Sitting of 14 January 1913

Preamble
The House met at a quarter before Three of the clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.
ESTABLISHED CHURCH (WALES) BILL.
Viscount Wolmer presented six petitions containing 17,012 signatures against the passing of the Established Church (Wales) Bill.
ASSURANCE COMPANIES.
Paper [presented 13th January] to be printed.

BENEFICES ACT, 1898.
Address for Return:—
"(a) Return of Transfers of Rights of Patronage registered under The Benefices Act, 1898, during the years 1904, 1905, 1906, 1907, 1908, 1909, 1910, 1911, and 1912 (to be extracted from the Register prescribed by Rules 2 and 3 of The Benefices Act, 1898), and also in respect of Benefices of which the rights of patronage have been transferred during those years, of the dates of such institutions or admissions (if any) as have been made during those years subsequent to the transfer:
The Return to show conveniently: (1) the diocese; (2) the name of Benefice; (3) the date of registration; (4) the date of transfer; (5) the names, addresses, and descriptions of the transferors; (6) the names, addresses, and descriptions of the transferees; (7) the interest transferred; (8) any extension of period for registration; (9) date of last, institution or admission prior to transfer; (10) any reservation in favour of transferor; (11) date of any subsequent institution or admission in respect to each Benefice and transfer;
(b) Return of Benefices (if any) in respect of which Refusals of Institution were made under The Benefices Act, 1898, during the years 1904,
1854
1905, 1906, 1907, 1908, 1909, 1910, 1911, and 1912, showing: (1) the diocese; (2) the name of Benefice; (3) the grounds of refusal; (4) whether any appeal; (5) the result of any appeal in respect to each Benefice and refusal of institution;
(c) Return of Benefices (if any) in respect of which Commissions were issued during the years 1904, 1905, 1906, 1907, 1908, 1909, 1910, 1911, and 1912, under The Pluralities Act, 1838, as amended by The Pluralities Act Amendment Act, 1885, and The Benefices Act, 1898, showing: (1) the diocese; (2) the name of Benefice; (3) whether the Report of the Commission was in favour of or adverse to the incumbent; (4) if adverse, whether followed by (a) the appointment of a curate, (b) the inhibition of the incumbent; (5) whether there was any appeal; (6) the result of any appeal, in respect to each Benefice and commission;
(in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 366, of Session 1904)."
[Lord Hugh Cecil.]

NATIONAL INSURANCE ACT.
Return of officers appointed to the staff of the National Health Insurance Commission (Scotland) [by command]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
Copy presented of The National Health Insurance (Further Payments to Approved Societies) (Ireland) Order, 1913 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
Copy presented of Provisional Regulations, dated 13th January, 1913, made by the Insurance Commissioners, entitled the National Health Insurance (Deposit Contributors' Administration Expenses) Regulations, 1913 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
Copy presented of Regulations made by the Scottish Insurance Commisioners constituted under the National Insurance Act, 1911, amending the National Health Insurance (Naval and Military Forces) (Time Limits) Regulations (Scotland), 1912, dated 7th January, 1913 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

NAVAL AND MARINE PAY AND PENSIONS ACT.
Copies presented of Nine Orders in Council, dated 16th December, 1912, made under the Act [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
EXPLOSIVES ACT, 1875.
Copy presented of Order in Council, dated 10th December, 1912, made under the Act [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
MERCHANT SHIPPING ACT, 1894, AND FOREIGN JURISDICTION ACT, 1890.
Copy presented of Order in Council, dated 16th December, 1912, making Tulegi in the British Solomon Islands Protectorate a Port of Registry under the Merchant Shipping Act, 1894 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
FOREIGN JURISDICTION ACT, 1890.
Copies presented of Three Orders in Council, dated 16th December, 1912, made under the Act [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
DOCKYARD PORTS REGULATION ACT, 1865.
Copy presented of Order in Council, dated 16th December, 1912, regulating the Dockyard Port of Plymouth [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
LUNACY.
Paper laid upon the Table by the Clerk of the House:—Copy of Return to the Lord Chancellor of the number of Visits made and the number of Patients seen by the several Commissioners in Lunacy during the six months ending 31st December, 1912 [by Act].

MARCONI'S WIRELESS TELEGRAPH COMPANY LIMITED, AGREEMENT.
Special Report from the Select Committee brought up, and read;
Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 430.]

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.

  Fernando Po (British Coloured Subjects).
  Mr. HOAREasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether His Majesty's Government has any reason to believe that British coloured subjects are being recruited for the Island of Fernando
  1856
  Po; and whether His Majesty's Government is satisfied as to the conditions under which this labour is employed?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir Edward Grey): His Majesty's Government have reason to believe that some British coloured subjects have been recruited clandestinely for Fernando Po, and that the conditions under which they are employed are unsatisfactory. They arc taking steps to see that the men's rights are protected. I may add that a salaried Vice-Consul has recently been appointed for the Spanish and Portuguese Islands in the Gulf of Guinea.

  Liberia (Recruiting of Labour).
  Mr. HOAREasked whether the Portuguese planters are recruiting hinterland Liberian labour for their islands in the Gulf of Guinea; and whether, in view of the prevalence of sleeping sickness on the Island of Principe and the danger that returning labourers might carry back this malady to the mainland, he will obtain assurances from the Liberian Government, or from the British company engaged in this traffic, that Liberian labour will not be shipped to the Island of Principe?
  Sir E. GREY: It has been already stated in answer to the hon. Member for East Nottingham on 1st January, and the hon. Member for Stafford on 6th January, that I have no reason to believe that any labour is being recruited in Liberia for Principe. The latter part of the question involves technical points on which I must be guided by the expert advice at the disposal of His Majesty's Government.
  Sir J. D. REES: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman if he is aware that there is only one British company and one British subject?
  Sir E. GREY: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will give notice.
  Mr. HOARE: Is Liberian labour recruited for San Thome.
  Sir E. GREY: I rather think it is, but I must ask for notice of the question.

  Crete.
  Mr. FELLasked if the Foreign Secretary can give any information as to a number of the inhabitants of Crete having expressed their intention of joining the kingdom of Greece and abandoning their allegiance to the Turkish Empire; and if

  1857
  any importance is attached to the movement?
  Sir E. GREY: The desire of, at any rate, a considerable section of the Christian population of Crete for union with Greece has been a matter of common knowledge for some years past, but I have no information as to any recent specific movement in the direction indicated.

  Persia.
  Mr. MORRELLasked whether the office of British Consul at Tabriz is now vacant; if so, how long has it been vacant; and when will it be filled?
  Sir E. GREY: The post is not vacant. His Majesty's Consulate at Tabriz is in charge of an officer of the salaried Consular service.
  Mr. MORRELL: Is the present Consul at Tabriz quite a young man—about twenty years of age?
  Sir E. GREY: No; my impression is that the Consul appointed is away temporarily, and his place has been taken for the time. I ask for notice.
  Mr. MORRELLasked whether the Foreign Secretary is aware of the difficulties to which the present gendarmerie force in Persia is exposed through the in sufficiency and irregularity of their pay; and whether His Majesty's Government will consider the advisability of making a further advance to the Persian Government for the purpose of increasing the gendarmerie force on the southern roads pending the arrangement of an adequate loan?
  Sir E. GREY: I am well aware of the difficulties to which the hon. Member refers, and last month a further sum of £15,000 was advanced by His Majesty's Government to the Persian Government for the financial requirements of the Government of Fars. I am now con sidering what more can be done to assist the gendarmerie, the reports of whose efficiency, owing to the direction of the Swedish officers, have impressed us favourably.

  India (Public Works Department).
  Mr. KINGasked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether the Public Works Department in India has been strengthened in recent years by the appointment of professional architects in order that the Government of India may be advised in all matters relating to
  1858
  architecture by experts with a full knowledge of Indian conditions?
  The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. Harold Baker): Within the last ten years the Public Works Department in India has been enabled to deal more adequately with designs for public buildings by the appointment of consulting architects. One such appointment is attached to the central Government and five to provincial Governments

  Delhi (Town-Planning Committee).
  Mr. KINGasked whether before or after the appointment of the Delhi Town-planning Committee there were transferred from the Public Works Department to another department of the Government of India all matters referring to the laying out and design of the new Delhi; and, if so, whether the reasons for this course can be stated?
  Mr. BAKER: Matters connected with the creation of the new capital, including the acquisition and laying out of the site, have from the first been dealt with in the Home Department of the Government of India. It is the appointed department for dealing with questions which turn mainly on considerations of public policy and general administration.
  Mr. KINGasked whether the hon. Gentleman can give an assurance that in allocating sites for buildings in the new Delhi no special favours by granting free sites will be given to any religious body, but that all denominations and churches will be equally treated, and that a fair market price will be demanded in all cases for land required for religious objects?
  Mr. BAKER: The answer is in the affirmative as regards churches, which under the rules in force the Government does not provide or help to build. Under the rules the Government provides churches for military stations and gives Grants-in-Aid in respect of churches at Civil stations. But ordinarily not more than one Protestant and one Roman Catholic church is provided at any station. When Government provides a church it also provides the land.
  Sir JOHN JARDINE: May I ask that care will be taken not to perform anything like consecration over buildings handed over to one sect alone?
  Mr. BAKER: I must have notice of that question.

  Treasury Balances (India).
  Colonel YATEasked how far the Treasury balances in the hands of the Secretary of State for India have been reduced since 1st October last; and whether the hon. Gentleman can give a list of the short-term loans called in and of the firms holding them between 1st October and 31st December, 1912, and a list of the short-term loans and deposits, and the names of their holders, held by approved borrowers on 1st January, 1913?
  Mr. BAKER: The reduction of the Treasury balance in the hands of the Secretary of State from 1st October, 1912, to 13th January, 1913, was £6,588,896—i.e., from £13,630,484 to £7,041,588. The statement asked for in the second part of the question is being circulated with the Votes. On 1st January, 1913, there were no deposits with banks. As regards loans on security at that date, I would repeat the statement made in reply to a question on 5th November, that the relation between the Secretary of State and the approved borrowers, whose names have recently been published, is similar to that between a bank and its customers, and is therefore regarded as confidential. If the hon. Member should still press for publication of this further information, it will be circulated with the Votes. Otherwise I shall be glad to show it to him privately.—[See Written Answers this date.]
  Mr. RUPERT GWYNNE: Has the reduction in the balances in any way been due to the publicity given to the matter in this House?
  Mr. BAKER: No, not in the least.

  Cotton. Growing (India).
  Mr. LEACHasked what increase there has been in the growth of cotton during each of the last three years in the Central Provinces and in the South of India?
  Mr. BAKER: A statement showing the area and yield of the cotton crop in the Central Provinces, Madras, and Bombay, in each of the last three years, and the estimate for the current season, will be printed and circulated with the Votes.—[See Written Answers this date.]

  Purchase of Silver (India).
  Mr. GWYNNEasked what was the market price of silver in China on 11th
  1860
  September, and its equivalent in London at the rate of exchange of the day?
  Mr. BAKER: The Secretary of State is not aware that there is a market price generally prevailing in China in the sense in which there is one for each day generally prevailing in London.
  Mr. GWYNNE; Did not the hon. Gentleman tell me, in answer to a previous question, that the price of silver in China was not necessarily the price in London, and was not that one of the reasons given for Messrs. Samuel Montagu and Company buying silver in China at 29⅛ when the price in London was 28 13–16?
  Mr. BAKER: I have never said there was a market price in China. The hon. Member has a question further down the Paper, and he will see how the calculation is made.
  Mr. GWYNNE: Did not the hon. Gentleman give me to understand that the exchange was different?
  Mr. TOUCHEasked whether the Bombay or Calcutta mints worked over time at any time during the latter part of the year 1912; if so, for what period; did they work night and day during any part of the period; and have they been so working during the present year?
  Mr. BAKER: As regards 1912 I have nothing to add to the statement I made in reply to a question by the hon. Member on the 1st January. As regards the present year such information as is available indicates that there has been no overtime; but, without inquiry, I cannot be certain.
  Mr. TOUCHE: Will the hon. Gentleman try to get the information with regard to 1912, and will he endeavour to keep the Office in closer touch with what goes on in India?
  Mr. BAKER: It is a very easy calculation, but if the hon. Member wishes to have direct information I will ask for it.
  Mr. GWYNNEasked for details of the cost per ounce, separating the items of freight and insurance to India which would have had to be paid by a purchaser at the London market price of 28 13–l6d. on 11th September when Messrs. Samuel Montagu and Company bought £600,000 of silver on behalf of the Government of India at 29⅛d. to be sent from China, freight and insurance being paid by the seller?
  Mr. BAKER: The figures are, approximately:—

  Freight

  .1297 of a penny

  Insurance

  .0240 of a penny

  Packing, marking, cartage, etc

  .0103 of a penny

  Total

  .1640 of a penny

  In addition there would have been a loss of interest for the period between the 11th September and the several dates on which the payments for delivery from China were made, equivalent to approximately 1460 of a penny per ounce. As I mentioned on 26th November, there is no reason to believe that so large a purchase could have been in London on the dates mentioned without raising the price above 28 13–16d.
  Mr. GWYNNE: If there was no different market price in China from that in London for silver, will the hon. Gentleman say how it is that even adding the cost of freight and insurance to the market price of 28 13–16d., it does not amount to 29⅛d., the price that Messrs. Samuel Montagu and Company paid?
  Mr. BAKER: It falls short by an extremely small fraction, and against that the last part of my answer shows that the price in London would have been considerably raised by so large a purchase.
  Mr. GWYNNE: Could not any other firm have bought in China, and could it not be done through the Bank of England?
  Mr. BAKER: If the hon. Member has any information which leads one to suppose that there was a market rate in China, I shall be very glad if he will communicate that information.
  Mr. JOHN WARD: Will the hon. Member inform us who it was wanted the job in place of this company?
  Mr. R. GWYNNEasked if the cost of carrying over contracts for the purchases of silver through Messrs. Samuel Montagu and Company, instead of taking delivery at the due dates, was equivalent to borrowing £661,000 for an average period of two months at the rate of approximately 4.46 per cent, interest, while the India Office was obtaining interest at the rate of approximately 2¾ per cent. only by the employment of its balances'?
  Mr. BAKER: The statement in the question, which is in effect a summary of
  1862
  replies that I gave on 29th November and 7th January, is correct. As I explained in the previous replies, substantial advantages, not mentioned in the question, were obtained by the postponements.
  Mr. GWYNNE: Are we to take it the extra cost of carrying over is the difference between 4.46 and 2¾ on £661,000?
  Mr. BAKER: Only if you omit the substantial advantages referred to in the latter part of my answer.

  BRITISH ARMY.

    NEW RIFLE.
    Sir RANDOLF BAKERasked the Secretary of State for War when the new rifle will be issued to the Regular Forces?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Colonel Seely): No pattern of new rifle can be finally approved until the result is known of the trial of the rifles which are about to be issued to the troops for that purpose. No date for the issue of a new rifle can, therefore, be stated at present.
    Sir RANDOLF BAKERasked whether the new Army rifle is to have a modified form of Mauser bolt; if so, who was the inventor of this bolt; and what is the cost of manufacturing the ordinary Mauser bolt and the new one?
    Colonel SEELY: There are features in the bolt of the experimental rifle which are similar to those in the Mauser pattern of bolt. The bolt was designed in the Royal Small Arms Factory. No information is available regarding the cost of the Mauser pattern bolt, and no comparison with the new bolt is, therefore, practicable.

    AMMUNITION.
    Sir RANDOLF BAKERasked if the Mark VII. pointed bullet ammunition has been issued to all the Regular Forces; and, if so, when it will be supplied to the Special Reserve and Territorial Forces?
    Colonel SEELY: All Regulars at home and Special Reserves have been equipped with Mark VII. ammunition. I am not at present in a position to make any statement as regards the Territorial Force.

    HOUSES (PRICE).
    Mr. CHARLES BATHURSTasked the Secretary of State for War whether the price of horses impressed for national service in time of war or emergency will be fixed by agreement between the owners and the Remount Department of the War

    1863
    Office or will be settled by the purchasing officers; and, if so settled, whether there will be any appellate tribunal competent to judge of the value of such animals?
    Colonel SEELY: The price will be fixed by each purchaser appointed on mobilisation, on behalf of the War Office, according to his opinion of the market value prevailing at that time. The owner, if dissatisfied, has a right of appeal under Section 115 (4) Army Act to the County Court Judge, who shall determine, after hearing evidence produced, the amount to be paid.
    Mr. C. BATHURST: Does the right hon. Gentleman consider the County Court Judge is an efficient tribunal to try such a question as this?
    Colonel SEELY: It has long been the law that he should be the person to fix the price, and I think on the whole that probably justice will be done.
    Mr. HARRY LAWSON: May I ask, is there any maximum price?
    Colonel SEELY: There is none laid down in the actual contracts, but there will, of course, be a price beyond which we should not go.

    TERRITORIAL FORCE (ADJUTANTS).
    Colonel YATEasked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that an adjutant of a Regular unit is provided with a soldier servant at a cost of 10s. a month and Government stabling and forage for his horse, but that an officer holding the appointment of adjutant of a Territorial unit, who is unable to obtain either a soldier servant or Government keep for his horse, is granted an allowance of Is. a day for a civilian servant and 19s. 3d. a week for the keep of his horse; and, as no civilian servant can be obtained for Is. a day and no horse can be put at livery under about 25s. a week, will he consider the question of increasing these allowances sufficiently to cover the cost entailed?
    Mr. BAKER: Soldier servants and Government stabling and forage are not provided for Territorial adjutants who are detached from their Regular units. These adjutants are treated in these respects in exactly the same way as other Regular officers similarly situated, and I regret that I cannot promise any increase in their allowances.
    Colonel YATE: Why should those adjutants be out of pocket altogether to this' extent; and if they are given any allowance at all, why should not that allowance cover expenses?
    Mr. BAKER: You must consider their total emoluments, and then I do not think it will be found that it is inadequate.
    Colonel YATE: Is the emolument of Territorial adjutant only half-a-crown extra per day for his adjutant's work?

    ROYAL ARTILLERY.
    Mr. C. BATHURSTasked how many additional light draft horses will be required for the Royal Artillery in the event of the Expeditionary Force being sent abroad; and how many of these are likely to be forthcoming as the result of the voluntary registration scheme recently-inaugurated.
    Colonel SEELY: As I informed the hon-and gallant Gentleman the Member for Bodmin on the 10th of last month, it is not considered expedient to publish statistics regarding mobilisation arrangements.
    Mr. C. BATHURST: Is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied, in view of the displacement of horses by motor traction, that he will have sufficient horses of the right kind for draft artillery purposes?
    Colonel SEELY: Yes, I am satisfied we shall have a sufficient number of horses to mobilise the Artillery. We made great advances in this respect in the last year, but, of course, more requires to be done in this and other countries.

  NATIONAL INSURANCE ACT.

    MEDICAL BENEFIT.
    Sir J. D. REESasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he has instructed the insurance committee not to allow people to make their own arrangements for medical treatment because the Government will not allow it; and, if so, by what authority he urges the insurance committee to contravene the provisions of the Act to which they they owe their existence?
    The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Lloyd George): I do not know to which of the 235 insurance committees the hon. Member refers, but in any case the answer to the first part of the question is in the negative; but I may

    1865
    again point out, with regard to the suggestion contained in the second part of the question, that an insurance committee is not required by the Act to allow insured persons to make their own arrangements for medical treatment.
    Sir J. D. REES: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman if he did not say they were so entitled?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I certainly did not. If I did the Act provides that they are not to be allowed.
    Sir J. D. REESasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he has informed the secretaries of the National Insurance Medical Practitioners' Association that priority will be given to the doctors on the panels if whole-time appointments are necessary; and, if so, by what authority he offered this preference to doctors who accepted his views in preference to those who stood by the British Medical Association?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I would refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury on the 1st January and to my letter, dated 18th December, 1912, which has been laid on the Table of the House.
    Sir J. D. REES: Will this form a precedent for using public funds for breaking great industrial and other non-professional strikes?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: It has nothing whatever to do with that. We simply propose this course because doctors refuse to place their services at the disposal of the State.
    Sir J. D. REESasked whether the Insurance Commissioners have approved of the action of the Middlesex Insurance Committee in agreeing that the sum pay able in respect of insured persons who have not before 31st March selected a practitioner on the panels will be divided amongst the practitioners on the panels; and if the Government has sanctioned offering those practitioners who accept its terms additions and emoluments at the expense of those who, maintaining their pledge, decline to accept such conditions?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Section 15 (2) (d) of the National Insurance Act and the regulations made by the Commissioners expressly provide for the distribution amongst the practitioners on the panel of
    1866
    insured persons who after due notice have failed to select a doctor and the distribution is to be carried out so far as practicable under arrangements made by the practitioners on the panel themselves. These practitioners are responsible for the medical treatment, if required, of such insured persons, and all money available to the Committee for the medical treatment of insured persons obtaining treatment from the panel will be distributed among these practitioners in accordance with the regulations.
    Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether a doctor who has gone on the panel can refuse to take his quota of the distributed insured persons?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well there are special provisions in the Act dealing with cases of that kind.
    Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: Can a doctor, once he has gone on the panel, refuse to take persons distributed by the committee amongst the doctors on the panel?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: As a matter of fact that has nothing to do with the question. The hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well he can refuse, in the first instance, but there are provisions dealing with those who have not been already distributed among the doctors.
    Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: Did not the right hon. Gentleman, in answering my hon. Friend's question, say that those persons were to be distributed according to arrangements made with the doctors. I ask can a doctor refuse to treat those patients who are distributed—may I have an answer?
    Mr. GWYNNE: Are we to take it that although a doctor on a panel may refuse to attend a patient that same patient may be allotted to him by the committee?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: No, I did not say that. If I did not make myself intelligible I will answer again. I said there were special provisions in the Act for distributing those who had been refused by all the doctors, but it is a very improbable contingency that every doctor on the panel will refuse the patient.
    Sir J. D. REESasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he organised or expressed his intention of

    1867
    organising a service of State-paid doctors ready to proceed to any area in order to break; down the opposition of the medical profession to working on the panel system?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: In any area where the panel may be found to be inadequate the duty is laid upon the Commissioners of making alternative arrangements in conjunction with the insurance committee for the medical treatment of insured persons; and of such alternative arrangements that of a salaried service appears to be the one most acceptable to the insured persons themselves.
    Sir J. D. REES: May I ask whether this forms a precedent for breaking down industrial and non-professional strikes?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The answer is a specific answer to the question, which is whether a State service is to be organised in those cases. I say that it is the duty of the Commissioners to see that adequate medical provision is made. There are two or three alternatives, and the one which is popular with insured persons is salaried service.
    Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: May I ask, where a State service is organised and put into force in a district, will insured persons have free choice of doctors?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Inasmuch as the insured person is fully represented upon the insurance committee which will be making the arrangements, I take it he would look after his own interest.
    Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: Has the right hon. Gentleman altered his mind since October last, when he stated that in such a case a person would be entitled to free choice of his own medical man?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I fail to see in what respect my answer differs from the answer I gave before.
    Mr. HODGE: If the doctors refuse to work under the Act, how can there be free choice?

    DEPOSIT CONTRIBUTORS.
    Mr. FELLasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will entertain a proposal for the 500,000 deposit contributors under the National Insurance Act to be united in the form of an insurance society with reduced fixed benefits, or with benefits contingent on the claims made, so that
    1868
    these persons who cannot obtain the ordinary benefits of an approved society may still have the benefits arising from the assurance of large numbers of persons in similar circumstances to themselves?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: No such scheme would be possible under the present provisions of the Act. Section 42, which deals with the position of deposit contributors, does not remain in force after 1st January, 1915, and before that date I shall be happy to receive suggestions as to the best method of providing for this class of contributors. Further information as to the actual character and extent of the class and experience of the working of the present scheme of benefits will certainly be necessary before it can be stated what change will be desirable. I would point out, however, that a very large proportion of the present deposit contributors can at once transfer to approved societies, and so secure, if they desire to do so, a better form of insurance than would be possible under the scheme suggested by the hon. Member; and a considerable proportion have indeed become deposit contributors because they have deliberately chosen that form of insurance. May I add that although we estimated that there would be about 1,000,000 deposit contributors compulsorily, there are only half a million, and our estimate is that fully half of them become deposit contributors from choice.
    Mr. FELL: Would it be possible to make some arrangement with one of the large societies so that these unfortunate people who are obliged to become deposit contributors—I am not referring to those who become deposit contributors voluntarily—could obtain some means of insurance through such a society?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I have not the faintest doubt that the large societies would be glad to take them over, because, as a rule, they are about the healthiest people in the country. But I think we had better wait a short time in order to see whether that is the best method of dealing with the problem.

    OUTDOOR BELIEF (SCOTLAND).
    Major HOPEasked the Secretary for Scotland whether parish councils in Scotland, in granting outdoor relief to a person entitled to benefit under the National Insurance Act, should only take into consideration such benefit in so far as it exceeds 5s. a week, as boards of guardians in

    1869
    England are instructed to do under Clause 109 of the National Insurance Act?
    The SECRETARY for SCOTLAND (Mr. McKinnon Wood): I am advised that Section 109 of the National Insurance Act does not apply to Scotland. I am making further inquiry as to the views and practice of parish councils in regard to the matter.

    DOCTORS' DISPENSERS.
    Mr. TOUCHEasked the Secretary to the Treasury if he is aware that, notwithstanding the provisions of Section 15 (3) of the National Insurance Act, doctors' dispensers who are not registered under the Pharmacy Acts, 1852 to 1868, are afraid that difficulties may arise at some future time in establishing their right to dispense medicines supplied to insured persons; and will he take into consideration the question of arranging for the registration of doctors' dispensers either by the Insurance Commissioners or the Pharmaceutical Society, or the institution of some other effective means of safeguarding the position of doctors' dispensers and of those who have acted as dispensers to public institutions?
    Mr. WEDGWOOD BENN (Lord of the Treasury): Section 15 (5) (6) (iii.) of the National Insurance Act clearly provides that in the case of insured persons medicines may be dispensed by a person who for three years immediately prior to the passing of the Act had acted as a dispenser to a doctor or a public institution, and I do not at present see the necessity for such action as the hon. Member suggests.
    Mr. TOUCHE: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell me what is the position of a man who has been a dispenser for many years, and who for three years before the passing of the Act has been conducting a drug store dispensing prescriptions behind a counter in a chemist's shop? Would he be qualified or debarred?
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member must put that question down. A Minister can hardly be in a position to give an answer to a question of that kind without notice.

    OFFICIAL LITERATURE.
    Sir J. D. REESasked why the circulars, orders, forms, regulations, and memoranda issued by the Insurance Commissioners to Members of Parliament who have applied for them are not complete; and on what principle the supply of some
    1870
    is long delayed, while others are not supplied at all?
    Mr. WEDGWOOD BENN: I would refer the hon. Member to the answer which the Financial Secretary to the Treasury gave to the hon. Member for Salisbury on the 9th instant.

    SANATORIUM BENEFIT.
    Mr. WALTER GUINNESSasked in how many counties in Ireland have medical officers been appointed for the purpose of the tuberculosis sanatorium benefit under the National Insurance Act; in how many cases have such officers passed a special course in the sudy of tuberculosis or, where not specially qualified, if it is permissible for an officer so appointed to qualify by taking out his course in tuberculosis study subsequent to his appointment; and if the Irish Local Government Board will sanction such a proceeding?
    The CHIEF SECRETARY for IRELAND (Mr. Birrell): The councils of twenty-two counties or county boroughs have appointed medical superintendents of tuberculosis dispensaries under the Tuberculosis Prevention (Ireland) Act, 1908. Two of these officers have qualifications as prescribed by Order of the Local Government Board of the 19th July last, which requires as a condition of appointment special experience in the diagnosis and treatment of tuberculosis. In the other cases the officers are undergoing a special course of instruction. This represents the settled practice of the Board.

    SNOW-SWEEPERS.
    Mr. TOUCHEasked whether the National Insurance Commissioners have considered the case of the hundreds of snow-sweepers who are employed by the Metropolitan borough councils, often only for half a day, when there is a fall of snow; and what decision has been come to as to whether they must be insured?
    Mr. WEDGWOOD BENN: Such persons, like other casual labourers, are employed within the meaning of the National Insurance Act, and the contributions are payable in respect of them by the employing authority, subject to the usual conditions.

    Customs and Excise (Amalgamation),
    Mr. SNOWDENasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if any report has been received from the collector of Customs and Excise at Edinburgh or from the

    1871
    Procurator-fiscal on the case of the officer of Customs and Excise who committed suicide on 6th December; if a copy of a letter written by the officer just before his death, in which he said that he was being driven out of his mind by the overwhelming amount of work that he was expected to do, and for which he had neither training nor experience, has been sent to the Board; to what do such reports as have been received attribute his suicide; if there is in existence a letter written by the collector of Edinburgh to the deceased officer just before his death in which the collector admitted that the work was very difficult for a young and inexperienced officer, but begging him to stick to it as there had been eight changes of officers in nine months; if, since the suicide of this officer, two officers have been put in the station to do the work; and will he state why this important revenue station has been left without an established officer for nine months?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The circumstances attending the suicide of the officer in question have been fully reported to the Board of Customs and Excise by their collector at Edinburgh. No report has been received from the Procurator-fiscal. A copy of the letter written by the officer just before his death has been sent to the Board. It is impossible for the Board on the information before them to assign a definite cause for the officer's suicide, but they are satisfied from the reports received that the work of his station was not sufficient to account for it. The collector of Edinburgh states that no such letter as that referred to was written by him. It is not the case that two officers have since the suicide been put in the station to do the work. Assistance was given for four days in order to meet special work annually recurring towards the end of December, and such assistance would have been given to any officer in charge of the station. Owing to the great increase in the work of the Department, and the consequent increase in the number of stations, it was impossible to appoint fixed officers to all stations.
    Mr. SNOWDEN: Do I understand the right hon. Gentleman to say that he is informed by the Board of Customs and Excise that the collector did not write the letter referred to in the question?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Yes. The collector states that no such letter as that referred to was written by him.
    Mr. HORNERasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that a large proportion of the present Excise staff is now only in receipt of salaries sanctioned by the 1894 scale, whilst others are considerably below that scale; and whether he can hold out any hope that the scale will be revised soon, seeing that the volume and responsibilities of their duties have been materially increased by recent legislation and that the cost of living has advanced about 25 per cent, since 1894?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I am aware that if the 1894 scale were still in force certain officers might be now receiving under it as much or in some cases slightly more than they are actually receiving under the new Hobhouse scale. But this is only a temporary incident, as the new scale will bring them substantial improvements, both of annual increments and maximum salary. The new scale was fixed quite recently after long and careful consideration, and I see no reason to revise it.
    Sir W. BYLES: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that Excise officers are bringing frequent and forcible complaints before individual Members'? As they would appear to have some substantial grievance, may I ask whether this matter is really engaging the attention of the Department?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: It has been engaging attention for some time.
    Mr. SNOWDENasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if any examination of surveyors of Excise origin for inspectors has been held since the amalgamation of the Customs and Excise; if not, will he state if any officers of Customs origin have been appointed to inspector ships which, if the amalgamation had not taken place, would have been filled by the appointment, after examination, of super visors of Excise; and when a chance of promotion to the inspectorate will be given to the surveyors of Excise origin?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The answer to the first paragraph of the question is in the negative. The old class of inspectors no longer exists, having been absorbed with other Excise and Customs classes in the new controlling grade under the Amalgamation Committee's recommendation. The answer to the second paragraph is in the negative. Nobody has been promoted to the new controlling grade since its constitution, except three officials of Excise

    1873
    origin who had previously passed the examination for the abolished post of Excise inspector. In reply to the third paragraph, I am unable to state when further promotions will take place.

    Increment Duty.
    Colonel LOCKWOODasked whether Increment Duty would be charged in the case of a generous landlord who is anxious to forward the cause of education in his parish and is willing to sell land which has increased in value since 1909 to the educational authorities in his county at less than its real value?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: On the assumption that the landlord sacrifices the whole of the increased value which may have accrued since 1909, the answer is in the negative.
    Colonel LOCKWOOD: Who will be the judge—the generous landowner or the Inland Revenue Department?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I do not think there will be any difficulty at all in that case. Of course, the valuer will be the judge.
    Colonel LOCKWOOD: Is he sufficiently protected?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I think so.

    Bowles v. Bank of England.
    Mr. CASSELasked whether any decision has yet been come to as to the course to be pursued with reference to the decision of the High Court in the case of Bowles v. The Bank of England; what were the costs incurred by the Crown in this case; and whether any opinion was obtained that the Crown had a reasonable chance of success?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I would refer the hon. and learned Member to the reply which I gave him on the 6th November last on the matter raised in the first part of the question, and as regards the last part to the answers which were given to the hon. Member for Dudley by my right hon. Friend the Attorney-General on the 18th November last and by myself on the 19th of the same month. The total amount of costs incurred by the Crown (including those incurred by the Bank of England) cannot at present be precisely stated, but they will amount approximately to £572, exclusive of Mr. Bowles' costs, the amount of which has not yet been definitely ascertained.
    Mr. CASSEL: Has any decision been come to as to the course to be taken in view of this decision?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I think I announced the decision of the Government on the date to which I have referred.
    Mr. CASSEL: Is it not the case that the right hon. Gentleman then told me that he was not in a position to make any announcement?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I do not think so.
    Mr. SWIFT MacNEILL: Is it in order to ask a Minister whether he has acted on the opinion of the Law Officers of the Crown? I base that question on the fact that the Minister only is responsible, and that we have not been able to discuss the opinion of the Law Officers of the Crown in Committee of Supply.
    Mr. SPEAKER: It is better to raise points of order at the conclusion of questions.

    Small Holders Act (Scotland).
    Mr. HOGGEasked the Secretary for Scotland how many of the 5,352 applications for land under the Small Holders Act have been dealt with up to 31st December, 1912; and how they have been dealt with?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: It is impossible to reply satisfactorily within the limits of an answer to a question, and I would ask my hon. Friend to wait for the Report of the Board of Agriculture, which is being made up to the end of last year.
    Mr. WATT: Can the right hon. Gentleman say roughly how much capital is required by an applicant?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: No, I could not say any definite amount without notice.
    Mr. BARNES: Can the right hon. Gentleman say when this Report will be available?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: Within a few weeks. I cannot say the exact date.
    Mr. HOGGEasked what methods are being taken to make the provisions of the Small Holders Act known in Scotland?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: The number of applicants for holdings and enlargements of holdings is sufficient evidence that the general provisions of the Act are well

    1875
    known in Scotland. The Board of Agriculture have prepared leaflets dealing with the provisions of the Act; all existing small landholders, so far as they are known, have received a leaflet explaining their position; and the three Sub-Commissioners for Small Holdings have travelled over the greater part of Scotland interviewing applicants and other inquirers.

    Education (Scotland).
    Mr. HOGGEasked the Secretary for Scotland whether he proposes to adopt the suggested changes in administration in the Scottish Education Department contained in the evidence given by Sir John Struthers before the Royal Commission on the Civil Service?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: The evidence referred to is still unpublished and confidential. The question, therefore, is premature.
    Mr. WATT: Where did Hogge get it?
    Mr. HOGGE: Does the right hon. Gentleman not recollect that he has already informed the House that he has never seen any of the evidence?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: Yes, the hon. Member asked me some time ago whether I had seen any of the evidence before it was given to the Royal Commission, and my reply was that I had not. I thought that as the officials were asked to give evidence personally as officials, that it was not at all my duty to have anything to do with the preparation of the evidence.
    Mr. LYELLasked the Secretary for Scotland whether there is a considerable body of opinion in Scotland which considers that the courses of study laid down for non-university students in the training colleges are from many points of view unsatisfactory; and, if so, whether he will consider the advisability of appointing a Committee to inquire into the whole question of the training of Scottish teachers?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: I am not aware that there is any considerable body of opinion of the nature indicated. But, as a matter of fact, the training of teachers is primarily in the hands of the various provincial committees which are composed essentially of representatives of school boards in all parts of the country, of universities, and central institutions, and of representatives of various grades of the teaching profession, and any proposals which these bodies may choose to
    1876
    submit for the modification of the system of training will be carefully considered. In view of the existence of committees so constituted, I consider the appointment of any special Committee of Inquiry unnecessary and inexpedient.
    Mr. LYELLasked the Secretary for Scotland whether the Educational Institute of Scotland, representing 14,000 teachers, has expressed strong disapproval of the present system of training teachers; that the Glasgow School Board has condemned the junior student system of training teachers and has ceased to nominate such students, and that other large school boards are contemplating the same course; and, if so, what steps he proposes to take to bring about a more satisfactory state of affairs?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: I am not aware that the Educational Institute of Scotland has expressed disapproval of the present system of training teachers. I have certainly not heard of any such expression of opinion. The Glasgow School Board has adopted as an experiment the alternative method of the preliminary training of future teachers which is allowed by the Regulations and it is open to other school boards to do the same. I am not aware that the present system which allows these alternatives is unsatisfactory.

    Burgh Police (Scotland) Amendment Act, 1911.
    Mr. DUNCAN MILLARasked in how many cases the by-laws framed by town councils for regulating the hours during which places of refreshment in Scotland are to remain open under the provisions of the Burgh Police (Scotland) Amendment Act, 191], have been confirmed by the sheriff of the district in the form proposed by the town council; in how many cases confirmation has been refused by the sheriff; and in how many eases the sheriff has himself amended the by-laws before confirming the same, giving in each case the names of the burghs concerned?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: The information in my possession does not enable me to answer my hon. Friend's question in detail, although I am aware that in certain cases by-laws have been amended in the proceedings before the sheriff.

    Employment of Ex-Soldiers and Ex-Sailors.
    Colonel YATEasked the Prime Minister whether he will assist the volun-

    1877
    tary associations in approaching local authorities, public societies, and companies, etc., with the view of promoting the employment of ex-soldiers and ex-sailors of good character, by authorising the issue of a statement that could be used by the voluntary associations showing that the Postmaster-General and other Government Departments have adopted the principle of filling a moiety of all appointments, such as messengers, postmen, watchers, warders, park-keepers, attendants, porters, and similar situations, with ex-soldiers and sailors of good character, and that the extension of the principle throughout the country has his full sympathy, as an inducement to local authorities and public companies, etc., to imitate the action and policy of His Majesty's Government in this respect?
    The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Asquith): As the hon. and gallant Member is aware, both local authorities and private employers have full discretion in the choice of their employe, and His Majesty's Government would not feel justified in interfering with that discretion; but, as I informed him on the 11th December last, the movement for promoting the employment of ex-soldiers and ex-sailors in civil life has my full sympathy.
    Sir W. BYLES: In any assistance that the right hon. Gentleman gives, will he take care that the interests of the soldiers of industry are not prejudiced?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I said I was not going to interfere with the matter.

    Agricultural Banks.
    Mr. HAMERSLEYasked the President of the Board of Agriculture whether any arrangements have been made with the joint stock banks to make advances to rural credit banks; if so, what interest will be charged on advances; and what conditions will be imposed on rural credit banks obtaining such advances?
    The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of AGRICULTURE (Mr. Runciman): I will circulate the answer, which is a long one, with the Votes and Proceedings. But I may add that twenty of the principal joint stock banks in the country have come into the scheme.—[see written Answers this date.]
    Mr. C. BATHURST: May I ask whether, seeing that the same scheme has been tried in Ireland, and failed, and that a Departmental Committee of the Irish Board is now considering the matter, the right
    1878
    hon. Gentleman will defer the initiation of his scheme until that Committee has reported?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: No, Sir, I could not think of deferring the initiation of our scheme. I think the sooner these co-operative societies can get cash advances the better.
    Mr. C. BATHURST: Not on the wrong lines though.
    Mr. HAMERSLEY: When will the joint stock banks which come in be prepared to make advances, and when will the right hon. Gentleman circulate the information?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: I will circulate the answer to-day. From to-day onwards any properly constituted co-operative society will be able to take advantage of the terms secured for them.
    Captain MURRAY: Does this scheme apply to Scotland also?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: No, I am only responsible for English agricultural organisations.

    West Riding of Yorkshire (School Extension).
    Mr. LANE-FOXasked the President of the Board of Agriculture whether, when he refused his consent to the enclosure of 368 square yards of the waste land of Sharlston Common for the purpose of extending the playground and conveniences of a public elementary school, he considered the educational needs of the case; whether he consulted the Board of Education or the local education authority of the West Riding; whether he is aware of the universal desire of the ratepayers of the parish, including those having commonable rights, that the school should be so extended; and whether his only objection was that the school in question happened to be a Church of England school?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: I communicated to the Board of Education my decision in the case to which the hon. Member refers. I had no means of knowing whether the desire referred to in the latter part of the question was universal or not, but, even if it is held by the ratepayers and I was aware of it, I could not have allowed the present commoners to alienate common rights for the purposes proposed. My decision would have been the same no matter what denomination owned the school.
    Mr. LANE-FOX: Is not the enlargement of a playground and the conveniences of a public elementary school a matter of public utility and public importance, and has not the enclosure of common land for public improvements been constantly sanctioned by the Board?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: I cannot say what has been done in the past, but in this case I have published my decision, and I am not prepared to change it.
    Mr. LANE-FOX: Will the right hon. Gentleman answer that part of the question which asks whether he has had any communication with the local education authorities of the West Riding?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: That would not be my business. I communicated with the Board of Education, and the Board of Education have conducted any negotiations necessary.
    Mr. LANE-FOX: Is it not a fact that the right hon. Gentleman is really taking a hand in the campaign of the West Biding Education Committee against Church schools? In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the right hon. Gentleman's reply, I will raise the question on the adjournment.
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: I think it is a most unjustifiable statement that the hon. Gentleman has just made. I am acting, as President of the Board of Agriculture, in safeguarding common rights.

    Canadian Cattle (Importation).
    Captain CAMPBELLasked the President of the Board of Agriculture whether, at an early date, he contemplates taking steps to remove the embargo against Canadian cattle; and whether he will state what disease or diseases have occurred in Canada during the last two years which render such embargo justifiable?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: There is nothing to prevent the importation of Canadian cattle into Great Britain at the present time, but under the provisions of the Diseases of Animals Acts they must be slaughtered at the port of landing. The Government do not contemplate legislation on the subject. According to information furnished by the Minister of Agriculture for the Dominion of Canada, the following diseases have occurred during the years 1911 and 1912: Glanders, dourine or maladie du coit, mange of horses and cattle, sheep scab, hog
    1880
    cholera, rabies, anthrax. Tuberculosis is general, and redwater prevails to some extent in British Columbia.
    Captain CAMPBELL: Does the Department of Agriculture consider that the diseases that the right hon. Gentleman has just quoted justify them in these restrictions?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: The hon. Gentleman is under a misapprehension. The prohibition of the importation of Canadian store cattle is not the doing of the Board of Agriculture, it is the Act of this House.
    Captain CAMPBELL: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think he would be justified in doing something by way of relief?
    Mr. SPEAKER: The prohibition is by Statute.
    Captain MURRAY: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the advisability of purchasing an island off the West Coast of Scotland, and employing it as a permanent quarantine station for Canadian cattle?
    Mr. WATT: Why is free trade not adopted in this matter?

    Board of Agriculture (Secretary),
    Mr. FELLasked the President of the Board of Agriculture if Sir Sydney Olivier will act also as Secretary of the Fisheries Branch of the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries; and, if so, if he has had any previous acquaintance with the subject and the difficult problems now under investigation by a committee of the Fisheries Department of the Board?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. I do not know how far Sir Sydney Olivier is acquainted with the problems to which the hon. Member refers, but I have no doubt that his administrative experience and ability will enable him to use the recommendations of the Board's expert advisers to the best advantage.
    Mr. FELL: Are retired Colonial Governors of advanced age capable of pursuing the arduous study of the problems that arise at the Board?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: There are two misstatements in the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question. Sir Sydney Olivier is not a retired Colonial Governor—he is still in active service—and he is not of an advanced age.
    Mr. SNOWDEN: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell the House whether the late Secretary of the Fisheries Board, Sir Thomas Elliott, had any experience of fishery problems when he was appointed by a Unionist Ministry?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: I would like to have notice of that; but my recollection is that Sir Thomas Elliott was private secretary to the right hon. Gentleman who is now a Member of this House before he took up his duties at the Board of Agriculture.
    Mr. C. BATHURSTasked when Sir Sydney Olivier will take up his duties as Permanent Secretary of the Board; and whether, for a time after doing so, he will enjoy the benefit of the guidance and long experience of the present Secretary, Sir Thomas Elliott?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: Sir Sydney Olivier will take up his duties as Permanent Secretary of the Board on 4th February next. From my knowledge of Sir Thomas Elliott I have no doubt that he will be glad at any time to give to his successor the benefit of his experience.
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Does the right hon. Gentleman think Sir Sydney Olivier's knowledge of Socialism will be of any advantage to the Board of Agriculture?

    Foot-and-Mouth Disease.
    Mr. FFRENCHasked the President of the Board of Agriculture if he has seen a resolution passed by the Wexford Committee of Agriculture and Technical Instruction, expresing an opinion that the twelve hours' detention period in the case of Irish cattle exported to England is ruinous to the Irish cattle trade; and what action does he propose to take in the matter?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. I am convinced that there is no ground for the alarm expressed in the resolution to which the hon. Member refers, and I do not propose to take any action in regard to it.
    Mr. HORNER: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a similar resolution has been passed by almost every public body in Ireland that has any connection with the cattle trade?
    Mr. HUGH BARRIEasked the President of the Board of Agriculture whether
    1882
    he is now prepared to permit the resumption of hay and straw shipments from Ireland?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: I propose to make a statement on this subject on Thursday next.
    Mr. CHARLES DUNCANasked the President of the Board of Agriculture whether, as the result of the inquiries he has made of the harbour authorities and the railway company at Barrow-in-Furness, there is any prospect of that port being used in the future for the importation of cattle from Ireland?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: Yes, Sir; plans have been approved by the Board, and I am informed that the work will be put in hand at once, with a view to the inclusion of Barrow-in-Furness at the earliest possible date in the list of British ports at which Irish stock may be landed.
    Mr. MORRELLasked the President of the Board of Agriculture how long he intends to keep in force the present Order requiring a twelve hours' detention of Irish cattle at the port of debarkation; and whether, in view of the dislocation of trade thereby caused, with consequent expense to the English consumer, he can see his way to substitute a system of inspection of the cattle before shipment by veterinary surgeons appointed by his Board?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: The temporary Orders now in operation regulating the importation of Irish cattle into Great Britain will be replaced at an early date by a permanent Order requiring that the animals shall be detained at the landing places for a period of twelve hours in order that they may be inspected, rested, fed, and watered before proceeding to their destinations. These objects, to which the Board attach great importance, could not be attained by the arrangement suggested by my hon. Friend.
    Mr. WILLIAM O'BRIEN: How many Members of this House of any party have pressed the right hon. Gentleman in favour of this restriction?
    Mr. A. F. WHYTE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the decision of the Glasgow Corporation in reference to the wharf, and has he heard that the profitable sale of cattle imported from Ireland is practically stopped owing to the regulation?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: I am afraid I cannot accept the statement of my hon. Friend, and I should require to have notice.
    Mr. W. O'BRIEN: May I ask what force of public opinion in this House the right hon. Gentleman claims is behind him in insisting upon these restrictions?
    Mr. FLAVIN: Can the right hon. Gentleman give the names of any farmers or dealers in Ireland who have expressed an opinion in favour of twelve hours' detention?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: No, Sir; but my duty-is to protect Great Britain from the risk of infection being brought into this country, and I must do that so long as I am in my present position.
    Mr. MORRELL: Will the House have an opportunity of seeing the permanent Order before it is enforced?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: The permanent Order has been fully described in this House at least a dozen times by myself, and I do not think it is necessary to have any further discussion upon it.
    Mr. HUGH BARRIE: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that the opposition to this Order is almost as strong in many counties in Scotland as it is universal throughout Ireland?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: No, Sir. I am not aware of that. There is great variety of opinion I know, but I cannot accept every figure put forward as accurate.
    Mr. BARRIE: It is accurate about certain counties in Scotland.
    Mr. FIELD: I desire to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture a question of which I have given him private notice, whether, in view of the serious complaints made by many persons on both sides of the Channel engaged in the live stock industry, more especially regarding store cattle and pigs, and as Ireland is now practically free from disease, he will relax and modify the existing Order so as to permit greater freedom of movement for the purposes of grazing and slaughter and enabling quicker sale and transit?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN:I understand that the complaints to which the hon. Member refers are directed against the provision in the Order now in operation requiring that animals imported from Ireland shall be moved, after detention for twelve
    1884
    hours at the landing place, direct to their final destinations, where they must be kept under supervision for a further period of twenty-one days. I recognise that this requirement necessarily causes inconvenience, but it is a purely temporary precaution, which I hope to be able to dispense with at an early date.
    Mr. FIELD: Can the right hon. Gentleman give the House any idea when he will be able to modify this extraordinary Regulation?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: I hope I maybe able to get rid of the twenty-one days' detention, if nothing happens, in about a fortnight.
    Mr. FLAVIN: Will the right hon. Gentleman say why the twenty-one days' detention after the twelve hours' quarantine is still existing in connection with cattle from Munster or Connaught, where no disease of any kind has appeared for the last thirty years, and why should cattle from those two counties be penalised?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: As I have frequently explained, the twenty-one days is twenty-one days' detention and isolation to prevent the animals being mixed up with other animals. This has caused very little inconvenience and a large number of farmers have found it no inconvenience whatever.
    Mr. FLAVIN: Why should cattle from Munster or Connaught be detained for inspection when there is no disease of any kind in either of those two provinces?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: Yes, they should be detained, because some of them have to pass through other counties.
    Mr. SWIFT MacNEILL: Would it not be possible for the right hon. Gentleman to shorten the time he has fixed for the operation of this Order, having regard to the fact that for some weeks past there has not been a vestige of this disease in Ireland?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: I have taken the period into full consideration.
    Mr. LARDNER: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the restrictions on the exportation of stores for market purposes in England from the province of Ulster is having a paralysing effect upon the trade?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: I am afraid the hon. Member has not got accurate information. A large number of store cattle have

    1885
    already come from Ulster, and have gone to firms principally in Scotland. So far from the trade being paralysed, a very large number of animals are allowed to go through.
    Mr. LARDNER: Will the right hon. Gentleman cause inquiries to be made from those engaged in the trade, because trade in store cattle is being paralysed?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: I do not know where the hon. Member has obtained his information. I have been getting information from many sources, and I have had the evidence and figures of the traffic before me. I cannot agree that the trade is paralysed, although it is impeded.
    Mr. SPEAKER: Any further questions on this subject had better be put down on the Paper.

