wales during the last two years, he would have known that we meant to fight this Bill to the very last, and if it is then forced upon us under the Parliament Act, without being submitted to the people, we cannot help it. As the Leader of our party said, if we get a chance we shall take the first opportunity of repealing it. Nobody need for a moment be under any misapprehension as to whether it will be necessary, in all probability, to apply the terms of the Parliament Act to this Bill. I call it a positive scandal, in view of the important functions the Commissioners have to discharge, and in view of the discussions that will have to take place upon those functions, that we should not know the names of the Commissioners. It is absolutely impossible for us, under the terms of the guillotine, even to discuss these provisions unless we know who are the gentlemen who are to carry the Bill into operation. When I come to the second part of the Amendment, over

    743
    which the Under-Secretary, with characteristic agility, skated very lightly, I mean the fact that at least one of the Commissioners is to be a Churchman, I call that the most scandalous proposal I have ever heard. They ought all to be Churchmen. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh, oh !"] Do hon. Members support the Under-Secretary in his appeal to precedents? If so, are they aware that in the case of the Irish Church the three gentleman nomniated were all members of the Irish Church? Section 3 of the Act of 1860 gave the names: Viscount Monck, the Rt. Hon. James Anthony Lawson, and George Alexander Hamilton, Esq. Similarly, under the Bill of 1895, the gentlemen nominated were all members of the Church of England. They were Sir Algernon West, Colonel Hughes, and Mr. William Brooks.
    Why is it that these precedents have been departed from? Why is it that you now take power that at least two of the Commissioners should not be members of the Church of England—in fact, that they may be gentlemen moved by that bitter hostility to the Church in Wales which has been displayed by hon. Members opposite from the Welsh constituencies? How do we know that one of the Members from the Welsh constituencies is not to have the unpaid post of Commissioner, and will have to sit in this House? Probably one of them will be appointed. We come to this: That the Church is first of all to be Disendowed—plundered, as I call it—and Disestablished by Parliament, and then the details of the working out of it are to be arranged by men of whom the majority may be bitterly hostile to the Church. Let me take an example of how that will work. The Home Secretary was dealing this morning with the Amendment moved by my hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Cave) as to the difficulty that might arise in deciding, in the case of a border parish, whether the people desired to be Disestablished under the Bill or to be saved and attached to an English diocese. What was the test the right hon. Gentleman took? He took the test of communicants. Who are to decide that? The Welsh Commissioners. If you have Church Commissioners they may have regard to such a test. They may look to the Churchman-ship of these people, but if two of them are bitterly hostile to the Church do you suppose that they will regard the feelings of Churchmen in the parishes? That is the very last thing they are likely to regard. What they are more likely to do is
    744
    to hold out to these border parishes that if the Church is Disendowed they will get all kinds of funds for public purposes, baths, wash-houses, and various charitable uses, whereas if the Church is not Disendowed that money will still be paid to the clergymen. The whole matter depends upon the character of the Commissioners. It is a most monstrous and outrageous thing, and an insult to the Church, that you should take power, as you do deliberately by this Amendment, to say that two out of the three Commissioners should not be members of the Church of England.
    Mr. McKENNA: We only take power.
    Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: I know you only take power, but we cannot judge how you are going to use your power, because yon do not tell us the names. You take power to impose them upon us hereafter, when there will be no further chance of discussion, so far as I understand. The Under-Secretary said that the names will be communicated to the House. I suppose they will be communicated through the public Press. How will they be communicated; and is there going to be a chance of discussion In any case the Bill will have passed. We might have had a discussion on the names and moved Amendments to the names, but the Bill will have passed. Great parts of the Bill depend upon the names, character, and religious persuasion of these gentlemen. I say it is a perfect scandal that you should first of all withhold the names, and then take power to appoint two of the Commissioners from people who may be bitterly hostile to the Church. I do not know what is the genesis of this Amendment. In the very brief Christmas holiday we had seen a good deal of pressure put upon the Government in consequence of the small concessions they made shortly before the Christmas holiday. Is this Amendment a sort of repayment to the Welsh Radical Members, to make up for what has been done? Have they held a pistol at the head of the Government and said, "You have taken from us £15,000 a year; you shall now submit the Church to a tribunal of which two-thirds are to be against it"? I think that is very likely the origin of this Amendment. It is a sort of make-up to the Welsh Members for the concession that was made. I am bound to say I have never been anxious to discuss this Bill in a bitter spirit, although it is difficult sometimes not to resent the treatment that is meted out to

    745
    us by hon. Gentlemen opposite; but I think of all the scandals proposed in the Bill nothing is worse than this Amendment to withhold from the House of Commons the knowledge of who the Gentlemen are who are to have the work of plundering the Church in future and to tell us that probably only one out of the three will be a Churchman or a person in any way acquainted with the feelings of Church people. I regard this Amendment as insult added to injury and I earnestly hope the House will reject it.
    Mr. EDGAR JONES: I think the hon. Member is really doing a great injustice to his own case when he says that in his view this is the most scandalous thing in the Bill. I think that speaks very well for the Bill and we should be quite prepared to go with renewed confidence and eagerness to our friends in the country now and say this is the most scandalous thing in the Bill, and therefore all the rest of the Bill is very much better than it. Seriously, if the hon. Member will consider for a moment he will sec that he is making out a case which must inevitably recoil upon himself and his friends on this particular Amendment. As far as I know, the Welsh Radicals to whom he alluded have never discussed this particular Amendment. I do not know whether anything has been done, and speaking for myself alone, it does not matter two pins to me one way or the other, and I do not know that it matters very much to any of our other Welsh friends whether we get the names now or whether it is done as the Home Secretary suggests, though probably we should prefer having the names now. But I want to put to the hon. Member, on the merits, a reason why I think he and his friends are taking a mistaken line upon this matter. I would submit to him that the point about these gentlemen being members of the Church of England is really not a serious point because, after all, the work that these men have to do is mainly actuarial. It is a trifling matter after all. What you want is practical men, and I hope they will be the most competent men you can get in the country. The hon. Member gave the names which were put in the Bill of 1895. I know those gentlemen by repute. They are worthy gentlemen, and I have nothing to say against them, but I do not think they were the best kind of individuals to select for this particular class of work.
    Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: Because they were Churchmen.
    Mr. E. JONES: No, but because they were not professional gentlemen of great eminence in work of this character—work which the Commissioners will have to do. Sir Algernon West was, but the others were not. If hon. Members would take stock of the fact that you want distinguished men like these they will quite see that at the present moment it would be a disadvantage perhaps for the Church and for the exponents of the policy of opposition to the Bill that the actual selection should be opposed. They would probably find this difficulty if they wanted to get certain eminent men, in certain high offices at present, who would be the most suitable men for the sake of the Church to do the work properly and impartially and accurately, that they would find these men unwilling to put their names forward now for two years and to have them discussed up and down, here and in the House of Lords. These are reasons which occur to me in favour of the Home Secretary's Amendment. I only got up to say, as the hon. Member alluded to Welsh Radicals, that personally—I do not know whether my Friends take the same view—it does not matter at all to us, but we think, on the whole, in the interests of the Church, that the Home Secretary has done a very wise thing to enable him to get the very best names when the time comes to appoint them.
    Sir ALFRED CRIPPS: The only argument which was addressed to us by the Under-Secretary was that, in his view, you will get a better Staff of Commissioners than if the names were submitted to the House at present. That is a position with which I want to deal. I entirely agree with what was said by the hon. Member (Sir A. Griffith-Boscawen) that in a matter of this kind, which is part of the business portion of the Bill, I believe Churchmen will desire to join Members on the opposite benches in order to get the best business arrangement they can to deal with certain complicated matters. I was not convinced by the arguments put forward by the Under-Secretary when he was proposing this Amendment. May I put what I think a much stronger argument on the other side? In the first place, if we do not have the names at the present time, it is quite clear that the House of Commons in this Bill would be delegating functions of the greatest nicety and importance to a tribunal of the character of

    747
    which they have no cognisance. That is an extremely important matter in my view, having regard to this Bill and Bills of a similar character. We have very complicated Bills to deal with very often at present. These complicated Bills very often necessitate that a large number of functions which might properly be dealt with in the House itself have to be dealt with by delegated authorities. That is common ground. But surely, once take that assumption, this House ought to know, and there is a duty on the Government to supply the information in a case of this kind as to the names and character of the tribunal to which great functions of this kind are to be delegated. That was done, of course, in the Irish Act and it was done in the 1895 Bill. The names given in the Irish Act were Lord Monk, the Judge of the Common Pleas, and Mr. Hamilton, but in addition to that there was a provision that if one of these for any reason could not carry on his duty, and you were to appoint a person in his place, he was to be a member either of one of the State Churches or the United Church, which, of course, carries out what was said by the hon. Member. Not only were the persons appointed in the Act itself Churchmen, but there was a further provision that if there was any failure in respect to which they could not carry out these public duties they were to be supplemented by a man who was himself a Churchman.
    There is another matter. That is an argument upon the Parliament Act, and it appears to me it is a wholly fallacious one of a very dangerous character. Does the Under-Secretary mean that since the Parliament Act has been introduced it has become wrong to state in a Bill in this House the names of the Commissioners, whereas if it was not for the Parliament Act they would have been inserted? If he makes that statement, I do not think he can cast a greater slur on this House and on the Parliament Act, because it is quite clear, whatever else the Parliament Act was intended to do, it was not intended to diminish responsibility in this House. On the other hand, I think one might well say it tended to increase the responsibilities of Members of this House to a dangerous point, and that is the argument which I always felt strongest against the Parliament Act. But now it is said on account of the Parliament Act it is wise for this House to shirk a responsibility which, but
    748
    for the Parliament Act, according to precedent would have been undertaken by them. I do not think the Under-Secretary realises this. These Commissioners will really be undertaking duties in reference to this House. I will deal with their duties with regard to the Church and other matters in a moment. How can we determine whether they are a proper body to undertake the duties we are putting upon them, unless we know their names. I am not going to say that the Government are not going to select the best they possibly can. I will assume that they are going to do so, but that is not an argument, in my opinion, at all. It means that you give the Cabinet, unwisely and wrongly, a power which ought to be kept in the hands of the House itself. There is a somewhat unfortunate tendency in modern days to increase the number of these official bodies, and to increase the patronage of the Government unduly, and in a case of this sort the House ought to insist, and I hope it will insist, upon its undoubted right to know the names, position, and status, of the Commissioners before they delegate these great duties to their care. I can see no argument against that. What does it matter if you put the names into the Bill? What does it matter under the operation of the Parliament Act:? The Bill may not be passed for a period of two years. Of course, if you put wrong names in, it would give a chance of somewhat extended criticism. Let us assume that the right names are put in—names selected from the very best panel possible, and that every care is taken in their selection. The fact that they are in the Bill is a feature of the Bill itself. If they are gentlemen above any possible criticism so much the better.
    If I might answer what was said by the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydvil (Mr. Edgar Jones), whose opinions we respect in regard to Church matters in Wales, surely from his point of view it is desirable that he ought to know that before this Bill leaves the House of Commons, who is going to exercise these great powers, more particularly in the Welsh Principality. I can see no answer to that attitude, which, I suggest, is the right one. I do not think one can put out of sight wholly the duties and functions which this body will have to carry out. I cannot agree that they are actuarial duties at all. In many respects they are very important duties