    Land Valuation.
    Mr. GRANTasked the President of the Board of Agriculture whether, in connection with the land valuation necessitated by the Budget of 1909, a new Ordnance survey is being made; and, if so, what is the estimated cost of such survey?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: The answer is in the negative.

    Winterbourne Zelstone Estate.
    Mr. BARNESasked the President of the Board of Agriculture if vouchers or other proof of expenditure said to have been incurred by the Dorset County Council for adaptations on the Winterbourne Zelstone estate have been submitted to his Department or to any public authority other than the said county council; if such vouchers or proofs have been submitted to the small holders who have been called upon to pay for such adaptations; and will he say whether the Board of Agriculture ordered the production to the small holders of such vouchers or proofs, and, if so, why this has not been done?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: A county council is not required to submit to the Board vouchers for their expenditure, and the Board have not asked to inspect the vouchers in the case of the work done at Winterbourne Zelstone. The vouchers have been submitted to the Local Government Board auditor, who has just completed the audit for the year ended 31st March, 1912. The Board have not ordered the production of the vouchers to the small holders, but I may point out that public notice of the audit is given in the Press, together
    1886
    with an announcement that the vouchers, etc., are open to inspection by all persons interested for seven clear days before the audit.
    Mr. BARNES: How are these small holders to have any proof that the money has actually been spent?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: The proof is that the matter was before the Local Government Board auditor.
    Mr. BARNES: How far have these small holders to go to find these things, out—that the money has been spent?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: Before the audit the vouchers are open for the inspection of any ratepayer.
    Mr. J. WEDGWOOD: Have the small holders to pay all this in increased rents?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: Not that I am aware of.
    Mr. BARNES: Is it a fact that £3,500 that has been spent in the cost of these applicatons is put on to the rents'?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: No, not that I am aware of.

    Swine Fever.
    Mr. C. BATHURSTasked whether, in view of the steady increase in the number of outbreaks of swine fever from 1,650 in 1909 to 2,920 in 1912, the increasing expenditure of public money involved in the administration of the present Swine Fever Orders, and the payment of compensation there under, and the impossibility of the final Report of the Departmental Committee on Swine Fever being issued for at least two years, he will consider the advisability of adopting interim administrative methods of a less drastic and expensive character pending the issue of the above Report?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: I would refer the hon. Member to my answer to his similar question on the 5th December. I do not know on what he bases his assumption that the final Report of the Departmental Committee on Swine Fever cannot be issued for at least two years; I am informed that there is no probability that so long a time will elapse before the Report is issued. But at the next meeting of the Committee, which is to take place this week, the question of making changes in the existing administrative methods of dealing with swine fever will be considered.
    Mr. C. BATHURST: Would the right hon. Gentleman ascertain from the Committee how long it will be until their final Report is issued?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: I will ask them.

    Land Purchase (Ireland).
    Mr. HORNERasked whether in thousands of sales under the Irish Land Purchase Acts, many of which were effected from one to two years ago, the vesting orders or certificates which should have been registered in the local registration of title offices forthwith have not yet been registered owing to the inadequacy of the staff both at the local and central offices; whether the registration of charges and ordinary transfers on sales are also greatly in arrear for the same reason; whether, owing to the loss and inconvenience caused by these delays, representations were made by the Lord Chancellor of Ireland and others to have the staffs increased; and whether steps will soon be taken to increase the staffs?
    Mr. WEDGWOOD BENN: Considerable additions have recently been made to the staff of the Land Registry, and new accommodation is in course of erection. Such arrears as existed have in consequence been very considerably decreased and will, I hope, in the near future be entirely overtaken.
    Mr. HORNER: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that that is not confined to the central offices, but exists at local offices in counties as well?
    Mr. WEDGWOOD BENN: Yes, Sir; but an increase of about thirty-seven of staff was made in one place alone.

    Nickel-Bronze Coins.
    Mr. KINGasked whether there have been issued to the end of 1910 in the British Empire 165,744,509 nickel-bronze coins; and whether he will cause inquiry to be made in the various Colonies in which they have currency with a view to deter mining the advantages of nickel-bronze as a metal for coinage issues of a low value?
    Mr. WEDGWOOD BENN: The nickel-bronze coins to which the hon. Member refers were mostly struck for India, East Africa, and Nigeria. In view of the very different circumstances prevailing in this country my right hon. Friend does not think that any information which would be useful in connection with coinages for
    1888
    the United Kingdom could be derived from an inquiry of the kind suggested. I may perhaps refer the hon. Member to the answer given him on the 9th December last on this subject.

    Stroud Woman's Death.
    Mr. RENDALLasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will make inquiry into the cause of delay in the burial of Mrs. Hale, of the Stroud, Calne, Wiltshire, who died somewhat suddenly on the 27th December; whether he is aware that the doctor notified the coroner's office of the death on the 27th December; that no reply was received from the coroner on the 27th, 28th, 29th, or 30th December; that on the 30th December the police telegraphed the coroner, who replied saying he should not hold an inquest; and, having regard to the fact that meanwhile mortification had set in, and the relatives of the deceased were caused pain and inconvenience he will call upon the coroner for a full explanation?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Ellis Griffith): My right hon. Friend learns from the coroner that he only received notice of this death on the 28th December—a Saturday—in a communication which disclosed no ground for holding an inquest, and he telegraphed on Monday, the 30th, in reply to a definite inquiry, that no inquest was necessary. It does not appear that any delay in the burial of the deceased that may have occurred can reasonably be attributed to negligence on his part. The Secretary of State has no authority in the matter.

    Main Roads (Expenditure).
    Sir RANDOLF BAKERasked the Secretary of State if he will grant the Return standing in the name of the hon. Member for North Dorset showing the amount expended on main roads by each county in England, Scotland, and Wales, in each year from 1900 to 1912?
    Mr. ELLIS GRIFFITH: The information required by the hon. Baronet as regards England and Wales will be found in the Local Taxation Returns, Part II., down to the year 1910-11, which is the latest published. Similar information as regards Scotland is given for the same years in the Scottish Local Taxation Returns, No. 4, Part III., under the heading, "Roads and Bridges." In these circumstances a special Return appears to be unnecessary.

    Labour Exchanges (Statistics).
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKEasked the President of the Board of Trade the number of applications made to the Labour Exchanges during the year 1912; for how many of these applicants work was found; what was the proportion of casual to permanent work; what proportion of applicants were found work in Government works; and what was the number of applicants remaining at the Labour Exchange registers (general and casual) at the 29th December, 1912?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Robertson): A complete Return of the work of the Labour Exchanges during 1912 is not yet available. The uncorrected Returns, however, show that the total number of applications received on the general register during the year was 2,360,343. The number of vacancies filled on the general register was 784,459, of which 160,853 were engagements for less than a week's work. Of the total number of vacancies filled, 38,920 were connected with the Christmas work of the Post Office, and of these 28,265 were for less than a week. It is not otherwise possible to distinguish vacancies filled in Government employment. In addition to the vacancies on the general register, 258,620 casual jobs were found for workpeople on the casual registers of the Exchanges. The numbers of applicants remaining on the general and casual registers of the Exchanges on 27th December were 55,098 and 4,589, respectively. The complete figures will be publishd in the "Board of Trade Labour Gazette," issued on 16th February.
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Seeing the very large amount of public money spent on Labour Exchanges, can the hon. Gentleman say how it comes about that 85,000 persons still remain upon the books without employment?

    Australian and Canadian Immigration.
    Sir CLEMENT KINLOCH-COOKEasked if the right hon. Gentleman can give the figures showing the total Australian and Canadian immigration, respectively, for 1910 and 1911, and specify what proportion of this immigration was British?
    Mr. ROBERTSON: Canadian official statistics for the years ended 31st March, 1911, and 31st March, 1912, show 311,084 immigrants into the Dominion in the
    1890
    former year, 354,237 in the latter. Of these totals, 123,013 and 138,121, espectively, were described as British—i.e., English, Welsh, Scotch, or Irish. Australian official statistics do not show the numbers of immigrants separately from those of other passengers arriving at or departing from Australian ports. The excess of passengers arriving over passengers departing was 37,547 in 1910 and 77,703 in 1911. The excess of arrivals over departures among passengers described as British was 34,556 in 1910 and 72,327 in 1911. The passengers described as British are not, in this case, limited to natives of Great Britain or Ireland.
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Is the House to understand that of the immigrants going into Canada by far the larger proportion are foreigners and not of British origin?
    Mr. ROBERTSON: The hon. Member has had the figures he has asked for.

    Motor Cars (Importation).
    Mr. FELLasked if the right hon. Gentleman's attention has been called to the increase in the value of the imports into this country of motor cars, chassis, and parts of motor cars during the past year from £5,990,000 to £7,145,000; and if he can state what is the class or nature of the parts of motor cars imported which have increased so greatly, and if he can give any explanation of this increase?
    Mr. ROBERTSON: These imports have increased to the extent stated by the hon. Member and nearly the whole of the increase has been in the imports of parts of motor cars. There is at present no official information available with regard to the nature of the parts in respect of which this increase has occurred. In view, however, of the growing magnitude of the figures, motor tyres, which have hitherto been included and formed a large element in the value of imported motor parts, are being separately distinguished in the Official Returns which will be published for the current year.

    Artillery Range (Salisbury Plain).
    Mr. DUNDAS WHITEasked the President of the Local Government Board, with reference to the lands consisting of about 4,847 acres on Salisbury Plain, recently purchased for the purpose of an Artillery range and for which the War Office had to pay £115,163, if he can now

    1891
    say what was being taken as the annual value for rating of these lands at the date of that purchase?
    The PRESIDENT Of the LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. Burns): I have made some inquiries in this matter, and I do not find it possible to say what was the annual value for rating purposes of the lands referred to, which are situated in various parishes and unions. I understand that the lands taken in many cases comprised portions of hereditaments, which portions were not separately rated.
    Mr. DUNDAS WHITE: Can the right hon. Gentleman give me any information on the subject?
    Mr. BURNS: I shall be pleased to let the hon. Member see the communications which have passed between the local authorities and the Local Government Board if he desires to see them.

  ROYAL NAVY.

    EXGINE ROOM ARTIFICER.
    Mr. FENWICKasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether, in the event of an engine-room artificer qualifying for the right to nominate his son for entry as a boy artificer, that right would be extended to a guardian in the case of the father's death?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Dr. Macnamara): Certain flag officers are allowed to recommend a limited number of candidates with service claims for nomination by the Admiralty after a qualifying examination. The son of an engine-room artificer would be eligible for such a recommendation, and in the event of the father's death, it would be open to the boy's guardian to apply for it.

    Quartermaster-Sergeant Stickney.
    Mr. SNOWDENasked the Post master-General if Staff Quartermaster-Sergeant Stickney, who has been rejected for a Post Office situation on the alleged grounds of ill-health, was examined by a Post Office medical officer, or if he was rejected by the chief medical officer to the Post Office solely on the particulars furnished by the War Office; and, in view of Mr. Stickney's treatment by the War Office because he claimed his rights under the Vaccination Acts, will he have him personally examined by a Post Office medical officer?
    The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. Herbert Samuel): Mr. Stickney's Army medical history was reviewed by the chief medical officer to the Post Office, in whose opinion it left no room for doubt as to his unsuitability for the position of established postman. I do not think that there is any ground for a medical examination.
    Mr. SNOWDEN: Is it not a fact that since this man left the Army he has been examined by three independent medical men who have certified him as suitable; and further whether the right hon. Gentleman is aware that this man was persecuted in the Army because he claimed exemption under the Vaccination Act; and is he aware that the bona fides of the reports of these medical men have not been challenged?
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: As to the bona pries of these medical reports, the question should be addressed to the Secretary of State for War. I have no knowledge of this man's history whilst in the Army, but I accepted the chief medical officer's opinion as to his unsuitability for the position of established postman. The chief medical officer formed his opinion upon this man's history in the Army, which showed he had had a recurrence of various diseases which, in the opinion of the medical officer, rendered him un-suited for the work of a postman.
    Mr. C. DUNCAN: Did the chief medical officer of the Post Office examine thi3 man himself?
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: No. I understand he had the records before him, extending over a number of years, showing the ailments this man had had.
    Mr. C. DUNCAN: But surely when the man was there he ought to have examined him.
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: No. Disease might not be apparent. It might be a recurring disease.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  Mr. BONAR LAW: May I now ask the Prime Minister to state when the recommendation of the Committee with regard to the hon. Baronet the Member for the Whitechapel Division will be discussed?
  The PRIME MINISTER: It will be put down for discussion without delay. As it will represent the unanimous and considered opinion of the Committee, I trust it will be found possible for the House to adopt it without anything in the nature of a long or contentious discussion. It is proposed to take it one evening shortly after the 10.30 Division.
  Mr. BONAR LAW: I think that will be very unreasonable in view of the importance of the question, although I hope no very long discussion will be necessary in regard to it.
  The PRIME MINISTER: Of course I will take what the right hon. Gentleman says into account, but, as I understand the matter, it represents the unanimous decision of the Committee.

  BOWLES v. BANK OF ENGLAND.

    LAW OFFICERS (OPINIONS).
    Mr. SWIFT MacNEILL: Perhaps, Sir, you will allow mo now to ask you the question on a point of Order which I raised during Question Time with reference to question No. 36, and which certainly contains the suggestion that the Minister should state if he had asked the opinion of Law Officers of the Crown, and what that opinion was. It has been held again and again that Ministers of the Crown and they alone are responsible for their action and even for the legality of it. It has been held that the opinion of the Law Officers of the Crown is absolutely confidential. We cannot interrogate Ministers of the Crown about them. It has been held still further that, although the salaries of the Law Officers of the Crown are fixed by this House, we cannot impugn their opinions given to Ministers of the Crown on any point whatever. I would prefer it if their opinions were published, as they are regularly in America, if we were able to interrogate them upon them, and if they were allowed to accept responsibility for their opinions; but I understand the rule is that the Law Officers of
    1914
    the Crown cannot be interrogated as to their opinions, and that Ministers of the Crown cannot in the least degree shift their responsibility by accepting the opinion of the Law Officers of the Crown on any matter whatever.
    Mr. CASSEL: On the point of Order. With reference to the question I put on the Paper, may I call attention to the fact that the question does not in the least ask what was the opinion of the Law Officers of the Crown. If a Member thinks a Government Department is acting unreasonably in either resisting or instigating litigation and is wasting a great deal of public money, and if he desires to exercise his right of controlling finance, has he not a right to ask the Minister of the Crown whether before he pursued a certain course he obtained any opinion whatever that he had a reasonable chance of success?
    Mr. SPEAKER: I do not think there is any objection to the question as it appears on the Paper. Of course, the rule is as stated by the hon. Member for South Donegal (Mr. Swift MacNeill). The Law Officers of the Crown cannot be called upon to state what was in their opinion; neither can a Minister be called upon to state what was in the opinion of the Law Officers of the Crown. There is no objection, however, to asking a Minister whether on a particular occasion he did take the opinion of the Law Officers of the Crown, and that is frequently done.

    ESTABLISHED CHURCH (WALES) BILL.
    Further considered in Committee.
    ELEVENTH ALLOTTED DAY.— [Progress, 10th January.]
    [Mr. WHITLEY in the Chair.]

    CLAUSE 15.—(Provisions as to Tithe Bent-charge.)
    (1) There shall be paid to each person who has any existing interest in any tithe rent-charge transferred to a county council under this Act, in substitution for and in satisfaction of that interest, and so long as that interest would otherwise have continued, the annual amount, according to the septennial average, of that tithe rent-charge, after deducting such sum as may be allowed by the Welsh Commissioners for cost of collection, rates, and other outgoings.
    (2) The amount so payable shall be paid by the county council to the representative body upon trust to pay over the same to the person who had such an existing interest as aforesaid, and the amount so payable by the county council shall be a debt from the council to the representative body, and a charge on the county fund.
    (3) A county council and the representative body shall as respects any tithe rent-charge transferred to them under this Act which was previously attached to a benefice, be deemed to be the owner of tithe rent-charge attached to a benefice for the purposes of the Tithe Rent-charge Rates Act, 1899, so long as the holder of the benefice continues to be entitled to the emoluments of the benefice, but no longer.
    The CHAIRMAN: The first Amendment I propose to call is that standing in the name of the hon. and learned Member for South Bucks (Sir A. Cripps); the second is the one next following on the Paper in the name of the hon. Member for Salford (Mr. Montague Barlow); and the third is one standing in the name of the hon. Member for the Newbury Division (Mr. Mount).
    Lord ROBERT CECIL: I have an Amendment on the Paper, the object of which is to try and. raise a question of some importance, if I might submit it to you?
    The CHAIRMAN: The Noble Lord is hardly entitled to set forth his Amendment except on the application of the Chairman.
    Lord ROBERT CECIL: Then may I ask you, Sir, whether you have considered the effect of the words "in substitution for and in satisfaction of that interest and," which appear in this Clause, and whether you would allow me to explain why I submit some Amendment should be moved in order to raise points of great importance with reference to the consideration of this Clause and Clause 18?
    The CHAIRMAN: The Noble Lord's Amendment only appeared on the Paper this morning, but, after giving it such consideration as I had been able to do, it is not one of those which I think it my duty to select.
    Sir ALFRED CRIPPS: I beg to move, in Sub-section (1), to leave out the words "according to the septennial average."
    I want to know what the Bill means as it stands. The Home Secretary has inserted in the Bill these words "according
    1916
    to the septennial average." If he merely means the annual amount of the tithe rent-charge, of course it is ascertained according to the septennial average, but, if he intends these words to mean another form of septennial average, then of course they ought not to be inserted. In the one case they are unnecessary, and in the other they ought not to be inserted at all. Perhaps the Home Secretary will tell me the purpose and object of the words.
    The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. McKenna): I am not sure I quite understand the point put forward by the hon. and learned Member. One, of course, appreciates his statement that the amount of the tithe rent-charge is always reckoned upon the septennial average. If his point would be met by inserting after the words "according to the septennial average" the words "for the time being," it would have no effect upon the Bill, and I would agree to accept those words.
    Sir A. CRIPPS: I think it would meet my point. The words then would be merely surplusage, but they would meet the point. I was afraid the words in the Clause might refer to another septennial average.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Mr. McKENNA: I beg to move, in Subsection (1) after the word "average"["according to the septennial average"], to insert the words "for the time being."
    Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and agreed to.
    Sir ALFRED CRIPPS: I beg to move, in Sub-section (1), to leave out the words "such sum as may be allowed by the Welsh Commissioners for cost of collection, rates, and other outgoings," and to insert instead thereof the words "all rates, taxes, and charges assessed upon and payable out of such tithe rent-charge."
    4.0p.m.
    This Amendment, in my view, is one of great importance, and I want to make my point quite clear to the Committee. As the Bill stands, the amount to be deducted from the tithe rent-charge, in its net form, is a sum to be allowed by the Welsh Commissioners in respect of the cost of collection and other matters. My first objection is that the amount to be deducted ought not to depend upon the decision of the Welsh Commissioners. I do not want to make any attack on those gentlemen. We do not know who they are to be. But

    1917
    we are dealing here with a matter of property and the deduction to be made ought not to be a deduction such as the Welsh Commissioners may allow, but it ought to be the actual deductions which are, in fact, being made from the tithe rent-charge under existing conditions and having regard to existing liabilities. I will explain to the Committee in a moment why I have put my Amendment in this form. Surely it must be wrong, when ascertaining the amount to be paid over as commutation for tithe rent-charge, that, instead of deducting the actual charges which would have been paid if that rent-charge was still being paid, you were to substitute some other deductions allowed by or at the discretion of the Welsh Commissioners. I think that must be wrong. The words of my Amendment are taken from the Irish Act; they are taken verbatim, and in order that I may make my point clear the deductions under my Amendment would be—
    "all rates, taxes and charges assessed upon and payable out of such tithe rent-charge."
    These words are taken from the Irish Act; they arc words which were not included as charges which, at the present time, are made against the tithe rent-charge, and which have to be deducted from the tithe rent-charge before you come to the net amount. When you come to the net amount, it is that net amount which has to be paid to the person at the present time entitled to the existing tithe rent-charge. We all know what these charges are. There is the Poor Rate, the Land Tax, the Highway Rate, and the Property Tax, and there are no other charges which ought to be deducted except those which would be assessed in the ordinary way, and would be ascertained by the various rating authorities. They are not meant to be ascertained by the Welsh Commissioners, but by the existing rating authority, who will make an assessment of the charges on the tithe rent-charge, and then you will get the actual amount which ought to be levied on the tithe rent charge deducted on that basis. Surely that is the true way of approaching this question. The only point which is omitted in my Amendment is that there is no amount allowed for the charge of collection. But how can that be ascertained by the Welsh Commissioners'! As regards the matter of collection in a large number of cases at the present time, the owner of the tithe rent-
    1918
    charge, who is the incumbent, collects it himself. That is particularly so in the case of the poorer owners, and it is extremely important to them that they should get every farthing they can out of the produce of the tithe rent-charge. It may be in some cases, indeed I know there is a charge for collecting, but, surely, under these circumstances that is not an amount that will have to be paid. You seek to make a charge of this kind against existing owners of the tithe rent-charge, but, probably, at the present time, he is not subject to any such deduction at all, and if it is subject to that deduction it is probably a mere nominal amount. I appeal strongly to the Home Secretary not, in a case of this kind, to bring in the Welsh Commissioners in any sense as the deciding authority, but to take the actual rates, taxes, and charges which are assessed by the local authority, and let them be deducted, and thus come to the proper net sum. I think I may appeal to the Home Secretary to tell us why there should be a difference drawn between the Welsh and the Irish cases. Why introduce an allowance by the Welsh Commissioners, when the amount of rates, charges and taxes can be actually deducted according to the assessment made by the rating' and local authorities. I do not think this is a calculation that comes into the general question of tithe rent-charge. This question of tithe rent-charge, apart from any question as to its origin, has always been dealt with as though it were a land interest. Ever since the time of Queen Elizabeth, with regard to the poor rate, and as regards rates imposed by other rating authorities, right down to the present day, it has always been looked upon as land in regard to which certain deductions have to be made for rates and other charges. The Home Secretary appears to take a different view. We are not now dealing with the income derived from other sources. We are dealing with a land income which is subject to certain specified charges and to no other. What can be the objection of the Home Secretary to my proposal? I suggest the deducting of all rates, taxes and charges assessed upon and payable out of such tithe rent-charge. That may be a comparatively small point, but it may cause a great deal of friction and trouble as regards the poor tithe owners, because it may put upon them a new form of burden which they do not understand, and which is to be assessable by a body, the constitution of which we do not know at the

    1919
    present time. I appeal to hon. Members opposite that this is not one of the exciting points in the Bill. It is a business point, which, if adjusted properly, might do much to smooth the way in regard to some of the difficulties we have to discuss. I beg, therefore, to move the insertion of these words.
    Mr. McKENNA: I would put it to the hon. and learned Gentleman, that, for the moment, he might suppose that the Commissioners are to be an independent and trustworthy body. I admit that hon. Members do not know the nature of the body they are being called upon to trust, but let us argue, for the purposes of this Amendment, upon the basis that those Commissioners will be perfectly trustworthy persons. What will this Clause do? It provides that a deduction shall be made from the amount of the tithe rent-charge in respect of the cost of collection of that charge, and of rates and other outgoings; and the Commissioners are to determine, those Commissioners presumably being a fair body, what is the proper allowance to deduct in respect of such collection. The hon. and learned Gentleman says that in some cases, and particularly in the cases of the poorer incumbent, they are in the habit of collecting it themselves, and there is no cost, therefore, of collection. In other cases he admits that there is such a cost, and that is why there is a provision in the Bill to leave to this body of trustworthy persons—the Welsh Commissioners—the determination as to how much should be charged in each particular case. We cannot say that nothing ought to be charged, because in many cases it is a charge which has to be borne in mind, but we do think that somebody ought to be left in authority, somebody who may be trusted, to say whether there has been any charge incurred, and what is a reasonable amount to fix for that charge. That is really the only point of substance in the case which the hon. and learned Gentleman has raised. With regard to his other point, the Bill as it stands is more favourable to the incumbent than his Amendment would be. We charge upon the incumbent the rates and other outgoings, and I think the hon. and learned Gentleman will agree that the other outgoings should be construed as being outgoings in ejusdem generis. will take an out going which cannot be -charged under the Bill, but which would
    1920
    be chargeable under the hon. Member's Amendment. Take the case of irrecoverable tithes. In the case of this Amendment, allowance would have to be made for irrecoverable tithe.
    Sir A. CRIPPS: My words are "all rates, taxes, and charges assessed upon and payable out of such tithe rent charge." They are the narrowest words possible.
    Mr. McKENNA: I thought the hon. Member moved the Amendment Which stood in the name of the hon. Member for South Salford (Mr. Montague Barlow).
    Sir A. CRIPPS: No; I said I moved the Amendment in the form in which I had put it down, and that I had taken the words from the Irish Act itself.
    Mr. McKENNA: Then I withdraw that observation. I think the hon. and learned Member will agree with me that the balance of the argument is in favour of the Clause as it stands. There is an appeal from the Commissioners, if they do not decide properly what is the right amount to be deducted for rates and similar outgoings. There is an appeal from them to the Privy Council. But under the hon. and learned Gentleman's proposal every point can be brought up separately and immediately before the Courts of Law. I think, on the whole, it is more desirable that these matters should, in the first place, be settled by the Commissioners, who, I would submit, might really be trusted to deal fairly in every case with due regard to the interests of the existing incumbent. For these reasons I ask the hon. and learned Gentleman not to press his Amendment. Except with regard to the cost of collection, I really cannot think that his Amendment would be in favour of the incumbent, and in regard to that particular point we really cannot admit that in those cases where the cost is now borne by the incumbent—the usual charge being 5 per cent.—he should be relieved of that charge in the future.
    Sir A. CRIPPS: May I make my point quite clear to the Committee? Of course, so far as the appeal to the Privy Council is concerned, that is a hopeless remedy as regards the ordinary incumbent. To appeal about a small sum and to spend hundreds of pounds in so doing would be really absurd. I want to put in words which would take away all possibility of any question of appeal, and the object of

    1921
    my appeal and the object of my Amendment is to provide that you shall take the actual rates, charges, and taxes assessed upon and payable out of such tithe-rent charge, as they stand in the rate book, and that you shall deduct them and thus ascertain the amount. Is not that fair as regards a poor incumbent, who does not care anything about the decision of the Welsh Commissioners? If that decision is wrong, the appeal is practically useless. If the sum is properly assessed, in the rate book or otherwise, you have a properly ascertained figure, and no question can arise. You deduct it in the easiest form, and there is no question of legal procedure. I ask the Home Secretary whether he does not think that in a case of this kind you ought not to leave open a matter which may possibly go to the Privy Council, but ought to have it determined on actual facts as they are, with regard to which there can be no question.
    Mr. McKENNA: Do I understand that the hon. and learned Member gives up his point with regard to the cost of collection?
    Sir A. CRIPPS: No.
    Mr. McKENNA: Then, of course, we differ upon a substantial point. If the hon. and learned Member gave up that point, I should be quite willing to consider his words from the other aspect.
    Sir A. CRIPPS: I thought that was a small point which might be conceded.
    Sir D. BRYNMOR JONES: I should like to ask the hon. and learned Member (Sir A. Cripps) whether the words he uses in this Amendment cover all the possible outgoings or deductions from tithe rent-charge, apart from the cost of collection? The words he uses are—
    "all rates, taxes, and charges assessed upon and payable out of such tithe rent-charge."
    I understand him to say that he has, for the reasons he has explained, made his Amendment as narrow as possible. The hon. and learned Member said, and I quite agree with him, that for a great many years tithe or tithe rent-charge has been treated as a land income. If it is to be treated as a land income, and the incumbent is the owner of a freehold interest, as he is, in that land income, is it not possible that there may be charges—I do not say in every parish, but in some parishes. either by custom or otherwise, imposed upon this land income? I am not. at
    1922
    present prepared to say exactly what the rights of an incumbent are in regard to the leasing of tithe rent-charge, but may it not be that the incumbent, as the owner for life of a land interest, has imposed some burden upon the income? I should like to know from the hon. and learned Gentleman whether he is perfectly clear that there may not be outgoings from the tithe rent-charge which have nothing to do with the cost of collection, but which are not included in the term "rates, taxes, and charges." I am not prepared at the present moment to say that there may not be outgoings of another character, and I assume that it is because of the possibility of such other deductions from what the hon. and learned Gentleman has called the land income having to be made, that I think the Bill as drafted is perfectly fair, because it uses words as to which there can be no possibility of mistake. The words in the Clause are—
    "all other outgoings."
    That, of course, means outgoings to which the owner at the time of the passing of the Bill is liable in law.
    Sir A. CRIPPS: That was not the Home Secretary's view. He said outgoings which were of the same character as rates.
    Sir. D. BRYNMOR JONES: I do not want to raise a legal question between the hon. and learned Member and myself. It is possible that the doctrine of the words ejusdem generis might not be adopted by Commissioners or by the Privy Council, or by the Court of Law before whom the question might come. I do not think there is any question between the hon. and learned Member and myself about this, but I am not at all sure that his words, even according to his own principle, are not too narrow. There may be outgoings to which the owner of this land income may be liable at law which are not covered by the words of his Amendment. With regard to the cost of collection, he has clearly not met our point. I do not think, having regard to the Clause as a whole and to the arrangements contained in the Bill, that it is fair to say that the cost of collection of this tithe rent-charge should be placed wholly upon the county council. If that be so, I do not know in what better way the matter can be ascertained than by going to the Welsh Commissioners. I said the other day upon another Amendment that these Commissioners will be in the position of judges, and if you look at the preceding Clauses of the Bill,

    1923
    you will see that the Commissioners, to all intents and purposes, form a Court of Record. I can see no fairer way of determining what ought to be allowed for the cost of collection than by giving the decision to the Commissioners. Even taking the words of the hon. and learned Gentleman, may I point out that questions may continually be arising? Supposing the owner of a tithe rent-charge at the present moment may be in a position to dispute the validity of the rate, or that some question arises under the Tithe Rent-Charge Act, 1888, which gives considerable relief to incumbents, in all the circumstances by what tribunal could any such question be determined better than by the Welsh Commissioners'! Upon the whole, though I have no desire in the least to press hardly upon any incumbent in regard to this matter, I think the words of the Bill are quite as favourable to the incumbent as the words proposed by the hon. and learned Member.
    Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: The last observations of the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Sir D. Brynmor Jones) bring us up against the point that we on this side do not trust the Welsh Commissioners. We do not know who they are to be. We have not been told. They may be a body exceedingly hostile to the Church, and we do not accept them, as we do not know their names, and possibly we should not if we did know their names, as a body to whom a really important matter of this sort ought to be referred for decision.
    Sir D. BRYNMOR JONES: My emphasis was on judicial character of the Welsh Commissioners. I said that they formed a Court of Record. If that is the case, if they do misbehave themselves, either by writ of certiorari or in some other way, their proceedings can be questioned in the High Court of Justice.
    Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: That is a legal point. Putting aside legal technicalities, the right hon. Gentleman must see that the question as to what is to be taken from the incumbent for the cost of collection is to be referred to a tribunal the composition of which we do not know. We object to that point being left to their free discretion. If the Government had told us who the Commissioners were to be, the position might be different. There is a great deal in what my hon. and learned Friend (Sir A. Cripps) said that in a
    1924
    great many cases the poor Welsh clergy collect their own tithes. There is no cost of collection, so that if the Welsh Commissioners were to lay down that a certain proportion of tithe, some small figure, no doubt, is to be taken on the average as the cost of collection, it would be very hard on those particular clergymen who, before the passing of the Bill, had been in the habit of collecting their own tithe, and from whom no deduction was possible. The right hon. Gentleman opposite (Sir D. Brynmor Jones) suggested that the words proposed by my hon. and learned Friend were too narrow, and possibly did not specify all the outgoings which exist at the present time. He suggested that there might be some charges on the tithe that had been created by the existing clergy. If these charges have been created by the clergy, surely they would remain a charge on the income paid to the clergy in substitution for the tithe rent-charge. In that case, it would be most unfair to deduct such a charge in advance. If that were done, the possibility is that the charge would be deducted twice over—first of all in advance by the Welsh Commissioners, or rather by the county council, as allowed by the Commissioners, and, secondly, the clergyman may have to pay it as a charge on his income. I do not think any such charges as the right hon. Gentleman suggests would arise under this Clause. They would be a charge on the income transferred to the incumbent in view of the tithe.
    All we have to look to are those particular outgoings, which are a legal charge upon tithe rent-charge at the present moment. I am not a lawyer, and I do not pretend to say whether the Amendment of my hon. and learned Friend is comprehensive in its catalogue. I should have thought it was, because I can conceive of nothing else, apart from the cost of collection, which we are not at all willing to leave in the hands of the Commissioners, which is a legal charge on tithe rent-charge at the present moment. If that is so, why should we leave this great power of making a deduction for unspecified things, like the cost of collection, in the hands of the Welsh Commissioners? I would appeal to hon. Members opposite who represent Welsh constituencies. They are always professing that they do not want under this Bill to do any damage to the Church, yet whenever a concession, however small it may be—this, although important, is a small point—is asked for

    1925
    from this side of the House, we find they are always absolutely adamant in their resistance, which is a position entirely inconsistent with their general professions, both in this House and in the country. I do not think that any possible harm can accrue or that any county council would be damaged if the words of my hon. and learned Friend were accepted, whereas they might prevent serious injustice being done to the poorest of the clergy, who may have considerable sums deducted for the cost of collection and other outgoings, which is a very vague term indeed. I earnestly hope that the Government may give way on this somewhat small Amendment.
    Mr. ELLIS DAVIES: The proposal of the Mover of the Amendment is that in future the cost of collection shall not be taken into account. It is seldom that the cost of collection of tithe in Wales at present is less than 5 per cent. Owing to the very large number of owners of property, from whom the sum actually received varies from a shilling to a few pounds, and owing to the difficulty which often arises owing to the settlement of estates, the cost of collection of tithe in Wales at present is exceedingly heavy. More than that, the right of distress has gone, and in substitution for it there is now only recourse to the County Court. It has been suggested that the refusal of this concession would be mean and petty, and I think the hon. Gentleman (Sir A. Griffith-Boscawen) said it was a very small concession. But is it small? If the cost of collection is 5 per cent., it means a sum of at least £6,000 a year to the clergy of Wales, and I have yet to understand that an annual sum of £6,000 a year, capitalised by twelve years' purchase, is a small sum in any way. I know from experience that the cost of collection of tithe at present is certainly not less than 5 per cent., and what the hon. and learned Gentleman proposes really is that, as a further concession to the Church, for which I am quite sure we shall have no gratitude, we shall make a present of at least another £60,000. Under commutation it will mean, of course, at least £60,000. The real importance of the Amendment comes in under the question of commutation. If the proposal which was made last Friday for commutation of the tithe is to be accepted by the other side, and, so far as I understand, there is no evidence that they are likely to accept it—[HoN. MEMBERS: "Oh, oh!"] I think the hon. and learned Gentleman
    1926
    and most of his colleagues very carefully indeed decided last Friday that they would not bind themselves by the proposal which was made from this side of the House.
    Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: Not until we saw the terms.
    Mr. ELLIS DAVIES: May I ask the hon. Gentleman whether, on behalf of the Church in Wales, he accepts the principle of commutation?
    Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: I said last Friday that I was generally favourable to commutation, but, of course, we could not say what commutation we would expect. It must depend upon the terms.
    Mr. ELLIS DAVIES: We never had that assertion on Friday, but I am glad to have it now. They would not then even bind themselves to accept any scheme. The importance really of this proposal is that if commutation is to take place at all, it must, of course, take place as to the existing value of the tithes to the receiver, and the real proposal of the hon. and learned Gentleman is that that value, whether for the purpose of an annual payment or for the purpose of its future commutation, should be reduced by at least 5 per cent. In other words, we are really asked to make a further concession to the Church which will cost us £60,000.
    Mr. LANE-FOX: I agree that it is very difficult until we know the terms of the commutation to know exactly what this Amendment would mean, but how the hon. Member gets at his figures I have been utterly unable to follow.
    Mr. ELLIS DAVIES: I put the cost of collection at 5 per cent. The amount of tithes in Wales is, roughly, £120,000. The cost of collection is therefore £6,000 a year. That, multiplied by twelve times for the number of years purchase, really comes to more than £60,000.
    Sir A. CRIPPS: That will not do.
    Mr. LANE-FOX: I will leave the figures for the hon. and learned Gentleman, who can no doubt deal with them better than I can. When the hon. Member suggests that the hon. Member (Sir A. Griffith-Boscawen) announced this afternoon for the first time his favourable consideration of the principle of commutation, he forgets that he seconded the Amendment which proposed that commutation.
    Mr. ELLIS DAVIES: I did not forget it at all.
    Mr. LANE-FOX: Two completely conflicting arguments have been used from the opposite side of the House against the Amendment, We have the argument of the right hon. Gentleman (Sir D. Brynmor Jones) who held that this Amendment would place the Church in a less favourable position than the actual words of the Bill, and he argued, I am sure with all sincerity, that it would be much better for the Church to leave the Bill as it is rather than accept the Amendment. Then we had the argument of the Home Secretary and of the hon. Member (Mr. Ellis Davies), who took a very different line and said this was a much too big concession which they could not possibly accept, and that it would not be fair to other interests in Wales that it should be accepted. When a position is defended by two utterly conflicting arguments like that, we realise that there cannot be much strength in the case.
    Mr. McKENNA: I am sure the hon. Member does not wish to do an injustice either to my hon. Friend or to myself. Neither of us said that. I said distinctly that, leaving out the cost of collection, the Bill would be more favourable than the proposal of the hon. and learned Gentleman, and I asked him whether he was willing to leave out the cost of collection.
    Mr. LANE-FOX: I am quite aware that that is what the Home Secretary said, but I think he will remember what was said by the right hon. Gentleman (Sir D. Brynmor Jones). He was not excluding cost of collection, but he was dealing with the argument as a whole.
    Sir D. BRYNMOR JONES: I distinctly said I put the cost of collection apart.
    Mr. LANE-FOX: I am glad to hear it. The right hon. Gentleman made the further remark that this would be better for the Church, because the Commissioners would be in the position of judges and there would be an appeal from them, and he mentioned such things as a writ of certiorari, and an appeal to the Privy Council, and so on. I am not enough of. a lawyer to know exactly what all these serious processes may involve, but I know they involve a very heavy cost, and I am quite certain that many of them would be absolutely impossible for the ordinary incumbent to resort to, and that is sufficient condemnation of the argument which he used. The real reason why we would rather have the words of the Amendment
    1928
    than the words of the Bill is that until we know who these Commissioners are going to be it is impossible for us to absolutely accept the assurance of the Home Secretary. He says let us argue it from the point of view that these Commissioners are men who are absolutely to be trusted. It is a very natural point of view for him to argue it from—the only point of view from which he can 'argue it—but those who are anxious to defend property which may be unjustly 'taken away very naturally want to have a little more security before we leave the absolute discretion and jurisdiction in the bands of men whose names we are not informed of. There is very wide discretion in the words of the Clause, and when the Home Secretary assures us that they will cover outgoings of a similar character I think he must see that there is reason for considerable suspicion and distrust on our part until we actually have the names of these Commissioners before us.
    Mr. CAWLEY: In answer to the hon. Member's last point, the Home Secretary did state that he would be willing to alter the final words of the Clause to words similar to those proposed in the Amendment. Therefore, there is no stress to be laid upon the indefiniteness of the words "other outgoings." The Government are apparently quite willing to make these words more definite. The Amendment as it stands seems to me to be open to certain criticism. With regard to the cost of collection, there is no serious ground of complaint apart from the fact, which we have been told, that the bulk, if not nearly all, of the tithes is collected, and the cost of collection is not paid. As the Clause is drawn, the incumbent gets the net tithe raised by the county council. If the tithe costs more to collect—and I do not see why it should—the cost must fall upon someone. If it does not fall on the Church it will fall on the county council. I do not think you have any more right to make it fall on the county council than on the Church, and I do not see that there is any serious injustice. The hon. and learned Gentleman argued as though the incumbent who collected his own tithes was entitled to have it without cost of collection. Where an incumbent has been in the habit of paying a percentage for the cost of collection that percentage ought to be paid, but the Amendment proposes that in both cases there should be no reduction for the cost of collection. Not only is a man who has collected his

    1929
    own tithe to get it free of cost of collection, but the man who has been in the habit for years of getting this money less cost of collection after Disestablishment is to get it plus cost of collection—that is to say, it proposes to apply out of the Welsh National money some additional endowment of these particular incumbents. It seems to me that if he wants to obtain what he says, in justice he must find some other form of words than those he has put down here. But if there is any trifling injustice done—and I do not think there is—the Church is as a whole not badly treated, and the incumbents are not badly treated. There is tithe which is not always recoverable, but they are free from any risk of that kind. Their tithe will be regularly paid and any loss which accrues must fall upon the county council.
    Mr. CHARLES BATHURST: I do not know whether we are entitled to accept the assurance that has just been made, that the Home Secretary is prepared to insert some words before the word "outgoing" to make it perfectly clear that that expression shall be ejusdem generis with the words which go before it. If he is, I do not feel the same objection to the Clause that I should otherwise feel, but I am bound to say that the Clause as it stands does breathe of pettiness in its dealing with the existing incumbents of benefices in Wales. After all, the object of the Clause, as of the Clauses that preceded it, is to safeguard to these poor incumbents their existing stipends, which are in many cases very small and do not admit of any substantial deductions being made from them. It is perfectly true that in some cases these incumbents have employed other persons to collect their tithe, and have paid as much as 5 per cent. for the process. I am quite certain, however, that there are a considerable number, including those who arc least able to bear the cost of collection, who have either collected tithe themselves or secured the voluntary services of others in their parishes to do so. In any case, if the Government wish to save for these incumbents the whole of their small stipends during the period of their lives, surely it is to some extent an act of pettiness to squabble over such trifling details as to what will be taken out of the fund which will eventually pass into their hands.
    When I hear it stated that this matter is to be treated ejusdem generis, I should like to ask whether that is to apply to the words which have gone before or only
    1930
    to the word "rates"? If it is intended to be ejusdem generis of the expression "collection," it is conceivable that there may be a considerable amount of money which will fall through this sieve set up by the new Commissioners. It is common knowledge that these Departmental Commissions are extremely expensive bodies, and no doubt it would involve office expenses, printing, and the like, as in the much larger case of the National Insurance Commission. It seems very hard if deductions are to be made for those luxuries which the Commissioners and their officials are to enjoy at the expense of the incumbents. After all, what is it? It is a small matter all told. I cannot conceive that it will amount to anything like the very large sum to which the hon. Gentleman opposite referred. These deductions will only be made during the continuance of the lives of those individuals. It is not like a permanent deduction, for which the county council will be made to suffer for ever hereafter.
    I think the Government might approach the matter in a generous spirit, and allow the incumbents to enjoy the whole of their small stipends in the future as in the past. We are told that the remedy will be an appeal to the Courts of Law, including the Privy Council. I am sure the Home Secretary will see that the suggestion is somewhat ridiculous. Can you conceive a poor Welsh parson going through all the cumbrous machinery and expense, for the sake of a few pounds, by the procedure which the right hon. Gentleman suggests as the proper course for him to take in order to recover these deductions'? It seems to me as regards the word "collection" that there is a considerable outlet for the expenditure of money. After all, the function of the Commissioners in this respect will be very similar to the function of trustees acting for a beneficiary. It is common knowledge that deductions are made from, we will say, the trust of settled estate for the costs incurred in the office of the solicitors who act on behalf of the trustees. It is quite possible that-similar costs may be incurred on behalf of the Commissioners, and it would be very hard that the Welsh clergy should suffer in consequence. I venture to hope that the Home Secretary will approach this matter in a spirit of generosity and allow the incumbents to retain the whole of their small stipends.
    Sir ALFRED MONO: It seems to me that the hon. Gentleman opposite does

    1931
    not conceive the real significance of the Clause. He seems to be under the impression that the cost of collection would fall on the Welsh Commissioners, and that they would be allowed to charge the whole, or a large proportion, of their Establishment charges in respect of cost of collection. I would point out that the collection will be carried out by the county council. The Clause says that the county council is to be allowed a reasonable sum for the cost of collection.
    Sir A. CRIPPS: That makes it worse.
    Sir A. MOND: No, it does not make it worse. The county council has nothing to do with the Welsh Commissioners. It seems to me that this is a very simple business proposition. If hon. Members want to have the gross tithe rent-charge and to leave the cost of collection as a charge on the county council, the Government perfectly rightly want to pay over the net tithe rent-charge which in the great majority of cases the clergy are now getting under the present arrangement. I cannot quite follow the arguments used by hon. Gentlemen opposite. They appear to me to be of a double character. One of the arguments is based on want of knowledge of who the Welsh Commissioners arc to be. They say, "We do not know who the Welsh Commissioners are. They may be unfair to the Church and to a lot of people. and they may use this Clause in order to deduct sums they are not entitled to deduct." Supposing that was the case, it seems to me that this Amendment does not in any way meet it. We have no Amendment before us at present saying that if the cost allowed for collection is unreasonable, there should be an appeal to any Court of Law, or party, or arbitrator. We have an Amendment before us which would not enable the Commissioners to allow any cost of collection whatsoever to the county council. The whole of the words relating to the cost of collection would simply go out if this Amendment were accepted.
    Sir A. CRIPPS: The Welsh Commissioners would also go out as regards this matter.
    Sir A. MOND: I still cannot follow the argument that the fact that the Commissioners are not known makes the Clause unacceptable as it stands. It seems to me that the personality of the Commissioners is not an clement in the question, good, bad or indifferent. The argument which
    1932
    has been addressed to us by several hon. Members is this: "If we knew who the Commissioners were to be, we would form our judgment as to whether they would allow a reasonable amount for the cost of collection, but as we do not know who they are, we will not allow any deduction for cost of collection whatever." That is an unreasonable position. I say if they are merely dissatisfied as to the amount of the deduction, they ought to introduce an Amendment giving an appeal if they consider the amount is unreasonable, but it is no argument to say that because they do not know who the Welsh Commissioners are the Committee should strike the words relating to the cost of collection out of the Bill altogether. We heard a great deal on Friday about commutation. I observed that the hon. and learned Gentleman with the usual acuteness characteristic of him in these matters, immediately the word "commutation" was mentioned referred to 5 per cent. for management expenses. So soon as any money is coming to the Church, we must not deduct anything. I do not think we can be charged with being petty or unfair if we apply to a proposition of this kind the same principles which hon. Gentlemen opposite naturally apply to any fund they deal with on behalf of their clients. They cannot say, "We must have additional money to pay our costs of management," and, on the other hand, say if they are put in the position of collectors, "You must pay the cost of collection out of your own pockets."
    Some hon. Members opposite have spoken with considerable personal knowledge of these matters which I do not possess, but I should have thought that nowadays these men might have gone round collecting their own tithe rent-charge. If you employ agents for this work, they will no doubt charge a substantial profit. [say that the cost of collection through the county council will be less than it is today, for the county council will make no profit out of the transaction. They will simply charge the bare cost of collection, and therefore I think under the Bill the incumbent will receive a larger sum than he has received in the past. If the principle of commutation was carried out, probably a great deal of what has been said in this discussion will fall away altogether. I confess that I am not clear as to how much the Bill will be altered in connection with the matter of commutation. It seems to me that under the Bill as it stands at present the incumbents, on the

    1933
    whole, will be better off than they have been. The county Council will collect the tithe rent-charge and the incumbent will receive more money when the Church is Disendowed than he has had in the past.
    5.0 P.M.
    Mr. LAURENCE HARDY: The hon. Baronet (Sir A. Mond) seems to mix up two points. The question of the cost of collection should be regarded from a different point of view from the question of who are to be the Welsh Commissioners to decide these matters. In a great many cases there is no cost at present, and it would be only generous on the part of the Government if they, knowing that, did make a slight concession in this matter, and put out of consideration altogether the cost of collection. As to the practice in England, I know from my experience in paying tithe, as I have to do in several parishes, that in four cases the vicars or rectors collect it themselves, and only in one case is the collection placed in the hands of an agent. I am informed that very much the same thing prevails in Wales, notwithstanding what has been said by hon. Gentlemen opposite. Is it fair in those cases to fix the charge for collection when you arc utterly unable at the present time to say what that charge will be. It will be a charge which, in any case, will diminish the amount the clergy are to receive under this arrangement. Another objection is to having an indeterminate and unknown authority to decide matters of this sort. If we did know the names, we should be able to judge whether they are a suitable body or not; but at present we are absolutely in the dark. That is why we say we arc unaware what the Government mean by the words which appear in the Bill as drafted. We desire to press this question upon the Government. Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether he intends that a vicar who now collects his tithe without any expense whatsoever is to have a charge placed upon him by the county council? Is each case to be treated in detail, or is some average to be taken as indicating the charge which is to be made throughout the country? We want to know the meaning of the Government's own words. What are they? What is this cost of collection which is to be decided by the Welsh Commissioners? What are these outgoings which are so extremely vague under this Clause? The words in the Irish Act are a great deal clearer, because the Commissioners were distinctly told how they
    1934
    were to direct their attention to the charges. They were told, if the charges increased, they were to see that the owner of the interest did not suffer, and they took care to preserve the full rights of the owner in the commutation. We ask that the same rights should be preserved in this particular case, and the Government should make a further statement to see if they cannot meet us. It is not a large question, and we may rightly claim generosity on their part in reference to it.
    Mr. McKENNA: The right hon. Gentleman has asked for a definite answer to a definite question, and I will give it quite fully and quite shortly. We intend by this Clause, as the words very clearly state, that each case should be considered by the Welsh Commissioners on its merits, and in considering these cases we contend that the Welsh Commissioners are then allowed to apportion and allow the cost of collection. I have no doubt that where there is no cost of collection the Welsh Commissioners will allow nothing.
    Sir A. CRIPPS: If the collecting body is a county council, you must have cost of collection, whereas if it is the incumbent himself, you do not have cost of collection.
    Mr. McKENNA: If the county council were dealing with the matter in the first instance, on the principle of commutation, directly with the representative body and paying a lump sum, I have no doubt that a fixed allowance would be arranged for the average cost of collection over the whole area. When the representative body or county council comes to deal with each individual incumbent, then the Welsh Commissioners will take into account the circumstances of the incumbent, and I do not of course suppose for a moment that they will fix a general charge in every case for the cost of collection. The words are, "there shall be paid to each person who has an existing interest a certain sum after allowing such sum as may be allowed for the cost of collection." I think that to leave this matter, which must be determined, to the discretion of the Welsh Commissioners is much the wisest course for us to take. It is not a small matter. To talk of this as a mean and petty part of the Bill is really not to speak according to fact. If we assume that 5 per cent. is paid in bulk, as it is, for collection of the tithe rent-charge, we may assume it is paid on about £100,000 a year out of £120,000 a year—that is to say, the cost of collection amounts to £5,000 a year.