    749
    which are almost legislative in their character. For instance, there is the question we were discussing on the last Amendment, namely, whether certain parishes should or should not be continuing members of the old Established Church. That is one of the extremely important functions to both sides. I am not discussing now whether a decision is given one way or the other. When we consider that great questions must depend upon the decisions which these Commissioners give, I do not think the hon. Member for Durham (Mr. Atherley-Jones) used too harsh words when he said it was really a scandal as regards Parliamentary practice that the House of Commons should not be in a position to consider and properly criticise the names of the Commissioners to whom functions of this character are going to be delegated. I do not think the hon. Member meant that it was a scandalous thing in regard to this Rill. He never meant or said that. He was talking about an Amendment, and his view was that it was a scandal as regards the procedure in this House that we should not know who the Commissioners are to be, and that the House should delegate its powers wholly in this matter to the Government without keeping the control itself. It is on these grounds that I shall certainly vote against the Amendment. I regret exceedingly that the names are not to be disclosed, and that we do not know the people in whom we have to place this confidence.
    Sir D. BRYNMOR JONES: I have no quarrel with the remarks made by the hon. Member (Sir A. Cripps) as to the duties of the Commissioners, but I think if he had looked a little more at the Rill he would have seen that the most important functions which the Commissioners have to perform are of a judicial nature. If the Committee will look at the Clause, they will see that the Commissioners are invested with very great powers indeed. They—
    "shall have all such powers, rights, and privileges as are vested in the High Court for such or the like purposes, and all proceedings before the Commissioners shall in law be judicial proceedings before a Court of Record."
    Therefore, it is a very important body of a judicial kind. What does the resistance to the Amendment on the part of the hon. and learned Gentleman and the hon. and gallant Member for Dudley (Sir A. Griffith-
    750
    Boscawen) amount to? It is that this House is to demand the names of people who are virtually to be in the position of judges, and that, their names being put in the Rill, it should be possible for this Committee to discuss them, and to see whether or not the gentlemen who are to form this new Court ought or ought not to be appointed. My attitude in regard to this matter is quite different from that of the hon. and learned Gentleman. Looking at the whole scope of this Rill I was quite surprised when I saw that the Government had at first intended that the names should be announced to this House. That was my view, and I was greatly relieved when for the first time I heard late last night that the names were not to be announced, and that the whole matter was to be treated in exactly the same way as all matters connected with judicial appointments are treated in this House. It was only the other day that a Motion for the appointment of a new judge was laid before the House, and nobody asked who was going to be appointed by the Government, and I think any such attempt on the part of the House to control the appointment of judicial officers would be fraught with great danger to the services these officers have to perform.
    3.0 P.M.
    I think we have confidence—I speak, at all events, for myself—in the Government as to the appointment of the Commissioners. I do not think any complaint can be made against the Government with respect to the appointment of judicial officers since they came into power. I do not think the hon. Member opposite would suggest that in the exercise of patronage or judicial responsibility the Government are likely, when this Rill becomes law, to appoint any people who would not discharge their responsible duties with perfect propriety. Is it really thought that any man who was appointed to exercise the duties of a Welsh Commissioner, whatever his religious views might be, would be of such a character that he would allow his religious predilection to affect his judgment in deciding matters of law and fact in accordance with the ordinary rules of our judicial system. I think my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has taken a very wise course indeed. Rut if they had taken the other course I do not know that I should have made any great complaint, because I am perfectly certain that the names that would have been suggested would have been the names of gentlemen who would

    751
    certainly commend themselves to the hon. and learned Gentleman and his Friends on the other side of the House.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr referred to the names of the Commissioners in the Bill of 1895. I remember that Bill and the discussions in this House, and my recollection is that the names suggested were received with complete approbation in every quarter, and I entirely dissociate myself from the suggestions of my hon. Friend as to the two gentlemen to whom he referred. No two better men could have been nominated by the Government of the day for the discharge of the functions of the Bill. This Bill is a little different in structure. I quite agree with the course which the Government have taken. I have no doubt that the three gentlemen who will in due course be announced will be perfectly strict and proper persons for the discharge of these duties. I notice the words "member of the Church of England" in the Motion. I am not at all sure what is meant, but I claim myself to be a member of the Church of England by law established; but I rather think that looking to the terms of the Amendment, and giving a very broad construction to its terms, it means that one man, at any rate, of these three Commissioners should be a member of the Church of England in the sense that he was baptised in it and confirmed by a bishop of the Church of England, and communicates in an Established Church. The points that will come before the Welsh Commissioners for decision are mere points of administration which may involve some considerable difficulty, and also questions of law and fact which will have to be dealt with in a judicial manner. I am utterly unimpressed by the suggestion that the Government have made a false move in this matter from any point of view, and I for one shall support the Government.
    Mr. HOARE: I could not follow the argument of the right hon. Gentleman who has just spoken. He deplored at the beginning the suggestion that the names should be published, and seemed to think that if that were done the judicial impartiality of the gentlemen appointed would be impugned. I cannot agree with that; that is not my main point. Towards the end of his remarks he went back to 1895 and implied that then he was in full agreement with what happened when the names were published. It seems, therefore, that the right hon. Gentleman is in the position of
    752
    agreeing with the Government whatever they do. He was in the House in 1895, and then voted for the publication of the names. Now, because the Government thought it better not to publish the names, he is quite prepared to agree to the new precedent. Further, he seems to think that the appointment of these Commissioners is in the nature of the appointment of County Court judges. If that is his impression, he misconceives entirely the feeling which we hold on this side of the House. We do not regard this matter as the collection of small debts; we regard it as a matter of the most vital importance that we should know the names of these officials, upon whom you put duties of the greatest magnitude and most minute complexity. There is one precedent in which the Welsh Commissioners were not only proposed, but actually appointed. It was the precedent at the time of the dissolution of the monasteries in the sixteenth century. If we go back to that remote date, we certainly have every reason for our doubts when officials are going to be appointed to do what we believe is nothing less than plunder the National Church in Wales.
    A further point which seems to be of the greatest importance was raised by the speech of the Under-Secretary for the Home Department. He urged that, because the Parliament Act is now in force, we are debarred from knowing what is really a most material point in the consideration of a first-class measure. That is one of the unexpected and incidental results of the Parliament Act. Here you have a matter which no one can deny is of the greatest importance withheld from the cognisance of this House, because we are told that owing to the fact that the Parliament Act is in force certain gentlemen do not like to have their names placed in this Bill during the eighteen months that must elapse before this Bill comes into force. I can sympathise with the disinclination of any gentlemen to have their names connected with the office of Commissioner under this Bill, but that is not my point. My point is to protest in the strongest way against any material fact being withheld from the knowledge of this House because an Act which the Government passed a year and a half ago is now in force. I come now to my third point. The Under-Secretary for the Home Office in this instance pushed aside the case of the Irish precedent altogether, and I am sure

    753
    it is very typical of the attitude that has been adopted by hon. Gentlemen on the Front Bench opposite. They quote the Irish precedent when it suits them, but when it does not suit them they throw it over. The Irish precedent is so strong in this case that it is worth repeating to the Committee what actually happened. My hon. Friend the Member for Dudley said that the names of the three Commissioners were published and each of those Commissioners was a Churchman, but the strength of the comparison does not end there. If hon. Members will refer to the Debate upon the corresponding Clauses of the Irish Church Act, Clause 3, they will find that Mr. Gladstone who was then in charge of the Bill was convinced that before proceeding with the appointment of the Commissioners it was necessary that the House should know the names of the Commissioners at the earliest possible opportunity. And he said that, as upon Clause 3, it was not possible for the House to know exactly what the duties were which the Commissioners would have to perform, the whole Clause should be postponed until a later period of the Bill; in other words, he regarded the names of the Commissioners as of the most vital importance in the consideration of the Irish Bill.
    If hon. Members will refer to the speech he then made they will see that I am in no way exaggerating what I say was his opinion, that he regarded the names of the Commissioners as one of the most important things in a Bill of that very complicated and important character. Hon. Gentlemen opposite seem to think that the duties of these Commissioners will be of a comparatively simple nature. I cannot agree with that contention at all. It is my belief that the duties which they will be called upon to perform will be much more difficult than the duties which the Irish Commissioners are called upon to perform, for these reasons: They will first of all have to deal with the extremely complicated questions that arise from the dismemberment of a Church that is at present undivided. The Irish Commissioners were not faced with that difficulty. The course which the Debate has run to-day shows how complex are many of the questions to be dealt with, as, for instance, the border parishes. Take another instance in which their duties will be more difficult than the duties of the Irish Commissioners—the question of deciding whether or not a particular fund is
    754
    a private benefaction within the scope of this Bill. There again the Irish Commissioners had no such difficulty. Members of the Committee will remember that Mr. Gladstone, instead of going into these detailed questions of date and character of particular benefactions, gave a lump sum, which I believe amply satisfied the claims which were then made. In this case the Commissioners will have to inquire into very complicated questions—first as to the date, and secondly, as to the nature, of each Endowment.
    Take a third instance. The Irish Commissioners were not confronted with the difficulty of dividing up the funds of the Ecclesiastical Commission. In Ireland there was an Irish Ecclesiastical Commission in which the Irish funds were vested, and where no difficulty could arise as to whether the Endowment was Irish or not; but here, in the case of the Welsh Commissioners, they will have to go through the accounts of the Ecclesiastical Commission, the Central Financial Fund of the Church, and decide whether the Ecclesiastical Commissioners are right or not in saying that particular funds are English, and therefore free from this Bill, or are. Welsh, and therefore subject to Disendowment. Taking the last case, in which it seems to me the difficulties of the Welsh Commissioners will be much greater than the difficulties of the Irish Commissioners. In the case of Irish Disendowment many difficult questions were avoided by the compensation clauses taking the form of a commutation system under which a great many difficulties and details were certainly avoided. If hon. Members will refer to the compensation clauses I feel sure that they cannot help agreeing with me when I say that the system which is now adopted is much more complicated than the commutation system which was adopted in the case of the Irish Act. Here, again, the Welsh Commissioners will have to decide the extremely difficult and important questions as to what the holder of a particular freehold office should receive in compensation, instead of the very simple commutation system adopted in the case of the Irish Act.
    In respect of all those points the difficulties of these officials will be much greater than the difficulties of the Irish Commissioners. That seems to me to emphasise and lend force to the argument which we have urged, that we should know at once who are the gentlemen who are to administer these most difficult functions,

    755
    and upon whose decisions will rest the fortunes of many parishes and many particular individuals. I cannot conceive why the names should not be published. The only reason that struck me in the course of this Debate why these names are withheld is that the indication of the names of the successful candidates for these official positions will certainly disappoint a great many unsuccessful gentlemen. But on a point of this kind it is most important that we should know the names. We cannot have them withheld simply because the Parliament Act is now in force. No doubt in the near future many other Bills will be introduced by a Radical Government under the Parliament Act, and if past experience and the experience in connection with this Bill is correct, each of those measures will certainly have somewhere within its four corners the appointment of three well-paid Commissioners. That has been the experience in connection with practically every one of the important Radical measures introduced since 1906. Therefore we ought to make our protest at the very outset against the names of important officials being withheld on the ground of the Parliament Act. If we do not make our protest now, we shall have this precedent brought up again and again in the future, and we shall be left in the dark for eighteen months or some long period before we know who these important officials are to be. I hope before this Debate finishes we shall have some further answer from the Home Secretary, and that, in spite of what the Under-Secretary has said, he will see that a most dangerous precedent is now being created, and that, it is important that the House should not be kept in the dark, but should know at once who these three officials are to be.
    Sir J. D. REES: The speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Welsh party laid itself open to the criticism of my hon. Friend, and it was a very spirited application of the Tros Tyriusque principle in politics. I should have thought that the duties of the Commissioners under the Bill could hardly be described—as they were by his follower, the hon. Member for Merthyr—as of an actuarial character, as something light, intangible, and airy; something such as those described in connection with the Irish Exchequer Board. The duties of the Commissioners will, in fact, be of a most delicate and difficult descrip-
    756
    tion, and it is most satisfactory to find that the Leader of the Welsh party, unlike his follower, the Member for Merthyr, recognised that fact. I think it very extraordinary that the Home Secretary should argue that there would be nothing strange in not putting the names of these Commissioners in the Bill. He must be aware that it is not a precedent of to-day. It is in a similar Welsh Church Bill. In the Incorporation of Universities Bill we have also a precedent for the names of the first officials being given. I think the name of every fellow of the university is inserted. Take the case, a very much less important one, and not quite on the same plane, of a new company—the names of the directors are always printed in the articles.
    And I am reminded of the instance of the Port of London Authority, which is of great importance. These instances in point of fact go to show that it would be following the normal course to give the names of the officials, and it is an extraordinary course to omit them in a case like this, where there is such a strong feeling on every side in regard to the character and capacity of the gentlemen who will have to discharge such delicate functions in connection with the determination of these border parishes, upon an inquiry into the religious persuasion of the majority of the inhabitants. I submit that the point should be very strongly pressed that these Commissioners should be members of the Church of England. I will take an instance which shows how desirable and necessary and indispensable it is that they should be members of the Church of England. One of the parishes discussed on the last Amendment was that of Montgomery, which is English to the core, with everybody Conservative, and so on—[HON. MEMBERS: "No, no."] Hon. Gentlemen may refute that afterwards, but I say it is. It is said that it would not matter whether these Commissioners were members of the Church of England or of the Free Church, that there is such good feeling on all sides and that religious differences are being worn so thin that it really does not matter what is the religious persuasion of those three gentlemen. I should like to refer to a speech which was made on the 13th December on the borders of this Conservative parish of Montgomery, which has been connected for centuries with the diocese of Hereford, and which is now to be made a portion of a Welsh diocese. In the parish of Meifod you have a number of the Wesleyan body, that

    757
    which is nearest of all to the Church of England, is most in sympathy with it and often votes even in Wales for the Unionist and Conservative faith. [HON. MEMBERS: "No, no."]
    Mr. J. SAMUEL: Is this in order?
    Sir J. D. REES: Three weeks ago a gentleman there said, "if so much filth was removed from the Church of England at the Reformation, why does so much remain—
    The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member's remarks are not relevant.
    Sir J. D. REES: Am I not at liberty at a moment like this, when the question of the religion of Commissioners is admittedly relevant, to quote what was said? I have only quoted two lines and I only want to quote two further lines. It is not, I think, an intrusion on the time of the House and it is a contemporary utterance. Am I not in order in quoting a statement made by a minister of the Free Church that "the time has now come, thank God, to cut the claws of the ferocious old bear—
    The CHAIRMAN: We might spend our whole time in a series of speeches which have nothing really to do with the point. There is an Amendment on the Paper which deals with the specific point whether there should be three members, or at least one, of the Church of England. When we dispose of this I intend to allow the hon. Member for Dudley (Sir A. Griffith-Boseawen) to move his Amendment on that point.
    Sir J. D. REES: Obviously then my remarks are now out of order, but it is not equally obvious that I shall have the opportunity of making them subsequently. At the present moment there is so much feeling shown in certain quarters by ministers of Free Churches with one foot in the pulpit and the other on the platform looking forward to the time when they may become by the favour of some arch agitator, wholly politicians and cease to be ministers, and such extreme statements are made at a time like this so galling to the feelings of right-minded people on both sides, that I do submit it is of the utmost moment that provision should be made as to the religion of these Commissioners.
    Lord ROBERT CECIL: I feel some surprise that we have not had from the Home Secretary any defence of the Amendment which stands in his name.
    758
    After all, in three hours we have to discuss two-and-three-quarter pages of this Bill, including three separate Clauses. It is on an occasion of that kind that the Home Secretary thinks it right to propose an Amendment which, so far as this Clause is concerned, makes the most vital change in it that could be possibly made. I am not going to exaggerate the importance of the Clause, but there is no doubt that to transform it from a Clause giving power to Parliament to appoint Commissioners into a Clause giving power to the Executive of the day to appoint them, is a change of a very vital and important character. I look at this I confess mainly from the point of view of the House of Commons, and not mainly on this occasion from the point of view of the interests of the Church. This is a proposal to withdraw from the control of Parliament altogether the question of who shall be appointed Welsh Commissioners. I am quite aware that the Under-Secretary said that the Government were willing to undertake that, if this Bill were rejected by the House of Lords, and consequently had to be passed under the powers of the Parliament Act, they would, before it actually became law, communicate to the House the names of the Commissioners they intended to appoint. That is really an absolutely futile and useless promise, though I am not throwing the slightest doubt on the Under - Secretary's good faith. Of what use is that when we should not have any opportunity unless the Government chose of even considering such appointment. The Government is, of course, practically in control of the whole time of the House, and we should never have any opportunity of asking any information, much less of deciding on these appointments. Let us be quite clear about this, that all these kind of promises are practically valueless, and that this proposal is one for absolutely abolishing the control of Parliament over the appointment of these Commissioners. I do not share the view of the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Welsh party that these Commissioners are in the least in the same position as judges. I do not agree with him that their functions are really comparable to those of judges in any way. Even if I did, I should have to remind him that judges can only be appointed from a limited class of persons. They not only have to be appointed from barristers, but from barristers of a certain standing. That is a very considerable difference from these

    759
    gentlemen, who can be appointed from any class of the community.
    Quite apart from that, judges are not, or ought not, to be appointed mainly for political reasons. They may be, and too often are, appointed—I am not making any charge against the present Government in this respect—as a reward for political services; but they are not appointed with a view to discharging political functions. Unquestionably the functions of the Welsh Commissioners will be of a political character, closely affecting the political and religious passions of a large section of their fellow countrymen. They will be political officers, and political officers ought not to be appointed without the consent and full knowledge of the House of Commons.
    The Under-Secretary gave some precedents. It has been impossible for me on the spur of the moment to look up the precedents which he gave, but I venture to assert that they will be found not in any way comparable with this case. They are not the same kind of Commissioners. No one suggests that every official appointment ought to be made by the House of Commons; but I say that on grounds of precedent and expediency political officers, appointed for political functions, ought to be appointed by the House of Commons, and not at the sole discretion of the Government of the day. I object to the proposal on another ground. The hon. Member for Pontefract (Mr. Booth), whom I see opposite, has made very eloquent speeches on the danger of increasing the patronage of the Government. He made observations which lasted for some considerable time on that topic in the Committee on the Mental Deficiency Bill, when he strongly desired to prevent the increase of the power of the Government with regard to appointments. Here is a direct attempt by the Government to increase their own patronage, although in the first instance they thought that that was not a desirable course. Here is an attempt to create for themselves the patronage of two offices, one worth £1,000 and the other £1,500 a year for three years certain, and for as much longer as the Government of the day shall think fit; and they are proposing to do that, although in the first draft of the Bill they thought, and I think justifiably, that such a thing ought not to be done except subject to the control of Parliament.
    We have heard only the Under-Secretary on this question, but I am content to
    760
    believe that he speaks the whole mind of the Government on the matter. He says, in the first place, that owing to the operation of the Parliament Act it will be difficult to get good Churchmen to accept such offices as these, because for two years or whatever the period may be they would be held up to the odium of their fellow Churchmen as people who had sold their convictions for £1,000 or £1,500 a year. I do not think that that is a very valuable observation. What has the Parliament Act got to do with it, to begin with? If the Parliament Act did not exist the odium would be just the same. It was just the same in 1895, but the Government inserted the names in the Bill of that year. They were able to get men whom they thought satisfactory, and who the Leader of the Welsh party, with his knowledge of Wales, tells us were admirable men, and all Churchmen. The Government were able to insert their names in the Bill, although there was the knowledge that the passage of the Bill into law was extremely doubtful. But no one, as far as I know, ever made it a subject of accusation against those gentlemen that they, acting on their own conscientious convictions, had chosen to accept those offices. I do not believe that the idea that they would be accused of selling their convictions for £1,500 or £1,000 a year would deter any good Churchmen from taking these offices if they otherwise thought they were conscientiously entitled to do so. Another reason given by the Under-Secretary was that not only will Churchmen be deterred from accepting the offices because of the uncertainty of the passage of the Bill under the Parliament Act, but that it will be difficult to get any good men at all, whether Churchmen or not, to take the posts. Surely that is a most exaggerated view. What docs it mean? It means that a man docs not mind having his name put into the Bill if it is only for a few months, but that he will not stand it if it is for fifteen or eighteen months. Surely that cannot convince even the most devoted follower of the Government.
    I have no doubt as to what is the real reasons of this change. I have no doubt that the Government have tried to get decent men to accept these offices and have been met with refusals. They cannot get the men. So great is the feeling against the provisions of this Bill that they cannot get decent people to serve under it. That means that when this Bill has

    761
    left the House and the discretion is entirely entrusted to the Government they will appoint men who are not the best. They will appoint anybody they can get, and I dare say there are many excellent servants of the Radical cause in Wales who are looking for such appointments. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] When we examine this proposal, what does it mean? It means that the funds of the Church are to be taken, not only for whatever local purposes may be chosen, but also for paying two Radical nominees under this Bill.
    Mr. BOOTH: The Noble Lord uses the phrase "Radical nominees." Does he mean that they themselves would be Radicals or that they would be nominees of Radicals?
    Lord ROBERT CECIL: I do not appreciate the distinction. We have been told by the Chancellor of the Exchequer that we take a very narrow view of religion when we confine it to strictly ecclesiastical purposes. Is the payment of the salaries of the Welsh Commissioners a religious purpose or not? It illustrates the total insincerity of the whole of the case underlying the Bill when you find that these men are to be paid, not by a charge on the funds of the country, but out of the funds of the Church, and that the funds of the Church, given, to use the touching words read by the Leader of the Welsh party the other day, centuries ago for strictly religious purposes, are now to be utilised in order to reward the political services of some Welsh Radicals. I confess that that aspect of the case makes me distrust very much the last reason given by the Under-Secretary. He said that the real reason why the Government preferred this way of appointing the Commissioners was that it would make for the better treatment of the Church. Really the hon. Gentleman draws too large a draft on our credulity when he makes a statement of that kind. Surely we are not now going to admit that this Assembly is so degraded, so degenerate, that if we submit the names of the Commissioners to the House of Commons we shall necessarily appoint worse men than if we leave them to the uncontrolled discretion of the Government ! I refuse altogether to believe that that is a sound view of the present political situation. I do not believe for a moment that we should have worse men if we had their names in the Bill. I think it is possible that the Government would not be able to get any decent men to accept
    762
    the post. In that case that would be a fatal condemnation of the Bill. But if they got anyone, they would get good men. They would not venture to put before the House of Commons the names of any but good men. To adopt the Amendment of the Home Secretary is to abandon a solid guarantee for the excellence of the Welsh Commissioners, and on that ground I shall vote against the Amendment.
    Mr. McKENNA: The Noble Lord has challenged me to support the Amendment standing in my name. If I have not done so before the reason is obvious to those who heard the speech of my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary, who made a most admirable and complete statement of the case. With perfect frankness, without concealing anything from the Committee, he stated exactly what the situation is, and gave as the sole reason in support of this Amendment that under the system now proposed we believe that we shall be able to select from a larger and better panel of suitable names than we could do if the gentlemen proposed, particularly in the case of Churchmen, had to run the gauntlet of criticism for eighteen months or two years without any certain knowledge that the Bill would become law. It was really in the interests of the Church. The Noble Lord is perfectly convinced, honestly—I will pay him that tribute—I believe he thinks it true—he is firmly convinced that the sole reason why I have proposed this Amendment is because I have asked a number of gentlemen who have all refused. He really believes that to be true. I have not asked a single individual. I have been refused by nobody. I have not the smallest shadow of doubt that I could get admirable names, quite as good names as in the Bill of 1805, at this moment, to be included in this Bill. I quite honestly believe that I can get better names, more admittedly representative of Church feeling, if I postpone the matter. That has been my sole reason, and not in the least what the Noble Lord thinks is the reason, that I have failed at the present time to get gentlemen willing to accept the position.
    The Noble Lord put his case in opening in a way that I thought for once that we were going to have, so far as this Bill was concerned, a somewhat more conciliatory speech from the Noble Lord. He put his case rather on House of Commons grounds than on Church grounds. I was disposed to agree with him. I do agree with him,