    1935
    If, as my hon. Friend rightly says on the commutation of the tithes twelve years' purchase is the right amount to allow, this mean and trumpery point would actually work out at no less than a capital sum of £60,000. That is not a matter which is so small as to be left. out of the consideration of this Bill. The Welsh Commissioners looking at it in each individual case will do justice as regards the cost of collection. Upon the other point I should be perfectly willing to accept the words in the Amendment of the hon. Member for Salford instead of what hon. Members regard as the vague words "other outgoing," but I would suggest to hon. Members that it would not be in the interest of incumbents to take those words instead of the words in the Bill. If they speak on behalf of the incumbents, in my judgment, provided we do not give way, as we cannot give way, on the first point of the cost of collection, hon. Members would be far better advised to leave the words of the Clause as they stand.
    Sir J. D. REES: If the right hon. Gentleman had spent last Sunday, as I did, in his own constituency visiting rural and urban churches there, I think that he would understand better what is the strong objection felt by incumbents to leaving the deduction to be such sum as may be allowed by the Welsh Commissioners. He would also understand why the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for Bucks is considered preferable by those who think that money should not be taken from the Church to that of the hon. Member for Salford. The fact is that the right hon. Gentleman does not take into account the apprehensions of those concerned at the effects of this Bill. Take the case of an incumbent of a very hilly parish who lives miles from anywhere. He and his wife probably perform most of the domestic functions of the home as well as the ministrations in the Church on Sunday. Those people will have taken away from them that on which they live; they do not know what will be given back; neither do we; we do know that it will be less than they have at present.
    Mr. McKENNA: It will not be less than they have at present.
    Sir A. CRIPPS: It may be less.
    Mr. McKENNA: No, the intention and object of this Bill are to preserve to the
    1936
    full extent every life interest now held by the incumbent, and if it can be shown tome that any portion of this Bill does not preserve that interest, we shall be quite happy to consider it, but there is nothing in this Clause which takes away from the incumbent anything which he now has.
    Sir J. D. REES: That is only the life interest. The right hon. Gentleman begs the question. It absolutely affects the-whole of the question. They do not know what is going to become of their glebes. The incumbent is in a state of alarm and dread. In one of these Churches age had dimmed the painting on one of the windows. The question arose which Saint it was, and it was decided very emphatically that it was not Saint McKenna. As it was a thirteenth-century window, that probably was true. I do say in all seriousness that the right hon. Gentleman does not take into account the circumstances. He should have a broad point of view in this matter and understand the feelings of those affected. I would say precisely the same if money was being taken away from a Free Church. The right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Welsh party said that by a writ of certiorari the incumbent would get justice. He must have overlooked Clause 11, which says:—
    "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."
    That Clause seems to answer that point completely. The right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary offered, in turn, the Privy Council. To these suggestions I think the only proper answer would be that which was given by a learned judge in explaining to a petitioner for divorce some time ago what procedure he had to follow to get a divorce by private Act of Parliament. He said, "True, this will cost £l,000, and you will tell me that you have not got twopence, but I can only tell you that that is the law." That is the law which the right hon. Gentleman is preparing to make for the wretched incumbents of these parishes who are barely able to live as it is, who are miserably poor, who frequently are absolutely the

    1937
    only ministers over wide hilly areas in Wales, and who are admittedly making the best possible use of the funds they have. I see that the hon. and gallant Baronet (Sir Ivor Herbert), smiles at that, but I do not think he is likely to contradict it. Perhaps he is laughing because it comes from me. All I say is that if it were proposed to take the money from a Free Church I would say every word which I say now with regard to taking it from the Established Church. Then what becomes of the appeal to the Privy Council? I suppose that the procedure by certiorari is given up in view of Clause 11.
    Sir D. BRYNMOR JONES: A Court of Justice takes full care that this House shall not oust its jurisdiction. Similar words are inserted in Statutes and yet Courts of Justice have been able to control the proceedings of an inferior Court.
    Sir J. D. REES: It seems to be that Clause 11 is rather fatal to the contention that it is open to an incumbent to move for certiorari. I cannot understand if tithes are not sacred, if they are to be taken away from the Church, why they are sacred in the hands of anybody else. I cannot distinguish between the position of the tithe owner when it is not devoted to sacred purposes and the tithe owner when it is. If there is any distinction it should be in favour of the sacred as against the lay purpose. I do urge that the limitations of my hon. and learned Friend's Amendment are such as will on every score be appreciated, and I can assure the right hon. Gentleman, having quite recently come from his own constituency, though he will not take me as possibly the, best reporter, yet from the point of view of those affected by this Bill the words of the hon. and learned Member would give great satisfaction, because of their precise limitations, and because they define exactly what deductions can be made by the Welsh Commissioners. The right hon. Gentleman should not resent the objection taken by those who think that Endowments should be respected and preserved, whether they be Endowments of Free or Established Churches. The objection is to a blank cheque given to the Welsh Commissioners, because of the feelings which have been excited by the abstraction of Church property which very naturally cause the belief that those Commissioners appointed under this Act will be likely to make the deductions as large as possible, or at any rate will be inclined that way, whether by intention or in-
    1938
    advertence. Those affected would infinitely prefer the words of the hon. and learned Member which I urge upon the right hon. Gentleman to accept. It is no use for him and others to urge that this is being done in a friendly manner. You cannot take money from other people in a friendly manner, and when a Free Church minister close by makes a speech in which he says Disestablishment and Disendow-ment—
    The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member must confine himself to the matter before the House.
    Sir J. D. REES: I will leave that now. I felt I should be stopped. My only excuse is that on the last occasion you succeeded in stopping me, and this time I hoped you would fail; I hoped I might be there before you. It was a very short quotation, and I withdraw it after the objection to it, but I may be allowed to repeat, that it is the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member that should be accepted, and not that of the hon. Member for Salford, nor the words of the Section to which strong objection is taken by those concerned.
    Lord HUGH CECIL: I do not think any hon. Member on this side of the House is disposed to differ from the principle which the Home Secretary laid down in his reply, and we should be quite satisfied if the Government really carried out the object which they have in view. But this is a question not of Church property, but of private property, which we are seeking to defend, and which I think the Government recognise and respect. The aim of the Government is that the incumbents personally shall not be impoverished, and the question really is whether the words in the Clause carry out the intention of the Government. The objection to the words of the Clause is that they traverse the great principle of legislation, the principle to which all Governments are ready to appeal, in that they do not give control to the person who has to pay for what is done. The county council will determine the sum charged, while the Welsh Commissioners will have to judge whether the amount was rightly the cost of collection; nevertheless the county council will have to determine what money is actually to be expended for the purpose of collection. They will undertake the duty of collection: they will settle whether it is worth while to go against a small tithe payer for a small debt by an expensive legal process; and they will settle all the details of the

    1939
    process of collection. They send in their Bill, as it were, for the cost of the collection, and it would be liable to be checked by the Welsh Commissioners, who, however, will only be able to say that the county council must not charge the amount because they had spent the money extravagantly in collecting tithe. It would not be on any business theory really a wise thing to spend so much money in ineffectively trying to get back a small amount of tithe. Therefore the county council will be put in this position, that they will be spending somebody else's money, and they might prolong the legal process to any extent for a purpose not in the least commensurate with the object in view.
    The Welsh are a very litigous people, and it is not impossible that a Welsh county council might have a quarrel with a landowner, or might have some dispute over some question at the time, and the expenses of the county council might not be justified by policy and might have been prompted by passion. The county council would conduct the whole affair out of the pocket of the incumbent, and that is why I say the words of the Clause are unreasonable; they give the control to the county council while the payment has to be made by the incumbent. My hon. Friend truly pointed out that you cannot escape from the cost of collection when a public body is engaged. In the case of a large landowner the cost of collection is nothing: it is merely the cost of sending a letter; but the county council will have to employ an agent to collect and to send in the bill, so that there must always be a certain cost of collection. In some particular cases there is no cost of collection at all at present. but there will always be -some cost of collection in the future. If there were a general fixed charge on the whole of the incumbents they would know where they were. But if each particular bill is separately charged to each incumbent. then on a very small income a very considerable sum might be charged for a collection which had been extravagantly conducted. The Commissioners have no option; it is not open to them to say that the cost is unreasonable, and they are obliged to allow the county council to take the cost of collection from what was to be handed over to the incumbent. Something ought to be clone to relieve the incumbent. When we came to the management of commutation, we asked that the cost of it should be added to the commutation. We
    1940
    asked that a fixed sum should be assigned, and there was no suggestion that a representative body should be allowed to manage it as they liked, and then charge whatever they liked to the Commissioners. What was proposed was that a certain fixed sum should be allowed for management, and, parrallel with that, would be the allowing of a certain fixed sum for the cost of collection of tithes. That would be much better, in respect of considering each case on its merits, and the incumbents would know where they were, and would not be exposed to any particular action on the part of the county council. It is open to the Government to make this concession—namely, that the cost to the county council of collection should, in effect, be thrown on the National Exchequer, and if, in addition, Sub-section (3) of the Clause were dropped, I think it would immensely improve it. The county council would gain by the withdrawal of Sub-section (3), and they would obtain more than they could possibly lose in respect of the cost of collection. If the Government did these two things, it would not injure the county council at all. The National Exchequer would find the money, and a very small sum would be involved. Or, if the Government are not prepared to adopt that suggestion, would the Home Secretary consider this, namely, that the Commissioners should consider, not the actual cost of collection, but what would be the cost of collection which would have been incurred by the incumbent if he himself had proceeded to collect his own tithes? The object of the right hon. Gentleman is that the incumbent should not be worse off, and I submit that the incumbent ought to have words protecting him from extravagant management on the part of the county council. This Clause throws the cost of collection on the county council; but if Sub-section (3) is dropped. I believe the Home Secretary, in following that course, would turn the edge of the anxiety which this provision certainly arouses in the minds of the incumbents.
    Mr. LAURENCE HARDY: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman, the Home Secretary, if he will consider the insertion of these words, "as ascertained in each case at the time of the passing of this Act." That would make it clear that it was only the cost which fell upon each incumbent in each special case that was to be dealt with.
    Mr. McKENNA: The right hon. Gentleman put his construction on the Amend-

    1941
    ment, and his words are on an entirely-different footing from what was advanced by the Noble Lord. I would prefer to leave the matter to the discretion of the Commissioners. Their discretion is not limited, as the Noble Lord thinks. He conceives that year by year the county council will send in a Bill showing the actual cost of collection, and that the Commissioners will then be bound to deduct that amount from the total amount of tithe, and charge it to the incumbent.
    Lord HUGH CECIL: Money really spent.
    Mr. McKENNA: Showing the money really spent, and the Noble Lord suggests that the county council may conduct the collection extravagantly and charge the cost of their extravagance against the incumbent. If the Bill did that it would be a serious defect, but it will not do it. I would remind the Noble Lord that the Welsh Commissioners are a temporary body. They may make this allowance
    once for all, and hereafter have nothing to do with what the county council may spend on collection. The county council may go on spending as much more on collecting tithe rent charge as they think fit. The allowance by the Welsh Commissioners will be made once for all. That allowance would have regard to the actual cost of collection at the present time, and really the words suggested by the right hon. Gentleman opposite in my judgment do nothing more than carry out the existing reason and purpose of the Clause. However, shall be very glad to consider those words at a later stage of the Bill, but he must understand that I could not accept them across the floor of the House in that way.
    Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 273; Noes, 152.

    Division No. 517.]

    AYES.

    [5.28 p.m.

    Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour)

    Cullinan, John

    Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)

    Adamson, William

    Dalziel, Rt. Hon. Sir J. H. (Kirkcaldy)

    Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

    Agnew, Sir George William

    Davies, David (Montgomery Co.)

    Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

    Alden, Percy

    Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

    Hayden, John Patrick

    Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbartonshire)

    Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

    Hayward, Evan

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

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

    Hazleton, Richard

    Arnold, Sydney

    Davies, ML Vaughan- (Cardigan)

    Helme, Sir Norval Watson

    Baker, Harold T. (Accrington)

    Dawes, J. A.

    Hemmerde, Edward George

    Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.)

    De Forest, Baron

    Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

    Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

    Delany, William

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

    Baring, Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple)

    Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas

    Higham, John Sharp

    Barlow, Sir John Emmott (Somerset)

    Devlin, Joseph

    Hinds, John

    Barton, William

    Donelan, Captain A.

    Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

    Beale, Sir William phipson

    Doris, William

    Hodge, John

    Beck, Arthur Cecil

    Duffy, William J.

    Hogge, James Myles

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

    Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

    Holmes, Daniel Turner

    Bentham, G. J.

    Duncan, J. Hastings (Yorks, Otley)

    Holt, Richard Durning

    Bethell, Sir J. H.

    Edwards, Clement (Glamorgan, E.)

    Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

    Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

    Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

    Hudson, Walter

    Black, Arthur W.

    Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)

    Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus

    Boland, John Plus

    Essex, Sir Richard Walter

    Jardine, Sir J. (Roxburgh)

    Booth, Frederick Handel

    Esslemont, George Birnie

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

    Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North)

    Falconer, James

    Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil)

    Brace, William

    Farrell, James Patrick

    Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)

    Brady, Patrick Joseph

    Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles

    Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)

    Brocklehurst, W. B.

    Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson

    Jones, Leif Stratten (Rushcliffe)

    Bryce, J. Annan

    Ftrench, Peter

    Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

    Burke, E. Haviland-

    Field, William

    Jones, W. S. Glyn- (Stepney)

    Burns, Rt. Hen. John

    Fitzgibbon, John

    Joyce, Michael

    Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

    Flavin, Michael Joseph

    Keating, Matthew

    Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, North)

    George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd

    Kellaway, Frederick George

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

    Gilhooly, James

    Kilbride, Denis

    Byles, Sir William Pollard

    Gill, A. H.

    King, J.

    Carr-Gomm, H. W.

    Ginnell, Laurence

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

    Cawley, Harold T. (Heywood)

    Glanville, H. J.

    Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

    Chapple, Dr. William Allen

    Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

    Lardner, James Carrige Rushe

    Clancy, John Joseph

    Goldstone, Frank

    Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.)

    Clough, William

    Greenwood, Granville G. (Peterborough)

    Lawson, Sir W. (Cumb'rld, Cockerm'th)

    Clynes, John R.

    Greig, Col. J. W.

    Leach, Charles

    Collins, G. P. (Greenock)

    Griffith, Ellis J.

    Lewis, John Herbert

    Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

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

    Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

    Condon, Thomas Joseph

    Guiney, Patrick

    Low, Sir F. (Norwich)

    Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

    Hackett, John

    Lundon, Thomas

    Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

    Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis (Rossendale)

    Lyell, Charles Henry

    Crawshay-Williams, Eliot

    Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

    Lynch, A. A.

    Crean, Eugene

    Hardie, J. Keir

    McGhee, Richard

    Crumley, Patrick

    Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

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

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

    O'Shee, James John

    Sheehy, David

    Macpherson, James Ian

    O'Sullivan, Timothy

    Sherwell, Arthur James

    MacVeagh, Jeremiah

    Outhwaite, R. L.

    Shortt, Edward

    M'Callum, Sir John M.

    Palmer, Godfrey Mark

    Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John Allsebrook

    McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

    Parker, James (Halifax)

    Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)

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

    Pearce, William (Limehouse)

    Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim)

    M'Laren, Hon. F.W.S. (Lincs.,Spalding)

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

    Snowden, Philip

    Marks, Sir George Croydon

    Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

    Soames, Arthur Wellesley

    Marshall, Arthur Harold

    Pointer, Joseph

    Spicer, Rt. Hon. Sir Albert

    Mason, David M. (Coventry)

    Pollard, Sir George H.

    Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

    Meagher, Michael

    Ponsonby, Arthur A. W, H.

    Tennant, Harold John

    Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

    Price, Sir R. J. (Norfolk, E.)

    Thomas, James Henry

    Middlebrook, William

    Priestley, Sir Arthur (Grantham)

    Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

    Millar, James Duncan

    Priestley, Sir W. E. (Bradford)

    Toulmin, Sir George

    Molloy, Michael

    Primrose, Hon. Neil James

    Trevelyan, Charles Philips

    Molteno, Percy Alport

    pringle, William M. R.

    Verney, Sir Harry

    Mond, Sir Alfred M.

    Radford, G. H.

    Wadsworth, J.

    Money, L. G. Chiozza

    Raphael, Sir Herbert H.

    Walsh, J. (Cork, South)

    Morgan, George Hay

    Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields)

    Walsh, Stephen (Lancs., Ince)

    Morrell, Philip

    Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

    Walters, Sir John Tudor

    Morison, Hector

    Reddy, M.

    Walton, Sir Joseph

    Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

    Redmond, John E. (Waterford

    Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

    Munro, R.

    Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)

    Wardle, George J.

    Murray, Captain Hon. Arthur C.

    Rendall, Athelstan

    Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay

    Nannetti, Joseph P.

    Richards, Thomas

    Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

    Needham, Christopher T.

    Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

    Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

    Neilson, Francis

    Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

    Watt, Henry Anderson

    Nicholson, Sir Charles N. (Doncaster)

    Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

    Webb, H.

    Nolan, Joseph

    Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)

    Wedgwood, Josiah C.

    Norman, Sir Henry

    Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

    White, J. Dundas (Glas., Tradeston)

    Norton, Captain Cecil W.

    Robinson, Sidney

    White, Patrick (Meath, North)

    Nuttall, Harry

    Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

    Whitehouse, John Howard

    O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

    Roche, Augustine (Louth)

    Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.

    O'Brien, William (Cork)

    Roche, John (Galway, E.)

    Whyte, A. F. (Perth)

    O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

    Roe, Sir Thomas

    Wiles, Thomas

    O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

    Rose, Sir Charles Day

    Wilkie, Alexander

    O'Doherty, Philip

    Rowlands, James

    Williams. John (Glamorgan)

    O'Donnell, Thomas

    Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

    Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthen)

    O'Dowd, John

    Russell, Rt. Hon. Thomas W.

    Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

    O'Grady, James

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

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

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

    Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

    Young, Samuel (Cavan, E.)

    O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.)

    Scanlan, Thomas

    Young, W. (Perthshire, E.)

    O'Malley, William

    Schwann, Rt. Hon. Sir C. E.

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

    Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr.

    O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

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

    Illing worth and Mr. Gulland.

    NOES.

    Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

    Cecil, Lord R. (Herts, Hitchin)

    Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy

    Amery, L. C. M. S.

    Chambers, James

    Hope, Major J. A. (Midlothian)

    Anson, Rt. Hon. Sir William R.

    Clive, Captain Percy Archer

    Horner, Andrew Long

    Anstruther-Gray, Major William

    Cooper, Richard Ashmole

    Houston, Robert Paterson

    Astor, Waldorf

    Courthope, George Loyd

    Hume-Williams, W. E.

    Baird, John Lawrence

    Craig, Ernest (Cheshire, Crewe)

    Ingleby, Holcombe

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

    Crichton-Stuart, Lord Ninian

    Jessel, Captain H. M.

    Balcarres, Lord

    Croft, H. P.

    Kebty-Fletcher, J. R.

    Banbury, Sir Frederick George

    Dalziel. Davison (Brixton)

    Kerr-Smiley, Peter Kerr

    Baring, Maj. Hon. Guy V. (Winchester)

    Duke, Henry Edward

    Kimber, Sir Henry

    Barlow, Montague (Salford, South)

    Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M.

    Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Ciement

    Barrie, H. T.

    Falle, Bertram Godfray

    Lane-Fox, G. R.

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

    Fell, Arthur

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

    Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton)

    Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey

    Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)

    Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks

    Fisher, Rt. Hon. W. Hayes

    Locker-Lampson, O. (Ramsey)

    Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

    Fitzroy, Hon. Edward A.

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

    Bentinck, Lord H. Cavendish-

    Forster, Henry William

    Lonsdale, Sir John Brownlee

    Bigland, Alfred

    Gardner, Ernest

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

    Bird, Alfred

    Gastrell, Major W. Houghton

    MacCaw. William J. MacGeagh

    Blair, Reginald

    Gibbs, George Abraham

    Mackinder, Halford J.

    Boscawen, Sir Arthur S. T. Griffith-

    Gordon, John (Londonderry, South)

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

    Boyle, William (Norfolk, Mid)

    Gordon, Hon. John Edward (Brighton)

    Magnus, Sir Philip

    Boyton, James

    Coulding, Edward Alfred

    Malcolm, Ian

    Bridgeman, W. Clive

    Grant, J. A.

    Mason, James F. (Windsor)

    Bull, Sir William James

    Guinness, Hon. Rupert (Essex, S.E.)

    Meysey-Thompson, E. C.

    Burdett-Coutts, W.

    Guinness, Hon.W.E. (Bury S.Edmunds)

    Middlemore, John Throgmorton

    Burn, Colonel C. R.

    Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne)

    Moore, William

    Campbell, Capt. Duncan F. (Ayr, N.)

    Hamersley, Alfred St. George

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

    Campion, W. R.

    Hardy, Rt. Hon. Laurence

    Morrison-Bell, Major A. C. (Honiton)

    Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred

    Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

    Mount, William Arthur

    Cassel, Felix

    Helmsley, Viscount

    Newman, John R. P.

    Castlereagh, Viscount

    Henderson, Major H. (Berks, Abingdon)

    Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)

    Cator, John

    Herbert, Hon. A. (Somerset, S.)

    Norton-Griffiths, John

    Cautley, Henry Strother

    Hewins, William Albert Samuel

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

    Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

    Hickman, Col. Thomas E.

    Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend)

    Cecil, Lord Hugh (Oxford Univ.)

    Hill, Sir Clement L

    Parkes, Ebenezer

    1944

    1945

    Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

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

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

    Peto, Basil Edward

    Smith, Harold (Warrington)

    Wheler, Granville C. H.

    Pollock, Ernest Murray

    Stanler, Beville

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

    Pryce-Jones, Colonel E.

    Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

    Williams, Col. R. (Dorset, W.)

    Quilter, Sir William Eley C.

    Steel-Maitland, A. D.

    Willoughby, Major Hon. Claud

    Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

    Stewart, Gershom

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

    Rawson, Col. Richard H.

    Strauss, Arthur (Paddington, North)

    Wolmer, Viscount

    Rees, Sir J. D.

    Sykes, Alan John (Ches., Knutsford)

    Wood, John (Stalybridge)

    Remnant, James Farquharson

    Sykes, Mark (Hull, Central)

    Worthington-Evans, L.

    Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

    Talbot, Lord E.

    Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

    Rolleston, Sir John

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

    Yate, Colonel C. E.

    Samuel, Sir Harry (Norwood)

    Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Down, North)

    Younger, Sir George

    Sanders, Robert Arthur

    Touche, George Alexander

    Sanderson, Lancelot

    Tryon, Captain George Clement

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Sir

    Sandys, G. J.

    Valentia, Viscount

    A. Cripps and Mr. Hoare.

    Sassoon, Sir Philip

    Walker, Col. William Hall

    Question, "That the words proposed be there inserted," put, and agreed to.

    Mr. MOUNT: I beg to move, in Subsection (1), after the word "paid"["there shall be paid"], to insert the word "half-yearly."
    The object of this Clause is to ensure the payment of the same amount to the existing interest, and the object of my Amendment is to ensure the payment at the same intervals as heretofore. The tithe-rent charge is transferred to the Commissioners, and by them to the county council, and is payable, under the Tithe Commutation Act of 1836, half-yearly, on the 1st July and the 1st January, in each year. It has been so paid to the incumbent, but there is nothing in this Bill to make it certain that the money which will be paid in substitution of the tithe-rent charge shall in future be paid half-yearly, as in the past, to those incumbents. It is a question of trusting the Welsh county councils, and I am bound to say the past history of the Welsh county councils, and the attitude of those councils with regard to the Church of England, does not lead us to believe that we can trust them without taking every precaution to see that the interests of the Church are properly safeguarded. I would further point out there is the danger that pressure may be put on the county councils by the tithe-payers to make the position of the Church, at any rate not easier than it has been in the past. If this money is being paid as it is every half-year to the county council surely there is no hardship in asking the county council to pay incumbents half-yearly the amount which is due. This is a matter of considerable importance to the clergy in Wales, most of whom are extremely poor men, and to whom a delay in the payment of their very small stipend might be a very serious matter. I hope the Government will see their way to accept this Amendment, and render some small measure of justice to incumbents in Wales.
    Mr. McKENNA: I have no objection to accepting the Amendment of the hon. Member.
    Sir A. CRIPPS: I beg to move' at the beginning of Sub-section (4) to insert the words "so long as the amount payable under this Section is so paid."
    Viscount WOLMER: On a point of Order. May I ask if my Amendment was not in order?
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (Mr. Maclean): It is not in order, as it is outside the scope of the Clause.
    Sir A. CRIPPS: I hope this Amendment will be dealt with in the same satisfactory way as was the last Amendment. I am sure the Home Secretary does not intend that the liability to repair ecclesiastical buildings should continue after the in-come in respect of which that liability arises ceases, and that the Bill does not 'mean that when the incumbent has not got the income derived from old sources that he should be under the old liability in reference to ecclesiastical buildings to which the other incumbent was subject. I think it must be right to introduce words of this kind to make the point quite clear. I hope he will insert these words to make the point quite clear.
    Mr. McKENNA: I have no objection to accepting the Amendment, but I can only point out that doing so may affect the next Amendment, which is in the name of the hon. Member for Dudley (Sir A. Griffith-Boscawen).
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: If this Amendment is adopted now I think the following Amendment will be out of order.
    Sir A. CRIPPS: May I point out what you are dealing with here is that after the tithe has been transferred then the county councils are to become liable for the repairs of ecclesiastical buildings. I do not understand that Sub-section (4) means that that liability should be undertaken while the existing incumbent is

    1947
    getting the benefit derived from that source of income. The one is a permanent matter, while my Amendment only refers to a temporary provision while the existing incumbent is getting the benefit. If you rule the next Amendment out of order I would rather give up my Amendment than prevent my hon. Friend from moving his.
    Mr. McKENNA: Perhaps the hon. Member would withdraw his Amendment at this point and move it in the next Subsection after the words "shall be construed," when I will accept it.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: I beg to move to leave out Sub-section (4), and to insert instead thereof
    (4) A county council shall, as respects any tithe rent-charge transferred to them under this Act, be subject to any liability to repair any ecclesiastical building to which the owner of such tithe rent-charge was subject immediately before the passing of this Act.
    I am very much encouraged to hope—
    Mr. McKENNA: Not at all.
    Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: I was about to say that I was much encouraged by the fact that the Home Secretary has accepted two Amendments, to hope that he would accept the third and do the "hat trick." I am afraid, however, from his interruption that my hope is not well founded. This Amendment raises a larger point than either of those we have just discussed. As is well known, the possession of great tithe, that is, tithe belonging usually to the rector, carries with it, not universally but in a great majority of cases, the obligation of the repair of the chancel. That obligation attaches to tithe not only in the hands of the clergy at the present time, that is to great tithe attached to a benefice, but also to great tithe which has been alienated. When the Church was plundered in the time of Henry VIII., which I suppose is the nearest approach to what is happening at the present moment under this Bill, the person to whom the tithe was given or who purchased it was subject to the obligations attaching to it. My Amendment, which is a very simple one, proposes that where tithe to which this obligation attaches is alienated, the obligation shall follow just as it did at the time of the Reformation Therefore, if a county coun-
    1948
    cil becomes the owner of tithe which carries with it the obligation to repair ecclesiastical buildings or any part of them, the county council will have that obligation as a condition of holding the tithe. Clause 8 (2) provides that property transferred under this Bill shall be transferred subject to all tenancies, charges, and incumbrances which exist at the time of the transfer. It is quite true that that Subsection is limited by the words "save as otherwise provided by this Act." I imagine that those words would enable us to remove that charge upon the tithe transferred. But I do not see why that exception should be made. If a county council is to obtain a free grant of this large amount of property, to which it is really not entitled, which comes as a windfall, and which was applied to other purposes before, surely it is only natural and proper that the property should be held subject to the same obligation that rested upon the previous possessor.
    If that is so, what is there unreasonable in asking that this obligation should remain on the tithe in those cases where it exists at present? The Government are very careful to compel existing lay impropriators to continue the obligation that they now have. Why should the county council be treated differently from any other lay impropriator? You are not getting rid of the tithe; tithe will have to be paid just the same as before; but instead of being devoted to spiritual purposes, it is to be taken away from the clergy, and the county councils will become, to all intents and purposes, lay impropriators. That being so, why should you relieve the new lay impropriators of the burden of which the old lay impropriators have never been relieved? I am prepared to admit that it might be an inconvenient arrangement that a secular body such as the county council should have the repairing of the chancel; but I do not know whether it would be any more inconvenient than it is in the case of certain lay impropriators now. In any case, I suppose it would have to take place in accordance with the views of the representative body. Even if that argument is put forward, it will be met by the scheme of commutation which the right hon. Gentleman suggested last Friday. If there is to be commutation, I imagine that all these interests will be commuted. It is very easy to ascertain in how many cases the tithe transferred to the county council carries with it the obligation to repair the chancel, and it is equally easy to estimate

    1949
    what the cost is likely to be over an average of years. Therefore, the obligation can be commuted in the same way as any other interest. I am disappointed to learn that the Home Secretary is not anxious to accept this Amendment. It would not be a large concession. If you give to the county councils this sum of money which they had no right to expect, for which they have really no purpose, and for the application of which there is no definite purpose in the Bill, you ought to transfer with the money the obligation which now rests upon the present holders. I beg to move the Amendment.
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Ellis Griffith): In whatever form the Amendment is put before the Committee, the point of substance is whether or not the liability to repair which now attaches to certain tithes shall pass with those tithes when they depart from the present owners into other hands. I accept what the hon. and gallant Member says as to the kind of tithes that are subject to this charge. Speaking generally, they are rectorial tithes. Whether those tithes belong to rectors who are lay persons or spiritual persons, the liability to repair attaches to them. I do not think that the county council entirely corresponds to the lay impropriator mentioned in Clause 27 (1) of this Bill. There is one very obvious difference. The lay impropriator has got the property, not by Act of Parliament, but by certain private arrangements into which it is not wise to inquire at this time. Besides, the lay impropriator has the money for his own personal and private use, whereas the county council will get it, at any rate, for public purposes. The hon. and gallant Member will probably agree that the obligation to repair was, as a matter of history, imposed upon the rector, be he lay or be he spiritual, because he was the owner of the chancel. The hon. and gallant Member has reminded the Committee that in Clause 27, wherever that liability is now imposed upon a lay impropriator, the Bill does not touch it. The liability to repair will remain after the Bill passes. Therefore the point of substance is whether, where the rector is a spiritual person and in receipt of the tithes the liability to repair the chancel shall, or shall not, attach to the tithes when they have passed out of his hands into secular hands. I think this is the right way to look at the matter. The commutation principle was not abso-
    1950
    lutely settled; certain offers were made on another occasion, but they were not quite accepted, and the matter is still open. Therefore, I think, that in arguing this question we have to take two alternatives: first, where there is no commutation; and. secondly, where there is commutation. Assume for a moment that there is no commutation under this Bill-Under these circumstances we on this side-contend that the spiritual rector will continue during his lifetime to receive the money which he now receives. That being so, during that period—I take it that this is common ground, especially after we accept the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for Wycombe (Sir A. Cripps)—the liability to repair would fall on the spiritual rector as long as he received the tithes. Supposing, on the expiration of that life interest, the tithes go away from the uses of the Church to the uses of the county council, shall the tithes in the hands of the county council be liable to repair, or shall they be free from that liability? I submit, and I think the hon. Member will agree, that the obligation in the first instance arose from ownership; that is, the rector was the owner of the chancel.
    Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: Not the lay rector.
    6.0 P.M.
    Mr. ELLIS GRIFFITH: Indeed he was. The hon. and gallant Member is mistaken. He has certain rights, of which I need not remind the hon. and gallant-Member. The lay rector has a right to a chief seat in the chancel, and he has a right to be buried there, although I do not think that that is commonly put forward now. But if you are going to transfer the liabilities of the lay rector to the county council, what rights you will give to the county council! I do not intend to enter into that; I was led astray by the interruption of the hon. and gallant Member. After the life interest ceases, we have to consider what becomes of the liability to repair. From the date of Disestablishment the ownership of the church and of the chancel passes away from the rector, as I understand it, to the representative body. Therefore, if the liability to repair is something which attaches to ownership, it ought prima facie at any rate, to attach to the representative body. Although I quite understand that the hon. Member thinks this is not a fair Bill, it must be remembered that although an Amendment was moved from this

    1951
    side as to the cathedrals, all the Ecclesiastical fabrics, both cathedral and parish churches, under this Bill pass from the rectors and from the Church to the representative body. Therefore we are submitting that as to the condition of the churches themselves the least that should be done is what we suggest. Take the other alternative, supposing there is commutation? If there be commutation, as the Committee is aware, the plan that we suggested the other day was that a certain sum of money should be given to the representative body, and that the representative body should themselves make whatever arrangements they though fit with those who held the life interest. There may be a spiritual rector whose income of so many hundred pounds a year is subject to liability for repair. There is an immense difference in the liability between one church and another; some churches being in a good state of repair and others being dilapidated. As I understand the position, the representative body would take these circumstances into account in fixing what is the proper sum for which to commute this life interest. The substance and fact of the case is that whether there is commutation or whether there is no commutation that as this liability to repair in the first instance was placed upon ownership and that ownership now passes to the representative body, I think on reflection that hon. Members will see that this liability should not attach to the tithes secularised in the hands of the county council, and that this is an Amendment which really the hon. and gallant Gentleman could not possibly hope that we should accept.
    Mr. ALFRED LYTTELTON: I would ask the Committee to approach this subject with a somewhat broader view than the Under-Secretary has done. I do not, in the first place, agree with him—though I speak with diffidence, not having recently looked it up—that the lay impropriator is the owner of the chancel. I do not agree, therefore, that the liability to repair is necessarily based upon ownership. I quite agree that the lay impropriator has certain rights in the chancel of a somewhat melancholy character. But that is another matter. The broad facts of this case are that a public body is going to receive as a windfall a very considerable sum of money, and is going to receive it out of the scheme of the Bill divorced from and divested of
    1952
    the obligations which it had when it was in the hands of the clergy. The Under-Secretary gives as a reason for divesting the county council of this obligation that it is a public body. That is precisely the reason why I would ask the Committee to transfer this obligation to the county council. The parish church—and after all a great many Nonconformists think so—is a public building; in many cases a public building of great antiquity, and regarded with great sentiment by all the members of the parish. Marriages are often celebrated there, even the marriages of Nonconformists. It has very often an architectural and antiquarian interest as a place where old documents and parish records are kept. I say without fear of contradiction it has a sentiment attached to it, and it is regarded in the highest degree by Churchmen, and I would hardly exaggerate if I said all the parishioners. In that case the county council, having got this large sum of money without any expectation of its transference, surely it is in the interest of the public in the highest sense of the word that these ancient fabrics should be kept in order? When, as there unhappily will not be, sufficient money in the hands of the Church to keep that fabric in order, I submit that it would be in the highest degree in the interests of the public, and therefore a proper function of the county council, to discharge that duty, and hand down these ancient fabrics in a condition such as we all—members of either party—desire to have them handed down to posterity. On these grounds I most earnestly hope that the Government will reconsider their views.
    Lord ROBERT CECIL: I would like to make one or two observations. I was much interested by the speech of the Under-Secretary. It is very curious to listen to the Under-Secretary on this Bill. He is rather like the villain in a melodrama. His apparent position always is one of great fairness and generosity to the Church, but he cannot help little "asides" escaping him every now and again, showing that underneath he is moved by the bitterest hostility towards the Church. I only mention this, in passing, because there were several asides in the speech which the hon. Gentleman has just addressed to the Committee. He very justly said that the asides were irrelevant to the Amendment. The Amendment, it seems to me, has a great deal of logic, though I admit I have a little difficulty with the view in the Amendment of the intrusion

    1953
    of the Welsh county council, as they are for the most part at present constituted, into the parish churches. Except for that, I must say that upon logical grounds my hon. and gallant Friend's Amendment appears to me to stand in a very strong position. Putting aside ail legal technicalities, we all know that the rector, be he lay or ecclesiastical, has been maintained in his duty of repairing the church because he has had the tithes to do it. If I understand this Sub-section aright—I would like to call the attention of the Government to it—the Government propose to keep the legal obligation alive in respect of ecclesiastical repairs. Am I right in saying that that is the effect of the Sub-section? Because, if so, I really do not understand why this single exception to the principle of Disestablishment should be made.
    As I understand the principle of Disestablishment is to sever the Church from the fetters of State. You are going specifically to repeal all ecclesiastical statutes. You are repealing, as I thought, all legal obligations resting on the Church; but this particular obligation—why I cannot imagine!—is being kept alive. Why? What is the argument that this remnant of Establishment alone should survive the general destruction? I cannot understand the logic of this Sub-section. Though I might, perhaps I shall, have a little difficulty as to this specific Amendment, I shall vote for the excision of this Subsection in the most light-hearted way. I cannot understand on the principle of this Bill why you should preserve an obligation to repair the parish church when you destroy all other forms of obligation and all other forms of statutory privilege in the officers of the Church. I cannot square that with the rest of the Bill in any way. Therefore, I shall certainly vote for the Question if the Question is put from the Chair to leave out this Sub-section.
    Sir D. BRYNMOR JONES: I think the Noble Lord has rendered some service to the Debate upon this Amendment by calling attention to its exact terms, but I rather think he has misconstrued the terms. He talks as though this Amendment only applied to the church or to a portion of the church—the chancel. I do not read the Amendment so. I do not wish to dogmatise as to its meaning, but just let me call the attention of the Committee to the exact words:—
    "A county council shall, as respects any tithe rent-charge transferred to
    1954
    them under this Act, be subject to any liability to repair any ecclesiastical building to which the owner of such tithe rent-charge was subject immediately before the passing of this Act."
    First of all, as to an ecclesiastical building. Is it only an ecclesiastical building when it refers to the chancel of the church? It may refer to the rectory or to appurtenances of the rectory. It may refer to some small chapel-of-case or to an annexe of the church. Therefore what is really being asked for if some extended meaning of the term ecclesiastical building than the mere church or portion of the church which is called the chancel is involved? The real meaning is that the obligations might be transferred to the county council or might not. I think the hon. and gallant Member for Dudley himself really contemplated by his Amendment, if I follow his argument aright—
    Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: I may say at once that my Amendment means any liability which the possession of this tithe, whatever it may be, entailed upon the previous owner.
    Sir D. BRYNMOR JONES: If the hon. and gallant Gentleman only means the obligations from ownership of the tithe rent-charge to apply, then I do not know what the meaning is. The obligation, whatever it may be, upon the incumbent of the benefice is not imposed upon him because he is the owner of the tithe rent-charge, but because he is the parson of the parish. That is really most material to the question. Why on earth should the liability to repair or any other kind of liability then attach to an owner, not of the tithe rent-charge but the owner of the benefice? I think, even adopting the principle which the hon. and gallant Gentleman was urging upon the Committee, the words are really not apt. I can believe there are parishes in which there is no tithe rent-charge at all received by the vicar, parishes in which the rector receives the whole of the tithe, and in which the stipend of the vicar, who is the actual incumbent, depends entirely upon glebe, upon some aid from Queen Anne's Bounty, or some other quite proper source. Therefore, if the literal words of the Amendment are taken, you may have this extreme position that the incumbent of one parish, who, because he receives a stipend from tithe rent-charge up to the time of Disestablishment of £100 a year,

    1955
    becomes, if this Amendment is carried, not liable to repair the chancel, while in the adjoining parish the vicar or incumment, or whatever he is called, who docs not receive any tithe rent-charge, is still liable for the repair of the chancel. Let us see whether we are agreed as to the nature of the liability in question, because that is, I think, relevant to the broader question which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for St. George's asked us to address our minds to. As I understand it—and I am quite willing to accept correction from my hon. and learned Friend opposite—the general rule is, and has been, that the incumbent of the parish is liable to repair the chancel. [HON. MEMBERS: "No, no."]
    Sir ALFRED CRIPPS: I will answer the right hon. Gentleman afterwards.
    Sir D. BRYNMOR JONES: I should like to know if the right hon. Gentleman thinks I am inaccurate.
    Sir A. CRIPPS: I do think the right hon. and learned Gentleman is inaccurate, but I do not want to answer him by interruptions across the floor of the House.
    Sir D. BRYNMOR JONES: The hon. and learned Gentleman does not mean to answer me at once. I think the rector is liable to repair the chancel, and the parishioners are liable to repair the nave. I think the law backs up that view. I prefer to put it on the ancient character or form of words that were used. The rector or somebody in the parish, the rector, together with the parishioners, were formerly liable to repair the fabric of the church. Perhaps the liability varied at different times. It might have been quite different before the complete aspect of parochial organisations in this country, and it might have been, and has been, no doubt, varied from time to time by Statutes. But that is the real position. and it is not fair for the hon. and gallant Member (Sir A. Griffith-Boscawen) to represent it as an obligation due to the ownership of the tithe rent-charges or any particular item of the income of the rector, vicar, or incumbent; and that is the only thing relevant to the argument I amusing. That being so, let me deal with the general question raised by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for St. George's, Hanover Square. That brings me back to the division of the property. We have drawn in Clause 8 a line between certain classes
    1956
    of property. I am assuming for the purposes of my observations what I may call the general principle of the Bill.
    We have drawn a line between property which is to be handed to the Church or the representative body of the Church—and perhaps for the convenience of Debate I may call it the representative body—a line between the property of the dissolved corporation which is to be handed to the representative body, and property which is to be handed over to the Universities of Wales on certain trust or to the county councils of Wales and district. On what principle have we drawn that division? I endeavoured on a former occasion to explain that in dealing with that property of this dissolved corporation we ought to proceed upon a general equitable principle analogous to those which are followed by the Charity Commissioners and by the Court of Chancery in reference to the formation of new schemes which come within their jurisdiction. I think if we had pursued the original course we could have made a good case for taking over the cathedrals and parish churches of Wales as part of the property to be handed back for general purposes to the Welsh nation. We had a disputation the other day about the form. and I was one of those who in no way went back upon the decision embodied in the Bill. I assert still that, proceeding logically, we might have claimed the four cathedrals and all the parish churches upon a thoroughly sound principle. Of course, hon. Members opposite do not agree. Why do I assert that if we were going to make a new scheme in regard to the property of this dissolved corporation it was, in my judgment, fair to hand over these churches to the representative body. We are dealing with property not in our own discretion, but we are dealing with property which we believe to be in effect, though not technically, national property. Before I could consent to hand over the four cathedrals to the representative body I had to satisfy myself it was the just and proper course to pursue. The reason I ventured to give, and I think all hon. Members on this side of the House will assent to it, is that we are handing over this property to the representative body partly because the Church represented a continuous religious tradition.
    The CHAIRMAN: I am afraid the right hon. and learned Gentleman is rather going back on previous decisions. The question of repairs is what we are on now
    Sir D. BRYNMOR JONES: Quite so, and I was explaining that we handed the churches back because we contend that upon whomsoever the legal obligation of repair fell of the four cathedrals and churches, the repairs had been done by the voluntary subscriptions of generous people throughout the length and breadth of the Principality. That is the basis. We handed these churches to the representative body because we recognised the great sacrifices the genuine and zealous adherents of the Church in Wales had displayed in regard to their maintenance and repair. You have repaired them; you treat them as your own building; we. are giving them to you as your own building. and we are offering these buildings upon these terms. Why should you now turn round and say to us that we must undertake the burden of repairing the buildings we hand you over? That is the argument. If the representative body is not ready and willing to take upon itself the burden of repairing the four cathedrals and parish churches of Wales, then I do not think they ought to be given them at all. You have taken them and you assent to the acceptance of these buildings with full notice of the Clauses of this Bill, and now I assert you have no right to turn round and endeavour to cast upon us the burden which you well knew when Clause 8 was passed would fall upon the representative body.
    Colonel WILLIAMS: Let me follow the argument of the right hon. and learned Gentleman. Suppose we acknowledge, for the purposes of his argument, that these are national buildings. He also says that the tithe is national property, yet he keeps the tithe for county council purposes, while he hands back the buildings. He keeps the tithes, which have been from time immemorial used for upkeep. If his argument is to be followed out he must see that the just course to be pursued would be to accept this Amendment. There is no question of obligation on the incumbent. Certain obligations fall upon the incumbent of a parish, such as the repair of the house and the upkeep of the land, and so on. He has further duties because he is rector, and he is rector in view of his holding of the rectorial tithe. He may be a perpetual incumbent, but that is rather because he holds the rectorial tithes. These tithes do not make him owner of the chancel, but lay upon him the burden of keeping it in repair, not because he is incumbent of the parish, but
    1958
    because he holds the rectorial tithe. Whoever holds the rectorial tithe is bound to keep the chancel in repair. If you take away the rectorial portion you have also to take away the burden upon the rectorial portion. The Bill does not say so. The Bill particularly says the rectorial tithes of the lay impropriator are to be kept the same as heretofore. All those who support the Bill have acknowledged that the rectorial tithes are bound to repair the chancel, and whoever holds rectorial tithes ought to do that work. I rather agree with the Noble Lord that it is very incongruous for county councils to be called upon to repair the chancels of churches, but it is still more incongruous that county councils should hold rectorial tithes at all. The speech to which we have just listened was a very interesting speech, but wandered a great way round to try to justify the position. The right hon. and learned Gentleman himself has admitted that rectorial tithes have rights which they ought to fulfil. If so, why should rectorial tithes in the hands of county councils be free from the responsibility which rectorial tithes, both before and after the Bill, must perform?
    Sir A. CRIPPS: I shall attempt to deal with what was said by the right hon. and learned Gentleman opposite, because one must acknowledge that throughout these Debates, at any rate on legal matters, he has taken great care to be as accurate as possible. Now what he said as regards liability in connection with ecclesiastical buildings really does not exist at all, except in his imagination. Let us see what the truth is. The incumbent, as such, has no liability at all for the chancel, nave, or any other part of the church with regard to repairs. He has no liability of any sort or kind. Let us see where that liability is. There is no one now liable for repairs at all. It is quite true they have been done by voluntary and private subscriptions. They will have to be done exactly in the same way after the Bill is passed, if it is passed, as they are done at the present moment. The right hon. and learned Gentleman had to go back to the old days when there were rates for church repairs, but that has been abolished, and since church rates have been abolished there has been no fund whatever, except that provided by private subscriptions for the repair of the church. There is no liability anywhere. It has been done by private subscription of the Church people in the districts. As regards

    1959
    the chancel, I must point out to the right hon. and learned Gentleman that he is under a complete misapprehension. The chancel stands upon an entirely different footing from the rest of the church. The liability is not upon the incumbent but upon the owner of the tithe—I mean by that the tithe in the ordinary sense—the ownership of the rectorial tithe. That is a matter of ecclesiastical and common law of this country for the last five or six hundred years.
    Sir D. BRYNMOR JONES: I may be quite wrong in my law, but I am rather surprised at the statement the hon. and learned Gentleman has made, because no less an authority than Lord Coke says that the chancel is to be repaired by the parson. Of course Coke may be wrong and the hon. and learned Gentleman may be right.
    Sir A. CRIPPS: That is a very ancient authority, but the word "parson" there, I may tell the right hon. and learned Gentleman as used by Lord Coke, means the owner of the rectorial tithe. I assure the right hon. and learned Gentleman that that is so. The passage which he has quoted from Coke's "Institutes" is an isolated passage which, taken by itself, might be misleading, but I challenge him to find either in Coke or any other ecclesiastical or common law lawyer dealing with these matters whoever said that the incumbent as such has ever been held liable for the repair of the chancel. We know, of course, that in some cases the rectorial tithes are held by laymen, and in that case it is the layman in respect of his ownership of the rectorial tithes who is liable for the repair of the chancel. It does not matter whether a man is a layman, clergyman, parson, or an incumbent, the one test of liability is the ownership of the rectorial tithes. Let me deal for a moment with the application of this Amendment. Hon. Members opposite are generally in favour of attaching to the ownership of land all its obligations, and that is the view put forward by them on many occasions, and yet they are coming forward in a Bill of this kind to detach from the ownership of land an obligation which for centuries has been attached to that land. It is the essence of the ownership of rectorial tithes that you have this obligation, and it is a new doctrine on the part of hon. Members opposite to say that we want the owner-
    1960
    ship of land to be detached from the obligations which have heretofore been placed upon it. But for the accident that this is an ecclesiastical Bill there is not a single hon. Member opposite who would not say that where you have ownership of land that an obligation of this kind which is attached to it ought to be fulfilled. It is common knowledge that the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, as owners of rectorial tithes, repair a large number of chancels. Why should these obligations be taken away? I do not care into whose hands the land happens to be, the obligations upon it should be fulfilled.
    I do not suppose anyone would argue that because land comes into the hands of a county council it ought to be free from all the obligations attached to it. Suppose a county council becomes the owner of such land, with the obligation attached to it of maintaining the ancient fabric. Are you going to say that because they have become the owners of that land they ought not to be liable to that obligation? This is a very serious general proposition. I contend that where you have obligations attached to the ownership of land, they ought to be fulfilled, no matter into whoso hands the land happens to be at the time. That is a very strong principle, which we ought on all occasions to enforce to the utmost. I should be very much averse to the notion of a county council going into a church for the purpose of repairing the chancel. I have indicated to my hon. and learned Friend that if these words are to be left out I could not accept his Amendment without words being inserted providing that the money should be handed over to the representative body, who would carry out the obligations as regards the repairs of buildings. I understand that my hon. and learned Friend will be prepared to accept that Amendment when his Amendment becomes the substantive question. I should be out of order in proposing an Amendment to the Amendment of my hon. and gallant Friend at the present moment, but I want to indicate that if the existing words are omitted I shall ask to move an Amendment of that kind, because I could never assent to the proposition that as regards our churches the county councils should by right have access to them for the purpose of repairs to the chancels. This ought to be done by the Church, and it should be the representative body to whom the funds should be transferred. I cordially support this Amendment.
    Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 281; Noes, 147.