    763
    certainly, that as a general rule in appointments of this kind it is desirable that the names should be in the Bill. That is why we proposed the original Clause. It is not from malice that we are altering it, but because of the genuine belief that I have stated. What are the present circumstances in this case? It is said that the House ought to know the names. I agree that the House ought to know the names. I am now quoting the exact words used by the hon. and learned Member for South Bucks. I agree that the House ought to know the names. But the point is when? If the House of Commons is given the names now I believe that we shall not get as good men as otherwise. I believe in consequence that the administration of this Bill, particularly in view of the fact that such administration lies much more in reputation than in fact, and that what is going to happen under this Bill will in men's minds largely turn upon their belief in the honesty, character, and ability of the Commissioners—because, I say, it lies more in reputation than in fact, I think it to be of the utmost importance that the Commissioners should be men whom the Church of England believe to be honest and upright men. I agree that the names ought to be known, but I believe—I know, indeed, as a matter of fact—I could not get at certain people whom I believe I can get if I do not put the names in the Bill now, and who will be most acceptable—
    Mr. FRED HALL: How do you know? Have you asked them?
    Mr. McKENNA: If lean reply to the interruption of the hon. Member for Dulwich I will do so, but I do not think it is very relevant.
    Mr. FRED HALL: I think it is very relevant.
    The CHAIRMAN: The hon, Member for Dulwich has not been here during the course of the Debate. I think it would be better if the Home Secretary were allowed to proceed.
    Mr. FRED HALL: I have been in the precincts of the House for some time.
    Mr. McKENNA: I am endeavouring to answer the very serious argument put forward by the hon. and learned Member for South Bucks, whose arguments I am sure everybody on this side endeavour to answer. We sympathise with his feelings, although we do not share them. He says
    764
    why do we not put in the names? My reply is that I believe we will get better names. That is my belief, and upon that ground I have acted. I agree that the House should know, and my hon. Friend has stated that the House shall know the names before the Bill becomes law, if the question is put: "Will the House have an opportunity of discussing the names?" My hon. Friend said something more. He said, if this Bill goes through under the Parliament Act, that the names shall be brought before the House of Commons before the House loses control of the Bill. That is a truism; if the Bill goes through under the Parliament Act it must be in the third Session.
    Mr. WYNDHAM: Your defence of the Parliament Act was that important matters are before the country for two-years; but if you only dispose of them a week before the end of those two years, you are going back upon your promises.
    Mr. McKENNA: If I had known that that was all the right hon. Gentleman was going to say I do not think I would have given way to him. Before the House loses control of this Bill the House will know the names. [An HON. MEMBER: "And discuss them?"] Obviously, if the House has not lost control of the Bill it will have the opportunity of discussing the names. [An HON. MEMBER: "What about the guillotine?"] Therefore, as the assurance is given that in the last resort, if any of the wicked things which exist in the minds of hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite, and nowhere else, were perpetrated, the House of Commons would have its veto.
    Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: Will the right hon. Gentleman give a guarantee that this part of the Bill will not be guillotined in the last Session?
    Mr. McKENNA: The hon. Gentleman thinks that I can give a guarantee ! Even if I had the authority to do that, which would ensure that obstruction on that side should put a stop to the Bill—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh, oh!"] After all, so long as this House has control of the Bill, the opportunity will exist to discuss the matter. Otherwise the House of Commons would not have control: that is implied.
    Sir A. CRIPPSWill the right hon. Gentleman tell us how the House will have power to discuss the names under what he calls the control of the Bill?
    Mr. McKENNA: It is impossible to say in advance what the procedure will be in the third Session, but before this House loses control of the Bill the names will be known, and if any of these wickednesses which the Noble Lord says, and rightly says, if ever they are perpetrated, would be wrong, the House will have its veto upon the Bill. Therefore, it is idle to say that the House is asked to accept this provision in the dark. We have got to consider whether this is the better course in the permanent interests of the settlement of outstanding disputes in Wales; whether we should sacrifice the chance of getting men whose names will be absolutely acceptable to every part of Wales, and whose decisions in consequence will settle, instead of inflaming, disputes. By putting in the names now we should run the risk of doing permanent injury. Between these two we have to choose the proper course and the Committee may rest assured that the names shall be given to them at a time when the House has still control of the Bill, and I submit that ought to satisfy them.
    Mr. RAWLINSON: I wish to deal for a moment before I come to the substance of the Amendment with the remarks of the Home Secretary. His promise is the same as the guarantee given us by the Under-Secretary to the Home Office, and, like it, it is absolutely fallacious, and I will tell the Committee why. The promise is that the names will be communicated to the House before the House loses control of the Bill, but the names will not be inserted in the Bill. No Division can be taken upon them. They will simply be communicated to the House, probably on the Third Heading, and the House could only refuse to sanction the names by rejecting the Bill on Third Reading altogether. Is that what the right hon. Gentleman calls control by the House. Are hon. Gentlemen opposite going to reject the Bill because of their objection to particular names. Now as to the main point of the Amendment. We are here appointing Commissioners who are to be entrusted with serious duties and is it not essential that not only shall they be men who will do justice, but that they should be men who will inspire the people who come before them with the idea that justice shall be done. Is not that very material? We have repeatedly pressed that the Commissioners should be appointed in the Act and that their name should be inserted in the Bill, so that if the House of Commons
    766
    thinks fit to criticise them it can do so and should be at liberty to reject any one name if it wished. I do not say that it is likely that the House of Commons will reject one of these three names, but the mere fact that the House of Commons would have power to move such an Amendment and to discuss the names would make any Government very careful of the names they submitted. That is the materiality of it. Is it not very unfortunate that the usual precedent of putting the names in the Bill should be departed from in this instance.
    The Home Secretary and the Under-Secretary said that in not putting in the names they are admittedly departing from precedent; and they agree it is vital in the best interests of the House of Commons that this precedent should not be departed from, but they are departing from this precedent in this case, and why? For the sake of the Church of England ! Can they not trust us who represent the Church of England and who are unanimous in this point to say whether those men whom the Home Secretary describes as "admirable men will be suited for the duties they have-to discharge" are such. He says he can get such men. Why does he not trust us by giving us the names? And why does he not tell us who these "admirable men, well suited for those duties," are? Why does he not put their names before us at the present moment so that we may criticise them, and know who their antecedents are, and say whether we shall be content to take them, rather than be asked to accept the belief of the Home Secretary that he will be able to get good men who will satisfy everybody in the future. It is quite clear he has only the belief that he will be able to get such men. He told us, and one accepts his word at once, that so far, he has asked nobody to serve. He has had no refusals, therefore it is the merest belief, a quite honest one, but founded upon no data, that he gives us, because he assures us absolutely, and that was the reason of the interruption of my hon. Friend, that he has not made an offer to anybody, and that he has had no refusal. He only made up his mind two nights ago to adopt this method, and therefore he must have had names in his mind, and if so he might have put them into the Bill. So far he has not offered anyone the job, and has had no refusal. We are unanimously in favour of having "admirable men, well suited for the duties," but we want to discuss their names at the present moment rather than simply accept the belief of the Home

    767
    Secretary that he can get such men. Surely if this Amendment is moved in the interests of the Church the right hon. Gentleman would not prefer his own judgment to the judgment of those interested in the Church.
    4.0 P.M.
    The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Swansea District (Sir David Brynmor Jones) told us that the precedent is to put the names into the Bill, but he said, "What fear is there in this case?" Those people who are going to do what is in substance judicial work of great importance, and when you appoint judges their names never come before the House at all. I protest in the strongest possible way against that analogy. It is absolutely fallacious. Judges and County Court judges are appointed by the Lord Chancellor upon his responsibility. I make no complaints of the appointments made by the Lord Chancellor of the present Government, but the appointments by the Lord Chancellor of judges of the High Court are subject to very strong criticism amongst a very strong profession, a profession which includes people of both sides in politics, and who have a pretty sound understanding amongst them. The point is this, that when the Lord Chancellor appoints a man to be a High Court judge or a County Court judge, even if he selects him from the ranks of Members of this House, that man is made a judge for life, and does not entertain political control or political ambition from that time. That is invariably so in the case of High Court judges, and it is practically the case with County Court judges. There is only one instance that I know, after a pretty long experience of the Bar, and that is the distinguished exception of the right hon. Baronet the Member for Swansea District, who left the County Court bench and came back to this House, but, beyond that I have never heard of any other instance where a man appointed a County Court or a High Court judge has ever come back to take part in the deliberations in the political arena in this House. That is not the case with these Commissioners. They are to be men appointed on comparatively small salaries of £1,500 a year and £1,000 a year, and one is to be unpaid. They are to be appointed for three years only. At the end of these three years they will be again available to come back to this House or to carry on political warfare. It would be possible to say, by Amendment, that they shall not become Members
    768
    of this House for at least five years afterwards, or something like it. You cannot grant safeguards of that kind to insure the constitution of a tribunal which people will think is a fair one. It is useless to say that these men shall not be Members of Parliament, and that they will be people connected with the Church of England. We all know the pressure pur upon politicians. The point raised by the hon. Member for Swansea about the judges does not apply here at all. You have people appointed for three years only, and at the end of that time they may be back again amongst political strife, and it is for that reason that I press the Government here most strongly, in the name of fair play and justice, to give us the names of these three men who have to try these important Clauses. Let us have the three names so that we may criticise them if we are dissatisfied.
    Mr. WALTER ROCH: I wish to deal with two points put by the Noble Lord the Member for Hitchin (Lord R. Cecil). He divided his speech into two main arguments. In one of those arguments the Noble Lord made a general attack upon the Government of the day, which was a very strong one, and not without bitterness. He spoke of appointments being created for Radical nominees and rewards for political services. I do not think you can consistently make a charge like that against the present Administration. I know attacks have been made upon the Prime Minister, and he has been charged with fraudulent conduct and called a trickster. May I point out that the Prime Minister has in his hands, not only this patronage, but he has also the tremendous patronage of apponting the spiritual heads of the Church which the Noble Lord opposite apparently does not object to. Therefore, the Noble Lord cannot in sincerity make violent attacks of that nature against an Administration when he quietly and calmly acquiesces and upholds the head of that Administration in the large and valuable appointments of the spiritual heads of the Church who will control the Church for many years to come. The Noble Lord cannot make a bitter party attack of that kind and consistently maintain the other aspects of the Establishment. The only argument that has any weight with me is that from a strict Parliamentary point of view this is a bad thing. In this matter I go further than the Home Secretary,

    769
    and I say that from a strict Parliamentary point of view, and from the point of view of the Church, it is a most undesirable thing to put names into any Bill. I think that is the old-established practice of the House. It was adopted in the Irish Church Bill and in the case of the present Administration in the Licensing Bill, and one or two other instances.
    Lord ROBERT CECIL: It was done in the Education Bill.
    Mr. W. ROCH: There are many precedents for not putting in the names. I will tell the Committee why it is a most undesirable thing that names should be put in the Bill and discussed at length. I do not suppose anybody would get up and say that an administration worth continuing in office at all would not choose the very best men in its opinion it thought it could appoint; but let me suppose a section of the House very strongly opposed one particular Member appointed and that the appointment was debated at length. The Government would be bound, as I think, to adhere to its own nominee in spite of all criticism, and that man would be called upon to discharge judicial and heavy administrative functions with a prejudice against him and with all possible kinds of imputations that he was unfair and undesirable. I do think on that ground it is highly desirable Parliament should play no part in the fixing of the Members who are to carry on these duties, but that it? should be left to the Executive of the day. Parliament, as I conceive it, is not strictly an executive body in the sense of making appointments. The duty of Parliament is not to express their opinion about the names in this Bill, but to jealously guard the administration of it, and, if the men appointed are not fit and proper persons to discharge the duties placed upon them, to visit with a heavy hand the responsibility upon the Government. I believe on the ground of political consistency, and still more on the ground of Parliamentary control the Government have been well advised to follow what I hope will be the growing Parliamentary practice of keeping strictly in their own hands the nomination of those who are to carry out the work, leaving Parliament to carry out the much more difficult and equally important function of criticising their administration.
    Viscount WOLMER: The hon. Member who has just sat; down has enough resource to introduce a new theory to suit
    770
    the changed times. It has up to now been universally held that in a measure of this sort it was very desirable that the House of Commons should decide who should have the carrying of it out. That was the opinion of Mr. Gladstone in 1869, it was the opinion of the Government that carried through the Bill of 1895, and it has been the opinion of this Government in regard to several Bills which have been brought forward during recent Parliaments. I should like to point out the effect the Parliament Act has had in this case on the Members of the House of Commons. We are here setting what is bound to be a precedent in all important Government Bills which contain a similar provision. If the Government have to carry a Bill under the Parliament Act, we now know they will never be able to put in the names of the men who are going to administer it; that is to say, the safeguard which Mr. Gladstone and Lord Rosebery thought necessary in 1895 and which the present Government thought necessary in the Licensing Bill and the Education Bill, is now taken away, and the House of Commons will have to discuss these Bills in future in the dark without knowing who is going to have the carrying of them out. We were told at the time of the passing of the Parliament Act that the two years' space of time was a most vital factor in the Government scheme, inasmuch as it would give the country an opportunity of analysing the Bill for itself, of appreciating what its effect would be, and of passing a judgment upon it by way of demonstrations by elections and the like.
    In a Bill of this sort, administration is a very important factor; in fact, in connection with some parts of the Bill it is an all-important factor. Yet you are going to deliberately withhold from the country the names of those who will have the administration of the Bill, and you will thereby handicap the Members of this House in passing judgment upon the Bill. It is to the interest of the Bill itself that the House should know who these gentlemen are to be. If they are to be the fit and proper persons which the Government pretend, that would be one of the strongest arguments in favour of the Bill. But the omission to give the names will be a source of suspicion, doubt, and uncertainty. The giving of the names would be of the greatest assistance to the Government in their task of piloting this Bill through the House of Commons, providing,

    771
    of course, the names were those of gentlemen whom we could all respect and whose intentions we should know would be bonâ fide. It has been suggested from these benches that the Government asked certain gentlemen if they would become Commissioners and that they refused: hence the postponement of the publication of the names. But the Home Secretary has informed us that that is not the case. In his speech the right hon. Gentleman said he knew that in the case of certain men who might suitably be appointed they would not accept office if their names were to be exposed to public criticism for a coupe of years. How does he know that? How can he have obtained the information except by asking? And if he has thus obtained it, what does he mean by getting up and saying that he has asked no one? The right hon. Gentleman has contradicted himself flatly in these two sentences, and I should be very glad if he would clear up that point.
    Mr. BOOTH: They are not the words the right hon. Gentleman used.
    Viscount WOLMER: If the hon. Membar will look at the OFFICIAL REPORT tomorrow morning, I think he will find that what I have said is perfectly accurate. There is another incident in the situation which ought to be borne in mind. The Government only put down this Amendment forty-eight hours ago. It is perfectly inconceivable that they could have gone all this time since this Bill was first brought in without having in mind the names of some persons whom they intended to appoint. Why, then, did they come down suddenly forty-eight hours before this Clause came up for discussion and announce this change of policy? It can only be because they knew that the names which they would bring forward would not command the confidence of the majority of the Members of this House. I do not mean, of course, that the names would be such as to ensure the rejection of the Bill. But they would not be such as to command confidence in the country, because they would create a feeling of disquiet on both sides of the House, and thereby weaken the general position of the Bill. Really a very serious precedent is being set up at the present moment. Information of a vital character with regard to the administration of this Bill is being withheld from the House of Commons and from the
    772
    country owing to the working of the Parliament Act. We believe that that information is being withheld because its publication would be damaging to the Government. We can conceive no other reason why it should be withheld. We cannot trust the administration or the appointments of the right hon. Gentleman the present Home Secretary without criticism from this House. We have had experience of his administration in the Education Office, and we found him capable of bringing about by administration that which he could not bring about by legislation. Therefore, we are not prepared to trust him with a blank cheque in this matter, or to give him a free hand to appoint men whom he thinks would carry out the Bill to suit his purposes and intentions best; whose names he dare not publish to the country or bring before this Committee at the present moment.
    Mr. WHYTE: The Noble Lord the Member for the Newton Division (Viscount Wolmer), echoing the argument used by the Noble Lord the Member for Hitchin (Lord Robert Cecil), tells us that he cannot conceive of any reason why the Government should withhold the names of the Commissioners who are to administer the Bill when it becomes an Act, except that the names which may have been chosen would not receive the assent of the House of Commons, or at all events, if receiving it, would only receive a grudging assent. I think that both Noble Lords are neglecting the use of their imaginations in this case. We know that in other cases they have large and powerful imaginations. I suggest that they should bring them to bear in this fashion: Let me make the assumption that the Government, either now or at the time when this Bill is about to be brought into operation, chooses some distinguished Churchman not in the House of Commons, not known for his association with the Conservative party, but chosen deliberately because he is well acquainted with the affairs of the Church in Wales. Let me assume that his name is published now. I do not think I should envy his experience during the next two years. I do not think I should like, in the person of that gentleman, to meet the Noble Lord (Lord Robert Cecil) in some of his impassioned moments. I do not think I should like to meet the hon. and learned Member for South Bucks (Sir A. Cripps), still less should I like to meet the Noble Lord the Member for the Newton

    773
    Division (Viscount Wolmer) or the hon. Member for the Denbigh Boroughs (Mr. Ormsby-Gore). Let it also be marked, on my assumption, that these are the persons with whom I would naturally be associating at the present moment. This supposed appointee, on going into his club, would probably be assailed with the remark, "Here is the fellow who is hand and glove with the Radical Government in robbing the Welsh Church." I may be putting this as an extreme case, but I do so in all sincerity to the two Noble Lords. I am perfectly certain that is the first idea that would rise in the mind of a man on being asked to receive this appointment at this moment, when passion is most violently aroused on this subject. Even if my supposed appointee says that the Government have moved in good faith, he will say, "I am not prepared to stand up to be shot at in this fashion by my own friends."
    Viscount WOLMERmade a remark which was inaudible.
    Mr. WHYTE: I do not think that assumption is well founded.
    Lord ROBERT CECIL: Wait and see.
    Mr. WHYTE: I am prepared to wait and see. I do not think, so far as the Amendment is concerned, that the argument is well justified. The appointee will be engaged in showing by actual day to day administration of the Bill his bona fides, and his desire to work without friction, but he will be the target of, I will not say ill-meaning but passionate denunciation of persons who have maintained a most passionate opposition to this Bill.
    Mr. EVELYN CECIL: The hon. Member who has just sat down has proved himself a most ingenious apologist for the Government, but I cannot seriously think that he believes his argument will carry very much weight. The hon. Member has more than once made us interesting, moderate speeches in this connection and in others which we appreciated, but on this occasion it seems to me that his imagination at any rate has rather run away with him. But what has interested me in this Debate, and more particularly in the speech of the Home Secretary, is the very curious attitude which he has developed. The Home Secretary has told us that he has asked no one and had no refusals in connection with the appointment of these Commissioners.
    774
    Why did he agree to the Clause being framed as it was when the Bill was first drafted? That is a matter which entirely puzzles me. The Bill was read a first time eight months ago, and it is only yesterday or the day before that the Home Secretary put down an Amendment to tell us that he has changed his mind. If he had changed his mind and did not propose to name the Commissioners in the Bill I should have thought he might have put down that Amendment ever so long ago. If, on the other hand, he proposed to adhere, as was perfectly natural, to the original proposition that the names should be put in, he has had eight months to think about it, in which he could have asked people, and it is astonishing that he should now say he has not attempted to ask anyone and has had no refusals. And all this is directly against precedent. In every case that I can recall to memory, in the case of the Irish Land Act, in the case of the Port of London Act, in the case, I think, of one of the Education Bills introduced by the Government, and in one of the Water Bills, in every one of these cases, and no doubt there are many more, the names of the Commissioners have invariably been introduced.
    Mr. BOOTH: It was not in the Insurance Act.
    Mr. EVELYN CECIL: It was not drafted in the Insurance Act.
    Lord ROBERT CECIL: They gave the names.
    Mr. BOOTH: Not at this stage.
    Mr. EVELYN CECIL: They gave the names while the Bill was under the control of the House, but in this case that is not proposed.
    Mr. BOOTH: Yes.
    Mr. EVELYN CECIL: No, the hon. Member is mistaking the facts. When does he suppose that we are going successfully to resist any names which are proposed in this Bill? There is to be no Division taken upon them under any circumstances I can see unless the Government put down a separate Resolution to discuss the names. It is quite impossible to discuss the names themselves effectively on, say, the Second Reading of the Bill next Session or when it is summarily closured in Committee, or on Third Reading, with the Parliament Act in force.
    Mr. BOOTH: May I explain what I meant by my interjection? There was no opportunity on the Committee stage of the Insurance Act to criticise the names of the Commissioners. We waited all through the Committee stage till the conclusion of it, but before the Bill left the House we got the names. I think the Conservative party accepted that, and made no complaint.
    Mr. EVELYN CECIL: It could have been done on the Report stage. There is no suggestion that they are going to do it on the Report stage here. If the Government say they will do that it will remove many of our objections, but they have not the slightest intention apparently of doing so. Therefore the parallel of the hon. Member is inapplicable. Further, these names in no case will come up in Estimates before the House. The names will be withdrawn from the Estimates because, forsooth, the salaries are to be charged on the plundered funds of the Church. There is no way in which the House can effectively discuss them and divide upon them. The Government is creating absolutely a new precedent. They may search in vain the pages of the Statute Book to find any similar course. These gentlemen will be political functionaries. There is no denying that. They are not in the position of judges, or members, in the ordinary sense, of judicial bodies. They have largely political functions to perform, and it is idle, it seems to me, to bring forward the parallel which the hon. Member for Pembrokeshire (Mr. Roch) mentioned with regard to the appointment of bishops. I am prepared myself to admit that the Prime Minister has taken immense trouble to make wise appointments of the heads of the Church, but this is not a matter of appointing bishops at all. The bishops are not political functionaries, and I really think that bishops ought not to be so. Therefore, again, the parallel between the bishops and these Commissioners entirely falls to the ground. I do wish that the House would bear in mind that its privileges in this matter are being seriously threatened. This is an attempt, which seems at the moment likely to succeed, to put the power of the Executive Government above the power of the House of Commons as to a matter in which the House of Commons is specially concerned, and in regard to officers specially created for carrying out the behests of the party in office. We object to encroaching
    776
    upon the privileges of the House of Commons to that extent. We think they are being encroached upon contrary to all precedent, and it is not likely to secure the care which ought to be exercised in making the appointments if this power is withdrawn from the control of the House of Commons. We trust that the Government will reconsider the matter before a decision is taken.
    Mr. CHARLES BATHURST: My criticism will be directed to a point to which no reference has hitherto been made this afternoon. It is the provision that a member of this body should be a member of the Church of England. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Swansea District (Sir D. Brynmor Jones) has very properly intimated that he and others who think with him acknowledge that they are members of the Church of England. As the House will remember, John Wesley made it his boast that he and his coreligionists were members of the Church of England. I may say that those who are working and yearning for reunion among Protestants do look to this factor as one upon which they may depend for some chance in their efforts, but if you lay down specifically that one Commissioner is to be a member of the Church of England—and by that I mean a baptised communicant member—you will, following the old Latin maxim, Erpressio unius est exclusio alterius, impliedly convey that the other Commissioners will not be members of the Church of England. In other words, you start by creating a definite religious partisanship upon what is admittedly a judicial tribunal. Surely, if it is a judcial tribunal, you desire to constitute it properly. We must admit that the Commissioners will have difficult and delicate matters to deal with relating to the Orders made by the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, Queen Anne's Bounty, and private benefactions, and one thing you ought not to do is to emphasise the sectarian character of the individuals who constitute that tribunal. I should like to see these words absolutely omitted, because I believe you will thereby create a tribunal that will enjoy to a much greater extent the confidence of the people of Wales and the members of the Church of England, as they will appear in the public eye to be there as judges and not as sectarian partisans.
    Mr. KING: I thank the hon. Member who has just sat down for his generous utterances. I entirely agree with them, and I

    777
    am sure that many Members on this side of the House agree also with the sentiments which he has expressed, that men holding such positions ought to be there not as representing any one Church, but the Christian community and the public generally, and if there is an opportunity on the Report stage, and he chooses to put down an Amendment, then in that sense he will find certainly that I will go into the Lobby even against the Government in support of him. I desire now to refer to one speech in this Debate which made a great impression on me, the speech of the hon. Member for East Nottingham (Sir J. D. Rees). His utterance compares in quality and argumentative force very favourably with certain other speeches to which we have listened from that side of the House. I recognise very gladly the prominent position which the hon. Member, who has so recently left our ranks, is now assuming in the councils of the party opposite, and if at some future date we have to cross the floor of the House and I find myself confronted with the hon. Member sitting on the Front Treasury Bench, it will be some solace to me and other Members on this side of the House. I am just going to suggest to the Under-Secretary that if there is any difficulty in finding a suitable person for the post of Commissioner under this Act he might apply to the hon. Member. He has entered deeply into the aspirations of both sides upon this question. He is a man of great experience and wide breadth and sympathy. I only wish to make one more observation; that is I think that the view which has been expressed on this side of the House ought seriously to be considered on this and every other occasion, that it is generally undesirable to put the names of Commissioners in any Bill at all. In the case of the National Insurance Act there was no demand from a single Member of this House that the names should be placed in the Bill. I am generally more than satisfied with the arguments put forward by the Home Secretary and the Under-Secretary, and I can go away for the week-end feeling satisfied that as a matter of argument my side of the House has had the best of the encounter.
    Mr. MOORE: From the House of Commons point of view, may I say frankly I have not the least idea as to who any nominee of the Government or the other side would be. The hon. Member for Pembroke said that if these Commissioners were appointed the House at once
    778
    had the power of criticising them when the Estimates came on or at other stages. As a matter of fact we have no power to criticise administration under this Government, with its guillotine and Sessional Orders. Our power of criticism is purely illusory. No matter what may be the subject of administration, we never get the time or opportunity to discuss it. In addition to that, if these officials are appointed, they will not be on the Estimates, and their action cannot be criticised when the Estimates come up. Therefore, if the hon. Member is relying on a Parliamentary opportunity of criticism, it is no safeguard, especially in this case. Hon. Members opposite are perfectly sincere, no doubt, in insisting on a strong House of Commons; they are always shouting for increased strength of the House of Commons. I am only looking at this subject as a House of Commons man, and it strikes me that increased strength of the House of Commons, only means increased strength at the expense of the other Chamber. They are perfectly willing to give way to the Executive, so that the House of Commons is more and more losing control as the years go by. This is an exact case in point. The House of Commons will have no control over the gentlemen to be appointed. Surely it cannot be a healthy tendency among those hon. Gentlemen who are in favour of increasing the strength of the House of Commons when they surrender powers to the Executive. It is not in accordance with the old Liberal doctrine. There are three kinds of possible Commission. Take the Insurance Act: there we had the names given before the Bill left the House. That was a compromise and, I think, a fair one.
    What are the Insurance Commissioners? I am not finding the least fault, because, as the hon. Member said, they were accepted by the House of Commons. The Insurance Commissioners are persons who were appointed to carry out the policy of the Government in administering the Act. Are the Commissioners under the Bill now before us to carry out the Government policy? We do not know, and we cannot know until the names are given. You have another class of Commission, the purely judicial Commission, the members of which are men of judicial character, and in regard to whom it makes no difference whether we know their names before appointment or not. The members of such a Commission are above all sides of the House, and are in the position of