    Division No. 518.]

    AYES.

    [6.35 p.m.

    Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour)

    Fitzgibbon, John

    Manfield, Harry

    Acland, Francis Dyke

    Flavin, Michael Joseph

    Markham, Sir Arthur Basil

    A damson, William

    Gilhooly, James

    Marks, Sir George Croydon

    Agnew, Sir George William

    GUI, A. H.

    Marshall, Arthur Harold

    Alden, Percy

    Ginnell, Laurence

    Meagher, Michael

    Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbartonshire)

    Gladstone, W. G. C.

    Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

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

    Glanville, H. J.

    Middlebrook, William

    Arnold, Sydney

    Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

    Millar, James Duncan

    Atherley-Jones, Llewellyn A.

    Goldstone, Frank

    Molloy, Michael

    Baker, H. T. (Accrington)

    Greenwood, Granville G. (Peterborough)

    Molteno, Percy Alport

    Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)

    Greenwood, Hamar (Sunderland)

    Mond, Sir Alfred M.

    Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

    Greig, Col. J. W.

    Money, L. G. Chiozza

    Baring, Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple)

    Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

    Morgan, Georgo Hay

    Barlow, Sir John Emmott (Somerset)

    Griffith, Ellis J.

    Morrell, Philip

    Barran, Rowland Hurst (Leeds, N.)

    Gulney, Patrick

    Morison, Hector

    Barton, William

    Gulland, John William

    Munro, R.

    Beale, Sir William Phipson

    Hackett, John

    Murray, Captain Hon. Arthur C.

    Beck, Arthur Cecil

    Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis (Rossendale)

    Nannetti, Joseph P.

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

    Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

    Needham, Christopher T.

    Bentham, G. J.

    Hardle, J. Keir

    Nellson, Francis

    Bethell, Sir J. H.

    Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

    Nolan, Joseph

    Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

    Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)

    Norman, Sir Henry

    Black, Arthur W.

    Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

    Norton, Captain Cecil W.

    Boland, John Pius

    Hayden, John Patrick

    Nuttall, Harry

    Booth, Frederick Handel

    Hayward, Evan

    O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

    Bowerman, C. W.

    Hazleton, Richard

    O'Brien, William (Cork)

    Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North)

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

    O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

    Brace, William

    Holme, Sir Norval Watson

    O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

    Brady, Patrick Joseph

    Hemmerde, Edward George

    O'Doherty, Philip

    Brocklehurst, W. B.

    Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

    O'Donnell, Thomas

    Bryce, J. Annan

    Henry, Sir Charles

    O'Dowd, John

    Buckmaster, Stanley O.

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

    O'Grady, James

    Burke, E. Haviland-

    Higham, John Sharp

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

    Burns, Rt. Hon. John

    Hinds, John

    O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.)

    Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

    Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

    O'Malley, William

    Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, North)

    Hodge, John

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

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

    Hogge, James Myles

    O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

    Byles, Sir William

    Holmes, Daniel Turner

    O'Shee, James John

    Carr-Gomm, H. W.

    Holt, Richard Durning

    O'Sullivan, Timothy

    Cawley, Harold T. (Heywood)

    Hudson, Walter

    Outhwaite, R. L.

    Clancy, John Joseph

    Illingworth, Percy H.

    Parker, James (Halifax)

    Clough, William

    Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus

    Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

    Clynes, John R.

    Jardine, Sir J. (Roxburgh)

    Pearce, William (Limehouse)

    Collins, Godfrey P. (Greenock)

    John, Edward Thomas

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

    Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

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

    Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

    Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J.

    Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil)

    Pointer, Joseph

    Condon, Thomas Joseph

    Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)

    Pollard, Sir George H.

    Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

    Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)

    Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

    Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

    Jones, Leif Stratten (Notts, Rushcliffe)

    Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

    Crawshay-Williams, Eliot

    Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

    Price, Sir R. J. (Norfolk, E.)

    Crean, Eugene

    Jones, W. S. Glyn- (Stepney)

    Priestley, Sir W. E. (Bradford)

    Crumley, Patrick

    Joyce, Michael

    Pringle, William M. R.

    Cullinan, John

    Keating, Matthew

    Radford, G. H.

    Dalziel, Rt. Hon. Sir J. H. (Kirkcaldy)

    Kellaway, Frederick George

    Raphael, Sir Herbert H.

    Davies, David (Montgomery Co.)

    Kilbride, Denis

    Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields)

    Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

    King, J. (Somerset, North)

    Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

    Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

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

    Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

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

    Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

    Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)

    Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardigan)

    Lardner, James Carrige Rushe

    Rendall, Athelstan

    De Forest, Baron

    Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.)

    Richards, Thomas

    Delany, William

    Lawson, Sir W. (Cumb'rld, Cockerm'th)

    Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

    Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas

    Leach, Charles

    Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

    Devlin, Joseph

    Levy, Sir Maurice

    Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)

    Dickinson, W. H.

    Lewis, John Herbert

    Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

    Donelan, Captain A,

    Low, Sir F. (Norwich)

    Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

    Doris, William

    Lundon, Thomas

    Robinson, Sidney

    Duffy, William J.

    Lyeil, Charles Henry

    Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

    Duncan, C, (Barrow-in-Furness)

    Lynch, A. A.

    Roche, Augustine (Louth)

    Duncan, J. Hardings (Yorks, Otley)

    McGhee, Richard

    Roche, John (Galway, E.)

    Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

    Maclean, Donald

    Roe, Sir Thomas

    Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford)

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

    Rose, Sir Charles Day

    Essex, Sir Richard Walter

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

    Rowlands, James

    Esslemont, George Birnie

    Macpherson, James Ian

    Rowntree, Arnold

    Falconer, James

    MacVeagh, Jeremiah

    Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

    Farrell, James Patrick

    M'Callum, Sir John M.

    Russell, Rt. Hon. Thomas W.

    Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles

    M'Kean, John

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

    Ferens. Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson

    McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

    Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

    Ffrench, Peter

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

    Scanlan, Thomas

    Field, William

    M'Laren, Hon.F.W.S. (Lincs.Spalding)

    Schwann, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles E.

    Scott. A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)

    Verney, Sir Harry

    White, Patrick (Meath, North)

    Sheehy, David

    Wadsworth, J.

    Whitehouse, John Howard

    Sherwell, Arthur James

    Walsh, J. (Cork, South)

    Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.

    Shorn, Edward

    Walsh, Stephen (Lanes., Ince)

    Whyte, A. F. (Perth)

    Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)

    Walters, Sir John Tudor

    Wilkie, Alexander

    Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim)

    Walton, Sir Joseph

    Williams, John (Glamorgan)

    Snowden, Philip

    Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

    Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthen)

    Soames, Arthur Wellesley

    Wardle, George J.

    Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. W. (Worcs., N.)

    Spicer, Rt. Hon. Sir Albert

    Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay

    Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

    Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N.W.)

    Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

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

    Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

    Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

    Young, Samuel (Cavan, E.)

    Tennant, Harold John

    Watt, Henry Anderson

    Young, W. (Perthshire, E.)

    Thomas, James Henry

    Webb, H.

    Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

    Wedgwood, J. C.

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr.

    Toulmin, Sir George

    White, J. Dundas (Glas., Tradeston)

    G. Howard and Captain Guest.

    Trevelyan, Charles Philips

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

    NOES.

    Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

    Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey

    Mount, William Arthur

    Amery, L. C. M. S.

    Finlay, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert

    Neville, Reginald J. N.

    Anson, Rt. Hon. Sir William R.

    Fisher, Rt. Hon. W. Hayes

    Newman, John R. P.

    Anstruther-Gray, Major William

    Fitzroy, Hon. Edward A.

    Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)

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

    Forster, Henry William

    Nicld, Herbert

    Balcarres, Lord

    Gardner, Ernest

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

    Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J. (City, Lond.)

    Gastrell, Major W. Houghton

    Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

    Banbury Sir Frederick George

    Gordon, John (Londonderry, South)

    Peto, Basil Edward

    Baring, Maj. Hon. Guy V. (Winchester)

    Gordon, Hon. John Edward (Brighton)

    Pollock, Ernest Murray

    Barlow, Montague (Salford, South)

    Goulding. Edward Alfred

    Pryce-Jones, Col. E.

    Barrie, H. T.

    Grant, J. A.

    Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

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

    Guinness. Hon. Rupert (Essex, S.E.)

    Rawson, Col. Richard H.

    Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton)

    Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne)

    Remnant, James Farquharson

    Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks

    Hall, Fred (Dulwich)

    Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

    Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

    Hamersley, Alfred St. George

    Samuel, Sir Harry (Norwood)

    Bentinck, Lord H. Cavendish-

    Hardy, Rt. Hon. Laurence

    Sanders, Robert Arthur

    Beresford, Lord Charles

    Harris, Henry Percy

    Sanderson, Lancelot

    Bigland, Alfred

    Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

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

    Bird, Alfred

    Helmsley, Viscount

    Spear, Sir John Ward

    Blair, Reginald

    Henderson, Major H. (Berks)

    Stanier, Seville

    Boyton, James

    Herbert, Hon. A. (Somerset, S.)

    Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

    Bridgeman, W. Clive

    Hewins. William Albert Samuel

    Staveley-Hill, Henry

    Bull, Sir William James

    Hickman, Col. Thomas E.

    Steel-Maitland, A. D.

    Burdett-Coutts, W.

    Hill, Sir Clement L.

    Stewart, Gershom

    Burn, Colonel C. R.

    Hoare, S. J. G.

    Strauss, Arthur (Paddington, North)

    Butcher. John George

    Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy

    Sykes, Alan John (Ches., Knutsford)

    Campbell, Capt. Duncan F. (Ayr, N.)

    Hope, Major J. A. (Midlothian)

    Sykes, Mark (Hull, Central)

    Campbell, Rt. Hon. J. (Dublin Univ.)

    Horne, E. (Surrey, Guildford)

    Talbot. Lord E.

    Campion, W. R.

    Horner, Andrew Long

    Terrell, Henry (Gloucester)

    Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred

    Houston, Robert Paterson

    Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Down, North)

    Cassel, Felix

    Hume-Williams, W. E.

    Touche, George Alexander

    Castlereagh, Viscount

    Kebty-Fletcher, J. R.

    Tryon, Captain George Clement

    Cator, John

    Kerr-Smiley, Peter Kerr

    Valentia, Viscount

    Cautley, Henry Strother

    Kimber, Sir Henry

    Walker, Col. William Hall

    Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

    Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

    Walrond. Hon. Lionel

    Cecil, Lord Hugh (Oxford Univ.)

    Lane-Fox. G. R.

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

    Cecil, Lord R. (Herts, Hitchin)

    Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)

    Wheler, Granville C. H.

    Chaloner, Colonel R. G. W,

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

    White, Major G. D. (Lanes Southport)

    Chambers, James

    Lonsdale, Sir John Brownlee

    Williams, Col. R. (Dorset, W.)

    Clive, Captain Percy Archer

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

    Willoughby. Major Hon. Claud

    Cooper, Richard Ashmole

    Lyttelton, Hon. J. C. (Droitwich)

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

    Courthope, George Loyd

    MacCaw, Wm. J. MacGeagh

    Welmer, Viscount

    Craig, Ernest (Cheshire, Crewe)

    Mackinder, Halford J.

    Wood, John (Stalybridge)

    Crichton-Stuart, Lord Ninian

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

    Worthington-Evans, L.

    Croft, H. P.

    Magnus, Sir Philip

    Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

    Dalziel, Davison (Brixton)

    Malcolm, Ian

    Yate,, Colonel C. E.

    Duke. Henry Edward

    Middlemore, John Throgmorton

    Younger, Sir George

    Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M.

    Moore, William

    Falle, Bertram Godfray

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

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Sir

    Fell, Arthur

    Morrison-Bell, Major A. C. (Honiton)

    A. Cripps and Sir A. Griffith-Boscawen.

    Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and agreed to.

    Sir A. CRIPPS: I beg to move, in Subsection (4), after the word "Wales," to insert the words "so long as the amount payable under this Section is so paid."
    Lord ROBERT CECIL: I am very anxious to understand what exactly this Clause means, and though, owing to the
    1964
    procedure under which we are working, there is very little time indeed to ascertain that, I trust we shall have the benefit of the assistance of the Government. If I understand rightly, what we have done so far is to take away the tithe from the Church, and in Clause 18 we are going to enact that the tithe in the hands of the county councils or of the Welsh Commissioners is to be applied to certain

    1965
    secular purposes. That is an absolute trust affecting the tithe in the hands of the county councils and of the Welsh Commission under Clause 18, and it will operate immediately after the date of Disestablishment. Therefore, every penny of the tithe they receive they will have to apply to those secular purposes. We are asked in Clause 15 to enact that a sum, not the tithe itself, but a sum in substitution for and in satisfaction of the interests which the incumbents at present have in the tithe shall be paid to the incumbents, and that sum shall be made good out of the county funds. I cannot see any other interpretation, and, if I am right, the result will be that the moment the Bill passes, the county councils will have to apply the tithe to certain purposes which are to be afterwards defined, and which we in these Debates have called secular purposes. At the same time the county councils will have to find, out of the county fund, money to pay the income which heretofore was paid out of the tithe to the incumbents who are actually there. The result will be that in each county there will be an addition to the rates equal to the amount of the tithe heretofore raised, which will have to be levied and paid to the existing incumbents. I cannot believe the Government mean that. It seems to me an insane proposal, but I cannot see what it does mean if it does not mean that. It seems quite definite. I know it is very difficult to get the Government to follow these points, but it is very important they should.
    The CHANCELLOR of the DUCHY Of LANCASTER (Mr. Hobhouse): I did not catch what the Noble Lord said; that was all.
    Lord ROBERT CECIL: I know it is very difficult. The tithe by this Bill will be handed over through the Welsh Commissioners to the county councils, and it will be impressed with a trust to be applied to the secular purposes therein set out. That trust will take effect from the date of Disestablishment. By the Clause we are now discussing it is proposed to impose upon the county councils the duty of paying the existing incumbents the income they have got from the tithe. That is made a charge on the county fund, and will have to be levied on the rates. The result will be that they will not be able to apply the tithe they are going to receive to the payment of the incumbents. They are not allowed to do that. It is impressed with a trust for secular purposes by Clause 18, but they are compelled none the less to
    1966
    pay the salaries of the incumbents out of the county funds. The result will be that they will have to raise the rates to pay the existing incumbents of the Church of England in Wales. A more flagrant instance of a State-paid Church it is impossible to conceive. I want to know whether that is what the Government intend, and, if it is not, what on earth the Clause means. There are many other objections I have to this Clause. I think this would be a very suitable opportunity to raise a discussion on the commutation scheme of the Government. We were promised it should be laid before us not later than Saturday or Monday, but it has not been done so yet. That is the way the House will always be treated by a Government working under a guillotine. I venture to assert this Clause could not be passed at all except for the guillotine. The Government, but for it, would have had to have some drastic Clause to put the matter right.
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: The Noble Lord, so far as I can see, has rather conjured up an unnecessary spectre of the results of the Bill. I do not think there is any such difficulty, either in practice or in theory, as he seems to suggest would be the result! of the passing of this Clause. He asks me, first of all, what is the meaning of the Clause, and he complains it is not the tithe itself which is to be handed over, but some sum which is in substitution of the amount now collected from tithe rent-charge. If he would look back to Clause 8, Sub-section (2), he would see the concluding words of that Sub-section are as follows:
    "and in the case of such tithe rent-charge to the obligation to make such provision as is hereinafter mentioned in lieu of such existing interests."
    Therefore, we have already passed a Clause which has necessitated, not the payment of tithe, but of some sum in substitution for the actual tithe. Then, he says, the tithe will be paid over for secular purposes, and the county fund will be liable for the annuities payable under the Act. I know of no county, or, indeed, any central exchequer, which actually takes the sovereigns it has received from one particular quarter or source and pays them over for the purpose which is implicated by the Bill which provides for their payment. All that is said, is that the sum which is collected and paid into the treasury shall be collected for that purpose, and that then payments shall be

    1967
    made out for another purpose. That is precisely what takes place with respect to this Clause. A sum will be collected hereafter by the county officers from the payers of tithe rent-charge, and it will be paid into the county treasury, and from out of that county treasury there will be money paid in satisfaction of the annuities payable under the Act.
    Lord ROBERT CECIL: The right hon. Gentleman does not seem to see my point. It is that the tithe rent-charge will be entirely applicable to the secular purposes of Clause 18, and will not therefore be available for paying the stipends of the clergy; those will have to be found out of the rates.
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: If the Noble Lord would look at the first words of Clause 18 he would see it is "subject to the provisions of this Act."
    Lord ROBERT CECIL: Which are the provisions?
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: The provision is for the payment of the annuities. That is the governing provision of the whole of this Bill—that the collection of tithe by and for ecclesiastical purposes shall cease; that in substitution for existing interests payment shall be made by persons to whom the tithe rent-charge is transferred, and that as those existing life interests die out the amount which is collected from the tithe rent-charge by the county councils shall be used for secular purposes. Those secular purposes do not arise so far as the tithe rent-charge is concerned until these interests are extinguished.
    Mr. LAURENCE HARDY: The right hon. Gentleman read the last lines of Clause 8, Sub-section (2). Surely they have to be read with the words higher up in the Clause—
    "in the case of all such property, except tithe rent-charge transferred to a county council, to the existing interests of all persons who at the passing of this Act hold ecclesiastical offices in the Church in Wales."
    The reference to the tithe rent-charge is—
    "to make such provision as is hereinafter mentioned in lieu of such existing interests."
    That is the point; the tithe rent-charge has been severed from the other matters.
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: I am afraid I cannot agree with the right hon. Gentleman. I think not merely the intention, but the provisions of the Bill are as I have pointed out, and I do not think anyone who has followed the Bill closely can really have any doubt about the matter. The Noble Lord said these annuities are made a charge upon the county fund, but they are only made a charge upon the county fund subject to the provisions of the Bill.
    Lord ROBERT CECIL: No, no.
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: I cannot too clearly repeat that, so far as these annuities are paid, they are the first charge upon the tithe rent-charge. It is merely a collection by one hand into the local treasury, and a payment out from the local treasury by the other hand. I think the intention is quite clear, and is quite indisputable. It is to be found in the words of the Act without any ambiguity of any sort whatever.
    Mr. KING: I only want before the guillotine falls to thank the right hon. Gentleman for his very clear exposition of this Bill. The Clause itself is clear enough, but I think after his exposition it must be clear even to the Noble Lord.
    Mr. LAURENCE HARDY: I really think the Committee ought,. as the right hon. Gentleman has introduced Clause 8, to have in mind the words of the Clause. I will read them to the Committee.
    "(2) Save as otherwise provided by this Act, all property transferred under this Section shall be held subject to all existing public and private rights with respect thereto, and all tenancies, charges, and incumbrances which may at the date of transfer be subsisting therein, and in the case of ail such property, except tithe rent-charge transferred to a county council, to the existing interests of all persons who at the passing of this Act hold ecclesiastical offices in the Church in Wales, and in the case of such tithe rent-charge to the obligation to make such provision as is hereinafter mentioned in lieu of such existing interests."
    That is, all the other property goes to satisfy the existing interests of all persons. In the case of such tithe rent-charge there is an obligation to make such provision as is hereinafter mentioned in lieu of such existing interests. That brings us to the Clause we are now discussing, in which we find that tithe rent-charge is not to go

    1969
    to the existing interests, but to the county councils, who are to pay out of the county funds the equivalent of it. It is therefore evident the Government themselves have made an exception. They have put this in Clause 8 for some reason which we do not yet quite understand, and it seems to me the Noble Lord's contention is right, and whether the Government mean it or not, they are involved in this proposition.
    It being Seven of the clock, the CHAIRMAN proceeded, pursuant to the Order of the House of the 28th November, 1912, to-put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair.
    Question put, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 292; Noes, 167.

    Division No. 519.]

    AYES.

    [7.1 p.m.

    Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour)

    Duffy, William J.

    Kilbride, Denis

    Acland, Francis Dyke

    Duncan, C (Barrow-in-Furness)

    King, J.

    Adamson, William

    Duncan. J. Hastings (Yorks, Otley)

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

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

    Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

    Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Crilcklade)

    Agnew, Sir George William

    Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)

    Lardner, James Carrige Rushe

    Alden, Percy

    Essex, Sir Richard Walter

    Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, West)

    Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbarton)

    Esslemont, George Birnie

    Lawson, Sir W. (Cumb'rld, Cockerm'th)

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

    Falconer, J.

    Leach, Charles

    Arnold, Sydney

    Farrell, James Patrick

    Levy, Sir Maurice

    Baker, H. T. (Accrington)

    Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles

    Lewis, John Herbert

    Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.)

    Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson

    Low, Sir Frederick (Norwich)

    Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

    Firench, Peter

    Lundon, Thomas

    Baring, Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple)

    Field, William

    Lyell, Charles Henry

    Barlow, Sir John Emmott (Somerset)

    Fitzgibbon, John

    Lynch, A. A.

    Barran, Rowland Hurst (Leeds, N.)

    Flavin, Michael Joseph

    McGhee, Richard

    Barton, W.

    Gilhooly, James

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

    Beale, Sir William Phipson

    Gill, A. H.

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

    Beck, Arthur Cecil

    Gladstone, W. G. C.

    Macpherson, James Ian

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

    Glanville, Harold James

    MacVeagh, Jeremiah

    Bentham, G. J.

    Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

    M'Callum, Sir John M.

    Bethell, Sir J. H.

    Goldstone, Frank

    M'Kean, John

    Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

    Greenwood, Granville G. (Peterborough)

    McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

    Black, Arthur W.

    Greenwood, Hamar (Sunderland)

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

    Boland, John Pius

    Greig. Colonel J. W.

    M'Laren, Hon. F.W.S. (Lincs.,Spalding)

    Booth, Frederick Handel

    Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

    Manfield, Harry

    Bowerman, C. W.

    Griffith, Ellis J.

    Markham, Sir Arthur Basil

    Boyle, D. (Mayo, N.)

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

    Marks, Sir George Croydon

    Brace, William

    Guiney, P.

    Marshall, Arthur Harold

    Brady, P.].

    Gulland, John William

    Martin, Joseph

    Bryce, J. Annan

    Hackett, J.

    Meagher, Michael

    Buckmaster, Stanley O.

    Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)

    Meehan. Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

    Barke, E. Haviland-

    Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

    Middlebrook, William

    Burns, Rt. Hon. John

    Hardle, J. Keir

    Millar, James Duncan

    Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

    Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

    Molloy, M.

    Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, North)

    Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)

    Molteno. Percy Alport

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

    Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

    Mond, Sir Alfred Moritz

    Byles, Sir William Pollard

    Hayden, John Patrick

    Money, L. G. Chiozza

    Carr-Gomm, H. W.

    Hayward, Evan

    Morgan, George Hay

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

    Harleton. Richard

    Morrell, Philip

    Clancy, John Joseph

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

    Morison, Hector

    Clough, William

    Helme, Sir Norval Watson

    Munro, R.

    Clynes, John R.

    Hemmerde, Edward George

    Murray, Capt. Hon. A. C.

    Collins, Godfrey P. (Greenock)

    Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

    Nannetti, Joseph P.

    Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

    Henry, Sir Charles

    Needham, Christopher T.

    Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J.

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

    Nellson, Francis

    Condon, Thomas Joseph

    Higham, John Sharp

    Nicholson, Sir C. N. (Doncaster)

    Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

    Hinds, John

    Nolan, Joseph

    Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

    Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

    Norman, Sir Henry

    Crawshay-Williams, Eliot

    Hodge, John

    Norton, Captain Cecil W.

    Crean, Eugene

    Hogge, James Myles

    Nuttall, Harry

    Crumley, Patrick

    Holmes. Daniel Turner

    O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

    Cullman, J.

    Holt, Richard Durning

    O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

    Dalziel, Rt. Hon. Sir J. H. (Kirkcaldy)

    Hudson, Walter

    O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

    Davies, David (Montgomery Co.)

    Illingworth, Percy H.

    O'Doherty, Philip

    Davies, E. William (Eifion)

    Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus

    O'Donnell, Thomas

    Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

    Jardine, Sir J. (Roxburgh)

    O'Dowd, John

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

    John, Edward Thomas

    O'Grady, James

    Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardiganshire)

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

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

    Dawes, James Arthur

    Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil)

    O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.)

    De Forest, Baron

    Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)

    O'Malley, William

    Delany, William

    Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)

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

    Denman, Hon. R. D.

    Jones, Leif Stratten (Rushcliffe)

    O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

    Devlin, Joseph

    Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

    O'Shee, James John

    Dickinson, W. H.

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

    O'Sullivan, Timothy

    Dillon, John

    Joyce, Michael

    Outhwaite, R. L.

    Donelan, Captain A.

    Keating, Matthew

    Palmer, Godfrey Mark

    Doris W.

    Kellaway, Frederick George

    Parker, James (Halifax)

    Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

    Roche, John (Galway, E.)

    Walsh, J. (Cork, South)

    Pearce, William (Limehouse)

    Roe, Sir Thomas

    Walsh, Stephen (Lancs., Ince)

    Pearson, Hon. Weetman H. M.

    Rose, Sir Charles Day

    Walters, Sir John Tudor

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

    Rowlands, James

    Walton, Sir Joseph

    Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

    Rowntree, Arnold

    Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

    Pointer, Joseph

    Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

    Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)

    Pollard, Sir George H.

    Russell, Rt. Hon. Thomas W.

    Wardle, George J.

    Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

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

    Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay

    Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

    Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

    Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

    Price. Sir Robert J. (Norfolk, E.)

    Scanlan, Thomas

    Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

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

    Schwann, Rt. Hon. Sir C. E.

    Watt, Henry A.

    Primrose, Hon. Neil James

    Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)

    Webb, H.

    Pringle, William M. R.

    Sheehy, David

    Wedgwood, Josiah C.

    Radford, G. H.

    Sherwell Arthur James

    White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)

    Raphael, Sir Herbert Henry

    Shortt, Edward

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

    Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields)

    Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)

    White, Patrick (Meath, North)

    Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

    Smith, H. B. L. (Northampton)

    Whitehouse, John Howard

    Reddy, M.

    Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

    Whyte, A. F. (Perth)

    Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

    Snowden, Philip

    Wiles, Thomas

    Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)

    Soames, Arthur Wellesley

    Wilkie, Alexander

    Rendall, Athelstan

    Spicer, Rt. Hon. Sir Albert

    Williams. J. (Glamorgan)

    Richards, Thomas

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

    Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthen)

    Richardson, Albion (Peckham)

    Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)

    Williamson, Sir Archibald

    Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

    Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

    Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. W. (Worcs., N.)

    Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

    Tennant, Harold John

    Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

    Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

    Thomas, J. H.

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

    Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)

    Thome, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

    Young, Samuel (Cavan, East)

    Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

    Toulmin, Sir George

    Young, William (Perth, East)

    Robertson, John M. (Tyneside)

    Trevelyan, Charles Philips

    Robinson, Sidney

    Verney, Sir Harry

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr.

    Roch, Walter F.

    Wadsworth, J.

    G. Howard and Captain Guest.

    Roche, Augustine (Louth)

    NOES.

    Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

    Cripps, Sir Charles Alfred

    Locker-Lampson, G.(Salisbury)

    Amery, L. C. M. S.

    Croft, H. P.

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

    Anson, Rt. Hon. Sir William R.

    Dalziel, D. (Brixton)

    Lonsdale, Sir John Brownlee

    Anstruther-Gray, Major William

    Duke, Henry Edward

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

    Astor Waldorf

    Eyres-Monseil, B. M.

    Lyttelton, Hon. J. C. (Droitwich)

    Baird, J. L.

    Falle, Bertram Godfray

    MacCaw, Wm. J. MacGeagh

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

    Fell, Arthur

    Mackinder, H. J.

    Balcarres, Lord

    Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey

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

    Baltour, Rt. Hon. A. J. (City, Lond.)

    Finlay, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert

    Magnus, Sir Philip

    Banbury, Sir Frederick George

    Fisher, Rt. Hon. W. Hayes

    Malcolm, Ian

    Baring, Maj. Hon. Guy V. (Winchester)

    Fitzroy, Hon. Edward A.

    Middlemore, John Throgmorton

    Barlow, Montague (Salford, South)

    Fleming, Valentine

    Moore, William

    Barrie, H. T.

    Forster. Henry William

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

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

    Gardner, Ernest

    Mount, William Arthur

    Bathurst. Charles (Wilts, Wilton)

    Gastrell, Major W. H.

    Neville, Reginald J. N.

    Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks

    Gibbs, G. A.

    Newman, John R. P.

    Beckett, Hon. Gervase

    Gordon, John (Londonderry, South)

    Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)

    Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

    Gordon, Hon. John Edward (Brighton)

    Nield, Herbert

    Bentinck, Lord H. Cavendish-

    Goulding, Edward Alfred

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

    Beresford, Lord C.

    Grant, J. A.

    Peto, Basil Edward

    Bigland, Alfred

    Guinness, Hon. Rupert (Essex, S.E.)

    Pollock, Ernest Murray

    Bird, A.

    Guinness, Hon.W.E. (Bury S.Edmunds)

    Pryce-Jones, Col. E.

    Blair, Reginald

    Gwynne. R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne)

    Quilter, Sir William Eley C.

    Boscawen, Sir Arthur S. T. Griffith-

    Hall, Fred (Dulwich)

    Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

    Boyle, William (Norfolk, Mid)

    Hamersley, Alfred St. George

    Rawson, Col. R. H.

    Boyton, James

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

    Rees, Sir J. D.

    Bridgeman, W. Clive

    Hardy, Rt. Hon. Laurence

    Remnant, James Farquharson

    Bull, Sir William James

    Harris, Henry Percy

    Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

    Burdett-Coutts, W.

    Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

    Rolleston, Sir John

    Burn, Colonel C. R.

    Helmsley, Viscount

    Rutherford, Watson (L'pool, W. Derby)

    Butcher, J. G.

    Henderson, Major H. (Berks, Abingdon)

    Salter, Arthur Clavell

    Campbell, Capt. Duncan F. (Ayr, N.)

    Herbert, Hon. A. (Somerset, S.)

    Samuel, Sir Harry (Norwood)

    Campbell, Rt. Hon. J. (Dublin Univ.)

    Hewins, William Albert Samuel

    Sanders, Robert A.

    Campion, W. R.

    Hickman, Colonel T. E.

    Sanderson, Lancelot

    Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred

    Hill, Sir Clement L.

    Sandys, G. J.

    Cassel, Felix

    Hoare, Samuel John Gurney

    Sassoon, Sir Philip

    Castlereagh, Viscount

    Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy

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

    Cator, John

    Hope, Major J. A. (Midlothian)

    Smith, Harold (Warrington)

    Cautley, H. S.

    Horne, E. (Surrey, Guildford)

    Stanier, Beville

    Cave, George

    Horner, Andrew Long

    Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

    Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

    Houston, Robert Paterson

    Staveley-Hill, Henry

    Cecil, Lord Hugh (Oxford University)

    Hume-Williams, William Ellis

    Steel-Maitland, A. D.

    Cecil, Lord R. (Herts, Hitchin)

    Hunter. Sir C. R.

    Stewart, Gershom

    Chaloner, Col. R. G. W.

    Ingleby, Holcombe

    Sykes, Alan John (Ches., Knutsford)

    Chambers, J.

    Kebty-Fletcher, J. R.

    Sykes, Mark (Hull, Central)

    Clive, Captain Percy Archer

    Kerr-Smiley, Peter Kerr

    Talbot, Lord E.

    Coates, Major Sir Edward Feetham

    Kimber, Sir Henry

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

    Cooper, Richard Ashmole

    Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

    Terrell, H. (Gloucester)

    Courthopc. G. Loyd

    Lane-Fox, G. R.

    Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Down, N.)

    Craig, Ernest (Cheshire, Crewe)

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

    Touche, George Alexander

    1972

    1973

    Tryon, Capt. George Clement

    Williams. Col. R. (Dorset, W.)

    Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

    Valentia, Viscount

    Willoughby, Major Hon. Claud

    Yate, Col. Charles Edward

    Walker, Col. William Hall

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

    Younger, Sir George

    Walrond, Hon. Lionel

    Wolmer, Viscount

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

    Wood, John (Stalybridge)

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Major

    Wheler, Granville C. H.

    Worthington-Evans, L.

    Morrison-Bell and Lord N. Crichton-

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

    Wright, Henry Fitzherbert

    Stuart.

    CLAUSE 16.—(Compensation to Lay Patrons.)
    The Welsh Commissioners, if application is made to them within six months after the passing of this Act by or on behalf of any person who or whose predecessor in title was at that date entitled to any right of patronage of any benefice affected by this Act, shall, at the expiration of two years from the date of Disestablishment, or, if a vacancy in that benefice occurs after the date of Disestablishment but before the expiration of that period, on the occurrence of the vacancy, pay in compensation for the extinction of that right such an amount as the Welsh Commissioners may think just, so however that the total amount paid by way of compensation in respect of any benefice shall not exceed one year's emoluments of the benefice taken on an average of the three years immediately before the passing of this Act:
    Provided that—

    (1) His Majesty shall not, nor shall any corporation, sole or aggregate, dissolve by this Act, nor shall any trustees, officers, or other persons acting in a public capacity, be entitled to any payment under this Section for or in respect of any right of patronage; and

    (2) Where any person would, but for the provisions of the Statutes affecting Roman Catholics in reference to conformity to the Established Church, have had at the passing of this Act any such right of patronage he or his successors in title shall be entitled to compensation there for in the same manner as if it had been then actually vested in him; and

    (3) A trustee or other person occupying a fiduciary position shall not be bound to make an application under this Section; and

    (4) The compensation paid under this Section shall be paid out of or charged on the property vested in the Welsh Commissioners under this Act, other than burial grounds and the property to be transferred to the representative body, in such manner that the burden thereof may be distributed amongst the University of
    1974
    Wales and the several county councils in proportion to the value of the property transferred to them respectively.

    Mr. HOARE: I beg to move, in Subsection (1), to leave out the words—"if application is made to them within six months after the passing of this Act by or on behalf of any person who or whose predecessor in title was at that date entitled to any right of patronage of any benefice affected by this Act, shall, at the expiration of two years from the date of Disestablishment, or, if a vacancy in that benefice occurs after the date of Disestablishment but before the expiration of that period, on the occurrence of the vacancy,"
    and to insert instead thereof the words
    "shall, so soon as may be after the passing of this Act, ascertain and by order declare the amount of compensation which ought to be paid to any person or body corporate who or which shall within two years there from make application in writing to this effect for or in respect of any advowson, right of presentation, or nomination to any benefice or cathedral preferment vested in or belonging to such person or body corporate, and affected by the provisions of this Act, and out of any moneys for the time being in their hands."
    This Amendment is followed by consequential Amendments, and perhaps the Committee will allow me to read the main part, so as to show how it will stand in the event of it being carried in its entirety. It will read thus:—
    "The Welsh Commissioners shall, so soon as may be after the passing of this Act, ascertain and by order declare the amount of compensation which ought to be paid to any person or body corporate who or which shall within two years therefrom make application in writing to this effect for or in respect of any advowson, right of presentation, or nomination to any benefice or cathedral preferment vested in or belonging to such person or body corporate, and affected by the provisions of this Act, and out of any moneys for the time being

    1975
    in their hands, pay in compensation for the extinction of that right such an amount as they may think just."
    Then all paragraphs after the words "passing of this Act" will be omitted. The complicated provisions under the Section are got rid of and the question as to what compensation should be paid is placed entirely in the hands of the Welsh Commissioners, it being provided that no inconvenient conditions shall be imposed on lay patrons in the way of having to make application in so short a time as six months, nor should any maximum or minimum of compensation which the Commissioners can pay be placed in the Subsection. It is to be left to them to decide what is the fair value of the living concerned, and to give compensation on that basis. Let me remind the Committee that this is almost verbatim the procedure which was adopted in the Irish Disestablishment Act. It was found to work with little friction, and I fail to see why, in the present case, it should not be adopted again. In discussing this question, we are placed in a somewhat difficult position by the fact that Clause 1 was only partially discussed, and that that part of it which deals with the abolition of private patronage was not discussed at all. It would be quite out of order to go back on a Debate that might have taken place had we been allowed to have it, on Clause 1, but two points connected with the general question do have a very direct bearing upon the question of compensation. In the first place, if it can be shown that the abolition of private patronage has nothing to do with the question of Disestablishment at all, I think that the lay patrons have a very strong case for generous compensation when you are quite unnecessarily depriving them of certain property.
    Secondly, I believe that if it could be shown that private patronage is a scandal, the Government would have strong grounds for saying, in accordance with the precedents of the past, that it is unnecessary to give full compensation to lay patrons. Let me also say in passing, what I think can be proved, that there is no connection between Disestablishment and the abolition of lay patronage. The fact is that in Ireland, where the Church is Disestablished, there are still cases where lay patronage is in force, and in Scotland, where the Church is Established, lay patronage is abolished. Although we may have different opinions as to whether
    1976
    or not lay patronage is an ideal system in the Churchy the fact is incontestable that in point of law and usage lay patronage has been regarded as legitimate property from a very early time up to the present moment. Let me substantiate that statement by certain examples, which I take first of all from Statute law and secondly from actual cases, some of which are within the memory of Members of this Committee. First, take the case of law. Yon have a number of Statutes, from the earliest times up to within a few years ago, under which the right of lay patronage is unquestioned. That is made the stronger from the fact that only recently in the Benefices Act, 1898, certain abuses connected with patronage were abolished, and on that account I think the right of patronage was certainly strengthened. I could quote other Acts of Parliament, but I do not think it is necessary to do so, because I do not suppose that anyone in this Committee will deny the truth of the statement that in point of law private patronage is regarded as heritable property. I find that even a body like the Liberation Society recognises this fact, for in one of their pamphlets, which I own was published some years ago, but which I believe has not since been repudiated by them, they made this statement:—
    "Rightly or wrongly, patronage in private hands has been considered, both by law and usage, as property of which the holder cannot equitably be deprived without an equivalent."
    Let me go on from the position in point of law to what has actually happened in practice. Let me take, first of all, the Irish case, and compare the compensation and the conditions under which it was given in that case with what the Government propose to do under this Sub-section. There, instead of offering the maximum of one year's value of the living, I find that in actual practice the Commissioners gave something more than ten years' value. One year's value of the livings would have amounted to the sum of £55,000 a year, whereas in actual practice I find that the reports of the Church Temporalities Commission show that no less a sum than £775,880 was given—in other words, more than ten years' purchase for the rights. I am aware that since that date there is another case which apparently points in the opposite direction, namely, the Scottish precedent. There, under a Conservative Government, only one year's value was given for a living to a lay patron, but I venture to think that any Member of the Committee who studies

    1977
    the case of Scotch patronage as debated in this House in 1874 will find that there is really no analogy between the two cases. In the first place, private patronage in Scotland had always been regarded as a modern accretion. Twice it was abolished in the course of two centuries, and twice, against the wish of public opinion in Scotland, it was restored by Parliament, and, as every Member of this Committee must know, its restoration led to a whole series of difficulties culminating in the secession of Dr. Chalmers and his followers in the middle of the nineteenth century.
    It therefore came about that when Parliament discussed the question in 1874 and decided that private patronage should be abolished its abolition was, first of all, in accordance with Scottish history; secondly, in accordance with the unanimous demand of the Church as expressed in representative Assemblies; thirdly, it was in accordance with the practice of the Crown, which possessed 360 livings, but though the Crown might have directly appointed, it allowed election in all those 360 livings; and, fourthly, it was in direct accordance with the desire of most of the great holders of private patronage. In one instance the Duke of Argyll, who held ninety advowsons, declared in the House of Lords that he was very anxious that he should be relieved from the responsibility for these appointments and was quite willing to make over his patronage without any compensation at all. The result comes to this, that what the Member of the Government who introduced the Bill in the House of Lords said was absolutely true, that "there was not the slightest similitude whatever in the position of lay patronage in the two countries." Having touched upon these two precedents, let me come to the case of Wales. In Wales there are 290 livings in the hands of laymen—38 livings in the diocese of St. Asaph, 26 in the diocese of Bangor, 123 in the diocese of Llandaff, and 112 in the diocese of St. David's. I have a list of them here, and I find that most of them are small livings of no very great value. possibly averaging about £200 a year. What will happen if the provisions of this Sub-section are carried through without Amendment? The owners of these livings will receive a very inadequate compensation. It would be particularly hard in certain cases, to one or two of which I will draw the attention of the Committee. Take, for instance,
    1978
    the case of the parish of Seven Sisters, in the diocese of Llandaff, where a certain Churchman has quite recently built a church at the cost of £6,000, and has built a vicarage and endowed the parish with £360 a year.
    Mr. LLEWELYN WILLIAMS: Who is he?
    Mr. HOARE: I can give the hon. and learned Gentleman the name if he desires it.
    Mr. LLEWELYN WILLIAMS: I know him.
    Mr. HOARE: What would happen if the Sub-section went through in its present form would be that this gentleman would lose the patronage of this living, which has only recently been handed to him, and would only receive one year's value of the living for the very large sum he has recently spent upon it. There is another case also in the diocese of Llandaff, that of Llansawel. There, again, a private benefactor has recently endowed a parish, and under this Sub-section would receive most inadequate compensation for what he has lately done. Take another group of cases, where livings have been transferred from private persons to trustees on the condition of receiving grants from the Ecclesiastical Commission. There, so far as I can see, under Sub-section 2 there will be no compensation at all. That point comes up more directly upon the next Subsection, when I will put before the Committee certain specific cases. What is important in the consideration of what is or is not fair compensation is the actual practice which has been adopted by the Government in the past. Under the Iord Chancellor's Augmentation Act, 1863, the. Crown can sell livings, provided that the proceeds of those livings go to the augmentation of the Endowments. I asked the Home Secretary a question in the summer with reference to cases in which this practice has been adopted and the answer which he gave me was as follows:—There have now been seven cases in which the Crown has sold livings under the Lord Chancellor's Augmentation Act.
    Those livings are, first of all, Grosmont, in the county of Monmouth, where the gross income of the living is £222 17s. 2d. The price which the Crown received was £l,200, in other words, about six years' purchase. The next living was that of Herbrandston, in the county of Pembroke, of the gross value of £264 a year. There the price paid was £2,200 or about nine years' purchase.