    779
    judges. Personally, I do not think you could have a judicial Commission, because of the inextricable business which has to be dealt with, and I think that administrators rather than judges will be required. Thirdly, there is a kind of Commission to which the hon. Member the Under-Secretary objects, but which will work exceedingly well in Ireland, where there was deliberately appointed a nominee who was a strong and keen Churchman, a nominee of the Free Churches, and an impartial chairman. I am not in the least criticising any of the three forms of Commission. In Ireland, under the Land Act, which was to be a national settlement, Mr. Gladstone, with the full approval of the House of Commons, chose a tenants' representative, a landlords' representative, and an impartial chairman. That was done again under the Act of 1903, and the names were put into the Bill. To me it is immaterial which kind of Commission is appointed, whether you have administrators, or purely judicial Commissioners, or two Commissioners, representing the Church and the Free Church, with an impartial chairman. "Which is their selection? We cannot tell until we know the names. Surely we are only giving up one of the few remaining powers we have over the Executive if the policy of the Government is not stated to us in one of these three respects before it leaves Committee. From the point of view of the House of Commons let us know what it is before the House of Commons loses all control over it.
    Mr. BOOTH: As one of those who is much alarmed at the growth of Executive power, I am not in favour of taking powers from the House in order to lavish them on the Front Bench—certainly not!—but I would remind the hon. and learned Gentle-
    man that that is not quite the point, for even if the names go in the Bill it does not affect the power of this House over them in their administrative acts. If the hon. and learned Gentleman or any others could have given me information on this point I would have been prepared to vote against my Whip if they could have proved that we would have more control over the Commissioners when they are performing their functions. The mere fact that we have a voice in the selection does not mean a step in advance. In my own view I rather think the Government are more likely to appoint impartial people, if they select them, than this House. If this House goes to a vote, we shall be subject to the charge that we come here in order to lavish political patronage. I say quite candidly I do not want to be brought here to vote for men having appointments of £1,000 or £1,500 per year. I would much prefer to come here and criticise them, severely if you like, and keep them up to the mark. If there was anything in this Amendment which pointed to the fact that the House of Commons would have more control over those officials, then I would feel bound, in accordance with my own convictions, to vote with the Opposition, but as this is purely a matter of the selection of the men, and does not bear at all on the point raised by the hon. and learned Gentleman, I leave it in the hands of the Government, which has a right hon. Gentleman at the head whose record in this matter of Church appointments will stand favourable comparison with that of any Prime Minister we ever had.
    Question, "That the words ' The following persons,' stand part of the Clause."
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 125; Noes, 249.

    Division No. 485.]

    AYES.

    [4.45 P.m.

    Aitken, Sir William Max

    Boyle, William (Norfolk, Mid)

    Dalziel, Davison (Brixton)

    Amery, L. C. M. S.

    Boyton, James

    Denniss, E. R. B.

    Astor, Waldorf

    Bridgeman, William Clive

    Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott

    Baird, John Lawrence

    Bull, Sir William James

    Faber, George D. (Clapham)

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

    Burdett-Coutts, William

    Faber, Captain W. V. (Hants, W.)

    Balcarres, Lord

    Burn, Colonel C. R.

    Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey

    Banbury, Sir Frederick George

    Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred

    Fisher, Rt. Hon. W. Hayes

    Barlow, Montague (Salford, South)

    Cassel, Felix

    Fitzroy, Hon. Edward A.

    Barnston, Harry

    Castlereagh, Viscount

    Fletcher, John Samuel

    Barrie, H. T.

    Cave, George

    Forster, Henry William

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

    Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

    Gardner, Ernest

    Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton)

    Cecil, Lord R. (Herts, Hitchin)

    Gibbs, G. A.

    Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks

    Chaloner, Col. R. G. W.

    Glazebrook, Captain Philip K.

    Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

    Chambers, James

    Gordon, John (Londonderry, South)

    Bennett-Goldney, Francis

    Clay, Captain H. H. Spender

    Gordon, Hon. John Edward (Brighton)

    Beresford, Lord Charles

    Clive, Captain Percy Archer

    Goulding, Edward Alfred

    Blair, Reginald

    Craik, Sir Henry

    Greene, W. R.

    Boscawen, Sir Arthur S. T. Griffith-

    Cripps, Sir Charles Alfred

    Gretton, John

    Haddock, George Bahr

    MacCaw, Wm. J. MacGeagh

    Samuel, Sir Harry (Norwood)

    Hall, Fred (Dulwich)

    Macmaster, Donald

    Sanders, Robert A.

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

    M'Neill, Ronald (Kent, St. Augustine's)

    Spear, Sir John Ward

    Harris, Henry (Percy

    Malcolm, Ian

    Stanley, Hon. Arthur (Ormskirk)

    Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

    Mildmay, Francis Bingham

    Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

    Helmsley, Viscount

    Mills, Hon. Charles Thomas

    Steel-Maitland, A. D.

    Henderson, Major H. (Berkshire)

    Moore, William

    Swift, Rigby

    Hewins, William Albert Samuel

    Morrison-Bell, Capt. E. F. (Ashburton)

    Sykes, Mark (Hull, Central)

    Hickman, Colonel Thomas E.

    Mount, William Arthur

    Talbot, Lord Edmund

    Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy

    Newman, John R. P.

    Terrell, Henry (Gloucester)

    Home, Edgar (Surrey, Guildford)

    Newton, Harry Kottingham

    Touche, George Alexander

    Horner, Andrew Long

    Norton-Griffiths, J.

    Tryon, Captain George Clement

    Hunt, Rowland

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

    Wheler, Granville C. H.

    Hunter, Sir Charles Rodk.

    Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

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

    Jessel, Captain H. M.

    Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend)

    Winterton, Earl

    Kerr-Smiley, Peter Kerr

    Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

    Wolmer, Viscount

    Larmor, Sir J.

    Perkins, Walter Frank

    Wood, John (Stalybridge)

    Law, Rt. Hon. A. Bonar (Bootle)

    Peto, Basil Edward

    Worthington-Evans, L.

    Lawson, Hon. H. (T. H'mts., Mile End)

    Pollock, Ernest Murray

    Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

    Lloyd, George Ambrose

    Pryce-Jones, Col. E.

    Yate, Col. C. E.

    Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)

    Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

    Younger, Sir George

    Locker-Lampson, O. (Ramsey)

    Rawson, Colonel Richard H.

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

    Rees, Sir J. D.

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr.

    Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. A. (S. Geo.,Han. S.)

    Salter, Arthur Clavell

    Hoare and Major Gastrell.

    Lyttelton, Hon. J. C. (Droitwich)

    NOES.

    Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour)

    Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)

    Kellaway, Frederick George

    Adamson, William

    Essex, Sir Richard Walter

    Kennedy, Vincent Paul

    Addison, Dr. Christopher

    Esslemont, George Birnie

    Kilbride, Denis

    Alden, Percy

    Falconer, James

    King, Joseph

    Allen, A. A. (Dumbartonshire)

    Farrell, James Patrick

    Lambert, Richard (Cricklade)

    Allen, Rt. Hon. Charles P. (Stroud)

    Ffrench, Peter

    Lardner, James Carrige Rushe

    Atherley-Jones, Llewellyn A.

    Field, William

    Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, West)

    Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)

    Fitzgibbon, John

    Leach, Charles

    Baring, Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple)

    Flavin, Michael Joseph

    Levy, Sir Maurice

    Barnes, G. N.

    Furness, Stephen W.

    Lewis, John Herbert

    Beale, Sir William Phipson

    Gilhooly, James

    Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

    Bentham, George Jackson

    Gill, A. H.

    Low, Sir F. (Norwich)

    Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

    Ginnell, Laurence

    Lundon, T.

    Boland, John Pius

    Gladstone, W. G. C.

    Lynch, A. A.

    Booth, Frederick Handel,

    Glanville, H. J

    Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

    Bowerman, C. W.

    Goldstone, Frank

    McGhee, Richard

    Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North)

    Greenwood, Granville G. (Peterborough)

    Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J.

    Brace, William

    Griffith, Ellis J.

    MacNeill, J. G. Swift (Donegal, South)

    Brady, P. J.

    Guest, Major Hon. C. H. C. (Pembroke)

    Macpherson, James Ian

    Bryce, J. Annan

    Guest, Hon. Frederick E. (Dorset, E.)

    MacVeagh, Jeremiah

    Burke, E. Haviland-

    Gulney, Patrick

    M'Callum, Sir John M.

    Burns, Rt. Hon. John

    Gulland, John William

    McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

    Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, North)

    Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

    M'Laren, Hon. H. D. (Leics.)

    Byles, Sir William Pollard

    Hackett, J.

    Marks, Sir George Croydon

    Carr-Gomm, H. W.

    Hancock, J. G.

    Marshall, Arthur Harold

    Cawley, Harold T. (Lancs., Heywood)

    Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis (Rosssndale)

    Martin, Joseph

    Chancellor, Henry G.

    Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire)

    Mason, David M. (Coventry)

    Chapple, Dr. William Allen

    Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire)

    Meagher, Michael

    Clancy, John Joseph

    Hayden, John Patrick

    Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

    Clough, William

    Hazleton, Richard (Galway, N.)

    Millar, James Duncan

    Clynes, John R.

    Healy, Maurice (Cork)

    Molloy, Michael

    Collins, Godfrey P. (Greenock)

    Healy, Timothy Michael (Cork, N.E.)

    Mond, Sir Alfred M.

    Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

    Helme, Sir Norval Watson

    Morgan, George Hay

    Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J.

    Hemmerde, Edward George

    Morrell, Philip

    Condon, Thomas Joseph

    Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

    Morison, Hector

    Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

    Henderson, John M. (Aberdeen, W.)

    Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

    Cotton, William Francis

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

    Muldoon, John

    Crawshay-Williams, Eliot

    Higham, John Sharp

    Munro, R.

    Crean, Eugene

    Hinds, John

    Murray, Captain Hon. Arthur C.

    Crooks, William

    Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

    Nannetti, Joseph P.

    Crumley, Patrick

    Hodge, John

    Neilson, Francis

    Cullinan, John

    Hogge, James Myles

    Nolan, Joseph

    Davies, E. William (Eifion)

    Holmes, Daniel Turner

    Norton, Captain Cecil W.

    Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

    Home, Charles Silvester (Ipswich)

    Nugent, Sir Walter Richard

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

    Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

    O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

    Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardiganshire)

    Hudson, Walter

    O'Brien, William (Cork)

    Delany, William

    Hughes, S. L.

    O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

    Denman, Hon. R. D.

    Illingworth, Percy H.

    O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

    Devlin, Joseph

    John, Edward Thomas

    O'Doherty, Philip

    Dillon, John

    Jones, Rt.Hon.Sir D.Brynmor (Swansea)

    O'Donnell, Thomas

    Donelan, Captain A.

    Jones, Edgar R. (Merthyr Tydvil)

    O'Dowd, John

    Doris, William

    Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)

    O'Grady, James

    Duffy, William J.

    Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)

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

    Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

    Jones, Leif Stratten (Notts, Rushcliffe)

    O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.)

    Edwards, Clement (Glamorgan, E.)

    Jones, W. S. Glyn- (Stepney)

    O'Malley, William

    Edwards, John Hugh (Glamorgan, Mid)

    Joyce, Michael

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

    Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

    Keating, Matthew

    O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

    782

    783

    O'Shee. James John

    Rowlands, James

    Verney, Sir Harry

    O'Sullivan, Timothy

    Russell, Rt. Hon. Thomas W.

    Walsh, Stephen (Lancs., Ince)

    Outhwaite, R. L.

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

    Walters, Sir John Tudor

    Parker, James (Halifax)

    Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

    Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

    Pearce, William (Limehouse)

    Scanlan, Thomas

    Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)

    Pease, Rt. Hon. Joseph A. (Rotherham)

    Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)

    Wardle, George J.

    Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

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

    Waring. Walter

    Pointer, Joseph

    Sheehy, David

    Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay

    Power, Patrick Joseph

    Sherwell, Arthur James

    Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

    Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

    Shortt, Edward

    Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

    Pringle, William M. R.

    Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John Allsebrook

    Webb, H.

    Radford, G. H.

    Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)

    White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)

    Raffan, Peter Wilson

    Smith, H. B. L. (Northampton)

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

    Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

    Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

    White, Patrick (Meath, North)

    Redmond, William (Clare, E.)

    Snowden, Philip

    Whitehouse, John Howard

    Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)

    Soames, Arthur Wellesley

    Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir T. P.

    Richards, Thomas

    Spicer, Rt. Hon. Sir Albert

    Whyte, A. F.

    Richardson, Albion (Peckham)

    Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N.W.)

    Wilkie, Alexander

    Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

    Sutherland, J. E.

    Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

    Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

    Sutton, John E.

    Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthen)

    Roberts, George H. (Norwich)

    Taylor, John W. (Durham)

    Williamson, Sir A.

    Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

    Taylor, Thomas (Bolton)

    Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

    Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

    Tennant, Harold John

    Young, William (Perthshire, E.)