    1979
    The next living is that of Ilston, in the county of Glamorgan, of the value of £284 13s. a year, the price paid being £2,222, or eight years' purchase. The next living is Pwllerochan, in the county of Pembroke, with a gross income of £203 14s. 4d. a year, and the price given was £l,100. The next living is Kegidoc, in the county of Denbigh, where the income is £292 12s. 6d., and the price given was £2,500. Montgomery, in the diocese of Hereford, with a value of £516 l1s. 9d., and the sum given was £4,000. In St. Martin, in the diocese of St. Asaph, where the value is £373 a year, and the price given was £3,370. In other words, when the Crown was selling livings to private persons it received, I suppose, on an average eight years' purchase. What makes the case even more marked is the portion of the Act under which these livings were sold which establishes the right of the private person who has bought them. It conies in the Second Schedule of the Lord Chancellor's Augmentation Act. It is in these words:
    "Know all men, that by virtue of the power given to me by the Statute passed and in consideration that the value of the property hereby granted is required by the State and duly secured and paid, I, the undersigned A. B., Lord High Chancellor of Great Britain, do hereby appoint and grant unto C. D. and his heirs all the advowson. etc., subject to the present incumbency to hold under the said C. D., his heirs and assigns for ever for an absolute and indefeasible estate of inheritance."
    With these words in the Act and with the actual prices which the Crown has received for its own livings it seems to me to be nothing short of unjust to say to these private persons, "having given 'these seven or eight years' purchase, and having in the Act this specific statement that the right to your property is indefeasible we will only allow you a maximum of one year's value in compensation." Further, it seems to me, too, to be in direct contradiction to many statements which have been made by Members of the Front Bench during the course of these Debates. We have surely been told often that anyone who can show that he has a legal interest in property shall receive full compensation for it. That was the ground upon which the case of the curates was refused last Friday, that they had not gat a legal right. But here
    1980
    you have the case of men who, whether we approve of the system or not, have an unquestioned legal right through the whole course of our legislation and actual usage, and I cannot see the justice of your proposals to give them less than full value for their right. I do not regard this as one of the most important Clauses in the Bill, nor do I regard my Amendment as in any way a critical one to its safety. It is not critical to the safety of the Bill. It seems to me to be chiefly valuable as providing a further example of the meanness of the compensation Clauses in the Bill generally. It looks as if the one aim and object of the Government was to get as much money in their hands as ever they can. The general question as to whether private patronage is right or is wrong does not come up at all, and the only point to which I wish to draw attention is that this property is recognised legally as indefeasible, and on that account I claim that the Commissioners should be allowed a free hand to settle what is full and fair compensation for the property which the provisions in Clause 1 will take.
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: The hon. Member read out a list, which was perfectly accurate, of livings which had more or less recently been sold under the Lord Chancellor's Augmentation Act, but he forgot to mention that the prices given in every case for sale by persons who purchased these advowsons went in entirety for the benefit of the benefice concerned.
    Mr. HOARE: I said so.
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: I did not hear it. I am sorry. What I think was not mentioned was that from one's own knowledge of that kind of transaction the purchaser of an adowson in a case of that sort, knowing that the price which he gives for the adowson goes not to the advantage of some individual for his own private benefit, is willing to give a higher price than he otherwise would in order that he may increase the Endowment of the living in which he personally for one reason or another is interested. I think that must not be forgotten, and I think if you took each of these seven or eight cases the hon. Member has alluded to that would be found to be a very substantial consideration in the price paid for the individual living.
    To come to the actual Amendment. The hon. Gentleman said the provisions of the Clause are very complicated, and he proposes an Amendment which will very

    1981
    greatly simplify them. The time under the Clause was only six months, and he wishes to get rid of the maximum which is included in the words of the Clause. His Amendment provides neither maximum nor minimum, but leaves the whole thing to be settled by the Welsh Commissioners. It is quite impossible in considering this matter to forget what was the experience of the Irish case. There was a Report by the Commissioners of Church Temporalities in Ireland upon this very point, and they pointed out that they had been compelled to pay very large sums indeed, far greater than their own judgment would have led them to pay, and far greater than they thought the presentation was worth to the patron, and an enormous sum, which the hon. Gentleman rightly placed at something like £780,000, had to be paid away in order to compensate private patrons for livings which in that case had practically had no market value at all up to the time of the compensation being paid to these lay patrons. I am one of those who think that if it was proposed as a new thing to compensate persons who had the right to appoint persons in holy orders to take spiritual charge of a number of people collected together, there is not a Member of the House who would say it was a desirable practice. In fact, I believe the system is, in many of its aspects, as repulsive a system as could possibly be found. But what happened in the case of the Irish Church when it was free from the system of private patronage? It did not even leave the patronage in the hands of the diocese. It took it entirely out of the hands of any private individual, and a diocesan board was arranged for, consisting of members partly clerical and partly lay, who took over the patronage and administered it partly in conformity with the needs of the diocese and partly in conformity with the wishes of the actual parishioners.
    Here we have a system of private patronage in existence in Wales which, I think, no single person would introduce for the first time if it was proposed to do so to-night, and the hon. Member has pointed out that there are 299 of such private owners. If this were compensated for on the Irish scale it would cost something like £750,000, to be taken either from the public Exchequer or from the revenues of the Church. I cannot contemplate any proposal under all the many Amendments which have been presented to the Bill which would be more harmful
    1982
    to the Church if payment was to be made from Church funds, or more unjust if they were to be taken from the pocket of the taxpayer of this country. The hon. Member quoted the case of a new church built by private munificence and endowed handsomely, and he said, "You are going to deprive the patron of this church of the right to present in future, and you are only going to give him one year's compensation." I think the first person who would repudiate that it had ever been in his mind that he should receive more than the merest nominal acknowledgment of his right to present in the future would be the person who had so munificently endowed this church. The hon. Gentleman did not for a moment contend that when he was endowing this church, with full knowledge that this Bill was in existence and was coming before the House, the question of compensation to him for taking away his right of patronage in the future entered into his mind for a single moment. I understood the hon. Gentleman to ask—why is it necessary to deprive these persons of their right of patronage? You cannot contemplate private persons presenting hereafter persons in Holy Orders to livings in a Disestablished Church.
    Mr. HOARE: There are cases in Ireland where that does go on still. The right to-do so is specially preserved under the Irish Church Act.
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: Would the hon. Gentleman contend that any private patron desires to do that in Wales? I do not believe there is a single person connected with the Church in Wales who would desire such an arrangement for a moment, and I shall be surprised if any such claim is put forward by anyone who has a right to speak from the point of view of the Church of England in Wales—anyone living in Wales and knowing the wishes of the people there. The hon. Gentleman rather argued as if we were making no recognition of the legal right. There is a right, and we are making recognition of it. You may say that the recognition is inadequate. I think a person who claims to have personal property in the right of presentation ought not to be given more than, at the outside, one year of the yearly value of the living. He is compensated amply, and more than amply, by the receipt of that sum.
    Mr. ALFRED LYTTELTON: I do not wish to speak with any great enthusiasm

    1983
    in favour of private patronage, but it must be remembered that this Bill abolishes private patronage in Wales, and if it is the view of anybody that it is for the public benefit to do so, manifestly on every principle ever recognised in this House or outside compensation is due. That is recognised by the law, by statute, and by universal practice wherever there is a legal interest. That recognition is made by one of the provisions of the Bill by giving one year's purchase to the lay patrons who are deprived. The right hon. Gentleman failed absolutely to answer the extraordinarily cogent case made by my hon. Friend (Mr. Hoare), not for prescribing large compensation, but for leaving to the Welsh Commissioners—the nominees of the Government, men whom they are never tired of extolling in this House as people who are likely to be the very quintessence of justice—the decision of the question of how much compensation the lay patrons should have. My hon. Friend's proposal is that that should be left to their unfettered discretion. I do not think that a rag of argument has been brought forward against that proposal. There was absolutely nothing said by the right hon. Gentleman so far as I could gather against it. The right hon. Gentleman referred to the system which he supposed, I am afraid not accurately, was set up in Ireland, and which resulted in exaggerated compensation being given in that country. The case in Ireland was not parallel to the one we are now dealing with. The Bill in Ireland left this subject of compensation to the Irish Commissioners, subject to arbitration. The Temporalities Commission, who reported on this matter afterwards, never said a word against the Irish Commission, but deplored the exaggerated values given by arbitration. What has that to do with the present case? Nothing. If the matter had been left to the Irish Commission, I venture to assume that no such result would have ensued. I think some of us know something of the somewhat generous hand with which Irish Commissioners give in making their awards. The single argument given by the right hon. Gentleman in respect of the Irish case therefore falls absolutely to pieces.
    The proposal in the Amendment is that the Welsh Commissioners themselves should have unfettered discretion. What could be fairer? In the observations made by the right hon. Gentleman he took cases
    1984
    which were decided by my hon. Friend (Sir A. Cripps) under the Lord Chancellor's Augmentation Act of 1863. The right hon. Gentleman admitted with perfect accuracy that my hon. Friend gave no less than seven cases of actual purchase, each averaging about seven or eight years' purchase. The right hon. Gentleman said it would make the Church in Wales unpopular if such generosity were shown there. He said nobody would advocate so much as that, but there is an enormous margin between a maximum of one year's purchase and eight years' purchase. What argument did the right hon. Gentleman adduce for cutting down that which practice has shown to be the period in England? One wishes, especially in this connection, to be entirely reasonable. If I were the tribunal, or if I were appearing before the tribunal, I should not myself advocate eight years' purchase. But that is a different thing from saying that you are only to give a maximum of one year's purchase. Reference has been made to the case of the Seven Sisters Church. It is perfectly right, as the right hon. Gentleman said, that it is a matter of conjecture whether the munificent en-dower of that living would wish compensation for his own private purposes. But when he has spent no less than £20,000 on the equipment of the living, I think he might consider himself entitled to some payment, so that he might give it to the Church. There is no earthly reason for saying that a man who has spent such a sum as that should not be given the alternative of taking from the Government, or the taxpayers if you please, such sum as will enable him to make a large contribution to the Church which is at present receiving such hard measure. Let me refer to a matter with respect to which no answer whatever has been given. There are hon. Gentlemen opposite who hold the opinion, and I dare say there are many on this side, that by abolishing private patronage no great harm is done, and that perhaps a public good is done. But if a public good is done at the expense of private property, do not present it in the eyes of the community as the act of somebody wishing to do good, and niggardly grudging the compensation given for the private patronage.
    Lord HUGH CECIL: I listened with great interest to the speech of the right hon. Gentleman, and I thought there was the tribute due to him which is always due to those who are struggling with very

    1985
    great difficulties. Though I respected the zeal and devotion with which he undertook his particular task, I cannot say that he succeeded very well. Indeed, his speech was altogether irrelevant and altogether ineffective. No part of it combined the elements of relevancy and effect. The first argument he used was that people who had given from religious motives large prices to buy what Parliament described as an indefeasible right, were not entitled to receive compensation, except on a merely nominal scale for the right they had purchased. That is to say, if a person has not only bought an indefeasible right, but is acting generously into the bargain, his right may be treated with less respect than is due to a man of business who is driving a hard bargain. The right hon. Gentleman cited the Irish example, but from his own speech it appeared that the Irish Commissioners did not approve of the prices paid, and yet he adduces that Irish case to show that the Welsh Commissioners ought not to have power to decide the compensation in this case. On the face of his argument it was contradictory. Thirdly, he gave a general discourse on the evils of buying and selling advowsons. It may be an undesirable practice, but not only is it undoubted that people have bought and sold advowsons as matters of property, but the Government admit that there is a legal right in them. You cannot say that the Government is in a dilemma. If it is Simony, you ought not to give a penny, but if it is not, you ought to give fair compensation. But the Government say, "We do recognise the legal right." They do indeed, and I wonder if even in comic opera there ever was a more comic system of doing it. These arc the words of the Bill:—
    "…pay in compensation for the extinction of that right such an amount as the Welsh Commissioners may think just, so however that the total amount paid by way of compensation in respect of any benefice shall not exceed one year's emoluments of the benefice taken on an average of the three years immediately before the passing of this Act."
    8.0 P.M.
    The saving Clause can only have any meaning or force whatever when the Welsh Commissioners think that the price is unjustly small, and when they would be anxious to give more. Was there ever a more absurd way of recognising a legal right than that? To put in a provision securing by law that injustice shall be
    1986
    done, and to secure that what the Commissioners think injustice shall actually take place is to do something which the Government ought to be ashamed to put in a Section of the Bill. The Government inform the Commissioners that they shall be entitled to estimate what is just, and then forbid them carrying that into effect. That is surely of all absurdities the most scandalous. How ought this matter to be dealt with? Surely it ought to be dealt with by saying, if you please, that no such legal right ought to have been allowed to accrue. The State has admitted the right for centuries, and it has said that you must pay a fair sum to those who suffer by the abolition of what ought never, perhaps, to have been set up. My hon. Friend adduced the case of the Lord Chancellor's livings, but there are other similar cases which are overwhelming. It is actually the case that people have invested money for their relatives by purchasing advowsons. I know an English case where a man bought the value of an advowson with the view to its being kept and sold hereafter for the benefit of his wife and children. I do not think that that is at all a desirable thing to do, but many people do it and they do it lawfully with the full consent and approbation of the State, and it is an outrage to come down on them and to say, "We arc only going to give you nominal compensation." My hon. Friend proposes that the Welsh Commission shall determine. They will determine no doubt in the light of modern opinion, which we all more or less share, that this is an undesirable practice, and it is not at all likely that they will give exorbitant or extravagant compensation. Probably, if they err at all, they will err on the side of being too near, but at all events let us leave it to them to determine what is fair, and not put in this provision as to a maximum standard above which by Act of Parliament they are not to be allowed to go.
    Mr. H. T. CAWLEY: The Noble Lord has said that the Commissioners are not to be allowed to give what is fair. I suggest that it is not at all improper to have words very similar to these in an Act of Parliament to lay down distinctly what this House thinks is just, and that what is aimed at is to show that in the view of this House nothing more than one year's purchase should be paid. Personally, I should like nothing more than a nominal some to be paid. I do not think there is

    1987
    justly more than a nominal value in these advowsons. In the first place, we have the cases where the money was paid by people who knew that it was going to swell the revenues of the Church, and they secured that object.
    Lord HUGH CECIL: These people got an indefeasible right by Act of Parliament.
    Mr. CAWLEY: That is quite true, but for the actual money which they pay they have already got a consideration other than the right to presentation.
    Mr. HOARE: You are taking away from them by the Bill both what they gave and what they got.
    Mr. CAWLEY: I do not agree for a moment. The bulk of the Endowments are still left. I do think it is not absolutely clear in this Bill where that money does go, but it is money that was paid recently. It is not ancient Endowment, and if it is not clear where that money does go, then it should be made clear in the Bill that the money does go to the Church. On the principles of this Bill I think that this money ought to go to the Church. There is then another case in which money is paid for these advowsons. I think, no doubt, people do buy these advowsons in order to keep them out of the hands of other people, and for that reason in those cases they have got under this Bill that object achieved, because they will be in the hands of the Church body, and not in the hands of members of another Church. The real reason why I think the amount should be nominal is this: If the person who presents presents the fittest person there is no value at all. If he presents a relative who is not a fit person he is doing something which is a gross wrong, and something which this House has no right whatever to recognise. There is no right to compensate a man for a power to present the wrong person. I agree there is something in the feeling that a man has that he is the fittest person to present to a living. That is as far as I can see the total value of an advowson, and I think that that right is adequately compensated by one year's purchase.
    Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: Perhaps the Home Secretary will tell me what is going to happen to the money which is derived from the sale of those advowsons under Lord Westbury's Act. We have been told that we need not give a very full compensation to those people who bought
    1988
    under that Act and gave eight or nine years' purchase, on the average, because they gave more inasmuch as the money was going to augment the stipend of the clergy. Is it clear that that money will be confiscated under the Bill? It will come under the First Schedule as far as I can see: "Property vested in the Ecclesiastical Commissioners which is deemed to be Welsh ecclesiastical property." It will come down, as far as I can see, in Subsection (2) of that Schedule:—
    "Property which belongs to, or is appropriated to the use of, any ecclesiastical office or cathedral corporation in the Church in Wales, or the holder of any such office as such, and which is or has been derived from sources other than Grants made by the Ecclesiastical Commissioners."
    It is money now appropriated to the use of certain benefices, but is derived from proceeds other than grants made by the Ecclesiastical Commissioners. The question arises, Will it not be saved as private benefactions? I submit that it must, because it was money given for the purpose of an ancient property. It was derived from money which was the product of or from the sale of an ancient property. It was not new money. Therefore, it is perfectly clear that the decision on this point will affect very much the view we take on this Amendment. As the hon. Member opposite admitted, if this money is to be confiscated, the whole position is changed, and another Amendment ought to be introduced to safeguard this particular money if the present Clause is persisted in. I want it to be made perfectly clear whether this money is to be confiscated or not. Otherwise the position is most absurd. The Chancellor of the Duchy argued that there was no injustice in giving only one year's compensation to people who purchased an indefeasible right and paid six or seven years' purchase, because they got their quid pro quo elsewhere, because they have the sense that they benefited the Church. But this Bill takes that benefit-away. At all events, the Committee are entitled to know where we stand. If this money, derived from the sale of these advowsons under Lord Westbury's Act, is confiscated under the Bill, some alteration must be made in the present Clause.
    Mr. McKENNA: The hon. Gentleman has put a very fair question. Inasmuch as this money was given out of private resources, and that the value of the thing that was bought was for the benefit of the

    1989
    Church at the time, we hold the view that this money, after the Act comes into operation, should go to the Church, and if the Bill is not clear upon that point it shall be made clear. There is no wish, nor has there been the slightest wish, on the part of the Government or on the part of any of my hon. Friends to claim this money. Our view has always been that under Lord Westbury's Act excessive prices, as we all know far beyond what were usually given in the open market, were given for these advowsons, deliberately with the intention of endowing the Church. If the Bill is not clear upon the point I will consult my advisers on the subject, though I do not admit that it is not clear. But should I be advised hereafter that for the sake of safety it is desirable to put an Amendment in paragraph (2) of the First Schedule, such Amendments shall be made. I will give the hon. Gentleman an undertaking upon that point. I agree so far there is some substance in the argument that is being addressed to us. The point put forward by the Noble Lord is absolutely without foundation. He says what precedent is there for such a proceeding as this? That if they are entitled to anything they are entitled to full legal value, and that Parliament has never heard of such a proposal as fixing the limit upon what he describes as the sense of justice of the Commissioners. In this Bill we have followed the precise precedent of the Conservative Government. In 1874 a Conservative Government in the Scottish case had to decide the value of the Scottish advowsons. The hon. Member for Chelsea, the whole of whose speech I regret I did not hear, referred to the Scotch case. That is a precise precedent for what we are doing.
    Mr. HOARE: The point of what I said was that there was no analogy whatever, but that there was simply a case of contrast between the two.
    Mr. McKENNA: The hon. Member endeavoured to distinguish between the two cases, but the facts of the two cases are very much the same. We are all agreed that the sale of an advowson is an undesirable thing, and that when we Disestablish the Church in Wales we ought to get rid of this anomaly. The old outstanding question is how much money, if any, ought to be paid. We do not wish to be wiser than what is written, and we refer to the precedents. We have two precedents, the Scotch case and the Irish case. We find as an historical fact, which anyone can
    1990
    verify for himself, that in the Irish case the question of settling the amount to be paid for these advowsons gave the very greatest difficulty to the Irish Commissioners. We do not desire, if we can avoid it, to give the same difficulty to the Welsh Commissioners. In the Irish case I think upwards of three and a quarter million pounds of public money was paid in order to buy out 331 advowsons. I know it is difficult to say to the Commissioners what price ought to be paid as the value at any moment of these gifts, but no doubt if the matter were left open in the Bill the Commissioners would be bound to have regard to the price paid under Lord Westbury's Act. We want to avoid that. We think that Lord Westbury's Act affords no guide at all, and we say the prices paid under Lord Westbury's Act were paid for the purpose of Re-endowing the Church. We say that the value ought to be no more than the nominal value, and that in no case should the value be more than one year's emoluments, to be given for these advowsons. I think that limit is reasonable, and I hope that hon. Members will abate their interest in this subject when I assure them that so far as the sales of the Lord Chancellor's livings under the Lord Westbury Act are concerned, they shall go to the Disestablished Church.
    Mr. HUME-WILLIAMS: I have listened with the closest attention to the Home Secretary, but he does not seem to me to have touched the question raised by the Amendment. In this Clause you recognise the existence of a legal right. It seems to me that you have felt yourselves obliged to recognise the existence of that legal right, though you do not like it. You have not got the courage to abolish it altogether, and so you compromise with your conscience and determine that although you must recognise the existence of this legal right you will give as little compensation as possible. It is common knowledge that under the protection of the law this right to presentation exists; sometimes it has been bought, and it has been regarded as a property. If you thought that wrong you should have stopped it. But you have not stopped it. The thing exists, and is recognised as a species of property, and you cannot do away with it altogether without some form of compensation. The body whom you have appointed you boast of as an independent body of men, in whose hands you place the duty of doing what you say is

    1991
    "just." If that be so, why limit it, and limit it to such a sum as one year's emolument, if you have any confidence in these gentlemen? Why use the word "just"—it is an unfortunate one for you—give such compensation as seems to them "just"—if you limit the amount. The cases must differ tremendously. In one case, it may be, that a very few pounds would be ample, while there may be other cases in which more would be required. A case was cited by the hon. Member for Chelsea (Mr. Hoare), in which a man had recently spent as much as £20,000 in the interest of the Church, and who may be bitterly aggrieved because the Church, as a whole, is being Disestablished and Disendowed. He may have been perfectly willing to endow the Church in the circumstances in which he did so, and he may be extremely unwilling to have this presentation taken from him.
    The Commissioners might think it just, or they might not think it just, but if you have any confidence in them at all, in the name of common sense why limit their powers in the way you seek to do in this Clause? I cannot follow the present attitude of the Government unless they have in mind the thunders of the so-called revolting Welsh Members, which have not yet been heard. In fact, the only splendid and heroic figure that remains is that of the hon. and learned Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Llewelyn Williams), who occasionally stands and flashes defiant lightnings at the Home Secretary, and carries his independence almost to an extreme. A little time ago in my hearing he publicly announced in this House that things had come to such a pass that in future he should vote as he pleased. That was such a startling departure. I presume, from the ordinary practice of himself and his Friends that he justified the emphasis which he gave it. I think that the suggestion made by my hon. Friend is just, and I press it upon the Home Secretary.
    Mr. MONTAGUE BARLOW: With regard to the question of the Scotch Church, the Mover of the Amendment made it quite clear that there was no parallel between the Scotch case and the present case. The only parallel which he adduced was the fixed maximum rate of one year's purchase. What are the facts with regard to the Scottish case? The matter was very fully debated in the House of Lords, where the Duke of Richmond, in the course of his speech made these three
    1992
    points quite clear. First, he said the English and Scotch cases are not parallel; secondly, in Scotland the presentation at that time was only worth one year's purchase, while in England it was worth sixteen years' purchase; thirdly, he went on to say, in Scotland there were then 300 Crown livings, and 1,100 private patrons, of whom at least one-half did not exercise their private right of patronage at all. The Duke of Argyll, in a very strong speech, dealt with the subject. He said:—
    "The only complaint I make is that in assigning one year's stipend of the living as the amount of compensation. my Noble Friend is giving patrons very much more than they could ever get in the market."
    Nobody can suggest that of the Government proposals of to-day. He went on to allude to the parishioners' right of veto, which imposed limitations on the patron's rights. The right of veto which existed in Scotland gave to the residents in a parish the right to refuse the nomination of the patrons, and, owing to the existence of that right, the patron's right was unsaleable. In fact, he used these words:—
    "And the qualifications were so serious that patronage has practically become unsaleable. I hardly ever hear of livings being sold at all. No doubt patronage is transferred with an estate or exchanged for other patronage. I have never heard of their being sold for money, and if they were they would bring nothing."
    It is perfectly idle after that evidence as to the Scottish case to suggest that there is a parallel as between the Scottish precedent of 1874 and the one year's limitation proposed in this Bill. It is true that in the Benefices Act of 1898 there were very considerable limitations intended to enforce the trust character of advowsons, because advowson has been admitted to be a kind of property which is saddled with a trust, and the Act of 1898 did a good deal to emphasise the trust character of advowsons. It is quite right that you have to an extent restricted the property value of the advowson, but it is quite clear to anyone of any conscience that the market value of the advowson is considerably more than one year's purchase suggested in this Bill.
    The Chancellor of the Duchy referred to the case of the Irish Commissioners, and said that they complained that the arbitration proceedings under the Act had forced up the price too high. It is notorious that under the Act the Commissioners themselves, quite apart from any case of arbitration, were going to propose eight years' purchase, and therefore the fact that arbitration forced the number of years' purchase up to ten does not in any way entitle the Chancellor of the Duchy to

    1993
    use that, because the Commissioners themselves would have given a great deal more than is proposed on this occasion. The Chancellor of the Duchy said, "Look at the case of Ireland, which did not revert when it had the chance to private patronage." I have had, as many interested in Church matters have had, to consider the Irish case pretty fully, and especially Irish patronage practice. I will say this, that there are many who have reason to think that the system in Ireland at present suffers from considerable defects. I am not one of those who agrees with the present arrangements in England with regard to advowsons. I would like to see them seriously modified, if not altered altogether, but the two Royal Commissions that sat within the last few years and inquired into advowsons both said the same thing, namely, that the present system of private patronage does secure an infusion of new life in various parts of England, into parishes which other systems do not secure. When the Chancellor of the Duchy said that the Irish Church did not revert to private patronage, he leaves it to be assumed that they have got a perfect system, but he appears to be quite ignorant of the criticism which is levelled at the Irish system by those who have to work under it, namely, that you have a system by which you do not get fresh blood into the diocese, but that all promotions and appointments are of the nature of diocesan arrangements.
    I should just like to answer one or two points on the general question of patronage raised by the Chancellor of the Duchy; and then I will put a case to the Home Secretary, and I want him to consider it in connection with the point he has conceded as to Lord Westbury's Act. The great point made by the Chancellor of the Duchy was that patronage was impossible or unthinkable in the theoretic realm of the free Church. I ventured to interject, "What is the fact?" Under Section 70 of the Irish Act the rights of private patrons in regard to endowed chapelries where the money was given privately, or as the result of private benefaction, were expressly secured and maintained. You have to this day in Ireland this very right of private patronage exercised in certain cases, a right which the Chancellor of the Duchy said was theoretically incompatible with the existence of a free Church altogether. Not only that, but it is a very curious fact, which like a good many others seems to have escaped the notice of hon. Gentlemen opposite, that when this matter was
    1994
    discussed in the Bill of 1895, and when attention was drawn to this matter, and to the notice of the present Prime Minister, who was in charge of that Bill, he at once said, "Very well, we must make an arrangement when we come to the Clause to see that a similar provision is made in the Welsh Bill to safeguard the rights of private patrons, who have given money for the endowment of churches under the same conditions as money was given under Section 70 of the Irish Act." That Clause was never reached in the Bill of 1895 for certain very obvious reasons relating to the very happy demise of that Bill. The fact remains and is on record, and I can give the reference, that the Prime Minister said he would make that concession and that it was obviously right to make it.
    We are told that it is impossible to have private patronage in a free Church. Why not? The condition of things which made old canon lawyers lay down the provision as to advowsons from which our present law as to adowson is derived, was this, that it was a perfectly right and proper principle and one which accorded with the facts of human life for the Church to say if any man comes forward and builds and endows a church he is a proper person to have the right of suggesting to the bishop the name of a man who would be a fit and proper clerk to discharge the duties. The bishop has a veto, and the arrangement is one which, both in equity and common sense, is perfectly right and reasonable. Something very like that is growing up in the Free Colonial Churches at this very day—that is to say, those who have by their acts of munificence helped to endow the church have their wishes considered in the nomination of a fit and proper person.
    Mr. McKENNA: Does the hon. Gentleman say perpetual right of nomination?
    Mr. BARLOW: So far as the instance I have in mind goes the law of the new Churches is not sufficiently developed on the point. The case put against us was that under no circumstances ought a private person to have any right of nomination whatever. I say that the growing practice of Free Churches is to recognise some right of nomination. How far it goes at the moment is not quite clear.
    Mr. McKENNA: There is nothing of the sort.
    Mr. BARLOW: I beg the Home Secretary's pardon; I speak about things of

    1995
    which I know, and I tell him there is a practice of this kind of which I can give him several instances.
    Mr. McKENNA: Perpetual right of nomination?
    Mr. BARLOW: I did not say perpetual.
    Mr. McKENNA: An advowson is the perpetual right.
    Mr. BARLOW: I do not think it is necessary for the Home Secretary to instruct me as to the nature of an advowson. What I do say is this, that a position of affairs where you recognise in the private individual some right of nomination is not a state of affairs incompatible with a Free Church.
    Mr. T. E. HARVEY: Will the hon. Member inform us to what Free Church he refers?
    Mr. BARLOW: I can give instances, both in Canada and in Australia.
    Mr. LLEWELYN WILLIAMS: Episcopal Churches?
    Mr. BARLOW: Episcopal Churches. That does not make any difference. For the purposes of this argument an Episcopal Church is a Free Church. In the Garden City at Hampstead you will find an arrangement recently made very much on these lines. Now with regard to Lord Westbury's Act, the Home Secretary has stated that he will see that a Clause is inserted securing to the Church the capital sums given under that Act, and which went under the Act to the Endowment of the Churches in connection with which the money was paid. There are many cases of a kind not at all dissimilar under the Church Buildings Act and the New Parishes Act, where money was given in connection with the building and endowing of the Churches, and where in consideration of that money having been given, the patronage was assigned to certain persons. It will be put against me that, generally speaking, the patronage in these cases is put into trust. I hope we shall be allowed to discuss the next Clause relating to public trustees. It is extremely difficult under a recent decision of a Court of Appeal to say what is a public trust of patronage and what is not. If that decision is correct, and no steps have been taken to amend the law as laid down by it, these so-called trusts are not trusts at all, and the individuals hold as individuals and not as trustees. There must be a good many cases of
    1996
    trusts of this character in connection with the Welsh Church. Not only so, but there are a certain limited number of cases where individuals who have given funds for Churches in connection with their Endowment or construction have had the patronage handed over to them directly. If money given under Lord Westbury's Act constitutes a strong case, and I gather that the Home Secretary thinks it docs, these cases, where money is given in connection with a particular Church and the patronage or advowson has been handed over to individuals as a result of their gifts, constitute equally strong cases. I hope that the Amendment when drawn will be in such wide terms that it will include cases of this kind, if there are any, and I believe there are, within the area of this Bill.
    Mr. LLEWELYN WILLIAMS: This Debate has brought out one or two very extraordinary facts. The first that struck me was that the Noble Lord the Member for Oxford University (Lord Hugh Cecil) should have got up to defend a practice which I always understood his school of ecclesiastical thought looked upon as simony. I fully expected him to denounce the whole practice, instead of which he denounced the Government for being stingy in recognising the value of the private presentation of benefices. The other fact is so extraordinary that it is worth putting on record. We have had, almost for the first time, the private secretary of a Cabinet Minister speaking in support of this Bill. I know it is not the first time the hon. Member has done so; but it is such a rare occurrence that it quite startled me. It also so startled the Opposition that they kept interrupting my hon. Friend all the time he was speaking. I hope that his excellent example will be followed, and that in the near future we shall have, shall I say the private secretary to the Prime Minister and the private secretary to the First Lord of the Admiralty, and other private secretaries. Who knows but that by the time the discussion of this Bill comes to an end we may get an Ecclesiastical Commission appointed by the Government standing up in favour of some Clause or other of this Bill? It may be that we will have the right hon. Gentleman, the Member for the Spen Valley Division (Sir T. Whittaker), who has received honours and dignities at the hand of the Government since they adopted the principle of Disestablishment and Disendowment.
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (Mr. Maclean): This is rather wide of the particular Amendment under discussion.
    Mr. LLEWELYN WILLIAMS: I will bring that portion of my remarks to a close. I heartily concur with what the Home Secretary said in regard to cases under Lord Westbury's Act. I confess that I thought those cases were provided for under the Bill. If they are not, every Welshman will agree that provision should be made in regard to them. An hon. and learned Member opposite taunted me with the fact that I had attacked the Home Secretary. I have never said a word against any proposal of the Home Secretary as adumbrated in the Bill. I have been loyal to the Bill; I have been almost too loyal to it; that is the head and front of my offending. I am delighted to hear that the Home Secretary, with his usual genial good nature, is willing to meet any possible fear that may exist on the other side with regard to the fate of those gentlemen who became patrons of livings under Lord Westbury's Act. But I take leave to doubt very much whether any of these private patrons in Wales wish to be compensated further than they are compensated by the Bill. I am glad to see one representative of a Welsh constituency on the other side who takes sufficient interest in this portion of the Bill to be present during its discussion. I would like to ask him whether he has received any protest from any private patron in Wales about the provisions of this Clause. Personally, I have never heard a single such protest; I have never seen a letter in any paper; and if my hon. Friend opposite knows of any such instances I should be glad if he would give us the benefit of them. I believe that private patrons are amply satisfied with the provisions of this Clause. What happens now? My knowledge of the private patronage of ecclesiastical livings is limited, but the little that I know tends to make me believe that private patrons do not like to exercise the right of presentation. They have outgrown the musty ecclesiasticism to which the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite (Mr. Barlow) seems to pay a tribute even at this time of day. What has happened every time that a private living has become vacant within my experience of late years is that the private patron has handed over the patronage to the bishop—a very proper way of doing it. When
    1998
    hon. Members talk about precedents, especially the Noble Lord the Member for Oxford University, I confess I am a bit amazed. There are, so far as I know, three precedents only, two of which have already been mentioned in the course of the Debate. The last one was in 1874, and was the precedent which the Home Secretary has already alluded to. The provisions of the Act of 1874, passed by a Conservative Government at a time when the Conservative Government was under the leadership of one of the greatest of its leaders, Mr. Disraeli, contained a provision precisely similar to the provision of this Clause. The provision in the Irish Act of 1869 was different, but everybody agrees that that precedent was one which ought never to be followed again in any circumstances by this House. There is another precedent, a very much older one, the precedent where Parliament deprived the Roman Catholics who were private patrons of their right to present the livings. The first Act, if I remember rightly, was passed in the time of James I. There was another in the time of William and Mary, another in the time of Queen Anne, and the last was either in the reign of George II. or George III. What was done with private patronage in the case of Roman Catholics was the taking of it away and giving it partly to the University of Oxford and partly to the University of Cambridge.
    So far as I know, not a penny was paid in compensation for the invasion of that right, so that Parliament has never looked upon advowsons as being private property in the ordinary sense of the term. In view of the fact that private patrons today in Wales have never made any protest against the provisions of this Bill, I do not see why the Government should be asked to depart from precedent. As a matter of fact, this is only another instance of the way in which hon. Members opposite want to deprive the Welsh people of what belongs to them. They say now that they are very anxious to look after the private patron. As I pointed out, that is not the history of the question of this country. Mr. Disraeli once said in this House that "treason to be successful must be patrician." I am beginning to believe that if Disendowment is to be thorough, it ought to be carried out by aristocracy. Because in the time of James I. and of William and Mary—
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I do not quite recognise the relevancy of the hon. Member's remarks.
    Mr. LLEWELYN WILLIAMS: Well, Mr. Maclean, with great deference—[HoN. MEMBERS: "Order."]
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: They would possibly be in order on a discussion that the Clause stand part, but not on this Amendment.
    Mr. LLEWELYN WILLIAMS: I was just referring to the fact that in the time of James I. and of William and Mary that there was no talk of giving compensation to private patrons.
    Mr. BARLOW: The hon. Member challenged me on this point of no compensation. What happened was that so long as the living remained in Catholic hands the right of presentation was given to either Oxford or Cambridge, but the property in the living remained in the hands of the owner. Therefore, if he disposed of it, he required the purchase price. That is con
    clusively recognised by the present Bill, because the present Bill pays compensation for the proprietary rights.
    Mr. LLEWELYN WILLIAMS: The Catholic was deprived from that time till now of the right of presentation unless he became a Protestant. I say it is not care for the interests of the private patron that animates hon. Members opposite, but the spirit of revenge against the people of Wales because they dare to ask for religious liberty.
    Colonel PRYCE-JONES: The hon. Gentleman opposite asked me whether I have received any protests from private patrons. To their credit be it said I have received none. They are quite prepared to leave the matter to Parliament, but I hope that these private interests will be treated fairly and generously in the interests of patrons of the Church.
    Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 233; Noes, 99.

    Division No. 520.]

    AYES.

    [8.53 p.m.

    Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour)

    Cullinan, J.

    Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

    Acland, Francis Dyke

    Davies, David (Montgomery Co.)

    Hayden, John Patrick

    Adamson, William

    Davies, E. William (Eifion)

    Hayward, Evan

    Adkins, Sir W. Ryland D.

    Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

    Hazleton, Richard

    Agnew, Sir George William

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

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

    Ainsworth, John Stirling

    Dawes, James Arthur

    Hemmerde, Edward George

    Alden, Percy

    Delany, William

    Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

    Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbarton)

    Denman, Hon. R. D.

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

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

    Devlin, Joseph

    Higham, John Sharp

    Arnold, Sydney

    Dillon, John

    Hinds, John

    Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.)

    Donelan, Captain A.

    Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

    Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

    Doris, W.

    Hodge, John

    Baring, Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple)

    Duffy, William J.

    Hogge, James Myles

    Barnes, G. N.

    Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

    Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

    Barran, Rowland Hurst (Leeds, N.)

    Duncan. J. Hastings (Yorks, Otley)

    Hudson, Walter

    Barton, W.

    Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

    Illingworth. Percy H.

    Beale, Sir William Phipson

    Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)

    Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus

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

    Esslemont, George Birnie

    John, Edward Thomas

    Bentham, G. J.

    Farrell, James Patrick

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

    Bethell, Sir J. H.

    Firench, Peter

    Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil)

    Black, Arthur W.

    Field, William

    Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)

    Boland, John Pius

    Fitzgibbon, John

    Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)

    Booth, Frederick Handel

    Flavin, Michael Joseph

    Jones, Leif Stratten (Notts, Rushcliffe)

    Bowerman, C. W.

    Gilhcoly. James

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

    Boyle. D. (Mayo, N.)

    Gill, A. H.

    Joyce, Michael

    Brace, William

    Ginnell, L.

    Keating, Matthew

    Brady. P. J.

    Gladstone, W. G. C.

    Kellaway, Frederick Govge

    Brocklehurst. W. B.

    Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

    Kilbride, Denis

    Bryce, J. Annan

    Goldstone, Frank

    King, J.

    Buckmaster, Stanley O.

    Greenwood, Hamar (Sunderland)

    Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

    Burke, E. Havlland-

    Greig, Colonel J. W.

    Lardner, James Carrige Rushe

    Burns, Rt. Hon. John

    Griffith, Ellis J.

    Lawson, Sir W. (Cumb'rld, Cockerm'th)

    Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

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

    Levy, Sir Maurice

    Byles, Sir William Pollard

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

    Lewis, John Herbert

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

    Guiney, P.

    Lundon, Thomas

    Clancy, John Joseph

    Gulland, John William

    Lynch, A. A.

    Clough, William

    Hackett, J.

    McGhee, Richard

    Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

    Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)

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

    Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J.

    Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

    Macpherson, James Ian

    Condon, Thomas Joseph

    Hardie, J. Keir

    MacVeagh, Jeremiah

    Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

    Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

    M'Callum, Sir John M.

    Crean, Eugene

    Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)

    McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

    Crumley, Patrick

    Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

    M'Laren, Hon. F.W.S. (Lincs.,Spalding)

    Manfield, Harry

    Outhwaite, R. L.

    Sherwell, Arthur James

    Markham, Sir Arthur Basil

    Palmer, Godfrey Mark

    Smith, Albert (Lancs, Clitheroe)

    Marks, Sir George Croydon

    Parker, James (Halifax)

    Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

    Marshall, Arthur Harold

    Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

    Snowden, Philip

    Martin, Joseph

    Pointer, Joseph

    Spicer, Rt. Hon. Sir Albert

    Meagher, Michael

    Pollard, Sir George H.

    Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N.W.)

    Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

    Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

    Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)

    Middlebrook, William

    Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

    Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

    Molloy, M.

    Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk, E.)

    Thomas, J. H.

    Molteno, Percy Alport

    Priestley, Sir W. E. (Bradford)

    Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

    Mond, Sir Alfred Morit

    Primrose, Hon. Neil James

    Toulmin, Sir George

    Money, L. G. Chiozza

    Pringle. William M. R.

    Trevelyan, Charles Philips

    Morgan, George Hay

    Radford, G. H.

    Verney, Sir Harry

    Morrell, Philip

    Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields)

    Wadsworth, J.

    Morison, Hector

    Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

    Walsh, J. (Cork, South)

    Muldoon, John

    Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)

    Walsh, Stephen (Lancs, Ince)

    Munro, R.

    Rendall, Athelstan

    Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

    Nannetti, Joseph P.

    Richards, Thomas

    Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)

    Needham, Christopher T.

    Richardson, Albion (Peckham)

    Wardle, George J.

    Neilson, Francis

    Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

    Watt, Henry A.

    Nolan, Joseph

    Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

    White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)

    Norton, Captain Cecil W.

    Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)

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

    Nuttall, Harry

    Robertson, Sir G. S. (Bradford)

    White, Patrick (Meath, North)

    O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

    Robertson, John M, (Tyneslde)

    Whyte, A. F. (Perth)

    O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

    Robinson, Sidney

    Wilkie, Alexander

    O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

    Roch, Walter F.

    Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

    O'Doherty, Philip

    Roche, Augustine (Louth)

    Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthen)

    O'Donnell, Thomas

    Roe, Sir Thomas

    Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. W. (Worcs., N.)

    O'Dowd, John

    Rowlands, James

    Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

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

    Rowntree, Arnold

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

    O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.)

    Russell, Rt. Hon. Thomas W.

    Young. Samuel (Cavan, East)

    O'Malley, William

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

    Young, William (Perth, East)

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

    Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

    O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

    Scanlan, Thomas

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr.

    O'Shee, James John

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

    William Jones and Mr. Webb.

    O'Sullivan, Timothy

    Sheehy, David

    NOES.

    Anson, Rt. Hon. Sir William R.

    Gibbs, G. A.

    Peto, Basil Edward

    Baird, J. L.

    Gordon, Hon. John Edward (Brighton)

    Pollock, Ernest Murray

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

    Gretton, John

    Pryce-Jones, Col. E.

    Balcarres, Lord

    Guinness, Hon. W.E. (Bury S.Edmunds)

    Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

    Baring, Ma). Hon. Guy V. (Winchester)

    Hall, Fred (Dulwich)

    Rawson, Col. R. H.

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

    Hamersley, Alfred St. George

    Rees, Sir J. D.

    Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks

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

    Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

    Bentinck, Lord H. Cavendish-

    Hardy, Rt. Hon. Laurence

    Rutherford Watson (L'pool, W. Derby)

    Bigland, Alfred

    Helmsley, Viscount

    Salter, Arthur Clavell

    Blair, Reginald

    Henderson, Major H. (Berks, Abingdon)

    Sanders, Robert A.

    Boscawen, Sir Arthur S. T. Griffith-

    Herbert, Hon. A. (Somerset, S.)

    Sanderson, Lancelot

    Boyle, William (Norfolk, Mid)

    Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy

    Scott, Leslie (Liverpool, Exchange)

    Boyton, James

    Hope. Major J. A. (Midlothian)

    Smith, Harold (Warrington)

    Bridgeman, W. Clive

    Horne, E. (Surrey, Guildford)

    Spear. Sir John Ward

    Burn, Colonel C. R.

    Horner, Andrew Long

    Stanier, Beville

    Campion, W. R.

    Houston, Robert Paterson

    Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

    Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred

    Hume-Williams, William Ellis

    Sykes, Alan John (Ches., Knutsford)

    Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

    Jardine, Ernest (Somerset, East)

    Sykes, Mark (Hull, Central)

    Cecil, Lord Hugh (Oxford University)

    Kerr-Smiley, Peter Kerr

    Talbot, Lord E.

    Cecil. Lord R. (Herts, Hitchin)

    Kimber, Sir Henry

    Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Down, N.)

    Chaloner, Col. R. G. W.

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

    Touche, George Alexander

    Clive, Captain Percy Archer

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

    Valentia, Viscount

    Cooper, Richard Ashmole

    Lyttelton, Hon. J. C. (Droitwich)

    Walker, Col. William Hall

    Courthope, G. Loyd

    MacCaw, Wm. J. MacGeagh

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

    Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet)

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

    Wheler, Granville C. H.

    Crichton-Stuart, Lord Ninian

    Magnus, Sir Philip

    Williams, Col. R. (Dorset, W.)

    Cripps, Sir Charles Alfred

    Malcolm, Ian

    Willoughby, Major Hon. Claud

    Duke, Henry Edward

    Middlemore, John Throgmorton

    Wolmer, Viscount

    Eyres-Monsell, B. M.

    Mills, Hon. Charles Thomas

    Wood. John (Stalybridge)

    Faber, George Denison (Clapham)

    Moore, William

    Wright, Henry Fitzherbert

    Fell, Arthur

    Mount, William Arthur

    Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

    Flannery, Sir J. Fortescue

    Nield, Herbert

    Forster, Henry William

    Parkes, Ebenezer

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES. Mr.

    Gardner, Ernest

    Perkins, Waiter F.