    Robinson, Sidney

    Thomas, James Henry

    Yoxall, Sir James Henry

    Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

    Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

    Roche, Augustine (Louth)

    Thorne, W. (West Ham)

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr.

    Rose, Sir Charles Day

    Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

    Wedgwood Benn and Mr. W. Jones.

    It being a quarter before Five of the clock, the CHAIRMAN proceeded, pursuant to the Order of the House of the 28th November, 1912, successively to put forthwith the Question on the Amendment already proposed from the Chair, and the Questions necessary to dispose of the business to be concluded at a quarter before Five of the clock at this day's sitting.
    Amendment made: "In Sub-section (1), leave out the words" The following per-sons (that is to say),"and insert instead thereof the words "Such persons, not exceeding three in number, as His; Majesty may by Warrant under His Sign Manual appoint, of whom one at least shall be a member of the Church of England."
    Question put, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 249; Noes, 126

    Division No. 486.]

    AYE5.

    [4.55 P.m.

    Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour)

    Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

    Flavin, Michael Joseph

    Adamson, William

    Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J.

    Furness, Stephen

    Addison, Dr. Christopher

    Condon, Thomas Joseph

    Gilhooly, James

    Alden, Percy

    Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

    Gill, A. H.

    Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbarton)

    Cotton, William Francis

    Ginnell, L.

    Allen, Rt. Hon. Charles P. (Stroud)

    Crawshay-Williams, Eliot

    Glanville, Harold James

    Atherley-Jones, Llewellyn A.

    Crean, Eugene

    Goldstone, Frank

    Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.)

    Crooks, William

    Greenwood, Granville G. (Peterborough)

    Baring, Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple)

    Crumley, Patrick

    Griffith, Ellis J.

    Barnes, G. N.

    Cullinan, J,

    Guest, Major Hon. C. H. C. (Pembroke)

    Beale, Sir William Phipson

    Davies, E. William (Eifion)

    Guest, Hon. Frederick E. (Dorset, E.)

    Beck, Arthur Cecil

    Davies, Timothy (Lines., Louth)

    Guiney, P.

    Bentham, G. J.

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

    Gulland, John William

    Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

    Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardiganshire)

    Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

    Boland, John Pius

    Delany, William

    Hackett, J.

    Booth, Frederick Handel

    Denman, Hon. R. D.

    Hancock, John George

    Bowerman, C. W.

    Devlin, Joseph

    Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)

    Boyle, D, (Mayo, N.)

    Dillon, John

    Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire)

    Brace, William

    Donelan, Captain A.

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

    Brady, P. J.

    Doris, W.

    Hayden, John Patrick

    Bryce, J. Annan

    Duffy, William J.

    Hazleton, Richard

    Burke, E. Haviland-

    Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

    Healy, Maurice (Cork)

    Burns, Rt. Hon. John

    Edwards, Clement (Glamorgan, E.)

    Healy, Timothy Michael (Cork, N.E.)

    Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, North)

    Edwards, John Hugh (Glamorgan, Mid)

    Helme, Sir Norval Watson

    Byles, Sir William Pollard

    Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

    Hemmerde, Edward George

    Carr-Gomm, H. W.

    Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)

    Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

    Cawley, H. T. (Lancs, Heywood)

    Essex, Sir Richard Walter

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

    Chancellor, H. G.

    Esslemont, George Birnie

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

    Chapple, Dr. William Allen

    Falconer, J.

    Higham, John Sharp

    Clancy, John Joseph

    Farrell, James Patrick

    Hinds, John

    Clough, William

    Ffrench, Peter

    Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E.H.

    Clynes, John R.

    Field, William

    Hodge, John

    Collins, G. P. (Greenock)

    Fitzgibbon, John

    Hogge, James Myles

    Holmes, Daniel Turner

    Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

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

    Horne, C. Silvester (Ipswich)

    Muldoon, John

    Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

    Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

    Munro, R.

    Scanlan, Thomas

    Hudson, Walter

    Murray, Captain Hon. A. C.

    Scott, A. MacCallum, (Glas., Bridgeton).

    Hughes, S. L.

    Nannetti, Joseph P.

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

    Illingworth, Percy H.

    Nellson, Francis

    Sheeny, David

    Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus

    Nolan, Joseph

    Sherwell, Arthur James

    John Edward Thomas

    Norton, Captain Cecil W.

    Shortt, Edward

    Jones, Rt.Hon.Sir D.Brynmor (Swansea)

    Nugent, Sir Walter Richard

    Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John Allsebrook.

    Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil)

    O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

    Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)

    Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)

    O'Brien, William (Cork)

    Smith, H. B. L. (Northampton)

    Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)

    O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

    Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

    Jones, Leif stratten (Rushcliffe)

    O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

    Snowden, Philip

    Jones, W. S. Glyn- (T. H'mts.,Stepney)

    O'Doherty, Philip

    Soames, Arthur Wellesley

    Joyce, Michael

    O'Donnell, Thomas

    Spicer, Rt. Hon. Sir Albert

    Keating, Matthew

    O'Dowd, John

    Stanley, Albert (Stalls, N.W.)

    Kellaway, Frederick George

    O'Grady, James

    Sutherland, J. E.

    Kennedy, Vincent Paul

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

    Sutton, John E.

    Kilbride, Denis

    O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.)

    Taylor, John W. (Durham)

    King, J.

    O'Malley, William

    Taylor, Thomas (Bolton)

    Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

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

    Tennant, Harold John

    Lardner, James Carrige Rushe

    O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

    Thomas, J. H.

    Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, West)

    O'Shee, James John

    Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

    Leach, Charles

    O'Sullivan, Timothy

    Thorne, William (West Ham)

    Levy, Sir Maurice

    Outhwaite, R. L.

    Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

    Lewis, John Herbert

    Parker, James (Halifax)

    Verney, Sir Harry

    Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

    Pearce, Robert (Staffs. Leek)

    Walsh, Stephen (Lanes., Ince)

    Low, Sir Frederick (Norwich)

    Pease, Rt. Hon. Joseph A. (Rotherham)

    Walters, Sir John Tudor

    Lundon, Thomas

    Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

    Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

    Lynch, A. A.

    Pointer, Joseph

    Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)

    Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

    Power, Patrick Joseph

    Wardle, George J.

    McGhee, Richard

    Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

    Waring, Walter

    Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J.

    Pringle, William M. R.

    Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay

    MacNeill, J. G. Swift (Donegal, South)

    Radford, G. H.

    Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

    Macpherson, James Ian

    Rattan, Peter Wilson

    Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

    MacVeagh, Jeremiah

    Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

    Webb, H.

    M'Callum, Sir John M.

    Redmond, William (Clare, E.)

    White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)

    McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

    Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)

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

    M'Laren, Hon. H. D. (Leics.)

    Richards, Thomas

    White, Patrick (Meath, North)

    Marks, Sir George Croydon

    Richardson, Albion (Peckham)

    Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.

    Marshall, Arthur Harold

    Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

    Whyte, A. F. (Perth)

    Martin, Joseph

    Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

    Wilkie, Alexander

    Mason, David M. (Coventry)

    Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

    Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

    Meagher, Michael

    Robertson, Sir G. Scott, (Bradford)

    Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthen)

    Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

    Robertson, John M. (Tyneside)

    Williamson, Sir Archibald

    Millar, James Duncan

    Robinson, Sidney

    Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

    Molloy, M.

    Roch, Walter F.

    Young, William (Perth, East)

    Mond, Sir Alfred Moritz

    Roche, Augustine (Louth)

    Yoxall, Sir James Henry

    Morgan, George Hay

    Rose, Sir Charles Day

    Morrell, Philip

    Rowlands, James

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr.

    Morison, Hector

    Russell, Rt. Hon. Thomas W.

    Wedgwood Benn and Mr. W. Jones.

    NOES.

    Aitken, Sir William Max

    Chambers, J.

    Hewins, William Albert Samuel

    Amery, L. C. M. S.

    Clay, Captain H. H. Spender

    Hickman, Colonel T. E.

    Astor Waldorf

    Clive, Captain Percy Archer

    Hoare, Samuel John Gurney

    Baird, J. L.

    Craik, Sir Henry

    Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy

    Baicarres, Lord

    Cripps, Sir Charles Alfred

    Horne, Edgar (Surrey, Guildford)

    Banbury, Sir Frederick George

    Dalziel, D. (Brixton)

    Horner, Andrew Long

    Barlow, Montague (Salford, South)

    Denniss, E. R. B.

    Hunt, Rowland

    Barnston, Harry

    Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott

    Hunter, Sir C. R.

    Barrie, H. T.

    Faber, George Denison (Clapham)

    Jessel, Captain H. M.

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

    Faber, Capt. W. V. (Hants, W.)

    Kerr-Smiley, Peter Kerr

    Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton)

    Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey

    Larmor, Sir J.

    Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks

    Fisher, Rt. Hon. W. Hayes

    Law, Rt. Hon. A. Bonar (Bootle)

    Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

    Fitzroy, Hon. Edward A.

    Lawson, Hon. H. (T. H'mts, Mile End)

    Bennett-Goldney, Francis

    Fletcher, John Samuel

    Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)

    Beresford, Lord C.

    Forster, Henry William

    Locker-Lampson, O. (Ramsey)

    Blair, Reginald

    Gardner, Ernest

    Lowe, Sir F. (Birm., Edgbaston)

    Boscawen, Sir Arthur S. T. Griffith-

    Gastrell, Major W. H.

    Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. A. (S. Geo., Han. S.)

    Boyle, William (Norfolk, Mid)

    Gibbs, G. A.

    Lyttelton, Hon. J. C. (Droitwich)

    Boyton, James

    Glazebrook, Capt. Philip K.

    MacCaw. Wm. J. MacGeagh

    Bridgeman, W. Clive

    Gordon, John (Londonderry, South)

    Macmaster, Donald

    Bull, Sir William James

    Gordon, Hon. John Edward (Brighton)

    M'Neill, Ronald (Kent, St. Augustine's)

    Burdett-Coutts, W.

    Goulding, Edward Alfred

    Malcolm, Ian

    Burn, Colonel C. R.

    Greene, W. R.

    Mildmay, Francis Bingham

    Carilie, Sir Edward Mildred

    Gretton, John

    Mills, Hon. Charles Thomas,

    Cassel, Felix

    Haddock, George Bahr

    Moore, William

    Castlereagh, Viscount

    Hall, Fred (Dulwich)

    Morrison-Bell, Capt. E. F. (Ashburton)

    Cator, John

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

    Mount, William Arthur

    Cave, George

    Harris, Henry Percy

    Newman, John R. P.

    Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

    Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

    Newton, Harry Kottingham

    Cecil, Lord R. (Herts, Hitchin)

    Helmsley, Viscount

    Norton-Griffiths, John

    Chaloner, Col. R. G. W.

    Henderson, Major H. (Berks, Abingdon)

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

    786

    787

    Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

    Samuel, Sir Harry (Norwood)

    Wheler, Granville C. H.

    Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend)

    Sanders, Robert A.

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

    Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

    Spear, Sir John Ward

    Winterton, Earl

    Perkins, Walter F.

    Stanley, Hon. Arthur (Ormskirk)

    Wolmer, Viscount

    Peto, Basil Edward

    Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

    Wood, John (Stalybridge)

    Pollock, Ernest Murray

    Steel-Maitland, A. D.

    Worthington-Evans, L.

    Pryce-Jones, Col. E.

    Swift, Rigby

    Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

    Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

    Sykes, Mark (Hull, Central)

    Yate, Col. Charles Edward

    Rawson, Col. R. H.

    Talbot, Lord E.

    Younger, Sir George

    Rees, Sir J. D.

    Terrell, H. (Gloucester)

    Rolleston, Sir John

    Touche, George Alexander

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr.

    Salter, Arthur Clavell

    Tryon, Capt. George Clement

    Lloyd and Sir R. Baker.

    CLAUSE 11.—(Powers and Procedure of Commissioners.)
    (1) Subject to such appeal as is hereinafter mentioned the Welsh Commissioners shall have full power to decide all questions, whether of law or of fact, which it may be necessary to decide for the purposes of this Act, and shall not be subject to be restrained in the due execution of their powers under this Act by the order of any Court, nor shall any proceedings before them be removed by certiorari into any Court.
    (2) The Welsh Commissioners with respect to—

    (a) enforcing the attendance of witnesses, after a tender of their expenses, the examination of witnesses, and the production of deeds, books, papers, and documents;

    (b) issuing any commission for the examination of witnesses;

    (c) punishing persons refusing to give evidence or to produce documents, or guilty of contempt in the presence of the Commissioners or any of them sitting in open Court; and

    (d) making or enforcing any order made by them for carrying into effect this Act;

    shall have all such powers, rights, and privileges as are vested in the High Court for such or the like purposes, and all proceedings before the Commissioners shall in law be judicial proceedings before a Court of Record.
    (3) The Welsh Commissioners may review and rescind or vary any order or decision previously made by them or any of them; but save as aforesaid, and as by this Act provided, every order or decision of the Welsh Commissioners shall be final.
    (4) They shall make general rules for regulating their procedure under this Act, and generally for securing the due execution of their powers, and giving effect to this Act. All such general rules shall be submitted to His Majesty the King in Council for confirmation, and when so confirmed, with or without modifications, shall be laid before both Houses of Parliament, and shall have effect as if enacted by this Act.
    (5) They shall in each year make a Report to the Secretary of State of their proceedings under this Act, and this Report shall be laid before Parliament.
    Question put, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 236; Noes, 119.

    Division No. 487.]

    AYE5.

    [5.4 p.m.

    Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour)

    Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, North)

    Delany, William

    Adamson, William

    Byles, Sir William Pollard

    Denman, Hon. R. D.

    Alden, Percy

    Carr-Gomm, H. W.

    Devlin, Joseph

    Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbarton)

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

    Dillon, John

    Allen, Rt. Hon. Charles P. (Stroud)

    Chancellor, H. G.

    Donelan, Captain A.

    Atherley-Jones Llewellyn A.

    Chapple, Dr. William Allen

    Doris, A.

    Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.)

    Clancy, John Joseph

    Duffy, William J.

    Baring, Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple)

    Clough, William

    Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

    Barnes, G. N.

    Collins, G. P. (Greenock)

    Edwards, Clement (Glamorgan, E.)

    Beale, Sir William Phipson

    Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

    Edwards, John Hugh (Glamorgan, Mid)

    Beck, Arthur Cecil

    Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J.

    Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

    Bentham, G. J.

    Condon, Thomas Joseph

    Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)

    Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

    Cornwall, Sir Edward A.

    Essex, Sir Richard Walter

    Boland, John Plus

    Cotton, William Francis

    Esslemont, George Birnie

    Booth, Frederick Handel

    Crawshay-Williams, Eliot

    Falconer, J.

    Bowerman, C. W.

    Crean, Eugene

    Farrell, James Patrick

    Boyle, D. (Mayo, North)

    Crooks, William

    Ffrench, Peter

    Brace, William

    Crumley, Patrick

    Field, William

    8rady, P. J.

    Cullinan, J.

    Fitzgibbon John

    Bryce, J. Annan

    Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

    Flavin, Michael Joseph

    Burke, E. Haviland-

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

    Gilhooly, James

    Burns, Rt. Hon. John

    Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardiganshire)

    Ginnell, L.

    Glanville, Harold James

    Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J.

    Richardson, Albion (Peckham)

    Goldstone, Frank

    MacNeill, J. G. Swift (Donegal, South)

    Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

    Greenwood, Granville G. (Peterborough)

    Macpherson, James lan

    Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

    Griffith, Ellis J.

    MacVeagh, Jeremiah

    Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

    Guest, Major Hon. C. H. C. (Pembroke)

    M'Callum, Sir John M.

    Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

    Guest, Hon. Frederick E. (Dorset, E.)

    McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

    Robertson, John M. (Tyneside)

    Guiney, P.

    M'Laren, Hon. H. D. (Leics.)

    Robinson, Sidney

    Gulland, John William

    Marks, Sir George Croydon

    Roch, Walter F.

    Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

    Marshall, Arthur Harold

    Roche, Augustine (Louth)

    Hackett, J.

    Martin, Joseph

    Rose, Sir Charles Day

    Hancock, John George

    Mason, David M. (Coventry)

    Rowlands, James

    Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)

    Meagher, Michael

    Russell, Rt. Hon. Thomas W.

    Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire)

    Meehan, Francis (Leitrim, N.)

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

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

    Millar, James Duncan

    Scanlan, Thomas

    Hayden, John Patrick

    Molloy, M.

    Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)

    Hazleton, Richard

    Mond, Sir Alfred Moritz

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

    Healy, Maurice (Cork)

    Morgan, George Hay

    Sheehy, David

    Healy, Timothy Michael (Cork, N.E.)

    Morrell, Philip

    Sherwell, Arthur James

    Hemmerde, Edward George

    Morison, Hector

    Shortt, Edward

    Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

    Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

    Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John Allsebrook

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

    Muldoon, John

    Smith, H. B. L. (Northampton)

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

    Munro, R.

    Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

    Higham, John Sharp

    Murray, Capt. Hon. A. C.

    Snowden, Philip

    Hinds, John

    Nannetti, Joseph P.

    Soames, Arthur Wellesley

    Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

    Neilson, Francis

    Spicer, Rt. Hon. Sir Albert

    Hodge, John

    Nolan, Joseph

    Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N.W.)

    Hogge, James Myles

    Norton, Captain Cecil W.

    Sutherland, J. E.

    Holmes, Daniel Turner

    Nugent, Sir Walter Richard

    Sutton, John E.

    Home, C. Silvester (Ipswich)

    O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

    Taylor, Thomas (Bolton)

    Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

    O'Brien, William (Cork)

    Tennant, Harold John

    Hudson, Walter

    O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

    Thomas, J. H.

    Hughes, S. L.

    O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

    Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

    Illingworth, Percy H.

    O'Doherty, Philip

    Thorne, William (West Ham)

    Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus

    O'Donnell, Thomas

    Ure, Rt. Hon Alexander

    John, Edward Thomas

    O'Dowd, John

    Verney, Sir Harry

    Jones, Rt. Hon.Sir D.Brynmor (Swansea)

    O'Grady, James

    Walsh, Stephen (Lancs., Ince)

    Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil)

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

    Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

    Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)

    O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.)

    Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)

    Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)

    O'Malley, William

    Wardle, George J.

    Jones, Leif Stratten (Rushcliffe)

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

    Waring, Walter

    Jones, W. S. Glyn- (T. H'mts, Stepney)

    O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

    Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

    Joyce, Michael

    O'Shee, James John

    Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

    Keating, Matthew

    O'Suillvan, Timothy

    Webb, H.

    Kellaway, Frederick George

    Outhwaite, R. L.

    White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)

    Kennedy, Vincent Paul

    Parker, James (Halifax)

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

    Kilbride, Denis

    Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

    White, Patrick (Meath, North)

    King, J.

    Pease, Rt. Hon. Joseph A. (Rotherham)

    Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.

    Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

    Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

    Whyte, A. F. (Perth)

    Lardner, James Carrige Rushe

    Pointer Joseph

    Wilkie, Alexander

    Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, West)

    Power, Patrick Joseph

    Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

    Leach, Charles

    Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

    Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthen)

    Lewis, John Herbert

    Pringle, William M. R.

    Williamson, Sir Archibald

    Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

    Radford, G. H.

    Young, William (Perth, East)

    Low, Sir Frederick (Norwich)

    Raffan, Peter Wilson

    Yoxall, Sir James Henry

    Lundon, Thomas

    Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

    Lynch, A. A.

    Redmond, William (Clare, E.)

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr.

    Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

    Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)

    Wedgwood Benn and Mr. W. Jones.

    McGhee, Richard

    Richards, Thomas

    NOES.

    Aitken, Sir William Max

    Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred

    Gastrell, Major W. H.

    Amery, L. C. M. S.

    Cassel, Felix

    Gibbs, G. A.

    Astor Waldorf

    Costlereagh, Viscount

    Glazebrook, Capt. Philip K.

    Baird, J. L.

    Cator, John

    Gordon, John (Londonderry, South)

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

    Cave, George

    Gordon, Hon. John Edward (Brighton)

    Banbury. Sir Frederick George

    Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

    Goulding, Edward Alfred

    Barlow, Montague (Salford, South)

    Cecil, Lord R. (Herts, Hitchin)

    Greene, W. R.

    Barnston, Harry

    Chaloner, Col. R. G. W.

    Gretton, John

    Barrie, H. T.

    Chambers, J.

    Haddock, George Bahr

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

    Clay, Captain H. H. Spender

    Hall, Fred (Dulwich)

    Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton)

    Clive, Captain Percy Archer

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

    Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks

    Craik, Sir Henry

    Harris, Henry Percy

    Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

    Cripps, Sir Charles Alfred

    Harrison-Broadley

    Bennett-Goldney, Francis

    Dalziel, Davison (Brixton)

    Helmsley, Viscount

    Beresford, Lord C.

    Denniss, E. R. B.

    Henderson, Major H. (Berks, Abingdon)

    Blair, Reginald

    Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott

    Hewins, William Albert Samuel

    Boscawen, Sir Arthur S. T. Griffth-

    Faber, George Denison (Clapham)

    Hickman, Colonel T. E.

    Boyle, William (Norfolk, Mid)

    Faber, Capt. W. V. (Hants, W.)

    Hoare, Samuel John Gurney

    Boyton, James

    Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey

    Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy

    Bridgeman, W. Clive

    Fisher, Rt. Hon. W. Hayes

    Horne, W. E. (Surrey, Guildford)

    Bull, Sir William James

    Fletcher, John Samuel

    Horner, Andrew Long

    Burdett-Coutts, W.

    Forster, Henry William

    Hunt, Rowland

    Burn, Colonel C. R.

    Gardner, Ernest

    Jessel, Captain H. M.

    790

    791

    Kerr-Smiley, Peter Kerr

    Newman, John R. P.

    Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

    Larmor, Sir J.

    Newton, Harry Kottingham

    Steel-Maitland, A. D.

    Law, Rt. Hon. A. Bonar (Bootle)

    Norton-Griffiths, john

    Swift, Rigby

    Lawson, Hon. H. (T. H'mts, Mile End)

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

    Sykes, Mark (Hull, Central)

    Lloyd, G. A.

    Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend)

    Talbot, Lord E.

    Locker-Lampoon, G. (Salisbury)

    Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

    Terrell, H. (Guolcester)

    Locker-Lampson, O. (Ramsey)

    Perkins, Walter F.

    Touche, George Alexander

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

    Peto, Basil Edward

    Tryon, Captain George Clement

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

    Pollock, Ernest Murray

    Wheler, Granville C. H.

    MacCaw. Wm. J. MacGeagh

    Rawlinson, J. F. P.

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

    Macmaster, Donald

    Rawson, Col. R. H.

    Winterton, Earl

    M'Neill, Ronald (Kent, St. Augustine's)

    Rees, Sir J. D.

    Worthington-Evans, L.

    Malcolm, Ian

    Rolleston, Sir John

    Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

    Mildmay, Francis Bingham

    Salter, Arthur Clavell

    Yate, Col. Charles Edward

    Mills, Hon. Charles Thomas

    Samuel, Sir Harry (Norwood)

    Moore, William

    Sanders, Robert A.

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Viscount

    Morrison-Bell, Capt. E. F. (Ashburton)

    Spear, Sir John Ward

    Wolmer and Mr. Ormsby-Gore.

    Mount, William Arthur

    Stanley, Hon. Arthur (Ormskirk)

    Question put, and agreed to.

    CLAUSE 12.—(Appeal to the King in Council.)
    Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Monday next (6th January).
    The Orders for the remaining Government business were read and postponed.
    Whereupon Mr. SPEAKER, pursuant to the Order of the House of 14th October, proposed the question, "That this House do now adjourn."
    Adjourned accordingly at Fourteen minutes after Five o'clock till Monday next. 6th January

    PETITIONS PRESENTED DURING THE WEEK.
    The following Petitions were presented during the week, and ordered to lie upon the Table:—
    TUESDAY.
    Established Church (Wales) Bill—Petition from West Derby, against.
    THURSDAY.
    House Letting and Rating (Scotland) Act, 1911—Petition from Galashiels, for alteration of Law.
  Clerks to Surveyors of Taxes.
  Clerks to Surveyors of Taxes.
NATIONAL INSURANCE ACT.
  UNITED NATIONAL FRIENDLY ASSURANCE COLLECTING SOCIETY (GLASGOW).
  UNITED NATIONAL FRIENDLY ASSURANCE COLLECTING SOCIETY (GLASGOW).
  National School Teachers (Ireland).
  National School Teachers (Ireland).
  Dominion Parliaments (Royal Assent).
  Dominion Parliaments (Royal Assent).
  "Dreadnought" Type Ships (British and Foreign).
  "Dreadnought" Type Ships (British and Foreign).
  Indian Seas (Naval Expenditure).
  Indian Seas (Naval Expenditure).
  Children Act, 1908 (Emigration).
  Children Act, 1908 (Emigration).
  India (Officers' Reports).
  India (Officers' Reports).
  Indian Educational Service.
  Indian Educational Service.
  Trinidad (Ordinances).
  Trinidad (Ordinances).
  Sewage Disposal (Trade Effluent).
  Sewage Disposal (Trade Effluent).
  Silver (World's Production).
  Silver (World's Production).
  Dirty Tongue Disease (Ireland).
  Dirty Tongue Disease (Ireland).
  Foot-and-Mouth Disease.
  Foot-and-Mouth Disease.