    Hoare, and Mr. M. Barlow,

    Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

    CLAUSE 17.—(Compensation to Lay Holders of Freehold Offices.)
    If the Welsh Commissioners find that any person who at the passing of this Act
    2002
    holds any lay office in the Church in Wales by freehold tenure or by any tenure which, in the opinion of the Commissioners, is equal to freehold tenure, is deprived of any emoluments by the operation of this Act, they may pay to that person out of moneys in their hands in pursuance of this

    2003
    Act, such sum by way of compensation, either by means of a single payment or of the purchase of a life annuity, as they may, with the consent of the Treasury, determine:
    Provided that the compensation paid under this Section shall be paid out of or charged on the property vested in the Welsh Commissioners under this Act, other than burial grounds and the property to be transferred to the representative body, in such manner that the burden thereof may be distributed amongst the University of Wales and the several county councils in proportion to the value of the property transferred to them, respectively.
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I beg to move, after the word "Wales to leave out the words" by freehold tenure or by any tenure which, in the opinion of the Commissioners is."
    The Amendment is one which would extend to a certain number of non-ecclesiastical people compensation similar to that given under the Irish Church Act. I confess, so far as I am concerned, I do not feel so keenly the failure of the Government to meet, in the matter of compensation, those who occupy lay offices or who are patrons of livings as I do their failure last Friday to meet the case of the curates. To my mind, the performance of spiritual functions such as curates perform and the difficulty they will be in to find other employment makes their case a very much stronger one even than the case of patrons or laymen. The Amendment in reference to patrons, which we have been recently discussing, seem to me to have less to be said for it than the Amendment which I now move. At the same time I feel they have a case because, where there are what I may call good patrons, I think they will give the compensation they get towards the purposes of the Church and towards objects for which help is so very much needed if this Bill ever becomes law. At the same time the people for whom I plead are men who, if this Bill passes, will be thrown out of employment through no fault of their own, and who will very likely be unable to find any other occupation by which they can earn what they are earning now, and they have this additional complaint, that a great many of them belong to a very poor class and to the ranks of those who will find it rather difficult to get other employment. Under the Irish Act they are amply provided for,
    2004
    while in this Bill I can hardly say they are provided for at all. Perhaps I may explain that my Amendment proposes to leave out the qualifications which only gives a gratuity at the pleasure of the Welsh Commissioners to people who had employment equivalent to a freehold in the eyes of the Commissioners. I want to leave out freehold qualifications and to give compensation to all people thrown out of employment by this Bill in the same way that such people received compensation under the Irish Act.
    Under the Irish Act, I believe, that 8,000 claims were made for compensation by such people as sextons or clerks who had not freehold offices, church-cleaners, bell-ringers, organists, assistant registrars, and their clerks, diocesan surveyors, and others whom I need not enumerate. The number of gratuities awarded was, I think, to laymen 565; the number of annuities awarded to laymen was 3,245, of the annual total amount of £40,154; while the gratuities given amounted to another £40,000 in a lump sum. Now, this Bill differs from the Irish Church Act very widely in this particular Clause. Under the Irish Church Act anyone had a claim to compensation and a right to an annuity who occupied a freehold office. Under this Act it is provided that the Welsh Commissioners may give him a gratuity if they think fit. I have an Amendment, later on to alter the word "may" to "shall," and I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman is going to accept it or not. There is another still more striking difference in the Irish Act, and it is that a large number of persons who have no freehold offices at all were compensated under the Act under Clause 17. I am afraid I shall have to trouble the Committee by reading Clause 17 of the Irish Act, which is as follows:—
    "The Commissioners shall pay to any person holding an appointment in or connected with any church or chapel and not entitled to compensation under the preceding Section, and who has held such office for two years before the 1st of January, 1871, and is holding it on the said day, such sum by way of gratuity not exceeding one year's salary as they think fit; and when the said Commissioners shall find that any such person is or may be deprived of any income derived from any property or fund vested in the said Commissioners under this Act they may pay to any such persons such further sum by way of compensation

    2005
    either by a single payment or by a life annuity as they shall with the consent of the Treasury determine."
    I think hon. Members opposite ought to follow this question because they represent a certain number of people who will be disturbed under this Bill if it is carried into law. It will be seen that this Bill differs very widely from the Irish Church Act in the kind of compensation it gives to people who will be thrown out of employment. On the question of the curates we had a good many arguments from the right hon. Gentleman opposite to defend the extremely mean position I was sorry to see him have to defend on behalf of the Government on Friday last. He contended that it was very unlikely that many curates would be thrown out of employment. I do not know whether he is going to make that contention with regard to the people referred to in this Amendment, but if he is going to deprive the Church in Wales of more than half her Endowments, it will necessitate a total reconsideration of the position of the Church, and where possible the performances of services of this kind voluntarily rather than as paid services. I will not say that that would not be a good thing for the Church; it may be; but if those services are performed voluntarily it does throw out of employment those who performed those services before for perhaps a small but, at any rate, some remuneration. I think there is no doubt whatever that if this Bill is passed a saving in this direction will have to be effected and a considerable number of people will be thrown out of employment.
    Then there is the case of the diocesan surveyors. I do not know whether under this Bill the Dilapidations Act of 1871 is supposed to be repealed or not, and perhaps the Home Secretary will tell me whether that is so as far as Wales is concerned. This is one of the questions which has not been considered, but if it is repealed then the diocesan surveyors will lose their employment, and, if it is not, nobody can say that they have a freehold appointment. At the same time they seem to me to be just as much deserving of compensation as anybody else who will be thrown out of employment by this Bill. Even if the Dilapidations Act is not repealed by this Bill there is certainly one person who will be a loser by this Bill, and that is the gentleman who holds the position of diocesan surveyor for the diocese of St. Asaph's, because about twelve parishes in that diocese are in
    2006
    England, and they would be put into an English diocese, and this gentleman will lose his position as diocesan surveyor over these particular parishes.
    Sir GEORGE POLLARD: Why should he not follow them?
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: It would be very awkward to have two diocesan surveyors for the same diocese, but at any rate the appointment will rest with the other diocese. Another argument the right hon. Gentleman used with regard to the curates was that in spite of this Bill their security would be as good after he had taken away more than half of the money belonging to the Church in Wales as it was before. That is a perfectly ludicrous argument which I should not be in order in dealing with now. I am afraid none of us will have much chance of addressing ourselves to that particular point under the guillotine. I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman now whether he considers the security of these people for whom I am contending is just as good as it was before he took away more than half of the funds of the Church in Wales. The right hon. Gentleman dwelt on Friday last at considerable length on the difference between a moral and legal right, and when the hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Goulding) raised the case of the curates, the right hon. Gentleman asked what legal right have they got, and the hon. Member for Worcester replied that they had only got a moral right. The right hon. Gentleman tried to draw a distinction between the two.
    Mr. McKENNA: The hon. Member for Worcester made some observations from which I gathered that he claimed that the curates had a legal right, and I asked him what legal right, and I did not refer to the matter again.
    Lord ROBERT CECIL: The right hon. Gentleman is entirely mistaken.
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman had better state whether the Gentlemen for whom I am pleading have any moral or legal right at all. If he is going to proceed by legal right, I would like to know what ground he has by way of a legal right for the action he has taken in depriving the Church in Wales of her Endowments, because his own Law Officer, the Solicitor-General, told us we had an absolutely sound and perfectly legal title to the Endowments of the Church. If he is going to sand upon the

    2007
    legal point, then I say he has no right to take a penny of the money from the Church at all. He based himself, too, on the Irish precedent, very incorrectly as I thought at the time, and I am sorry to say there again there was no time to reply to his arguments. Perhaps I may be allowed to ask him without his casting languishing glances towards the Chair to see if the Chairman will not call me to order, whether he is going to quote the Irish precedent against my Amendment to-night with regard to this legal right? There were a large number of people compensated under the Irish Act, but none of them had any legal right to any compensation at all. If we are to have the Irish precedent quoted when it is in favour of the Government, we ask them to be consistent and quote it on other nights when it may not perhaps tell so much in their faovur. Hon. Gentlemen opposite have made very great use of the Irish precedent, and I should like to know whether they are going to follow it all through. We have already had the Irish precedent quoted on the question of curates who, in my opinion, have no legal status, and only a moral, not a legal right, to compensation. Under the Irish Acts there were large Grants given to Nonconformist ministers in lieu of the regium donum, and they had no sort of legal right to the annuities they got under that Act. I believe there were seven Nonconformist institutions which actually had sums paid down to them to the value of fourteen years' purchase, and who certainly had no legal right whatever to the claim which was put forward on their behalf.
    You can therefore find no argument from the Irish precedent on the lines of legal right on which to oppose my Amendment to-night. There is no doubt whatever the compensation given under that Act was given to people who had a moral right and who certainly had no legal right. I claim the same treatment for similar people who are affected by this measure in Wales. There was one other argument advanced by the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster on the Amendment relating to the curates, which I do not know whether he will advance on this Amendment. He said there was no sum out of which any additional compensation could be paid. He told us on Friday night there were only two sets of funds involved in this Bill: those which were retained by the various secular authorities, and those which would
    2008
    go over to the representative body. One would have thought from his description of the thing that all this money was originally held by the secular authorities and that they were making a grant from it to the Church. He said the compensation of the curates could only be carried out by having recourse to the sum which is to be set apart for the Church, and that any compensation given to them would mean so much less to other people. Is he going to apply that argument to this Amendment to-night? I thought it was a most fatuous argument on Friday, because everyone knows—he knows as well as anybody else—that all he had got to do in order to be able to give compensation to the curates was to take away less from the Church. He knows perfectly well that if my Amendment were agreed to all he would have to do in order to compensate these various officials for whom I plead to-night, would be to take away a little less from the Church. I do say in this particular instance such an argument would even be more absurd than it was on Friday last, for the second part of this very section says:—
    "Provided that the compensation paid under this Section shall be paid out of or charged on the property vested in the Welsh Commissioners under this Act,"
    other than certain property which is specified. Therefore, it is perfectly clear that either for the purposes of this Amendment or for the Amendment regarding the curates moved on Friday last, it would have been perfectly simple to pay the compensation out of the money vested in the Welsh Commissioners. He cannot know under this section as it is drafted what the total sum required will be. It is therefore perfectly absurd to say there is only a certain sum earmarked for compensation. He can give compensation to anybody who ought to have it if he chooses to give it out of the sum which is being robbed from the Church. I do not want to dwell too long upon this Amendment, although I think it is a very important one, and I am quite certain my hon. Friends on this side of the House agree with the justice of it. I do not know whether they attach the same importance to it as they did to the other Amendments we have had, such as that relating to the curates; but perhaps hon. Gentlemen opposite might realise that this Amendment, if it were admitted, would give compensation to people who, I think, deserve it and would not do that amount

    2009
    of harm to the Church which some hon. Members opposite seem to wish to do. I can only say I hope the Government will give consideration to this Amendment. I hope they will remember the people who would be benefited by it are poor people. Their work and all the other work which may be temporarily stopped by this Bill will finally be carried on, but it may become necessary to carry it on by voluntary effort, and in that case these people will lose their employment through no fault of their own, but merely in order to fulfil the political necessities of the Government now in power.
    Mr. McKENNA: The hon. Member was, as I gathered from his speech, far more concerned with the case of the curates than of those people who would be directly affected by this Clause. If I do not follow him into the various points he made with regard to curates, it is not because I do not feel equal to defending the position I took up last Friday, but simply because it would not be relevant to the Motion now before the Committee. I do not think the hon. Gentleman has fully appreciated the Bill as it stands. Let me first remind him what Clause 14, Sub-section (5), says:—
    "Where the emoluments of any ecclesiastical office in the Church in Wales do not consist of an interest in any specific property, but consist of a right to receive a fixed annual sum."
    And then provision is made for compensation. Then if the hon. Member will refer to Clause 35, the definition Clause, he will see that—
    "the expression 'ecclesiastical office' means any bishopric, ecclesiastical dignity, or preferment within (he meaning of the Church Discipline Act, 1840, and includes any lay office in connection therewith, or in connection with any Cathedral corporation."
    The hon. Member will find in these two Clauses an answer to many of the points he has raised. Now I will turn to Clause 17 as it stands. We propose in that Clause that the Welsh Commissioners shall have power to compensate any person who holds office by freehold tenure or by any tenure equivalent to freehold tenure. I may say at once I propose later on to accept an Amendment standing in the name of the hon. Member for Leamington (Mr. Pollock) which makes more clear the meaning of the words "any tenure which, in the opinion of the Commissioners, is equal to freehold tenure." It obviously means
    2010
    equivalent to the ordinary practice of freehold tenure. In the Irish case compensation was given where an office was held by freehold tenure or by any tenure which in the opinion of the Commissioners is equal to freehold tenure, or was held during good behaviour.
    Lord ROBERT CECIL: Which Section is the right hon. Gentleman quoting?
    Mr. McKENNA: I think Section 17 or 18. They are the same words, except that in the Irish case they are limited by the words "good behaviour."
    Lord ROBERT CECIL: You must take also Section 16.
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I quoted Clause 17 just now.
    Mr. McKENNA: At any rate the Noble Lord has the Section before him. It is either 16 or 17 that I am referring to. We propose to accept the words of the hon. Member for Leamington, and to give compensation in any case in which there is freehold tenure, or in which the tenure is that which, in ordinary practice, is equivalent to freehold tenure, and that will cover all the cases which have been put forward as hard cases. Where a servant has not got a legal freehold, but in ordinary practice holds his office during his life, we give power to the Commissioners to treat such cases as if they were freehold.
    Lord ROBERT CECIL: I should like the right hon. Gentleman to look at Section 16, Sub-section (2), of the Irish Act. I think he will find it is not an additional restriction in regard to good behaviour, but that it is an alternative.
    Mr. McKENNA: I think I stated accurately the Irish case. It was that whenever there was an office held by freehold tenure, compensation was to be given, and it was also to be given where there was a tenure which the Commissioners might think to be equal to freehold, but in that case it was limited to an office held during good behaviour. The Noble Lord knows there are offices which are held during good behaviour which are not freehold offices. We go further than that. We take the ordinary practice. In many cases the appointment of sexton has been understood to be for life, although it is not expressly a freehold tenure. By accepting the words "freehold tenure," it is intended to include those cases which in practice are treated as freehold, although

    2011
    they are not so in exact legal form. We therefore propose, by Clause 14, Sub-section (5), to give full compensation in every case in which there is an existing interest, although not chargeable upon specific property, but payable out of annual revenue. We also, under this Clause, propose to give compensation in every case where in practice the office is held during life. It must be remembered that the existing incumbent is entitled to receive the full emoluments of his office so long as he remains in his office. Can his servant have any better title than he has, where the appointment is not practically for life and where it is only during the pleasure of the existing incumbent? Surely in that case you cannot give compensation beyond the life of the incumbent himself! The incumbent, during his life, is to continue to receive the full value, or an equivalent, to the existing emolument. I submit to the Committee that there is no class entitled to compensation that has been omitted from this Bill as it stands. I therefore regret I am unable to accept the Amendment of the hon. Gentleman.
    Lord ROBERT CECIL: I confess I cannot quite follow the right hon. Gentleman's view of the Irish Act. He seems to have misapprehended what really is provided in that Act. Section 16, Sub-section (2), provides that every office of freehold tenure or office held during good behaviour, without any legal right to it, shall be equal to freehold tenure—a much more fortunate phrase than that adopted in the present Bill. But, then, they are given an absolute right to an annuity equal to their emoluments. That is the result of Section 16, but there is no such provision in this Clause. They are merely given any compensation which the Welsh Commissioners may think right. Then you come to Section 17 of the Irish Act, and that provides for all other offices, and it gives to such other offices with less secure tenure the same compensation as was given to those offices which have a more secure tenure. The Section says:—
    "The Commissioners shall pay to any person holding an appointment…and not entitled to compensation under the preceding Section, and who has held such office for two years before the first day of January, 1871,…such sum by way of gratuity not exceeding one years salary as they may think fit."
    2012
    They give at any rate one year's salary, however imperfect may be the tenure of office. I think the right hon. Gentleman will admit that the Irish Act is far more generous than the present Bill. Then, in addition to that, I may refer to Section (45), which sets out a number of officials who are to get very complete compensation indeed. That was the way the Irish Act dealt with them. As a matter of fact, the Irish Act was extraordinarily generous—I will not say extraordinarily, but very properly generous to every individual, and entirely different in spirit from the present Bill. The strongest instance was the enormous compensation—or rather the full compensation—given to the Nonconformist ministers who were in receipt of the Regium donum. They were not, so far as I can see, strictly affected in the slightest degree by the Disendowment of the Irish Church. It was felt impossible, I suppose, to continue the annual State Grant to Nonconformist ministers then made by annual Acts of Parliament in the form of the Regium donum after the Disendowment of the Irish Church.
    What was done? Every Nonconformist minister who then received this annual Grant was treated as having a life estate in that annual Grant. He had not the slightest legal claim to it at all, for it was an annual Grant made by this House, and might have been discontinued at any time. Not only was he so treated, but his successor was treated as having an interest which was to be compensated. Not only that, but in those places where the minister was about to receive this annual Regium donum, he was treated as having a right to compensation, and was given compensation under the Irish Act. They were men who had a most indirect claim, but who received this compensation not out of any funds to which they had any claim beforehand, but which were at the disposal of the Government, and which they used to secure that no individual should be treated with hardship or injustice by a political action of this kind. No one who has looked at the provisions of the Irish Act will venture to assert that the provisions in this Bill are in any way comparable with the method by which interests were dealt with under that Act. The right hon. Gentleman referred to Clause 14, Sub-section (5), as if that had any real bearing on the matter whatever. He said it was a kind of additional compensation to people with less than a freehold interest. I cannot think that that is the considered opinion of the right hon. Gentle-

    2013
    man. It is plain that that only deals with people who have a freehold interest, exactly the same as all the other Clauses of this Bill do. I think it is perfectly clear that this Bill sets out with this theory. That only people with freehold interests, or whose interests are equal to freehold, are to be compensated. The right hon. Gentleman now says he means by that to include all people who ordinarily would hold their office for life; but he never told us that on Clause 14, where exactly the same words were used, and when we were discussing a precisely similar Amendment to leave out exactly the same words, under the impression that an office which was equal to a freehold tenure, or an office which for some technical reason was not actually freehold but still was nearly a freehold, was going to be disregarded. The idea that men who ordinarily hold office for life are to be included seems to me to be an afterthought in view of the vote of last Friday.
    Mr. McKENNA: Nothing of the kind. I never had any other reason in my mind such as the Noble Lord suggests. What can "equal to freehold" mean except an office which in ordinary practice is treated as an office for life?
    Lord ROBERT CECIL: I cannot pretend to look at the right hon. Gentleman's mind. If he says he meant that, I am bound to accept his assurance. It is an unfortunate thing he did not make the disclosure on Friday.
    Mr. McKENNA: It would not have made the slightest difference to the argument.
    Lord ROBERT CECIL: I do not know it makes any difference now, but I think it would have made some difference then.
    Mr. McKENNA: I do not think so.
    Lord ROBERT CECIL: I think it would have made some difference if we had been told that where a curate was reasonably likely to hold his office for life he was to be compensated. I am glad that we have not had a repetition of the grotesque argument put forward by the Chancellor of the Duchy on Friday last. We are not told now that there is no fund out of which compensation can come unless it is to be taken from the representative body. That argument, which did very well when the guillotine was threatening to fall immediately, was too absurd to put forward at the beginning of the discussion. The broad question is: Are you going to deal
    2014
    generously with these people? They are very poor people indeed. They are not people as rich even as curates. They are people with very poor, and even paltry, interests. It would mean a few hundred pounds at the very outside. If you put in the same scale of compensation that was in the Irish Act, you will, at any rate, meet the kind of case we are making to the Committee now. If you do not, it can only be from pure official obstinacy, because, having once said you will not, therefore you will not. That is a motive for the decision of Ministers which is much commoner than some people seem to imagine. If it is not mere official obstinacy, it is because you desire, for some reason which I cannot imagine, to carry out this exceedingly painful and distasteful change in Wales, not in the way which will cause the least friction, not in the way which will cause the least resentment, but in a way which will enable you to say you have trampled upon your enemies and put your heel upon their necks. There can be no other reason for the refusal of this claim. It is justified by the only precedent you ever cite—the Irish case—it is clearly just in itself, and it will cost a trifling sum of money. The whole machinery is provided for you in this very Clause, and, if you refuse it, it can only be from one of the two motives I have tried to indicate to the Committee.
    Mr. EDGAR JONES: I am rather alarmed at what the Home Secretary has said, for very opposite reasons to those the Noble Lord has advanced, and I think some of us are entitled to ask the representatives of the Government what exactly is meant by the adoption of this new Amendment by the Home Secretary. I think they are opening a door which is going to lead to practices very similar to those which took place in Ireland, and which will destroy this Bill from cover to cover so far as we in Wales are concerned. If the new phrase, "anything which is equivalent in practice" to a freehold tenure is going to be interpreted by the Commissioners as broadly as the Noble Lord suggested—
    Lord ROBERT CECIL: It was not my suggestion, but the suggestion of the Home Secretary.
    Mr. E. JONES: If it is going to be interpreted as broadly as the Noble Lord intimated in his remarks, then the whole of the property is gone for at least thirty or forty years, and the probability is that

    2015
    the county councils will have to draw upon some resources—where they are going to get them nobody knows—in order to pay all this compensation, which will exceed all the profits they will get from the yield of the tithe and the glebe. I ask because I am simply going by what happened in the Irish case. I ask whether the charwoman who cleans the church would come in under this? As a rule a charwoman remains more or less for her life, and I understand that in the Irish case the charwoman got compensation. If we begin with charwomen and then everyone else who has anything to do with the church and has been accustomed to get a few shillings a month or a few pounds a year for it—and it has always been understood that once a person started in that particular office he went on for life—I think the Government have walked, with their eyes open, into a pit that is going to sink the whole of the finance of this Bill for national purposes for at least some generations. I would call the attention of the Government to the character of the Clause and the manner in which it is worded: "If the Welsh Commissioners find that any person who at the passing of this Act holds" such an office. If, therefore, the Church were disposed, as I understand was done in some cases in Ireland, to appoint two women where there is one now, and to appoint extra bell-ringers and others during the two years that we assume we shall be waiting for this Bill to get through the House of Lords, and if they give them some remuneration for these first two years so that they will be holding the office at the passing of the Act, where will the finance of the Bill be?
    Lord ROBERT CECIL: Even then they will only get such compensation as the Welsh Commissioners think right.
    Mr. E. JONES: I quite agree, but I am assuming that the Commissioners will be similar in their creed and as friendly to the Church as were the Commissioners under the Irish Act, and I am assuming that the Commissioners will take what hon. Gentlemen opposite will call a very broad and generous view of these things and will interpret the phrase in a manner in which hon. Members opposite are interpreting it to-night. It is possible for the Commissioners to take such a view, it is possible for officers to be created in the two years which are to elapse between the first going of this Bill to the House of Lords and its passage into law, and it is possible,
    2016
    under the new phrase the Home Secretary is going to accept, for almost any person who receives any kind of money to receive compensation. All I have to say is if that is so hon. Members opposite have been very successful in their Amendments, and in their opposition to this Bill. We started out with the idea that has been advocated in Wales very actively for forty years that national funds and endowments—I know hon. Members do not agree with the phrase but it has been generally accepted in Wales—should be secured for national purposes. If this interpretation that I lay down is going to work out in practice, very little National Endowment will there be for national purposes in my lifetime or the lifetime of anyone else in Wales so that hon. Members opposite, by their methods and by the concessions of the Government, have succeeded by various side winds, under the guise of compensation, in getting back, at least for several generations, for the Church practically every penny that this Bill at the commencement proposed to take from them. I really think it is due to some of us here who do not quite understand what is the full import of this Clause, that some further explanation and reassurance should be obtained from the Government before we go to a division.
    Sir ALFRED CRIPPS: The speech which we have just heard shows how extremely important the Amendment is with which we are dealing. The hon. Member lays down this proposition, not that in a Bill of this kind the first consideration is what is just and right, but that the first consideration is the amount of money, which he calls national money, which can be put into the pockets of Welshmen for certain local purposes. We have heard that view enunciated more than once. The question here is whether it is just and right that certain people who are holding offices which, if this Bill had not passed, they would continue to hold for their life, should have fair compensation or not. That is the question. We say it is a matter of justice and right that they should have it. What is the answer of the hon. Member? He does not say it is just and right.
    Mr. E. JONES: I did not discuss it.
    Sir A. CRIPPS: What the hon. Member says is, do not do what is just and right if it takes anything out of the Welshman's pocket. Let me take his own illustration, the charwoman. Is he going to say on behalf of the Welsh Members that because

    2017
    she is a humble and poor official she is not to be entitled to be fairly treated under the terms of the Bill?
    Mr. E. JONES: She will not lose her employment.
    Sir A. CRIPPS: Then she will not get compensation, because the whole basis of compensation—I am assuming that the Welsh Commissioners will act properly—is in respect of loss consequent on the passing of this Bill, and therefore if anyone gets alternative employment on their old terms they are not entitled to compensation at all. But the truth is, and the hon. Member has shown it on this question of compensation, that some Members on the other side of the House have approached this Bill in a wholly wrong spirit. They have approached it from the point of view of what plunder they can get. There is a much greater consideration than that, and that is acting justly and fairly when you are dealing with vested interests in a case of this kind. That is a most important principle. I wish to make two observations in answer to the Home Secretary. Sub-section (5) of Clause 14 has nothing to do with the subject matter of this Amendment of any sort or kind. It astonishes me to hear the Home Secretary, who ought to have an intimate knowledge of this Bill, quoting a Clause which has no reference whatever to the subject matter under discussion. Sub-section (5) of Clause 14 deals with an interest which is undoubtedly a freehold interest, but which is not an interest in the specific property. In other words, it is a man getting an income in the ordinary sense of the term of so much a year which is not charged on the specific property, and he says in that case he is to be compensated on the income he is receiving, although it is not charged upon the specific property. What on earth has that to do with the question of the existing Amendment? It is absolutely outside this question altogether from top to bottom.
    The other observation I want to make is this: No one who has read the Irish Act can be other than cognisant of the fact that the whole measure and basis of compensation there is entirely different from what it is in relation to the proposed Bill. In an Amendment of which I gave notice to this Clause there are set out in substance the Irish terms as regards compensation dealing with the same subject matter as we are dealing with in this Clause. Every official, whether he has a freehold office or not, which is never the
    2018
    test in cases of this kind, is practically assured that he is to have an annuity equal to the amount of the income which he is obtaining at the present time. [An HON. MEMBER: "Charwoman."] Why is not a charwoman as much entitled as the richest man in this country? This Bill in every respect penalises the poor man. I have pointed it out several times. I should have thought that hon. Members opposite did not desire to emphasise a point of that kind.
    All that this Amendment does is to give in Wales what was given in Ireland under the Irish Act, namely, to put it in the power of the Welsh Commissioners to give what they consider a suitable sum as regards all those poorer officials—charwomen, if you like—who, in fact, will suffer owing to the changes introduced by this Bill. The point of substance which I think is important is this: I do not know of any Bill of this kind—and I have looked all round for precedents—where there has been such a meagre, penurious, and inadequate method of compensation as is suggested in this Bill. The important point is that in future a Bill of this kind, which treats persons unfairly and unjustly, may be used as a precedent, because undoubtedly no one can deny that, apart from the legal or technical matter whether persons are curates or charwomen, if for public purposes they are deprived of the income which but for the Bill they would continue to enjoy, they are entitled to a full measure of compensation. The reason for that is perfectly clear. It is that, in carrying out any great matter of public importance, it is not right to put a special burden and penalty on particular individuals. That is the principle that underlies all these questions of compensation. If I may refer to a phrase used more than once by Mr. Gladstone, on the Irish Bill—because it is applicable to the question we are now discussing—I would point out that he said a beneficent revolution ought to be carried out in a liberal and generous spirit. I think everyone would agree to a proposition of that kind, and yet here what is said to be a benevolent revolution is being carried out in a mean, petty, penurious, and cheese-pairing spirit, which you cannot find in any other Bill dealing with individual interests that has ever been adopted in this House. Why do you compensate the individual freeholder on a wider basis? It is because, as Mr. Gladstone said, that the basis of compensation ought to have

    2019
    reference to the expectation of the persons you are depriving of income under the Bill. That, of course, is the proper principle as regards compensation.
    10.0 P.M.
    Let me give two or three illustrations of what I mean by the niggardliness and injustice of the present Bill. Under the Irish Act, for instance, compensation was given to the clerks in the office of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners in Ireland. They had no legal right or claim, but as the effect of the Bill was to deprive them of the livelihood they were then enjoying, and as they were damnified by the passing of the Act, it was held that those men, who were comparatively poor men, ought to be entitled to compensation. Then there was the compensation as regards the Regium Donum and Maynooth College. There was considerable opposition to that proposal at the time of the passing of the Act. Mr. Gladstone said firmly, and he held to it throughout, "I will be no party to depriving people of money to which they would have been entitled if this Act had not passed. They ought to have fair compensation in regard to the worse position in which they will be placed." There are many other instances where compensation has been given. There was the compensation given under the Crofters Act of 1886. There was no legal right but compensation was given. Then, in the case of the stallholders in Hungerford market, compensation was given. I do not believe that any Act can be found based on the narrow lines we have here that no one is to be compensated unless his office is either freehold or equivalent in position. That is why I feel very strongly as regards the Amendment proposed by the hon. Member. It goes by no means sufficiently far in the direction of fair and generous treatment, but it is an improvement as regards the terms in the Bill itself. I ask everyone on the opposite side who believes in fair treatment, irrespective of policy, whether there is a legal right or not, to support this Amendment, and not to be led away by the doctrine of the hon. Member opposite, that it is better to plunder than to give fair and just treatment to people who have offices at the present moment.
    Sir A. MONO: The hon. and learned Member (Sir A. Cripps) has made one of those eloquent speeches to which we have become accustomed. He shows great warmth when asking for fair
    2020
    and just compensation. I believe he has recently been engaged in a large case—[Interruption]. I do not think I am disrespectful to the hon. and learned Member. I only think that I am entitled to say—[HON. MEMBERS: "Order."] I think he will agree with me that those whom he addresses do not always agree with him as to what he considers fair and just treatment. If when you ask just and generous treatment and do not get it, and if you then say that it is petty and mean to refuse it, there is really no object in discussing the matter. That is the basis--on which the hon. and learned Member said, with a great show of indignation, that my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydvil (Mr. Edgar Jones) was-anxious for nothing except plunder. The hon. and learned Member would not like if I said that he had no other object except to retain plunder from the people of Wales, which is our side of the case. I do not see in the least that his line of argument is likely to carry any weight at all-It is easy. of course, to make appeals to generosity at other people's expense. It is easy to appear generous by giving away other people's money. If we were to compensate in the way proposed, it would not cost us anything at all. It is absurd, therefore, to put the argument on that basis. It seems to me that the hon. and learned Member laid down some general principles with which I am to a considerable extent in agreement. I protest against the general doctrine laid down in regard to vested interests. This doctrine of compensation for all kinds of interests has done more to stop reforms being carried in this country than any other doctrine. We know that hon. Members opposite always consider that private interests ought to stand before public rights. We are told in this case that it does not matter whether there is a legal right. If there is anything in that contention, it really does not matter whether there is a freehold tenure or not, because you are just as well off if you are to be treated in the same way as those who have a freehold tenure. Was ever such an argument addressed to a Legislative Assembly? It is a most ridiculous argument when you come to analyse it. It is mysteriously argued that a person who has no tenure has the same right as a person who has a freehold tenure.
    Sir A. CRIPPS: I made no such statement. I said he was entitled to compensation. I never said he was entitled to> the same compensation.
    Sir A. MOND: That is a variation. He never told us what compensation they were entitled to.
    Sir A. CRIPPS: Whatever the Welsh Commissioners said.
    Sir A. MOND: I am glad we are getting the compensation down a little—[Hon. MEMBERS: "No "]—and that we are having some reduction of the enormous claims put forward. Extraordinary use has been made of the Irish Bill in these Debates. Do hon. Members bear in mind that the Irish Bill was an agreed Bill? [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Certainly it was. The Noble Lord contradicts me. Does he deny that the Irish Bill was the result of long negotiations between Mr. Gladstone and Mr. Disraeli before it passed through the House of Lords, and that Mr. Gladstone protested vehemently and did his best to get the claims reduced? The Noble Lord cannot deny, what is a well-known fact, that to get the Bill passed through the House of Lords Mr. Gladstone had to make these concessions which he never would have made under present conditions. Do you think that we fought for the Parliament Act for nothing? Do hon. Members seriously imagine that, having won a victory, we are now going to walk under the Caudine forks? I cannot understand the curious condition of mind of hon. Members who have such an idea. Certainly we are not going to be forced into that position which we need not occupy, and for which there is no reason. It must be plain to anyone who gives five minutes' consideration to the whole question that hon. Members opposite are always asking for concessions and always abusing us for not giving concessions. They never offer any kind of concessions as far as they are concerned. An hon. Member laughs. He has been in the House much longer than I and has much more experience and knows as well as I do that Governments are not in the habit of continually making concessions when there is no ground for them. It is a simple fact which we all know. Hon. Members opposite naturally do the best they can, but they cannot expect us to walk into their parlour. I do not share the gloomy views expressed by the hon. Member for Merthyr as to the financial ruin which this Clause will involve, because I am certain the churches will be carried on as usual, and I am sure that their charwomen, bell-ringers, and sextons, and the good people in these petitions to-day will
    2022
    calmly continue in them until they receive the old age pension, for which they have the Liberal Government to thank. Therefore, the amount of compensation which will be given under this Clause and the explanation of the Home Secretary will not affect seriously the finances of the Bill. But I have thought it right to say a few words of protest against the speech just delivered. It is not fair or just to represent us on this side as being hostile or petty or mean. We have a difficult and serious duty to perform. Hon. Members opposite have a difficult duty to perform also. The very point which the hon. and learned Member refers to, the question what is fair and just, is a difficult point to determine. The mere allegation that anything is unfair or unjust is no determination thereof. I do not wish to accuse hon. Members opposite of anything wrong, but I do think that it is time to make an end of mere abusive epithets and to return to arguments.
    Mr. ALFRED LYTTELTON: We have heard a remarkable speech from a representative of Welsh Nonconformity. The only principle which it distinctly represented is that the Radical party have passed the Parliament Act, and that he intends, and those who sit around him intend, to get all the plunder they can as the result of the Parliament Act, consistently with their safety at Welsh elections. He opened his speech by denouncing my hon. and learned Friend for having used emphatic language with regard to justice for poor people under this Bill, and having said that the hon. and learned Member begged the whole question by using that language, he then proceeded to say, after he had forgotten how he had begun his speech, that he in a very large degree agreed with the principles which were laid down by my hon. and learned Friend. How can he beg the question by using such language, when he has laid down principles with which the hon. Member agreed? What were those principles? Perhaps the hon. Member, as representing Welsh Nonconformity, will have to go down to Flintshire, and I presume that he will answer honestly any questions asked by hecklers there, and that he will, at any rate, attempt to disclose what is really the fact under this Bill. If he is asked, "Why do the Government which you support compensate life interests of incumbents and not compensate those interests which, according to the Home Secretary,

    2023
    are equivalent in expectation to life interests?" What will he say? He will be afraid to admit that his only reason is that one interest is held by poor people and the other by comparatively wealthy people.
    Sir A. MOND: I should say nothing of the kind. One is a freehold tenure and the other is another form of tenure.
    Mr. LYTTELTON: Will he disagree with the Home Secretary that he is perfectly willing, as the Irish Act did, to pay compensation to those who had interests equivalent in practice to freehold interests? Will he say to the poor people of Flintshire, "I disagree with my own Leader or with the right hon. Gentleman who is in charge of this Bill, and I will not give a shilling to those who have interests equivalent in practice to freehold interests"?
    Sir A. MOND: The right hon. Gentleman really knows that I never said anything of the kind.
    Mr. LYTTELTON: Then what was the purpose of the quarter of an hour of incoherent speech of the hon. Gentleman? I ask him the plain question, does he agree with the Home Secretary or does he not?
    Sir A. MOND: Certainly, I agree with the Home Secretary, and I said so in my speech, incoherent as it may have been.
    Mr. LYTTELTON: If, in point of fact, the hon. Gentleman does agree that these poor people should receive compensation, those of them who have interests practically equivalent to freehold interests, then what is the meaning of his speech?
    Sir A. MOND: I am very sorry that the right hon. Gentleman cannot understand the object of my speech. If I were allowed to make it again I could explain it.
    Mr. LYTTELTON: We have it every way. The hon. Gentleman is going to take credit, I suppose, among the more violent of his party, for having denounced all these proposals, and he has not the courage to get up to say that he denies to these poor people in Wales the right to receive compensation under the principles that have been defined by the Home Secretary. The hon. Gentleman gives the case entirely away. I say it is impossible for any honest and courageous man, facing a popular audience—and with these
    2024
    precedents of the Irish Act before him, with the generous treatment that was accorded to Nonconformist ministers and to the Roman Catholics in Maynooth, and with the fact, as it is admitted now, that all these poor people received compensation, at any rate, to some considerable extent in Ireland—to say that nothing has happened between 1869 and now which has altered those precedents, and which has disentitled the Welsh from receiving that which the Irish obtained. What possible reason, what earthly reason, has been given for the mixture of incoherent statements we have just heard from the hon. Gentleman? What possible reason can be given for departing from the principle laid down by a man like Mr. Gladstone, whom the hon. Gentleman always professes to honour, and who gave that compensation? Have circumstances altered? Are the Welsh people richer than the Irish, or not? There is not a single test that can be applied to this case which differentiates it from the Irish case. I am most reluctant to come to the conclusion that there is simply a desire on the part of the hon. Member, and some of the more malignant of his associates, not to give what is fair, but to take in the form of plunder what in their heart and conscience they know to be unjust.
    Mr. BOOTH: I am not at all sure that the speech of the right hon. Gentleman has been much of a contribution to the discussion of this Amendment. It consisted simply of a stale joke, and of an attempt to mislead the Committee. It is altogether beside the question for the right hon. and learned Gentleman to make a speech in which he assumes that he has got a monopoly of right feelings of indignation, with more than the average ability to express them. Surely, the only hypothesis upon which his speech could have any pertinence to this discussion is that after the Disestablishment of the Church in Wales, charwomen, bellringers, and sextons are going to be dismissed from office. Hon. Gentlemen opposite go round the country in order to divert attention from Tariff Reform and food taxes. [HON. MEMBERS: "Education."] They imply that such intolerant feeling has been so much aroused in these discussions, that the Church dignitaries will begin to vent their spleen upon those unfortunate people. It cannot be established that there is any desire on this side that those people should be dismissed on short notice, and where in that case is the foundation

    2025
    for the speech of the hon. and learned Gentleman?
    Mr. HAROLD SMITH: I think the hon. Member has missed the point which is not that they are going to be dismissed, but who is going to pay them if they remain. [HON. MEMBERS: "Church people."]
    Mr. BOOTH: I cannot imagine services of the Church, which I attend, going on in any parish, and that the church would decline to pay the charwoman; I feel that it is a most undignified suggestion that Church people will go round cap in hand to pay their charwoman. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for St. George's suggested this Clause might be wielded very vigorously by a heckler in a Welsh constituency, but what would be thought if a humble individual like myself passed the janitor at one of the hon. Gentleman's meetings, if he ever has any, and asked him whether he could defend the charwoman getting a few shillings, and the Bishop of St. David's £4,000 per year?
    Mr. GOULDING: What has that got to do with it. What about the Insurance Commissioners?
    Earl WINTERTON: Take the Insurance Commissioners?
    The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member's remarks are not relevant.
    Mr. BOOTH: I quite understand that it does seem rather incongruous to name those two great dignitaries of the Church in the same breath. I would ask the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for South Bucks whether they really think Members come here with the solo object of trying to take away some lawful claim of some humble members of the Church. The speech of the hon. and learned Gentleman was really in support of this Clause, and it was to that part of his speech that the hon. Member for Swansea Boroughs (Sir A. Mond) directed attention when he said the hon. and learned Gentleman carried many of us on this side with him. The bulk of the hon. and learned Gentleman's speech was in support of the Clause, and it was only incidentally that he referred to the Amendment. I would submit that surely that is all we can fairly be asked to do. I say quite frankly as one who differs from his leaders more than anybody opposite does, at any rate, in the House—
    Mr. GOULDINGmade an observation which was inaudible.
    The CHAIRMAN: I must ask the hon. Member for Worcester to abstain from interrupting.
    Mr. BOOTH: As one who does not hesitate to differ from his own leaders. I say quite candidly that if I could see in this Clause any injustice to a class of humble individuals, I would unhesitatingly go into the Lobby against it. But wild statements that we are a set of vultures looking for plunder, and while right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite are defending the vested interests of the washerwoman are beside the mark. Would the hon. and learned Member for South Bucks (Sir A. Cripps) in applying his general argument in favour of compensation for the vested interests of the liquor trade, give compensation to the "chucker-out" and the potboy?
    The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is getting very wide of the Amendment.
    Mr. BOOTH: I mentioned those merely by way of illustration, because the hon. and learned Gentleman gets as eloquent on that subject as on the other. If hon. Gentlemen opposite will in moderate language prove to us who occasionally show a gleam of independence that they have a case, we will go into the Lobby with them. But mere vague, general, fierce denunciation—like that of the Scotsman, who I am told goes into a field and swears at large—carries no weight whatever on this side of the House.
    Mr. GOULDINGrose in his place, and claimed to move "That the Question be now put," but the Chairman withheld his assent, and declined then to put that Question.
    Mr. KINGrose—
    Earl WINTERTON: Another clown. Go on, harlequin!
    Mr. KING: After the eloquent speech of my hon. Friend, the only Member who ventured to rise on the other side wanted the Question to be now put. That being so, there is nothing more to be said. Therefore, for my part, I also would like to move that the Question be now put.
    Mr. RAWLINSONrose—
    Mr. KING: Mr. Chairman—
    The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member for Cambridge University is in possession.
    Mr. KING: On a point of Order—

    2027
    It being half-past Ten 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 proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 291; Noes, 179.

    Division No. 521.]

    AYES.

    10.30 p.m.

    Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour)

    Duncan, J. Hastings (Yorks, Otley)

    Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

    Acland, Francis Dyke

    Edwards, Clement (Glamorgan, E.)

    Lardner, James Carrige Rushe

    Adamson, William

    Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

    Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, West)

    Addison, Dr. Christopher

    Edwards, John Hugh (Glamorgan, Mid)

    Lawson, Sir W. (Cumb'rld, Cockerm'th)

    Adkins, Sir W. Ryland D.

    Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)

    Levy, Sir Maurice

    Agnew, Sir George William

    Essex, Sir Richard Walter

    Lewis, John Herbert

    Ainsworth, John Stirling

    Esslemont, George Birnie

    Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

    Aldan, Percy

    Falconer, J.

    Low, Sir Frederick (Norwich)

    Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbarton)

    Farrell, James Patrick

    Lundon, Thomas

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

    Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson

    Lyell, Charles Henry

    Arnold, Sydney

    Firench, Peter

    Lynch, A. A.

    Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.)

    Field, William

    McGhee, Richard

    Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

    Fitzgibbon, John

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

    Baring, Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple)

    Flavin, Michael Joseph

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

    Barlow, Sir John Emmott (Somerset)

    George, Rt. Hon. David Lloyd

    Macpherson, James Ian

    Barnes, G. N.

    Glihooly, James

    MacVeagh, Jeremiah

    Barran, Rowland Hurst (Leeds, N.)

    Gill, A. H.

    M'Callum, Sir John M.

    Barton, W.

    Ginnell, L.

    McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

    Beale, Sir William Phipson

    Gladstone, W. G. C.

    M'Laren, Hon. F.W.S. (Lincs.,Spalding)

    Beck, Arthur Cecil

    Glanville, Harold James

    Manfield, Harry

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

    Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

    Markham, Sir Arthur Basil

    Bentham, George Jackson

    Goldstone, Frank

    Marks, Sir George Croydon

    Bethell, Sir J. H.

    Greenwood, Granville G. (Peterborough)

    Marshall, Arthur Harold

    Black, Arthur W.

    Greenwood, Hamar (Sunderland)

    Martin, Joseph

    Boland, John Plus

    Greig, Colonel J. W.

    Meagher, Michael

    Booth, Frederick Handed

    Griffith, Ellis J.

    Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

    Bowerman, C. W.

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

    Middlebrook, William

    Boyle, D. (Mayo, North)

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

    Millar, James Duncan

    Brace, William

    Guiney, Patrick

    Molloy, M.

    Brady, P. J.

    Gulland, John William

    Molteno, Percy Alport

    Brocklehurst, W. B.

    Hacktt, J.

    Mond, Sir Alfred Moritz

    Brunner, John F. L.

    Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)

    Money, L. G. Chiozza

    Bryce, J. Annan

    Harcourt. Robert V. (Montrose)

    Morgan, George Hay

    Buckmaster, Stanley O.

    Hardie, J. Keir

    Morrell, Philip

    Burke, E. Haviland-

    Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire)

    Morison, Hector

    Burns, Rt. Hon. John

    Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)

    Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

    Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

    Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

    Muldoon, John

    Buxton, Noel (Norfolk)

    Hayden, John Patrick

    Munro, R.

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

    Hayward, Evan

    Murray, Captain Hon. A. C.

    Byles, Sir William Pollard

    Hazieton, Richard

    Nannetti, Jossph P.

    Carr-Gomm, H. W.

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

    Needham, Christopher T.

    Cawley, H. T. (Lancs, Heywood)

    Helme, Sir Norval Watson

    Neilson, Francis

    Clancy, John Joseph

    Hemmerde, Edward George

    Nicholson, Sir C. N. (Doncaster)

    Clough, William

    Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

    Nolan, Joseph

    Clynes, John R.

    Henry, Sir Charles

    Norman, Sir Henry

    Collins, G. P. (Greenock)

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

    Norton, Captain Cecil W.

    Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

    Higham, John Sharp

    Nuttall, Harry

    Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J.

    Hinds, John

    O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

    Condon, Thomas Joseph

    Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

    O'Connor. John (Kildare, N.)

    Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

    Hodge, John

    O'Connor, T. p. (Liverpool)

    Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

    Hogge, James Myles

    O'Doherty, Philip

    Crawshay-Willlams, Eliot

    Holmes, Daniel Turner

    O'Donnell, Thomas

    Crean, Eugene

    Holt, Richard Durning

    O'Dowd, John

    Crumley, Patrick

    Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

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

    Cullinan, J.

    Hudson, Walter

    O'Keliy, James (Roscommon, N.)

    Dalziel, Rt. Hon. Sir J. H. (Kirkcaldy)

    Illingworth, Percy H.

    O'Malley, William

    Davies, David (Montgomery Co.)

    Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus

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

    Davies, E. William (Eifion)

    Jardine, Sir J. (Roxburgh)

    O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

    Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

    John, Edward Thomas

    O'Shee, James John

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

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

    O'Sullivan, Timothy

    Dawes, James Arthur

    Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil)

    Outhwaite, R. L.

    De Forest, Baron

    Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)

    Palmer, Godfrey Mark

    Delany, William

    Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)

    Parker, James (Halifax)

    Denman, Hon. R. D.

    Jones, Leif Stratten (Rushcliffe)

    Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

    Devlin, Joseph

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

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

    Dickinson, W. H.

    Joyce, Michael

    Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

    Dillon, John

    Keating, Matthew

    Pointer, Joseph

    Donelan, Captain A.

    Kellaway, Frederick George

    Pollard, Sir George H.

    Doris, W.

    Kilbride, Denis

    Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

    Duffy, William J.

    King, J.

    Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

    Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

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

    Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk, E.)

    Priestley, Sir Arthur (Grantham)

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

    Walters, Sir John Tudor

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

    Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

    Walton, Sir Joseph

    Primrose, Hon. Neil James

    Scanian, Thomas

    Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

    Pringle William M. R.

    Schwann, Rt. Hon. Sir C. E.

    Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)

    Radford, G. H.

    Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)

    Wardle, George J.

    Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields)

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

    Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay

    Reddy, M.

    Sheehy, David

    Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

    Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

    Sherwell, Arthur James

    Watt, Henry A.

    Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)

    Shortt, Edward

    Wedgwood, Josiah C.

    Rendall, Athelstan

    Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John Allsebrook

    White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)

    Richards, Thomas

    Smith, Albert (Lancs, Clitheroe)

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

    Richardson, Albion (Peckham)

    Smith, H. B. L. (Northampton)

    White, Patrick (Meath, North)

    Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

    Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

    Whitehouse, John Howard

    Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

    Soames, Arthur Wellesley

    Whyte, A. F. (Perth)

    Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

    Spicer, Rt. Hon. Sir Albert

    Wiles, Thomas

    Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)

    Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N.W.)

    Wilkie, Alexander

    Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

    Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)

    Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

    Robertson, John M. (Tyneside)

    Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

    Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthen)

    Robinson, Sidney

    Tennant, Harold John

    Williamson, Sir Archibald

    Roch. Walter F.

    Thomas, J. H.

    Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. W. (Worcs., N.)

    Roche, Augustine (Louth, N.)

    Thome, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

    Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

    Roe, Sir Thomas

    Toulmin, Sir George

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

    Rose, Sir Charles Day

    Trevelyan, Charles Philips

    Young, Samuel (Cavan, East)

    Rowlands, James

    Verney, Sir Harry

    Young, William (Perth, East)

    Rowntree, Arnold

    Wadsworth, J.

    Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

    Walsh, J. (Cork, South)

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr.

    Russell, Rt. Hon. Thomas W.

    Walsh, Stephen (Lanes, Ince)

    William Jones and Mr. Webb.

    NOES.

    Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

    Eyres-Monsell, B. M.

    Lyttelton, Hon. J. C. (Droitwich)

    Aitken, Sir William Max

    Faber, George Denison (Clapham)

    MacCaw, Wm. J. MacGeagh

    Amery, L.C. M. S.

    Falle, Bertram Godfray

    Mackinder, H. J.

    Anson, Rt. Hon. Sir William R.

    Fell, Arthur

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

    Baird, J. L.

    Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey

    Magnus, Sir Philip

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

    Finlay, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert

    Meysey-Thompson, E. C.

    Salcarres, Lord

    Fitzroy, Hon. Edward A.

    Middlemore, John Throgmorton

    Banbury, Sir Frederick George

    Flannery, Sir J. Fortescue

    Mills, Hon. Charles Thomas

    Baring, Maj. Hon. Guy V. (Winchester)

    Fleming, Valentino

    Moore, William

    Barlow, Montague (Salford, South)

    Forster, Henry William

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

    Barrie, H. T.

    Gardner, Ernest

    Morrison-Bell, Major A. C. (Honiton)

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

    Gastrell, Major W. Houghton

    Mount, William Arthur

    Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton)

    Gibbs, George Abraham

    Neville, Reginald J. N.

    Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks

    Gordon, John (Londonderry, South)

    Newman, John R. P.

    Beckett, Hon. Gervase

    Gordon, Hon. John Edward (Brighton)

    Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)

    Bentinck, Lord H. (Cavendish-)

    Greene, W. R.

    Nield, Herbert

    Beresford, Lord C.

    Gretton, John

    Norton-Griffiths, John

    Biglaud, Alfred

    Guinness, Hon. Rupert (Essex, S.E.)

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

    Bird, A.

    Guinness, Hon.W.E. (Bury S.Edmunds)

    Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend)

    Blair, Reginald

    Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne)

    Parkes, Ebenezer

    Boscawen, Sir Arthur S. T. Griffith-

    Hall, Fred (Dulwich)

    Perkins, Walter F.

    Boyle, William (Norfolk, Mid)

    Hamersley, Alfred St. George

    Peto, Basil Edward

    Boyton, James

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

    Pollock, Ernest Murray

    Bridgeman, W. Clive

    Hardy, Rt. Hon. Laurence

    Pryce-Jones, Col. E.

    Burdett-Coutts, W.

    Harris, Henry Percy

    Quilter, Sir William Eley C.

    Burn, Colonel C. R.

    Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

    Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

    Butcher, J. G.

    Helmsley, Viscount

    Rawson, Col. R. H.

    Campbell, Capt. Duncan F. (Ayr, N.)

    Henderson, Major H. (Berks, Abingdon)

    Rees, Sir J. D.

    Campion, W. R.

    Herbert, Hon. A. (Somerset, S.)

    Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

    Carilie, Sir Edward Hildred

    Hewins, William Albert Samuel

    Rolleston, Sir John

    Cassel, Felix

    Hickman, Col. T. E.

    Royde, Edmund

    Castlereagh, Viscount

    Hill, Sir Clement L.

    Rutherford, Watson (L'pool, W. Derby)

    Cator, John

    Hoare, Samuel John Gurney

    Salter, Arthur Clavell

    Cautley, H. S.

    Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy

    Samuel, Sir Harry (Norwood)

    Cave, George

    Hope, Major J. A. (Midlothian)

    Sanders, Robert A.

    Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

    Home, W. E. (Surrey, Guildford)

    Sanderson, Lancelot

    Cecil, Lord Hugh (Oxford University)

    Horner, Andrew Long

    Sandys, G. J.

    Cecil, Lord R. (Herts, Hitchin)

    Houston, Robert Paterson

    Sassoon, Sir Philip

    Chaloner, Col. R. G. W.

    Hume-Williams, William Ellis

    Scott, Leslie (Liverpool, Exchange)

    Chambers, J.

    Hunter, Sir C. R

    Scott, Sir S. (Maryiebone, W.)

    Clive, Captain Percy Archer

    Ingleby. Holcombe

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

    Coates, Major Sir Edward Feetham

    Jardine, Ernest (Somerset, East)

    Smith, Harold (Warrington)

    Cooper, Richard Ashmole

    Kebty-Fletcher, J. R.

    Spear, Sir John Ward

    Courthope, G. Loyd

    Kerr-Smiley, Peter Kerr

    Stanier, Beville

    Craig, Ernest (Cheshire, Crewe)

    Kerry, Earl of

    Stanley, Hon. Arthur (Ormskirk)

    Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet)

    Kimber, Sir Henry

    Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

    Crichton-Stuart, Lord Ninian

    Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

    Staveley-Hill, Henry

    Cripps, Sir Charles Alfred

    Lane-Fox, G. R.

    Stewart, Gershom

    Croft, H. P.

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

    Sykes, Alan John (Ches., Knutsford)

    Dalziel, D. (Brixton)

    Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)

    Sykes, Mark (Hull, Central)

    Denniss, E. R. B.

    Locker-Lampson, O. (Ramsey)

    Talbot, Lord E.

    Du Cros, Arthur Philip

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

    Terrell, H. (Gloucester)

    Duke, Henry Edward

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

    Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Down, N.)

    2030

    2031

    Tobin, Alfred Aspinall

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

    Wright. Henry Fitzherbert

    Touche, George Alexander

    Williams, Col. R. (Dorset, W.)

    Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

    Tryon, Captain George Clement

    Willoughby, Major Hon. Claud

    Yate, Col. Charles Edward

    Valentia, Viscount

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

    Younger, Sir George

    Walker, Col. William Hall

    Winterton. Earl

    Watrond, Hon. Lionel

    Wolmer, Viscount

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr.

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

    Wood, John (Stalybridge)

    Goulding and Mr. Astor.

    Wheler, Granville C. H.

    Worthington-Evans, L.

    Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

    The CHAIRMAN then proceeded to put the Question necessary to dispose of the business to be concluded at half-past Ten of the clock at this day's sitting.
    Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Friday next, 17th January.
    The Orders for 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."

    ENCLOSURE OF SHARLSTON COMMON (WEST RIDING).
    Mr. LANE-FOX: The subject I desire to bring before the House—which need not take very long—refers to a question I put to the President of the Board of Agriculture this afternoon, and also asked him on the 1st January. To put it briefly, my question was, why the right hon. Gentleman refused to allow the enclosure of a small bit of waste land at the back of a school in the West Riding of Yorkshire. The right hon. Gentleman replied:—
    "I refused my consent because, in my opinion. a proposal to enlarge the premises of a privately-owned school affords no justification for the enclosure of common land."
    Of course, that is a very plausible reason, and to hon. Gentlemen who do not know the circumstances of the case it may seem a good answer to give. I think when I have given the circumstances of the case they will agree it is one which requires considerable explanation, and is something approaching a public and very grave scandal. The school in question, as no doubt hon. Members have guessed, is a Church of England school. It is in the middle of a common, so that no extension is possible without encroaching on the common. The Board of Education have required the enlargement of the premises, the enlargement of the playground, and the improvement of the sanitary con-
    2032
    venience, and the local education authority of the West Riding of Yorkshire have actually approved and passed the plan under which this encroachment was necessary. In consequence of that the Lord of the Manor applied to the President of the Board of Agriculture for his sanction to the enclosure of 340 square yards of the common, which aggregates something like seventy acres. It is a large common, and anybody who knows the district knows there is no question of shortage of land for the building of houses or anything of that kind. The Lord of the Manor applied for this enclosure on 10th June. There are many precedents, as the House knows, for the enclosure of commons in matters of public utility, and I need hardly remind the House that the Commons Land (Regulation) Act, 1876, says, that in considering an application for enclosure the Enclosure Commissioners, whose functions are now vested in the right hon. Gentleman, shall take into consideration the question whether such application will be for the benefit of the neighbourhood. In this case the commoners and the ratepayers were all agreed in desiring to see this improvement of the school, partly influenced, no doubt, by financial reasons, because unless these schools could be brought up to date, and unless the requirements of the Board of Education could be satisfied, there was no alternative but to have a new school. Hon. Gentlemen who do not care about the feelings of a locality and who are always ready to undertake any philanthropy at other people's expense, think that does not matter; but in this case I maintain the right hon. Gentleman had to consider what was the opinions of the Commoners, the ratepayers, and the general public in the district.
    There is no chance of extension except on common land, because this school was built in the middle of the common. The Board of Agriculture did not at once refuse. They took a long time to consider the matter. I venture to suggest that if the real reason of the President of the Board of Agriculture for refusing the application was that he objected to the

    2033
    enclosure of common land for the purpose of enlarging the premises of a privately owned school, it would not have taken him five minutes to have come to that decision, but he waited, a long time, and, such was the attitude of the Board, that the managers were led to believe it was favourable, and they have actually built the extension, and it is now completed on the ground which the President of the Board of Agriculture refuses to allow to be enclosed. That, at any rate, proves that in the early stages the Board gave no evidence of their desire to oppose this. When the premises had been completed the President of the Board of Agriculture suddenly sent down and said he refused his consent. I can only imagine the clue to the reason which inspired the right hon. Gentleman lies in a letter received from the Board on 16th August, and which I will quote to the House. On that date the Board of Agriculture wrote to the solicitors saying they were in communication with the West Riding County Council, and they trusted to be in a position to communicate further on the subject at an early date. There is something rather mysterious about this, because when the chairman of the West Riding Education Committee was asked last Wednesday as to whether he had had any communication with the Board of Agriculture in this matter he absolutely denied having had any communication with them whatever. His answer was that he had had no communication with the President of the Board of Agriculture, and, regarding the other members of the committee, he had spoken to several, and they knew nothing about any communications having taken place. I can only suggest that these conflicting facts—the letter of the President of the Board of Agriculture and the statement of the chairman of the education committee—show that there is something mysterious about this transaction, which only suggests that the right hon. Gentleman has been unfortunately got at by the education committee, which for many years has been notoriously hostile to the further existence of denominational schools. Everybody in the West Riding knows that fact; indeed, many members of the education committee openly glory in it.
    I have too high an opinion of the abilities of the right hon. Gentleman to believe that this is merely a matter of pedantry. I do not believe he was prepared to take the line that this enclosure
    2034
    was a matter of such importance as regards safeguarding the interests of the commoners and of the public, and it was absolutely necessary to refuse the permission. There must have been some other motive. The extension of the school was. absolutely necessary, owing to the requirements of the Board of Education. It could be effected in no other way, but the right hon. Gentleman has deliberately refused' to allow it to be done, and he has simply done so on the pedantic ground that it is not in the interests of the commoners. There must be something more than that, and I am taking this opportunity to raise the question in the hope that the right hon. Gentleman will have a chance of giving some better reason than he has hitherto done. What are the alternatives? Either to have the children cramped in an undesirable school or else have the expense of a new school forced upon the ratepayers. I venture to think the right hon. Gentleman must have some better reason for the action he has taken than that he will not agree to alienate the commoners rights in the interests of a non-provided school. There is another motive, and that is that he is taking a hand in this campaign against denominational schools. In so doing, I think he is degrading his high office in venturing to-use such an opportunity as this in dealing with a matter more proper for his colleague the President of the Board of Education to adjudicate upon.
    Mr. T. E. HARVEY: Do the managers propose to give an equivalent to the public for the land taken, and, if so, in what way?
    HON. MEMBERS: How can they?
    Mr. LANE-FOX: I am not aware that the Board of Agriculture ever made any such suggestion. In this case no compensation is possible. The school is situate in the middle of a common, and it is impossible to secure an extension in any other direction.
    The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of AGRICULTURE (Mr. Runciman): I am not at all anxious to evade the question: which has been raised by the hon. Gentleman, and I rise at once to reply to the charge he has made that in the performance of my public duty I have been actuated by corrupt motives. [HON. MEMBERS: "No, No."] Certainly the doctrine on which the hon. Member leans is that no

    2035
    minister can carry out his public duty towards commoners without at once laying himself open to the charge that there was something mysterious, that there was something corrupt, and that there was something oppressive in the action that he took.
    Mr. LANE-FOX: I never said that.
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: That is the charge the hon. Member makes.
    Lord ROBERT CECIL: He never said that. [HON. MEMBERS: "Yes, he did."]
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: Yes, the hon. Member said that I had an improper motive, that the ordinary allowance which is made for public men being actuated by public spirit should certainly not be extended to me, that I was carrying into this question, which had nothing whatever to do with my Department, some corrupt reason or other, and that I had been "got at" by representatives of the West Riding Education Committee. There is not a word or a syllable of truth in any one of those charges. If the hon. Member thinks it is such an important matter I will tell him the whole story. The formal application and the consent of the enclosure of a portion of this common came on 14th June. Let the House know perfectly clearly what the application was. This is a privately owned school. It is without a playground. The intention was to enclose a portion of the common in order to provide a playground for this school. I have taken the line since I have been at the Board of Agriculture that no common has to be enclosed at any time unless the reason for that enclosure is overwhelming. That certainly was not an overwhelming reason. That was a formal application. The ordinary forms were gone through, and in July an official letter was sent explaining that three months' notice must be given. Then there came a communication from the West Riding County Council. The hon. Gentleman says there is some discrepancy between? what has been said by the chairman of the education committee of the West Riding and what I have said in this House. I do not know what the chairman of the West Riding education committee may have said. I have only his word for it. But I will say this: That as he has read his statement to the House there is no discrepancy. In so far as the West Riding
    2036
    education committee is Concerned I have had absolutely no communication with any member of that committee from start till finish. The communication which I had in the first instance from the West Riding County Council came from the general purposes committee.
    Mr. LANE-FOX: It is the same body.
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: It is not the same body. They have different interests. The general purposes committee of the West Riding County Council wrote asking the Board to refuse their consent because—
    "They are desirous that nothing should be done to take* away the benefits now enjoyed over the common."
    That is the only communication made by the county council. It came in no way from Mr. Dunn, who is chairman of the education committee. Does the hon. Gentleman suggest that this came from Mr. Dunn?
    An HON. MEMBER: What have the education committee got to do with it?
    Mr. LANE-FOX: I believe him to be a member of both committees.
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: Now the hon. Member believes that he is a member of both committees. He based his charge on the fact that I had been in corrupt communication with the education committee of the West Biding County Council—a very flimsy charge. The official letter sent to the county council pointed out the reasons for the application, and asked for any further observations that that local authority might have to make on the matter, which was nothing more or less than the ordinary procedure. The county council wrote saying that the county committee objected to any enclosure, except on grounds of pressing public necessity.
    Lord HUGH CECIL: Why is this not a pressing public necessity?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: The West Riding education committee then wrote saying that they
    "think the managers should satisfy the Board that the enlargement is so essential as to justify encroachment."
    11.0 P.M.
    That is the only request that ever. came from the education committee. That is a request which might quite properly have been made by the hon. Gentleman himself.
    Lord ROBERT CECIL: You said there had been no communication.
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: I said there had been no request from the education committee that I should not grant the enclosure. I have stated clearly, frankly, and fully, every communication which has passed on the subject. Now we come to the autumn, and the suggestion is that because I refused to allow a piece of common to be enclosed I was trying to hit at a Church school. The principle on which the Noble Lord and his Friends would go is that any Church school which required land was entitled to take it from a common. There are too many public commons which have had land taken away from them in the past on principles such as this, and certainly so long as I am at the Board of Agriculture I shall not allow any others. If it had been a school owned by my denomination, which has voluntary schools, if it had been owned by the Catholics, it would have been in exactly the same position. If it had been owned by the county council—[Interruption.] Of course the hon. Member will not admit that anyone can say a single honest word except himself. If the school had been owned by the county council I should have given exactly the same reply. This common, it is true, is seventy acres in extent, and unless there is some more pressing necessity than is yet shown in this matter it will remain seventy acres. If there had been any idea on the part of those who own this school that the common should in any way be diminished in size, why did they not make an offer?
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: Why did not you ask them?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: It was not my business to ask them. Those who were making the request should at least have made some offer of compensation, but they made absolutely none, and I can only repeat what I said at the beginning that in doing this my sole object was to prevent this common being diminished in size, and I hope the House will support any Minister who endeavours to retain the commons of Yorkshire or any other county of sufficient size for public requirements, not only for the sake of the present ratepayers, but of their successors. The suggestion is that because the present ratepayers wanted to use part of the common in such a way as to save their pockets—I think that was the account given by the hon. Member—that I, who am the guardian of these commons, was not to do anything whatever to protect the
    2038
    commoners of the future from the greed, or, if you like, the thrift, of the commoners of the present time. But the sole object of having the commoners' rights protected by a Minister who is answerable to this House is that the present commoners shall not be allowed to alienate the rights which belong not only to them, but to their successors. When the hon. Gentleman says it was only 340 square yards, what does that matter. That is the way in which commons have been diminished in size in the past—a strip here, a corner there, a little bit of a field here, and a larger field there. Bit by bit many of the commons have been cut down to a size which is quite inadequate for the requirements of the Commoners. When I was at the Board of Education there were frequently charges of improper administration made across the floor of the House. There was always the suggestion that the Minister was actuated by religious or anti-religious motives. Certainly, so long as I have been at the Board of Agriculture, I have never been actuated by any religious or anti-religious motives. I thank Heaven that, so far as my Department is concerned, religion does not come within its purview. I am quite content to administer my office in the best interests of agriculture, and of all those who are dependent upon agriculture for their livelihood. I am certainly not going to allow those who are dependent upon commerce, whether in this generation or in future generations, to diminish any rights by a single square yard for this or any other object not more important.
    Sir WILLIAM ANSON: I am certainly not going to charge the right hon. Gentleman with corrupt motives. I must say, however, that he has used a great deal of fine language about common rights which is not applicable to the present case, where the use of a very small portion of a common, with the consent of everybody interested in the matter, was demanded in order that the children of the locality might have a place to play upon. That is the use which the right hon. Gentleman describes as a scandalous abuse. It was merely a small portion of the common that was applied for in order that it might be used by the children of a voluntary school. The school is built in the middle of the common. [An HON. MEMBER: "Why?"] I do not know. Can anyone state any reason to the disadvantage of this school why it is placed in the middle of the common. It is there, and it

    2039
    is accepted by the locality, and the Board of Education required certain enlargements. Enlargements have been made at the request of the Board of Education.
    The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. J. A. Pease): The Board of Education did not require any enlargement in this particular case.
    Sir W. ANSON: The Board of Education will always say that if a certain number of fresh children were to be introduced a fresh number of places must be provided. If there were more children coming to the school, the school would have to be enlarged and the Board of Education would very properly require, as laid down in the regulations, a certain size of school to be provided. In this case everybody, the lord of the manor and the commoners, were prepared to give this small indulgence to the children of the neighbourhood. The Board of Agriculture stepped in and said, "Here is a voluntary school that may be taken at a disadvantage if a playground is refused, and those who are hostile to the existence of voluntary schools may be able to displace one more voluntary school and put the locality to great expense of building and providing a council school." That is the situation. The President of the Board of Agriculture in his zeal for common rights, denies this little exclusion of commoners rights in respect of a very small portion of the common for the benefit of the children of the neighbourhood. The right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Agriculture is indignant because we suggest that he has been somewhat affected in his judgment by the fact that this is a voluntary school. He claims that he has never in the course of his political career shown any sign of hostility to voluntary schools. I must remind him that we have most of us in our minds the recollection of Swansea. That case has a long history, and to him a painful history in the Law Courts. We cannot help thinking that in the case now under discussion, where everybody concerned in the matter was anxious that the children in the neighbourhood should have part of the common to play upon, there is no reasonable ground for the refusal by the Board of Agriculture to meet the reasonable request that was made.
    Mr. PEASE: Perhaps the House of Commons is not aware of the facts con-
    2040
    nected with this particular case. The Board of Education took exception to the accommodation of this school on the ground that there was not sufficient space. This was a Church school for 172 children, and they reduced the accommodation to 143 children. Even with that accommodation for 148 children the playground was not quite adequate. But the Board of Education were quite prepared to recognise the school even with a somewhat less playground accommodation than under the Board's regulations is required. The Church of England managers desired to bring back their school from 143, which was approved by the Board of Education, up to the previous standard of 172. With a view to doing that they had to acquire additional space, and in order to acquire that additional space they took away commoners rights and extended their premises on to the common. I thought it due to the House to let them know what arc the facts.
    Viscount HELMSLEY: I do not know that the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Education really makes any difference to the case stated by my hon. Friend. The fact is perfectly clear, that if the school was to have the number of scholars desirable in the interests of the locality that extension was necessary, and the fact is perfectly clear also that the President of the Board of Agriculture refused to allow the extension to be made. The only question for the House is to judge whether the President of the Board of Agriculture was right in doing so or not. He has endeavoured to show us that he was not actuated by improper motives, but at all events I think we are quite justified in accusing him of most arrant pedantry, and to try to make the House suppose, for a single instant, that he had refused the proposal in order to safeguard the common rights, is to my mind ridiculous. I think the House ought to have its attention drawn to the fact that the right hon. Gentleman gave himself away in his own answer when he said that even if this had been a proposal for a county council school, still in the interests of the commoners he would have refused to allow it. The excuse that he gave the managers of the school was that the commoners' rights could not be interfered with for the sake of a privately owned school. What did he mean by that distinction?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: The Noble Lord knows that I was not asked with regard to that, and if I had been I would have given it the same answer.
    Viscount HELMSLEY: I never heard a Government Department put its refusals on the flimsiest ground when they have a wide general principle upon which to base them. If his refusal had really been based on the fact that in any circumstances he would not take a single yard from any commoners' rights, then he ought to have said so. The fact is perfectly obvious to the House. The right hon. Gentleman has been actuated by a sympathetic feeling to those Radical Members of the West Riding County Council who are opposed to Church schools and as the President of the Board of Agriculture, and as administrator of the commons succeeding to the Enclosures Commissioners, which is not a political appointment, I think the House will agree that he grossly exceeded his duty.
    Mr. BOOTH: I have been at some trouble since this question was raised to
    2042
    search for a very old map which I have in my possession at home relating to this common. It deals with the commons and public rights in ancient form, right from Wakefield through Pontefract, and through the district to the hon. Member's own estate, and it contains very interesting in- formation with regard to the enclosures of the landowners in that district, of which I believe his own family records will bear some evidence; and it is a heartrending spectacle to find that common after common has been enclosed, including Brompton Marsh, to a considerable extent, which was in the happy hunting grounds of the hon. Member who commands so very well his fox and hounds. The spectacle of these commons which have been stolen all along the road—
    It being half an hour after the conclusion of Government business, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put.
    Adjourned at Fifteen minutes after Eleven o'clock.

  Customs and Excise (Watchers).
  Customs and Excise (Watchers).
  Coinage Statistics.
  Coinage Statistics.
NATIONAL INSURANCE ACT.
  SANATORIUM BENEFIT.
  SANATORIUM BENEFIT.
  SALE OF INSURANCE STAMPS (SCOTLAND).
  SALE OF INSURANCE STAMPS (SCOTLAND).
  Royal Flying Corps.
  Royal Flying Corps.
  Established Church (Wales) Bill.
  Established Church (Wales) Bill.
  University Education (Royal Commission)
  University Education (Royal Commission)
  Treasury Balances (India).
  Treasury Balances (India).
  Indian. Loans.
  Indian. Loans.
  Cotton Growing (India).
  Cotton Growing (India).
  Consular Service (Clerical Staffs).
  Consular Service (Clerical Staffs).
  Board of Agriculture (Secretary).
  Board of Agriculture (Secretary).
  Underground Telegraph Cables.
  Underground Telegraph Cables.
  Telegraph Receipts (Aberdeen and Dundee).
  Telegraph Receipts (Aberdeen and Dundee).
  Animals in Transit from Ireland (Food Supply).
  Animals in Transit from Ireland (Food Supply).
  Agricultural Banks.
  Agricultural Banks.
  Government Contract, Abingdon (Fair-Wages Clause).
  Government Contract, Abingdon (Fair-Wages Clause).
  Teachers' Degrees (Scotland).
  Teachers' Degrees (Scotland).
  Land Purchase (Ireland).
  Land Purchase (Ireland).
  Evicted Tenants (County Cork).
  Evicted Tenants (County Cork).
Preamble
The Lord St. JOHN of BLETSO—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his father.
KIRKCALDY DISTRICT WATER ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; to be printed; and (pursuant to the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899) deemed to have been read 2a (The Lord Willingdon), and reported from the Committee. (No. 187.)
LAND DRAINAGE (BRAITHWAITE MOSS) PROVISIONAL ORDER BELL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to.
SHEFFIELD CORPORATION BILL.
Returned from the Commons with several of the Amendments agreed to, and several others disagreed to, with reasons for such disagreement: The said reasons to be printed. (No. 188.)

NATIONAL INSURANCE ACT, 1911.
1. Provisional Regulations made by the Irish Insurance Commissioners as to Appeals and Disputes;
2. Provisional Special Order, dated 21st December, 1912, made by the National Health Insurance Joint Committee and the Insurance Commissioners acting jointly, entitled the National Health Insurance (Special Employers' Custom) Provisional Order, 1912 (No. 1);
3. Regulations made by the Irish Insurance Commissioners as to the proceedings of Insurance Committees;
4. The Unemployment Insurance (Supplementary) Regulations, dated 8th January, 1913, made by the Board of Trade under Part II of the Act;
5. Regulations made by the Irish Insurance Commissioners as to behaviour during Disease;
6. Provisional Special Order made by the National Health Insurance Joint Committee and by the Insurance Commissioners, the Scottish Insurance Commissioners, the Irish Insurance Commissioners and the Welsh Insurance Commissioners acting jointly, entitled the National Health Insurance (Subsidiary Employments) Provisional Order, 1912 (No. 4);
7. Regulations made by the Scottish Insurance Commissioners under Section 42 (c) of the Act as to the sums to be paid in respect of Deposit Contributors towards expenses incurred by Insurance Committees in the administration of Benefits, dated 27th December, 1912;
8. Regulations made by the Scottish Insurance Commissioners constituted under the Act as to the application of the transfer value of a married woman electing not to become a voluntary contributor, dated 27th December, 1912;
9. Regulations made by the Scottish Insurance Commissioners under the Act as to qualifications of midwives, dated 27th December, 1912;
10. Regulations made by the Scottish Insurance Commissioners under Section 11 of the Act as to agreements for compensation or damages, dated 27th December, 1912;
11. Provisional Regulations, dated 10th January, 1913, made by the Insurance Commissioners entitled the National Health Insurance (Compensation Agreements) Regulations, 1913;
12. Provisional Regulations, dated 11th January, 1913, made by the Insurance Commissioners entitled the National Health Insurance (Transfer from Voluntary to Employed Rate) Regulations, 1913;
13. Provisional Regulations, dated 10th January, 1913, made by the Insurance Commissioners entitled the National Health Insurance (Maternity Benefit) Regulations (England), 1913;
14. Regulations made by the Scottish Insurance Commissioners constituted under the Act amending the National Health Insurance (Naval and Military Forces) (Time-Limits) Regulations (Scotland). 1912, dated 7th January, 1913;
15. Provisional Regulations made by the Irish Insurance Commissioners as to the qualifications of a midwife;
16. Provisional Regulations, dated 13th January, 1913, made by the Insurance Commissioners entitled the National Health Insurance (Deposit Contributors' Administration Expenses) Regulations, 1913.
Laid before the House (pursuant to Act), and to be printed. (No. 189.)

UNIVERSITIES (SCOTLAND) ACT, 1889.
Petition for the amendment of the Ordinance of the University Court of the University of Glasgow, No. 12 (Affiliation of the Royal Technical College, Glasgow); — of the General Council of the University of Glasgow;—Read, and ordered to lie on the Table.

TEMPERANCE (SCOTLAND) BILL.
Order of the Day for receiving the Report of Amendments, read.
Moved, That this Report be now received. —(Earl Beauchamp.)
LORD COURTNEY OF PENWITH: I ask your Lordships' pardon for intervening at this stage, but if I say a few words now it may simplify and shorten the discussion which may possibly arise when we come to consider special proposals for the amendment of the Bill. As your Lordships are aware, under this Bill four options are given to the voters in the districts dealt with as to what should be the practice of licensing in the future. The voter may vote in favour of no licence being issued; he may vote in favour of disinterested management; he may vote in favour of a limited number of licences; or, finally, he may vote that no change whatever should be made. That is as the Bill now stands. It was, however, pointed out in Committee that the majority of the voters might desire some change, but inasmuch as their votes were divided amongst these several modes of action the minority might in the end prevail against a considerable majority of the voters desiring a change. For example, out of 100 voters 40 might desire that no licence should be issued; 30 might desire that licences should be issued only under the plan of disinterested management: 20
210
might desire that a limited number of licences should be issued—in other words, 90 out of the 100 might desire that some change should be made; but inasmuch as no one of the proposals had been carried, the remaining 10 voters who desired no change at all would have their will prevailing against the 90 who desired that some change should be effected.
When this matter was considered in Committee it was suggested, I think by the noble Marquess who leads the Opposition, that there should be some method of indicating subsidiary preferences, so that if the voter's first desire should not be accomplished his vote might, if he so wished and indicated his wish, be passed on to a second preference; and in that way the advocates of change would be able without any previous collaboration, without the inevitable conspiring together which would follow on the Bill as it stands, to secure that the change most desirable to the majority should be effected. I had supposed that Amendments would have been put down for this stage to carry out that plan, but I discovered to my surprise that that had not been done. I have, therefore, drawn up what I think are simple Amendments for effecting the purpose, and I propose to suggest their adoption to your Lordships. I know that it is inconvenient that Amendments should be moved of which no notice has been given, and if objection is taken to my moving these Amendments to-clay I presume I shall have no alternative but to bow to that objection and endeavour to get the Amendments introduced at the next stage. I submit, however, that my scheme involves little alteration. It is only necessary to provide that the voter should be able, not only to vote for his first wish, but to indicate, if he desires to do so, the next alternative which he favours.
I suggest that the papers to be first examined should be those which advocated the most stringent change. In the case I have imagined, out of the 40 voters it may be that 30 desired disinterested management; if so, that 30 added to the 30 who had already voted for disinterested management would give the necessary majority, and disinterested management would prevail. The proposal is a simple one, and one which would act with great simplicity. The effect would be to secure that what

211
the voters really wished in any area should be accomplished. Under the present scheme in the Bill you might get 90 voters out of 100 voting for some change and yet no change could be effected because the 90 advocated separate forms of change. If they could be brought together and their action united in the way that I have suggested, you would then get the will of the majority of the voters in the area carried out. I have thought it desirable to make this short statement now, and when Clause 2 is reached I will, if your Lordships allow me, propose the Amendments which I have drawn up.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: I would suggest to the noble Lord that it would be more convenient if he would put down his Amendments for the next stage of the Bill. As he has said, it is not regular to discuss Amendments that are not on the Paper; and although I listened very carefully to what the noble Lord said I do not know that I gather what the precise form of his proposal is. So far as the question of transferring a vote in favour of one option to another is concerned, the noble Lord will remember that that was in the Bill when we went into Committee. If I remember right, it was this—that the vote of a person who had voted for no licence would be held as transferred to a limiting resolution. That provision was considered by the House and was struck out on the ground that it virtually gave two votes to the man who voted for no licence. If that decision is to be reversed I think the Amendments by which it is to be done should be on the Paper. I therefore suggest that the noble Lord opposite should not propose his Amendments until the Third Reading.
THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (EARL BEAUCHAMP): This is not a matter which directly affects His Majesty's Government, because, as I understand it, it is an Amendment which my noble friend behind me, Lord Courtney, proposes to move to an Amendment which was inserted by noble Lords opposite. The Amendment which noble Lords opposite inserted was not one to which His Majesty's Government could agree, and therefore they cannot feel the same interest in the Amendment now mentioned by the noble Lord behind me as if it were an Amendment to a proposal of their own. I venture, however, to say to my noble friend that I hope he will see his way to accede to the request
212
made to him by the noble Earl below the Gangway. It is probably more convenient that your Lordships should have an opportunity of seeing the Amendments in print before you are asked to vote upon them. I may add that I shall be glad to consult the convenience of my noble friend Lord Courtney as to the date when we will take the Third Reading.
LORD COURTNEY OF PENWITH: If no objection in point of form is taken to my proposal being moved on Third Reading I shall certainly defer to the suggestion which has been made.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Clause 1:
Date of Act coming into operation.
1. This Act shall, except as otherwise in this Act provided, come into operation on the expiration of fourteen years from the first day of June nineteen hundred and twelve.
THE EARL OF LYTTON: I move to amend Clause I by substituting "ten" for "fourteen." Your Lordships will remember that while there was an almost overwhelming opinion when this question of time limit was under discussion in Committee that the period of five years was too short, there was also a considerable amount of opinion expressed on both sides of the House to the effect that the period of fourteen years was, on the other hand, too long. My noble friend Lord Lovat's Amendment really involved two proposals —the first was to strike out the word "five," and the second to substitute the word "fourteen." The House divided on the first of those proposals and I voted with my noble friend in that Division, because I was of opinion that the period of five years was certainly too short a limit but the House had no opportunity of dividing on the second proposition to insert the word "fourteen," because that was carried without a Division. I have put down this Amendment to give an opportunity to those who, like myself, think that fourteen years is too long to vote for a limit of years between five and fourteen. I think that neither in the case of the five years nor of the fourteen was the exact limit defended by any definite calculations. Indeed, it would be very difficult to do so. But I understood from the noble Earl in charge of the Bill that the period of five years was justified by the Government on the ground that this was the figure recommended by the Peel

213
Commission. Without entering into the question as to whether at the time that Report was issued a five years time limit was or was not a fair notice to give to licence holders in Scotland, I would remind your Lordships that since the publication of the Report of the Peel Commission a very important thing has happened. I The Finance Act of 1910 has been passed, and that Act imposes large additional burdens on the licensed trade throughout the Kingdom. However opinion may differ as to the extent of the difference which is made by the Finance Act of 1910, no one can hold, I think, that that Act has made no difference. Yet this Bill, as introduced by the Government, ignores it altogether. The Amendment which I have put down to-day is with the object of recognising the change which has been made in the situation by t he Finance Act of 1910. As far as I can gather from information which has reached me from many sources, the period of ten years seems to be the fairest and most reasonable limit from all points of view and as I am most anxious that all the Amendments made in this Bill by your Lordships' House should be as reasonable as possible and should obtain the largest amount of support within the house, I beg to move the Amendment which stands in my name.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 6, leave out ("fourteen") and insert "ten").—(The Earl of Lytton.)
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: It is obvious that a figure of this kind must be a fair matter for argument. Nobody can say with any degree of confidence that "ten" is the right figure and "fourteen" the wrong one. I was, however, impressed by what my noble friend said a moment ago as to the desirability of taking a time limit which shall be a reasonable one and of avoiding any Amendment which might be regarded as an attempt to wreck the Bill. On the whole, therefore, if my noble friend presses his Amendment. I shall be glad to support him.
EARL BEAUCHAMP: It is only necessary for me to say, on behalf of His Majesty's Government, that they naturally look upon the period of ten years with a more favourable eye than they do upon that of fourteen years; but they still adhere to the original proposal, which, as Lord Lytton reminded your Lordships, was the far shorter period of five years.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 2:
Poll of Electors on Resolutions submitted.
2.—(1) If, in the manner hereinafter provided, a requisition demanding a poll under this Act in any area is fin by the local authority to have been duly signed, the local authority shall cause a poll of the electors in such area (hereinafter called "a poll") to be taken in accordance with the provisions of this Act.
(2) The questions to be submitted to the electors at a poll shall be the adoption in and for such area of (a) a no change resolution, or (b) a disinterested management resolution, or (c) a limiting resolution, or (d) a no-licence resolution.
(3) On a poll in any area—

(a) if two-thirds at least in number of the votes recorded are in favour of a no-licence resolution, and not less than thirty per cent. of the electors for such area on the register have voted in favour thereof, such resolution shall be deemed to be carried; or if

(b) a majority of the votes recorded are in favour of a limiting resolution, or of a disinterested management resolution, as the case may be, and not less than thirty per cent. of the electors for such area on the register have voted in favour thereof, such resolution shall be deemed to he carried; or if

(c) a majority of the votes recorded are in favour of a no-change resolution, or if no other resolution is carried, a no-change resolution shall be deemed to be carried; and

any such resolution so carried shall come into force on the twenty-eighth day of May immediately following the taking of the poll.
(4) An elector shall not be entitled to vote for more than one of the resolutions submitted at the poll.
(5) Any such resolution if carried shall remain in force until the resolution is repealed or superseded as hereinafter provided.
THE EARL OF DUNMORE THE EARL OF DUNMORE moved an Amendment, in subsection (3), paragraph (a), to leave out the word "thirty" ["and not less than thirty per cent. of the electors"] and insert in its place the word "fifty." The noble Earl said: By this Amendment I ask the House to say that in order to prohibit entirely the retail sale of intoxicating liquor in any area the votes of not less than one-half of the whole number of electors shall be required. As the municipal electors represent about 17 per cent. of the population of Scotland, I may put it in another way and say that I ask by this Amendment that the votes of not fewer than about nine persons in every 100 in any area shall be required before a no-licence resolution is carried. To give your Lordships a concrete case, I will take an area with 1,000 electors and assume that 700 of them record their votes at a poll. Under the

215
Bill as it stands 467 votes for a no-licence resolution would be required to carry it; if my Amendment were accepted 500 votes would be required. But when you get to a larger poll, to a poll of 75 per cent., my Amendment would cease to have any effect on the number of votes required to carry a no-licence resolution. All that my Amendment endeavours to do is to provide a safeguard against revolutionary changes being effected at a small poll.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 20, leave out ("thirty") and insert ("fifty.")—(The Earl of Dunmore.)
EARL BEAUCHAMP: Unless I am mistaken, this is the same Amendment as was moved by the noble Earl in the Committee stage, on which occasion the Government had the unusual experience of being able to negative that Amendment without a Division. I submit that it would be somewhat of a misfortune if on this occasion your Lordships were to reverse that decision. I ventured at the moment to flatter myself that my arguments had proved sufficiently cogent to persuade the noble Earl not to contest the point any further; certainly the Amendment was negatived without any further discussion. I think it is a somewhat inconvenient practice if Amendments which are negatived in Committee are moved again on Report without a great deal more consideration than this Amendment has received. In these circumstances I venture to hope that your Lordships will maintain the attitude which was held by this House in the Committee stage.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: It is quite true, as the noble Earl in charge of the Bill has said, that this Amendment was moved by my noble friend at an earlier stage. My recollection is that we did not think it worth while to divide the House upon the point then because at that moment the attendance of your Lordships was very thin and we thought it hardly desirable to have a Division in such circumstances. With regard to the merits of the proposal, I think that my friend in the Committee stage made a fairly strong case for adopting the fraction which he now proposes. But I am bound to say that I wish to avoid as far as possible the insertion of any minor Amendments which might have the appearance of taking away
216
from the efficiency of this Bill; and as the noble Earl who has just addressed the House has claimed, and I think with some reason, that it would perhaps be unusual to ask the House at this stage to reverse the decision which it accepted in the Committee stage, I venture to suggest to my noble friend that he might be content not to press the Amendment upon the House.
THE EARL OF DUNMORE: I withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE EARL OF DUNMORE THE EARL OF DUNMORE also had on the Paper an Amendment to paragraph (b) to leave out "thirty" and to substitute "forty." The noble Earl said: The principle which underlies this Amendment is the same as that which applied to the Amendment I have just withdrawn. In these circumstances I am not going to press my Amendment, but I would like to point out how these Amendments really would act. Take the case of a small area like Queensferry, which has a population of 2,812, represented by 419 voters. On a poll of 300, under the Bill as it stands 151 votes would carry a limiting resolution; if my Amendment were accepted 168 votes would be required. If under my Amendment 168 people can enforce a certain course of action on a population of 2,812, I do not think the Amendment can be called unreasonable; and, as I have already pointed out, both of these Amendments would cease to operate on a large poll. But in the circumstances I will not move this Amendment.
Clause 3:
Effect of Resolutions, if carried.
3.—(1) For the period during which a no-licence resolution remains in force in any area, no certificate shall be granted therein; except that the licensing court may, on being satisfied that under the special circumstances of the case any certificate is reasonably required notwithstanding the fact that a no-licence resolution is in force in the area, grain a certificate for an inn and hotel or for premises structurally adapted for use and bona fide used or to be used as a restaurant. Provided that any certificate so granted shall be deemed to include the conditions that there shall be on the certificated premises no drinking-bar or other part of the premises mainly or exclusively used for the sale or consumption of exciseable liquors, and that such liquors shall be sold therein by retail only and to none but persons lodging or residing in the inn and hotel, or persons taking a meal on the premises of the restaurant or (if the court so sanction) of the inn and hotel, for consumption with such meal; and

217
provided further that it shall be a condition of the renewal of any such certificate in any year after the year in which it is first granted under the provisions of this section that the applicant shall satisfy the court by production of an excise licence or otherwise that lie is entitled to a reduction of duty in terms of section forty-five of the Finance (1909–10) Act, 1910.
(2) For the period during which a limiting resolution remains in force in any area, without prejudice to the other powers or discretion of the licensing court, it shall not be lawful for the licensing court to grant a greater number of certificates in such area than the nearest integral number which shall not exceed seventy-five per cent. of the number of certificates in force at the date at which such resolution is carried.
(3) if a limiting resolution is carried the licensing court shell, before the first day of February following the poll, meet for the purpose of preparing a scheme for carrying out in the area the requirements of the resolution, which scheme shall give the particulars of any premises the certificates of which the court propose to withdraw, and every scheme prepared as aforesaid shall forthwith lie advertised by the clerk to the licensing court in a newspaper circulating in the area and shill be open to the inspection of the public for three weeks before the first day of March following the poll at a place to he stated in the advertisement.
(4) Before the general half-yearly meeting of the licensing court held in April, the licensing court shall meet for the purpose of hearing the parties interested in the said scheme and adjusting the said scheme for consideration at the said April meeting, and the licensing court shall at that meeting or at any adjournment thereof take the scheme so adjusted into consideration, and after hearing parties interested therein, so far as not already heard, and, if they modify tin scheme, after hearing parties interested in any modification, shall decide upon the certificates to be a withdrawn.
(5) For the period during which a disinterested management resolution remains in force in any area the licensing court may in lieu of any existing certificate within the area grant a certificate to an authorised public company as defined in this section, and no new certificate shall he granted within the area except to an authorised public company. A certificate may be granted to an authorised public company subject to such conditions as the licensing court may thick fit, and where a certificate is so granted in lieu of an existing certificate the grant of the certificate shall be subject to the payment by the authorised public company of such sum as the court, haying regard to the provisions of this section, may consider to be reasonable. The sum so received from the authorised public company shall be paid as compensation to the holder of the certificate which has been withdrawn in pursuance of the disinterested management resolution, or if the licensing court so order, the sum shall be divided between the holder of the certificate and such other persons as in the opinion of the licensing court are interested and in such proportions as the court may order.
(3) An authorised public company means a company registered under the Companies (Consolidation) Act, 1908, one of whose objects shall be the sale of exciseable liquors and whose memorandum and articles of association have been approved by the Secretary for Scotland. The articles of association shall make provisions for such matters as the Secretary for Scotland may prescribe, and shall provide among other things—
218

(a) that the whole of the profits after payment of interest at four per centum on any sum paid as compensation and not more than four per centum on the paid-up capital, and after making provision for the formation of a reserve fund equal in amount to the paid-up capital upon such terms as may be fixed by the memorandum and articles of association, shall be paid to the Secretary for Scotland, and shall be expended upon works of public utility for the benefit of the inhabitants of the area in accordance with a scheme prepared by the county council, or in the case of a burgh by the town council, which scheme shall be subject to the approval of the Secretary for Scotland;

(b) that the salary or remuneration of the managers or employees of the company shall not be dependent on and shall not be subject to increase or decrease in proportion to, the sale of intoxicating liquors in any licensed house under the control of the company;

(c) thud the accounts of the company shall be submitted to an annual audit by an auditor to be approved by the Secretary for Scotland, and that die report of such auditor with an abstract of the accounts shall be published in a newspaper circulating in each area in which the company holds a certificate.

(7) The decision of the licensing court in refusing certificates in pursuance of a no-licence resolution shall not be subject to appeal, but where any certificate has been withdrawn to give effect to a limiting resolution an appeal shall lie from such decision as in the case of the refusal of the renewal of a certificate under the provisions of the Licensing (Scotland) Act., 1903: Provided always that if the result of any appeal or appeals under this provision is to render the certificates in existence in the area in excess of the number allowed by the limiting resolution, the licensing court shall, before the next general half-yearly meeting of the licensing court, prepare a scheme for the reduction of the certificates to the aforesaid number, and shall notify the same in manner similar to that prescribed in respect of the original scheme and shall proceed to give effect thereto.
(8) It shall not be competent for a member of a licensing court to sign a requisition for a poll under this Act.
EARL BEAUCHAMP: I move to omit from subsection (1) the words "a certificate" ["notwithstanding the fact that a no-licence resolution is in force in the area, grant a certificate"] and to substitute "one or more certificates." The noble Earl said: This is a drafting Amendment, and is proposed in order to meet certain criticisms at a previous stage from Lord Balfour of Burleigh, who was afraid that as the Bill then stood it would not meet the case where more than one certificate was in question.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 23, leave out ("a certificate") and insert ("one or more certificates").—(Earl Beauchamp.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH moved to leave out from subsection (5) all words after "For the period during which a disinterested management resolution remains in force in any area," and to insert new words. The noble Lord said: This Amendment is one of a series standing in my name dealing with the machinery for bringing into force the principle of disinterested management should that principle be accepted by the requisite number of voters. I am not going to re-argue at this stage of the Bill the principle of disinterested management. It was accepted very generally, practically universally, by the noble Lords who spoke on the last occasion, and the Division which was taken in regard to it was a very striking one. Only twenty noble Lords went into the Lobby against it, fifteen of whom were actual members of the Government, and four of the other five owed their seats in this House to his Majesty's Government during the currency of the last two or three years. As I say, I am not going to re-argue the point now, but I shall think it necessary to say something in defence of the principle of disinterested management at a subsequent stage, because on this point the action of your Lordships' House has been very much criticised, as I think unfairly criticised, and in many cases actually misrepresented. This, however, is not the stage or the time in which to enter into those Considerations.
The Amendments which stand in my name for this stage are designed entirely towards points of machinery and to enable the disinterested management system, if voted for, to be brought into force with less criticism, less difficulty, and less unfairness than would otherwise be the case; and it is perfectly obvious to any one who reads these Amendments, and the Amendments which stand in the name of the noble Marquess (Lord Salisbury) as to insurance, that they are framed to agree with one another and to make altogether a concrete, and, as I think, useful and sensible scheme. One criticism which was made on the last stage of the Bill about bringing disinterested management into operation was this. It was said that if the voters voted for no licences, of course the licence-holders must get what compensation they could out of their trade funds, or by an insurance scheme if they could establish one, but that it
220
was obviously unfair to say that if a disinterested management resolution was carried—where in effect you substituted one class of public-house for another—the new system was not to hear any share of the burden for compensation. I said at the time that I thought that was a just criticism, but there were difficulties at the time in bringing a good scheme into operation, and therefore it was not possible then to give effect to what, as I have said, I admitted was a valid criticism. The Amendments which stand in my name to-day are designed to improve the regulations under which disinterested management will come into force. I am quite aware that noble Lords opposite will say that they do not approve of disinterested management, that they will take no responsibility for it; and therefore I do not suppose they care very much in what form the House ultimately adopts the Amendments for bringing it into force. With that attitude, of course, I cannot agree, and I may have something to say upon it by way of criticism on a subsequent occasion. All that this first Amendment provides is a sufficient form of security for the payment for which tire disinterested management company is making itself liable. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 27, leave out from ("area") to the end of the subsection and insert ("no certificate shall be granted therein except to an authorised public company: Provided that a certificate shall not he so granted unless the company has given such security either by way of deposit or otherwise as the licensing court requires for the payment by the company by way of annual or other periodical instalments to the Scottish Licence Holders Central Insurance Board established under this Act of one-half of the total declared value of the certificates in the area, as insured in accordance with the Third Schedule to this Act, which have been withdrawn in pursuance of the disinterested management resolution; or where applications for certificates within the area are entertained from more than one authorised public company, security for the payment of such proportion of half the total declared value aforesaid as may be fixed by the licensing court. The liability imposed upon any authorised public company in pursuance of the foregoing provision shall cease and determine if and when the disinterested management resolution in pursuance of which the liability was imposed ceases to be in force.
"(6) The Scottish Licence Holders Central Insurance Board shall apply the sums received in pursuance of the provisions of the immediately preceding subsection towards the payment of the claims of the licence holders in the area in respect of the withdrawal of whose certificates such sums are payable").—(Lord Balfour of Burleigh.)
EARL BEAUCHAMP: I think it will probably be to the general convenience of the House if we take the discussion of the new scheme upon this Amendment and not defer until a later period what we have to say upon the general Amendments which are now introduced by noble Lords opposite; and, moreover, this Amendment does mention the insurance scheme with regard to which the noble Marquess on the Front Bench opposite (Lord Salisbury) has Amendments of a more detailed kind later on. Your Lordships, I am sure, will realise the interest with which we who are responsible for ads Bill awaited the Amendments which were going to be put down by noble Lords opposite on the general question of disinterested management, and it is not without considerable surprise that we find that these proposals, now that they are on the Paper, are made accessory to a compulsory insurance scheme which the House formerly objected to and rejected in Committee, very largely on the advice given by Lord Balfour of Burleigh. The disinterested management proposals as they are now amended make it clear that where disinterested management comes in all existing licence-holders must go out. There is to be, in fact, a monopoly; there is to be that very monopoly to which Lord Salisbury objected when we were discussing this matter in Committee. Will the noble Marquess allow me to quote his words? Speaking on this subject in Committee on November 25 last, the noble Marquess said—
"Then comes the question of whether the option is to involve an absolute monopoly or only a limited monopoly a restricted trade. My noble friend says it mutt be all or nothing. I confess I rather shrink from so extreme a course. … If you try to press it intemperately and drive it, as it were, down the throats of the people, you will not get it in that way. Therefore, I suggest that it is a far wiser thing, wiser in the interests of the movement itself, to allow it to be tentative."
Again the noble Marquess said—
"Would it not be a perfectly reasonable system that you should submit au option to the locality so that the electors may determine whether they wish to have this experiment tried or not, and then the precise details of the extent to which the experiment should be tried should be left in the hands of the licensing authority."
Now what we are asked to agree to is a compromise. On the one side the noble Marquess surrenders his objection to the monopoly which is given to disinterested management, and Lord Balfour sacrifices his objection to compulsory insurance.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: Compulsory insurance on very different terms.
EARL BEAUCHAMP: I quite agree; but that comes later. It is proposed in this Amendment that no certificate should be granted until provision had been made by the new company for the payment to the insurance fund of one-half of the value of the withdrawn certificates. There, again, we have a remarkable example of compromise. While Lord Balfour of Burleigh said no compensation was necessary after the expiration of the time limit and the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, was in favour of compensation, having compromised they agree upon giving one-half of the value—a very neat instance, I think, of what compromise can do. But where such provision is not made the company loses any right to certificates, and if a company is not formed within three months after the resolution is carried the resolution becomes void.
The provision requiring the disinterested management company to guarantee one-half of the value of the existing licences is open to criticism on various grounds. It is provided that this liability is to cease if and when the resolution ceases to be in force. At the same time it is provided that the liability is to be discharged by way of annual or other periodical instalments. Therefore it would seem possible for the company to discharge its liability over a number of payments lasting for twenty, thirty, or even more years. But what is to happen if the resolution ceases to be in force within three or six years, and if, upon a local Option being applied, the majority of voters were in favour of no licence at all? What is to happen, again, if the company was to wind up its affairs? Further it is provided in the new insurance schedule standing in the name of Lord Salisbury that no claim is to be enforced against the Central Board except in respect of the year in which a certificate is withdrawn. It is difficult to reconcile that provision with different payments over a series of years by the disinterested management companies and the insurance board and the payments having to be earmarked to the compensation of particular licence-holders within the area.
The general question of compensation was dealt with by Lord Balfour of Burleigh

223
when we were discussing the matter—on a very different scheme of compensation, I agree—and the noble Lord then used these words—
"Compensation should not be paid if the disinterested management resolution comes into force at the end of the period of the time limit, whatever that may be."
In spite of that we have the noble Lord now agreeing to this compromise, which is not, I think, a compromise of which the organisation in Scotland interested in disinterested management would be likely to approve. They agree with the former position which was held by the noble Lord when we were discussing this matter in Committee—that disinterested management should be granted without compensation at any rate at the end of the time limit. That is a very different proposition from asking the companies interested in disinterested management to pay not less than one-half the value of the licences which are going to be taken away. We do not feel that this scheme is any more practicable than those that have previously been before the House, and therefore, although I certainly shall not put your Lordships to the trouble of a Division, His Majesty's Government are unable to accept either this Amendment or the Amendments which hang upon it and which will be moved, no doubt, subsequently.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: The noble Earl in charge of the Bill has taken the rather unusual course even in your Lordships' House, where the rules of order are not over rigidly enforced, of discussing upon this Amendment not only the view of my noble friend Lord Balfour who moved it, but my views upon a subsequent Amendment which is not yet before your Lordships' House. I am afraid I cannot promise to follow the noble Earl into defending the details of Amendments which I may or may not move hereafter. But I should like to say a word or two in respect to the speech of the noble Earl on the general question of the arrangement which has been come to between those in whose name Lord Balfour of Burleigh speaks and those who sit upon this Bench.
The noble Earl opposite has spoken with very good-tempered raillery of a compromise. One would really think that, although he has risen to a very high position in the State, he had never heard of a compromise in political matters
224
before. Why, my Lords, we live upon compromise. The whole of our political life is nothing but a series of compromise, and any man who was surprised at a compromise or who shrank from a course because it was a compromise would certainly be unfit for British public life. There has been undoubtedly a compromise, and the noble Earl was good enough to quote my words, which are not of very great value in themselves, in order to show the extent to which I had compromised. I do not like to trouble your Lordships with any words of mine, which may or may not have been well chosen, on a previous occasion, but if they are to be called in question I should like to remind the noble Earl that I said, either on that occasion or the next evening, that there must be a certain distinction made between the cogency of principles, and that as regards the principle of monopoly I did think that we might come to an agreement about it. But as regards compensation to the publicans who were affected under the operation of this Bill by those who were to take their place and to make a profit out of a business from which they had been ejected—upon that I thought there could be no compromise, and your Lordships will see that it is upon those lines that the arrangement has been made. My noble friend Lord Balfour was convinced, and as far as I know those whom he represents were convinced, that it was a fair thing that if you turned out a publican—who was, after all, doing no more than he legitimately may do, making money out of a legitimate business—in order yourself to make money in his place, a certain payment was due from the person who supplanted him. That seemed to be elementary justice, and when we came to consider it we laid it down as an absolute principle from which we could not depart. That is carried out by my noble friend Lord Balfour, and I must say that I think it does credit to him that he should have accepted that principle.
The great point made on the last occasion by Lord Beauchamp was that the principle of the Bill was local option. He said that was the most essential part of the Bill. We are not responsible for the principle of the Bill. I hope no one will think, because we have done our best to make this Bill rather fairer than it was before, that therefore we accept responsibility for it. Nothing of the kind. This is not the kind of Bill that we should have

225
proposed if our Party had the confidence of the House of Commons. But we have done the best we can, and one of the things we have been prepared to do is to accept the principle of the Bill, not because we approve of it, but because we feel that in a matter of this kind your Lordships should not place yourselves in opposition to the declared will of Scottish opinion as represented in the House of Commons, of which we do not doubt the truth. The principle of the Bill is that the electors themselves should determine. That carries with it the negative of the proposal which I made on the last occasion, because upon that occasion, as the noble Earl has pointed out, what was proposed was that authority should be given to the Licensing Court to make what arrangement they thought right in the matter of disinterested management. Personally, I think that is the best system, but undoubtedly it was contrary to the principle of the Bill, and therefore we are prepared to make a concession, a concession which the noble Earl certainly ought not to protest against because that was the very part which he thought the most essential part of his Bill.
The noble Earl made one criticism upon this arrangement. It was that all that the evicted licence-holder is to get is one-half of the declared value. Undoubtedly that is a considerable concession, but it must be remembered that he gets one-half of the declared value. Under the Bill he would have had a claim, perhaps, to what would have been a larger sum, but although he could claim more he was not by any means certain to get it under the words as they were left by your Lordships in Committee. He was only to get it if the Court thought it was a sum which the disinterested management company could reasonably pay; and, if I remember right, also he could not get it until after certain charges had already been paid to which other persons were entitled in priority. We have got rid of the uncertainty. One-half of the declared value is all the licence-holder can claim, but it is not subject to any deductions. The licence-holder asks for one-half of the declared value and gets it. That seemed so valuable that we were prepared to make a concession with regard to the full amount of the claim, and we recommend that the compromise, both in this Amendment and in the one which I shall subsequently move, should be accepted by the House.
THE EARL OF LYTTON: It is difficult to know what it is exactly in order to discuss at this moment. I do not propose to go into any of the details either of Lord Balfour's Amendment or of the Amendment standing, in the name of Lord Salisbury, but since the noble Earl in charge of the Bill has started a sort of Second Reading discussion upon the whole question of the compromise involved in the Amendments which appear on the Paper I would like to say something on that question in answer to his speech. I do not think this sneering at compromise comes very well from His Majesty's Government. It is quite true that the line adopted by noble Lords on this side of the House in the recent discussions of Amendments which now appear on the Order Paper was very different from the line which those in charge of this Bill have taken in the discussions since the Bill was introduced into Parliament; but this Bill has not yet become law, and I venture to suggest that it is unwise to sneer at compromise and to say, because parties who were previously in disagreement are now in agreement, that that is a bad and not a good thing. For myself I think it is entirely to the credit of all parties who have recently been engaged in this discussion that they have regarded the matter in the spirit of give and take, and that they have been able now to put their views on the Order Paper in a form on which they are all united and agreed.
Let me say one word as to what this compromise is. First of all, I understand it is proposed that where under a resolution provided by this Bill licence-holders in Scotland lose their certificates they are to be compensated out of a compulsory insurance fund which is to be established for that purpose. The noble Earl in charge of the Bill says that your Lordships decided against this insurance fund on the Committee stage and are now proposing to reinsert it. Let me point out to him that the scheme now upon the Order Paper is a very different one from that which was moved in Committee. Precisely those points to which Lord Balfour took exception have been met, and the scheme which we shall come to discuss presently is one upon which there is now very general agreement. Surely the noble Earl does not suggest that, because the House rejects one proposal on the ground that it contains certain objectionable features, it is therefore

227
debarred from ever again introducing a proposal from which those defects had been eliminated. Where a certificate is taken away in pursuance of a disinterested management resolution the case is somewhat different, because in that case the licence-holder has a successor who will carry on the business, and, as Lord Salisbury truly said, it is therefore right that the successor should contribute something towards the compensation which the licence-holder is to receive. Lord Balfour's Amendment provides that in those cases one-half of the declared value of the licence shall be contributed by the disinterested management company. Then it is provided that the company so taking over the certificates should give some sort of security for the payment of this one-half of the licence value. That provision is made in the words which my noble friend has just moved.
I desire to call attention to a provision in the Amendment now before the House. It is provided that—
"a certificate shall not be so granted unless the company has given such security either by way of deposit or otherwise as the licensing court requires for the payment by the company by way of annual or other periodical instalments to the Scottish Licence Holders Central Insurance Board established under this Act of one-half of the total declared value of the certificates in the area,"
and so forth. I notice that there is no provision made in those words of the source from which this payment is to be made, and I suggest to my noble friends that they should consider before the Bill reaches its next stage whether words might not be added to secure that this payment should be made from the profits of the company. For my own part I think that no disinterested management company would undertake the management of licences if any obligation were put upon them to raise capital for the pro vision of compensation, but I think the disinterested management company would be willing to undertake the obligation if they were to provide the compensation from the profits of the trade they were taking over. As regards the machinery of Lord Balfour's proposed Amendment, that, I think, meets all the objections which some of us who believe in the principle of disinterested management raised at the Committee stage of this Bill. This Amendment provides for a monopoly which will secure that a vote given under a disinterested management
228
resolution shall be a real option. It is, as the noble Marquess who has just sat down said, much more in accordance with the principle of this Bill than is the provision as it stands in the Bill at the present moment. Then, again, the surplus profits of the company are to go to a national fund, and, generally speaking, the conditions which are to attach to disinterested management as provided in this Amendment are in accordance with the experience of disinterested management experiments in other countries.
The noble Earl in charge of the Bill has sought to make capital by quoting from speeches of noble Lords on this side of the House during the Committee discussion of this Bill, and he concluded, as he concluded in Committee, by telling us that His Majesty's Government as a Government were still opposed to the principle of disinterested management. May I remind him of the speeches made by sonic of his colleagues on this subject? I think I am right in saying that a large number of the noble Earl's colleagues in the Cabinet have at various times expressed themselves strongly in support of the principle of disinterested management. The Prime Minister, the Foreign Secretary, and the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack have, I think, at some time or another expressed themselves in favour of this principle; and the noble and learned Viscount's predecessor, Lord Loreburn, speaking some years ago on this subject, used these words—
"The effects of Local Option will, I believe, he only partial. What is to be done in those cases in which the population do not think proper to interfere for their own protection? My own opinion is that, supplemental to any addition to Local Option, localities ought to have also the right to insist that the element of private gain should be eliminated from all places where liquor is sold."
The Chancellor of the Exchequer also said, in 1903—
"When they came to deal with a habit so deep-rooted, and so inextricably connected with human nature itself, they could not dogmatise as to the remedy. No man could say this would infallibly succeed, or that would infallibly fail. Nothing would bring them to the right conclusion, unless by experimenting long, until at last they got rid of this terrible evil that was ruining the country…. And let them proceed with these experiments side by side, working here and there, and they would be able to compare notes."
All we are asking is that you should give an opportunity to these localities to try this experiment and compare notes. This

229
Bill is introduced as a Local Option Bill. We say that at present it is nothing of the kind, and we ask your Lordships, by accepting these Amendments, to make it so and give to the localities a real freedom of choice. I hope, therefore, that your Lordships will accept these Amendments, and will adhere to them and defend them as strictly and entirely in conformity with the principles of the Bill.
LORD SHEFFIELD: I do not think it is necessary for us to re-argue the question of the desirability of giving localities an opportunity of adopting disinterested management. A large majority of your Lordships in Committee voted for it. I voted for it myself. It is not the principle of disinterested management which is at stake now, but the possibility of adjusting that principle to suite fair means of providing compensation for the people who are ousted—as it were, tempering the wind to the shorn lamb, or in this case the shorn publican. As I understand, instead of imposing on the disinterested management companies the obligation to pay such compensation as the tribunal may think fair, the Amendment proposes to impose upon them the obligation to pay one-half of the value of the licences which are extinguished in their interests. The proposed schedule sets up a compulsory insurance board for the trade and, quite independent of the one-half of the value which is to be levied as a tax on the incoming retailer who is a disinterested manager, the schedule creates a fund the greater portion of which will go to the Central Board, but it is further provided in the schedule that when a certificate is withdrawn by reason of any resolution carried under this Bill a claim upon the appropriate fund to an amount not exceeding the remaining half of the declared value shall thereupon arise. Am I right in believing that where disinterested management is set up the publicans who are ousted will get one-half of the declared value at the expense of the incoming tenants, and will get the other half, if the funds will go so far, from the insurance fund which is established on behalf of the trade?
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: That is so.
LORD SHEFFIELD: Then I am face to face with this practical difficulty. I do not see the justice of establishing a com-
230
pulsory fund throughout the whole of Scotland to which well-managed public-houses in well-managed districts will have to contribute in order to protect ill-managed public-houses in ill-managed districts. I agree that it is perfectly fair that the publican should receive such compensation as is reasonable, but if disinterested management is to be mixed up with a compulsory system of insurance under which a tax is levied upon the trade throughout the country irrespective of the conditions, then I think you are coupling your machinery for disinterested management with a scheme which is not just or reasonable.
THE EARL OF CAM PERDOWN: I rise, not to intervene in the general discussion which has taken place, but to call the attention of the noble Lord who has moved the Amendment we are now discussing to certain words in it which seem to me to create a situation which is not met, and which ought to be taken into consideration before the next stage of the Bill. The words to which I allude are these—
"The liability imposed upon any authorised public company in pursuance of the foregoing provision shall cease and determine if and when the disinterested management resolution in pursuance of which the liability was imposed ceases to be in force."
Your Lordships would think it quite possible, indeed not at all improbable, when a disinterested-management resolution has been passed that when the new poll takes place some other arrangement might be adopted by the voters. In that case the disinterested managers will have paid to the insurance fund for two years only, and it seems quite fair that when they cease to enjoy the premises which will be taken away from them by the repeal of their resolution they should not pay any more. But just see what will happen. Although these disinterested managers will have subscribed to the central insurance fund for only two years they will have a claim upon that fund in respect of the loss of their licence, and, of course, it will be necessary to ascertain what the value of that licence is. That is the first consequence. The second is: What will happen to the licence itself? Will the licence cease? The Bill does not say. I submit to the noble Lord that between now and the Third Reading he should take that matter into consideration and see how to meet it.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: I am not entitled to speak again except by the indulgence of the House. I should not like to answer off-hand a difficult and complicated point like this, but I do not think it fair that those responsible for disinterested management public-houses should pay compensation if their licence is taken away. As to the other difficulty, in regard to how those who have been displaced for the purpose of putting in disinterested management can be compensated, I am afraid I am not able off-hand to say. But I will be glad to consider it before the next stage.
THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH: It is very difficult to be perfectly fair to all parties in a matter such as this, but I think the point which was raised by my noble friend Lord Camperdown is an important one. If certain persons are dispossessed and certain other persons put in their place, it does seem to me rather hard that no provision should be made for them. Supposing that in the future another change takes place and the disinterested managers are in their place dispossessed, it is rather hard that the whole risk should fall upon the old holders of licences and that they should bear the loss because the community afterwards decides to make another change. The noble Lord, however, has said that he will carefully consider the matter. I only ventured to interpose because I thought the point an important one.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Amendments moved—
Page 4, line 6, after ("Association") insert ("shall")
Page 4, line 7, after ("the") insert ("Memorandum and")
Page 4, line 8, after "prescribe") insert ("either generally or with reference to any particular authorised public company")
Page 4, line 10, after ("that") insert ("subject to the payment of all sums required in pursuance of this section to be paid by the company to the Scottish Licence Holders Central Insurance Board") and leave out from ("at") to ("not") in line 12.
Page 4, line 17, leave out from ("be") to the end of paragraph (a) and insert ("applied by him in making grants to local authorities to be expended upon such works of public utility as he may in each case prescribe")
Page 4, line 23, after ("that") insert ("no profit or advantage from the sale of excisable liquors shall accrue to the shareholders or directors of the said company, beyond the aforesaid dividend, and")
Page 4, line 33, at end insert ("The auditor so appointed shall disallow and surcharge upon the interest on capital all unreasonable payments for rent, salaries, and liquor and any use of the profits
232
otherwise than as hereinbefore provided. The licensing court shall also have power to appoint an auditor who shall have the right to inspect the books of the company at any reasonable time")—(Lord Balfour of Burleigh.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: I do not know whether the House desires any explanation of the paragraphs which follow on the next page of the Order Paper. They are all matters of machinery. The only one of importance is subsection (8), which provides in more definite terms as to how the works of public utility to which any surplus profits are to be devoted are to be defined. I venture to say, having carefully considered them, that the paragraphs are all matters of machinery. I do not think, therefore, that it would be useful for me to give the House any detailed explanation of them. I beg to move—
Amendment moved—
"(d) That no person who, under Section 9 of the Licensing (Scotland) Act., 1903, is debarred from acting as a member of a licensing court shall be eligible to be a member or director or shareholder of an authorised public company within the meaning of this Act; and
"(e) That it shall be competent for such authorised company to apply to the licensing court for the provisional grant of one or more such certificates without stating in the Statutory application where the premises are severally situated or the proprietor's or factor's name and designation, and the licensing court shall make such provisional grants accordingly, but such provisional grants shall not be valid until declared to be final by the order of the licensing court to be made whenever tile court is satisfied that the premises selected by the authorised company are suitable.
"(7) Nothing in this Act shall entitle an authorised public company to apply for or to obtain a greater number of such certificates in any area than the number of certificates in force in such area at the date on which this Act came into operation; but it shall be competent for such authorised public company to apply for and to obtain a smaller number of such certificates than the number in force as aforesaid.
"(8) Before any grant is made by the Secretary for Scotland to a local authority under this section a draft scheme shall be laid before both Houses of Parliament during the Session of Parliament specifying the local authority to whom the grant is proposed to be made, the amount of the grant and the works of public utility upon which the grant is to be expended, and if within the next thirty days upon which that House has sat either House passes a resolution against the scheme or any part thereof no further proceedings shall be taken thereon without prejudice to the making of any new draft scheme.
"(9) The Licensing (Scotland) Act, 1903, as amended by this Act shall apply to any application

233
by an authorised public company for the grant or renewal of a certificate and in addition to Ay terms or conditions in-posed under the Licensing (Scotland.) Act, 1903, as amended by this Act a certificate granted to an authorised public company shall be granted and held subject to the conditions specified in this section, and to such provisions in the memorandum and articles of association of the company as may have been required by the Secretary for Scotland to have been inserted therein, sad those conditions and previsions shall lie taken to be within the terms and provisions of the Licensing (Scotland) Act, 1903, and any breach of those conditions or provisions shall be an offence within the meaning of the Licensing (Scotland) Act, 1903, against the terms and conditions contained in the said certificate.
"(10) Unless with three months after a disinterested management resolution is carried an authorised public company has made an application in writing to tile licensing court of the area stating that the company is desirous of carrying or business in the area in accordance with the provisions of this section and has satisfied the licensing con A that the company is able and willing to undertake the liability for payments to the Scottish Licence Holders Central Insurance Board imposed by this section the disinterested management resolution shall be void."—(Lord Balfour of Burleigh.)
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: I should like to call the noble Lord's attention to subsection (10). It says, "Unless within three months … an authorised public company has made an application … the disinterested management resolution shall be void." I do not see what is going to happen when that disinterested management resolution has become void. Who are to take the place of the disinterested people who have not acted? I would suggest that instead of saying the disinterested management resolution shall be void you should say the poll shall be void, and that will give an opportunity for another poll. Perhaps the noble Lord will take that point into consideration before the Third Reading.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: I think that is entirely reasonable. But in conformity with the principle enunciated by the noble Earl a few moments ago I would rather put an Amendment down, after consideration, at another stage.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: The next Amendment, and the two Amendments standing in my name to Clause 4, are purely matters of machinery and drafting.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 35, after ("resolution") insert ("or, except where the grant of a certificate is refused to an authorised public company, in pursuance of a disinterested management resolution").—(Lord Balfour of Burleigh.)
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: I would point out to the noble Lord that his words read awkwardly. He proposes that subsection (7) shall run thus, that the decision of the licensing court in refusing certificates shall not be subject to appeal "or except where the grant of a certificate is refused to an authorised public company in pursuance of a disinterested management resolution." I must say I had a great deal of difficulty in understanding what the noble Lord meant by the words "or except." Would he not attain what he wishes much more easily by striking out, the words "or except" and letting it run in this way, "but where the grant of a certificate is refused to an authorised public company, in pursuance of a disinterested management resolution, or" and then run on. That would be English, and the other is not.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: It is very difficult to follow in one's mind an intricate suggestion of that kind. Perhaps the noble Earl will put it down in writing.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: I will communicate with the noble Lord.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 4:
Resolutions at further polls.
4.—(1) Where a poll has been taken, and such poll, or the declared result thereof, has not been declared void in terms of this Act, a further poll shall not lie taken before time month of November in the third year from the date of the last poll.
(2) Such further poll may be taken—

(a) if a no-change resolution is in force, or a limiting resolution or disinterested management resolution, or no-licence resolution has been repealed, for the following options, that is to say, for a further no-change resolution, or for a no-licence resolution, or for a disinterested management resolution, or for a limiting resolution;

(b) if a limiting resolution is in force, for the following options, that is to say, for the repeal or continuance of any such resolution, or for a further limiting resolution, or for a disinterested management resolution, or for a no-licence resolution;

(c) if a disinterested management resolution is in force for the following options, that is to say, for the repeal or continuance of any such resolution, or for a limiting resolution, or for a no-licence resolution;

(d) if a no-licence resolution is in force, for repealing the same.

(3) The provisions of section two of this Act, except as regards the questions to be submitted to the electors, shall apply to such further polls, provided that where a further poll is taken in any area where a limiting resolution or a disinterested management resolution, or a no-licence resolution is in force and the majority of the votes recorded is not in favour of the repeal of such resolution, such repeal shall not be carried.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH moved an Amendment, after the word "thereof" in subsection (1), to insert "has not become void under the provisions of this Act or"; and at the end of subsection (2), paragraph (d), to add "or for a disinterested management resolution."
Amendments moved—
Page 5, line 9, after ("thereof") insert ("has not become void under the provisions of this Act or")
Page 5, line 30, at end insert ("or for a disinterested management resolution."—(Lord Balfour of Burleigh.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Clause 5
Supplemental Provisions.
5.—(1) The requisition for a poll shall be made upon a requisition paper which shall be in the form set out in Schedule I of this Act and shall be signed by not less than one-tenth of the electors in the area, who shall append their full addresses. On the demand of ten electors made not earlier than the fifteenth day of August or later than the twenty-fifth day of August next preceding the date on which a poll can be taken under this Act, a requisition paper shall be prepared by the clerk to the local authority, who shall forthwith insert in not less than two newspapers circulating in the district a notice that such paper is being publicly exhibited at his office, or at such fit and convenient place within the area to which the requisition applies as he shall in such notice specify for signature and inspection until the thirtieth day of the next following month of September when it will be removed. If the requisition paper shall be found by the local authority to have been duly signed by not less than one-tenth of the electors in the area, the clerk to the local authority shall thereupon insert in not less than two newspapers circulating in the area a notice that such requisition has been duly made.
(2) On the day on which a poll under this Act is taken in any area, all the certificated premises in such area in which exciseable liquors are sold by retail shall remain closed for the sale of such liquors until after the hour fixed for the close of the poll, but nothing in this subsection contained shall prohibit the sale of such liquors to lodgers or to bona fide travellers taking meals on the premises in any room usually set apart for that purpose, for consumption therein at the meal, or the sale, distribution, or delivery of exciseable liquors under the conditions prescribed by section sixty-three of the Licensing (Scotland) Act, 1903.
(3) A poll shall be taken on any day not being a market day which the local authority may fix in the month either of November or of December immediately following the lodging of the requisition: Provided that in a county a poll shall be taken only in the year of a triennial election of county coun-
236
cillors, except in the case of a poll held in the year hi which a resolution under this Act is first competent; and provided further, that if a poll, or the declared result thereof, is by a judgment of the Court of Session declared void, the Court may, if they think fit, order the local authority to cause a new poll to be taken, or one-tenth of the electors in the area may, by requisition lodged with the clerk to the local authority within one month of the date of the judgment, demand a new poll, and the local authority shall thereupon forthwith cause such poll to be taken.
(4) Polls under this Act shall be by ballot, and the Secretary for Scotland shall make rules for regulating the procedure with respect to requisitions and the taking of polls, and providing for the recounting or scrutiny of the votes recorded on any poll when a demand is made therefor, and, without prejudice to the generality of the power hereby conferred, may by those rules apply for the purpose with any necessary modifications any enactments relating to Parliamentary or local government elections and to the prevention of corrupt and illegal practices thereat (including the penal provisions thereof):
Provided that where a poll is taken for the first time in any area, the ballot papers shall be in the form contained in Schedule II of this Act, with any modifications thereof to meet the circumstances of the case which may be sanctioned by the Secretary for Scotland, and in case of polls other than the first poll or in cases where there are no certificates or not more than one certificate in force in the area, in such forms as may be prescribed by the Secretary for Scotland, who shall fix a maximum scale for the expenses of a poll, and any expenses incurred within such scale by the local authority in connection with this Act shall be defrayed out of the county general purposes rate in counties (excluding police burghs) and the burgh general or police assessment in burghs, but shall not be reckoned in any calculation as to the statutory limit of such assessment.
(5) If any returning officer, presiding officer, clerk or officer of the local authority is guilty of any wilful act or omission in contravention of any of the provisions of this Act, or of any of the rules made by the Secretary for Scotland under this Act, he shall on summary conviction, in eases where no penalty is otherwise provided, be liable to a penalty not exceeding ten pounds for the first and twenty pounds for every succeeding offence.
(6) Every person who forges or procures the forgery of any signature to a requisition, or alters or defaces a requisition, shall be guilty of an offence, and shall be liable on summary conviction to a penalty not exceeding ten pounds, or, alternatively, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding three months with or without hard labour.
EARL BEAUCHAMP: I have an Amendment a few lines down in subsection (1) to leave out the words "who shall append their full addresses." If you turn to the First Schedule you will see that provision is made there for the insertion of addresses, and it is unnecessary to put the provision in here.
Amendment moved—
Page 6, line 1, leave out ("who shall append their full addresses."—(Earl Beauchamp.)
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: If the words "who shall append their full addresses" occur in another place, as the noble Earl says, there is, of course, no necessity to put them in twice. I would merely observe that the words as they stand were taken from the noble Earl's own Bill. They are exactly as they stood in the original Bill, and the object of them is clear enough. The original Bill said that the requisition should be signed by not less than one-tenth of the electors in the area, and that there should be appended the full addresses of the signatories. I apprehend the purpose of that was to enable the signatories to be identified. If, however, the noble Earl says the words are to be found elsewhere I accept his assurance.
EARL BEAUCHAMP: If your Lordships will agree to this Amendment now, perhaps the noble Earl will be good enough before the next stage to satisfy himself by referring to the Schedule. We can, if necessary, make an Amendment on Third Reading.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: The provision is in the Schedule.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN moved an Amendment at the commencement of the second sentence of subsection (1), after the words "On the," to insert "written."
Amendment moved—
Page 6, line 1, after the second ("the") insert ("written").—(The Earl of Camperdown.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Amendment moved—
Page 6, line 16, leave out ("made") and insert ("signed").—(Earl Beauchamp.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: The next two Amendments in subsection (3) are consequential.
Amendments moved—
Page 6, line 39, leave out ("lodged with the clerk to") and insert ("found by") and after ("authority") insert ("to have been duly signed")
Page 6, line 40, leave out ("one month") and insert ("two months").—(The Earl of Camperdown.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I have the honour to move the new clause which stands in my name. This subject has already been referred to this evening by more than one noble Lord, and I hesitate, unless your Lordships wish it, to go over the ground which was covered in Committee and defend in principle the system of insurance embodied in the schedule which is attached to my proposed new clause. Shortly, the object which we have in view, in the first place, is to see that something is saved out of the wreck for those who are deprived of their livelihood under the operation of this Bill—what I think the noble Lord opposite called "tempering the wind to the shorn lamb." I think that was the phrase he used, and it is a very appropriate one, although perhaps there is not any great analogy between a publican and a lamb.
LORD SHEFFIELD: I said the shorn publican.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: At any rate, he is a person engaged in a legitimate trade; lie is presumably a perfectly respectable man, and he is suddenly thrown out of his employment and deprived of his means of livelihood. It seems obvious that something must be done for him, some provision made to prevent him from going absolutely, as it were, to the workhouse under the operation of the Bill. The Government offered nothing. They suggested that on a future occasion, perhaps, a private Bill might be promoted embodying some of the provisions which appeared in the Amendment of my noble friend Lord Camperdown when we were in Committee. But that appeared to be very dim comfort for the evicted publican. We are not content with that. We think that some provision should be made before this Bill passes into law so that he may be rescued from absolute poverty. We are not in a position to choose the best method. We have to take what we can get. We cannot, for example, if we wanted to, lay a charge upon public funds. That would be out of our power; and although it might or might not be a fair proposal, I think it would not be likely to find favour in another place.
Then, my Lords, what plan can we adopt? It seems obvious that the best thing we can do is to adopt the plan which those who are interested themselves wish

239
us to adopt. I hope your Lordships will not forget that the principle of compulsory insurance has been accepted practically, I was going to say by the whole of the interested persons, but it would be more accurate to say by 70 per cent., of those who are interested. I admit that the plan to which they gave their adhesion differs in certain respects from the plan which I am now submitting to your Lordships, because the plan to which they agreed was the plan which stood in the name of my noble friend Lord Camperdown when we were discussing the matter in Committee. As your Lordships saw fit not to accept that proposal, it is, of course, incumbent upon us to try and meet those objections to my noble friend's proposal which were fatal on that occasion. We have tried to do that. One criticism which was made against my noble friend's proposal was this. It was called an insurance scheme, and not only was it called an insurance scheme but it was said that there was nothing sufficiently clear upon the face of the clause or of the schedule to show those interested that they were not necessarily going to get the whole of the declared value for which they insured. That was pressed by Lord Russell, who is not at this moment in his place, and I think it had a good deal of weight with your Lordships. We considered in redrafting this proposal whether we could not avoid the word "insurance" altogether. We made a gallant effort to do so, but the drafting became so unwieldy that it appeared to be hardly necessary to trouble your Lordships with so bad a piece of drafting as that would have resulted in. Consequently we fell back on the word "insurance," making it, however, quite clear on the face of the clause that the persons who were entitled to receive money under it were not entitled to receive more money than the insurance fund could provide. That is put in the strongest form in the proviso at the end of subsection (3) of my proposed new clause. The words are—
"Provided always, and it is hereby expressly declared, that any claim in respect of the declared value of the certificate shall be enforceable only if, and in so far as, moneys for the payment of such claims are available under the said scheme."
We think we have gone sufficiently far to make that clear.
Another criticism was made by my noble friend Lord Balfour that the provision itself was so vague that no one could tell exactly what was meant by declared
240
value, or how much it would amount to. We have tried to meet that, and your Lordships will find that in Clause 2 of my proposed new schedule on the Paper there is a limit imposed on the declared value. Your Lordships will remember that the declared value is the value which the licensee himself places on his licence. I provide in the schedule that "the declared value shall be an amount not exceeding seven years' purchase of the net annual profit from the sale of excisable liquors carried on under the certificate, ascertained on the average of the three preceding years." So that we have tried to meet that difficulty also.
Lastly, I should like to call your Lordships' attention to one other change we have made which was the subject of criticism by the noble Earl in charge of the Bill. 13 y my noble friend's clause what we called in the English Act the "monopoly value" of all new licences was paid into the insurance fund. If I am correctly informed, the noble Earl criticised that, and said that the monopoly value, if it belonged to anybody, belonged to the State, and certainly not to the insurance fund, and he objected on that ground. We have cut that provision out of the new draft, and make no such provision in respect of new licences. I do not mean to say that there are not other small changes, and many drafting changes, but those are the three substantial changes we have made in order to meet, if we can, the objections which were felt by your Lordships on the last occasion and which were fatal to my noble friend's Amendment.
The noble Earl in charge of the Bill criticised Clause 7 of the Schedule. The words are, "provided that no such claim shall be enforceable against the Central Board except in respect of the year in which such certificate is withdrawn." I am not prepared to say that the drafting of that particular provision is perfect. The matter is very complicated and it is difficult to find apt words, but I will try to explain to your Lordships what is intended. We are quite aware that if there is anything like a drastic reduction of licences in Scotland the Central Fund will not be by any means sufficient to cover the claims which will be made against it. We provide that in these circumstances the Central Fund is to be divided up pro rata, as it were, as far as it will go. But that would

241
not be a possible provision unless we made a water-tight compartment of any particular year's claims against the Central Fund. It must be the claims made in any particular year against the Central Fund which are to be divided up in accordance with the money available in the Central Fund. Therefore we had to put in words to show that the money which is to be subject to this pro rata division shall be the money in respect of one particular year, and the proviso which the noble Earl has criticised has been drafted with a view to cover that point. Of course, if he suggests other words I need only say I shall be delighted to accept the co-operation of the Government draftsman in putting the provision into the best possible form.
Amendment moved—
Insert the following new clause:
"Insurance of certificates.
"6.—(1) There shall be established in accordance with the provisions of the Schedule to this Act a Scottish Licence Holders Central Insurance Board and also a Scottish Licence Holders Mutual Insurance Association or Associations, and every holder of a certificate shall insure in such an association in respect of each certificate held by him.
"(2) The insurance of certificates shall be carried out in accordance with the provisions set out in the Third Schedule to this Act.
"(3) A person from whom a certificate is withdrawn in pursuance of a resolution under this Act may, in accordance with the scheme set forth in the Third Schedule to this Act, recover the moneys payable to him thereunder. Provided always, and it is hereby expressly declared, that any claim in respect of the declared value of the certificate shall be enforceable only if, and in far as, moneys for the payment of such claims are available under the said scheme.
"(4) No excise licence for the sale by retail of excisable liquor shall be granted by the Commissioners of Customs and Excise or by any officer of Customs and Excise except upon the production by the person authorised to hold the licence of a receipt for the insurance of his certificate and for any levy for the year to which the licence relates.
"(5) This section shall take effect as from the passing of this Act".—(The Marquess of Salisbury.)
EARL BEAUCHAMP: Having already been rebuked by the noble Marquess opposite for dealing with Amendments which come later on the Paper I will not follow his criticism of Clause 7 of the Schedule.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: By all rules of order, as far as I have known them, it is always permissible to discuss the schedule to which a clause refers when you are discussing the clause.
EARL BEAUCHAMP: I quite agree. But the noble Marquess will remember that the schedule which he discussed on this Amendment dealt with the functions of the central insurance board which was mentioned in Lord Balfour of Burleigh's Amendment which we were then discussing. That is the reason why I dealt with it. I do not rise to enter any objection on behalf of His Majesty's Government to this clause on the present occasion. The views of His Majesty's Government are well enough known to your Lordships. I can only say, as I have said before, that we cannot accept any responsibility for the Amendment which is now moved by the noble Marquess, although we do not propose to trouble your Lordships with a Division.
Two criticisms, however, I would venture to make upon subsection (4) of this new clause. I would ask the noble Marquess whether he has considered what would be the effect supposing the licence-holder was refused permission to insure by the secretary of the Mutual Insurance Association which is set up under this clause. I quite see that under this subsection the person authorised to hold the licence must produce a receipt for an insurance of his certificate if he can get it. Supposing he cannot get it and they ref use to give it to him, what is to happen then? Supposing the secretary of such an association were to say, "We know quite well that this will be one of the first licences to be swept away," or "We know quite well that as soon as there is a power of local option this district will at once adopt a no-licence resolution; we are not going to accept this licence either because it is in itself a house which is unnecessary or because we feel sure that at once the whole of the licences will be swept away; we are not going to accept this licence because we are going to pay so much money." Has the noble Marquess considered what would be the effect in those circumstances? Will it not be that the Mutual Insurance Association will be able to relieve itself of the whole responsibility with regard to any district or any licence which it thought might involve it in expense? That is one criticism. The other is that I understand the licence duty is due on May 29, the beginning of the licence year, and is payable at once. That would make the operation of sub, section (4) of this new clause very difficult from the practical point of view. Beyond those two small criticisms I do not propose to detain your Lordships on this occasion.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: I must remind the noble Earl, who has rebuked me as severely as his kindly nature will allow him to do for having apparently changed my views in supporting a compulsory insurance scheme on this occasion, that this is a new scheme and meets the very objection which I then raised—namely, that there was no limit to the claim which any licence-holder might make on his declared value. There is now a controlling power, and it will be, I hope, fairly managed. I cannot understand how any reasonable person can say that there is no claim for compensation when a licence is arbitrarily taken away. I have received a large number of communications saying there is no vested interest and nothing for which people ought to be compensated. I cannot understand that position. It is perfectly well known that the interest of a deceased licence-holder is taxed, and heavily taxed, by the Government as part of his estate. There may be a dispute about the words "vested interest." As to that I say nothing. It would be difficult to define what a vested interest really is; but there is a real interest of some kind which is made the subject of taxation, and which it seems to me ought to be legitimately compensated if an arbitrary change in the law is made. This custom of renewing licences has grown up over a long series of years, and it is for the public interest that it should have been supported because it was a premium upon good management, and as such it would be, in my opinion, grossly unfair if it were taken away without compensation. I venture to say that the period of five years is not sufficient. It is very difficult to get exact facts. I asked the Government to supply a Return, and they gave us a certain amount of information. I have had an immense amount of correspondence with lawyers and accountants in Scotland since the last stage of this Bill, and concrete cases have been given me, but unless you can go into the whole of the details and see whether it is really the net value upon which the calculation is made, you cannot form a really definite opinion as to whether a particular case is or is not fairly put before us. I venture to say that the Government might do a very valuable work, and that it would be greatly to their own credit, if they would go into the question of what is the fair number of years' purchase to take for these licences. I have had cases sent me, though it is not worth while
244
attempting to discuss them in detail here; but I believe, after you have made every deduction, that some will rise as high as six or seven years' purchase of the net value; and if you are going to have a fair insurance scheme with a fair compensation you must extend the compensation over a greater number of years than the several number of years you are going to compensate for. I do not want to lengthen this discussion, but as what I said was interpreted by some to mean that in my view there was no case for insurance, I say there is a case for insurance, and that equity will not be met unless some scheme of this kind is put into the Bill and is fairly worked.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 6:
New licences.
6. Where the licensing court is of opinion that a new licence is required in any area where neither a "no-licence" resolution nor a limiting resolution is in force, and in the event of an authorised public company constituted for the purposes of this Act being prepared to apply for and manage the said new licence, the licensing court shall (subject to such procedure and conditions as may be prescribed by the Secretary for Scotland) grant a certificate for such new licence to the said authorised public company, but to no other applicant.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: The next Amendment stands in my name, to leave out Clause 6. I may say that the history of this clause, the insertion of which was moved by Earl Grey, is peculiar. It was, I think, circulated on the morning of the day before it was brought forward, and when the noble Earl in charge of the Bill spoke about the clause he pointed out that it was quite inconsistent with the Bill, and yet somehow or other he did not object to it. My objection is that this Bill is for the purpose of providing for a poll of the electors upon a certain definite resolution, and that this clause confers a right of giving licences and is therefore not consistent with the Bill. There is another objection to it which was pointed out, I think, by the noble Earl on the last occasion, and that is that it would be quite possible in a district where a disinterested management resolution had been rejected that any new licence which was given could be given to disinterested management only. I have a third objection, which is this. This principle of disinterested management has been approved by a very large majority of your Lordships' House, and I myself shared that view.

245
But because I believe in disinterested management that is not a reason with me for giving everything to disinterested management that they choose to ask for, and I think that if your Lordships were to keep this clause in the Bill the result might be that it would be naturally said elsewhere, "The House of Lords was so favourable to disinterested management that they not only gave them everything that was given by the compromise but also conferred upon them a thing which was only asked at very short notice and which really was inconsistent with the Bill." Fur these reasons I move the omission of the clause.
Amendment moved—
Leave out Clause 6.—(The Earl of Camperdown.)
EARL GREY: I am always prepared to bow to the superior knowledge of my noble friend on all points regarding the rules of order in this House, but when he says that this clause, winch was put into the Bill on my motion in Committee, is inconsistent with the object of the Bill I differ from him in toto. The object of the Bill is to promote temperance—I am sure my noble friend will agree with me in that—and the way in which this Bill endeavours to promote temperance is by limiting the discretion of the Licensing Court. The Bill when it came up to this House limited the discretion of the Licensing Court by enabling the people affected to veto the grant of licences by the Court. This House has further increased the power of the people. It has given them the power, denied to them by the House below, to insist that the houses in their district shall be administered under the principle of disinterested management. Now we go one step further and say that if the Licensing Courts, in the exercise of their discretion, decide to create a new licence, that new licence shall be brought compulsorily under the principle of disinterested management.
I would point out to my noble friend this fact. Take Scandinavia. There you will find just as wide a difference of opinion between the party which is in favour of total prohibition and the party which is in favour of disinterested management as there is in this country, but you will fail to find throughout the length and breadth of Scandinavia a single temperance reformer who is in favour of public-houses coming under the management of the private
246
trader. That is the principle which I maintain this House ought to assert—that when a new house is created, instead of being handed over to a private trader to administer for his own benefit it shall be handed over to an authorised company whenever possible, which company shall be approved by the Secretary for Scotland, to administer the house in the interests of the community. It is a principle of temperance reform and I understand it is part of the functions of this House to guide the public in the direction of those higher ideals on the attainment of which the social well-being of the community depends, and I maintain that this House has no right to hand over to a Licensing Court power to give a licence to a private trader when it has an opportunity of handing it over to an approved authorised trust company who will undertake to manage it in the interests of the whole community. I hope my noble friend will not press this Amendment to a Division. H he does I shall certainly have to go into the Lobby against him.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: We are waiting, as we always do, for the guidance of His Majesty's Government. We wish to know what view they take of this clause. The House is in a difficulty, not through the fault of my noble friend who has just sat down, but he put clown his Amendment, which is now Clause 6 of the Bill, just a clay before it was taken, and the debate which took place upon his clause was not of such an important character as probably the subject demanded. A very few remarks passed. I think the noble Earl in charge of the Bill contributed a few words, and we thought he would take this opportunity of telling us what the mind of His Majesty's Government is. Of course, they have made their minds up with regard to it.
EARL BEAUCHAMP: I am very glad to repeat, if it is any satisfaction to the noble Marquess, that His Majesty's Government cannot accept the new clause, now Clause 6 of the Bill, which was inserted on the motion of the noble Earl on the Cross Benches (Earl Grey). We did not, however, think, having met with so little success on the last Occasion, that we were likely to meet with more success this afternoon, and I thought that if it was left to the eloquence of Lord Camperdown he might be more likely to persuade your Lordships.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: The noble Earl accepted the clause on the last occasion and allowed it to pass.
EARL BEAUCHAMP: The words I used on the former occasion were practically what I have just said. What I then said —I am reading from Hansard—was this—
"Although His Majesty's Government cannot accept this proposed new clause, we shall certainly not put your Lordships to the trouble of dividing on the subject in view of the decision which was come to yesterday on the general question of disinterested management. I shall content myself, therefore, with pointing out some of the difficulties into which the noble Earl will place the authors of the disinterested management resolution by the adoption of this Amendment."
I then pointed out some of the difficulties that it would give rise to, and that even if we did accept the Amendment it would probably be necessary to make some amendment in it on Report. As your Lordships know, this is one of the many Amendments which have been put into the Bill against the wishes of His Majesty's Government, and therefore, as is usual in such cases, His Majesty's Government cannot accept the responsibility of putting the Amendment into such a shape as would be agreeable to themselves. I think your Lordships will see that the position of any Government would be impossible if, when Amendments are put into a Bill against their will, they are then expected to make an Amendment which is wholly contrary to the general principles of the Bill one which they could accept. Therefore our position now is just what it was on the last occasion.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: I am sure my noble friend who is responsible for this clause will not suspect us who sit on this Bench of any indifference to the cause of disinterested management. Throughout these discussions we have to the best of our ability fought for that cause. If I am in any doubt as to whether I shall support my noble friend, it is certainly not because I am out of sympathy with his object. But I wish to examine the matter a little further. The noble Earl told us a moment ago that the object of this Bill was to promote temperance. That, no doubt, is the motive which has impelled the authors of this Bill. But we have to keep very distinctly before ourselves what are the methods by which this Bill proceeds. This Bill is primarily—we have been told so again and again by
248
members of His Majesty's Government—a measure for transferring from the present licensing authorities to the electors the right of deciding what kind of arrangements they shall have with regard to licences. It is a Local Option Bill. When it first came to us there were only the three options in it—prohibition, reduction, and no change. We have obtained the addition of a fourth option—the disinterested management option; and in future under this Bill the friends of disinterested management will get an absolutely fair chance alongside of those who favour options of a different kind. Up to that point the ease seems to me to be perfectly clear. But then the noble Earl, Lord Grey, wants to go a good deal further. He wants under this clause to say that for the future in all areas where there is neither a prohibition resolution nor a reduction resolution in force no new licence shall be given except for disinterested management.
EARL GREY: Where there is an authorised company.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: Where there is an authorised company. That seems to me to be a very wide extension of the claim of those who favour disinterested management, and I should be inclined to say that in the interests of disinterested management itself it would be wiser to leave the matter where it is in the Bill without this clause and to let disinterested management stand its fair chance with the other options, rather than claim on the top of that what would, after all, be a special privilege for disinterested management in other areas. Therefore very reluctantly indeed, if my noble friend goes to a Division I ant afraid I cannot support the clause.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 7:
Structural alterations.
7. As from the passing of this Act, and until the first day of June nineteen hundred and seventeen, it shall not be competent for a licensing court to order any structural alterations of licensed premises under section forty-two, subsection (3), of the Licensing (Scotland) Act, 1903.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: The words "first day of June nineteen hundred and seventeen" were five years from the 1st of June, 1912. Your Lordships having altered the period to ten years, my Amendment to this clause becomes necessary.
Amendment moved—
Page 8, lines 7 and 8, leave out ("first day of June nineteen hundred and seventeen") and insert ("earliest date when Resolutions under the provisions of this Act can come into operation").— The Earl of Camperdown.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 8:
Later Hour of opening.
8. Notwithstanding anything contained in the Licensing (Scotland) Act, 1903, the licensing court shall insert in all certificates granted from or after the twenty-eighth day of May nineteen hundred and thirteen the hour of ten o'clock in the morning in lieu of the hour of eight of the clock in the morning and the forms of certificate contained in the Sixth Schedule to the said Act shall be construed accordingly:—Provided that where sale of commodities other than exciseable liquors is otherwise lawful, such commodities may be sold before such hour, and provided further that exciseable liquors may be despatched before such hour in fulfilment of orders received as prescribed by section sixty-three of the Licensing (Scotland) Act, 1903, and that section fifty-six of that Act shall apply to this Act.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: On this clause I ask the indulgence of your Lordships for a moment because I want to make a personal explanation which is due not only to myself but to the House. On the discussion of some words in this clause on the last occasion I made a statement which subsequent inquiry has convinced me was not wholly accurate. The clause provides for making the hour of opening public-houses ten o'clock instead of eight o'clock. In speaking in support of time clause I said it was very important because of certain things which happened when men were leaving off work on Monday mornings. The actual statement which I made, and which has been subsequently challenged, was that as the men went from their work to their breakfast they found outside the public-houses along the highway rows of tankards of ale and stout, and so on, ready for their consumption. It was inaccurate on my part to say that these vessels were placed outside the public-houses. I made the statement, I need hardly tell your Lordships, in perfectly good faith upon the information of another person to whom I can no longer refer because he is not now with us. I thought I had verified it, but I am convinced that that particular statement was inaccurate, and I believe that it would be illegal to put these vessels outside the public-houses under such circumstances. Therefore to that extent the statement I made was
250
wrong. I have had some of these public-houses watched on Monday mornings since the last occasion, and one of my informants is good enough to suggest to me that on the whole my statement was accurate because the tankards and so on could be seen from the outside of the public-houses. My Lords, that is rather too thin for me. I said they were outside, and it was inaccurate to say they were outside. Therefore I frankly withdraw that part of the statement. But that there is a great deal well deserving of reform in this matter is proved by the fact that at a certain public-house, the name of which I can give if anybody wants it, which was watched on the morning of Monday, December 23 last, in nine minutes—between nine o'clock and nine minutes past nine—eighty-three people were seen to enter and forty-seven to come out. Those were all workmen going from their morning's work to their breakfast under the circumstances I detailed to your Lordships on the last occasion. I have a number of other figures here with which I shall not weary your Lordships, but the little observation I have had conducted since that time confirms me in the belief that this clause is a wise clause.
But the matter does not rest there, for I have received unsolicited testimony from two gentlemen. They were not known to me, but since they wrote the letters I have inquired as to the position they occupy. I find they are both of them excellent specimens of the best of our wage-earning classes in.Scotland who have raised themselves to good positions in the walks of life which they follow. I am prepared to give the names if it is absolutely necessary. I have their permission to do so, but I do not do it because I do not want to draw upon them more correspondence than is necessary. I will read to your Lordships the two letters which I have received. One gentleman writes to me—
"I observed in the newspapers the report of your statement in the House of Lords that publicans near large works prepared for the rush of trade at the meal hours and at closing times. When I was in the ship yard many years ago I know it was the practice of publicans near the gates to fill up beer and whisky for the men coming out of the yards. Not only that, but they had men who worked in the yards and went in behind the bar during the rush times in their blue dungaree jackets and black hands and faces to help the regular barmen. On Saturday, December 28th"—

251
that is, since we had the Committee stage of the Bill in this House—
"I went down to Govan to see if the practice continued, and I found that the swing doors of public-houses near the yard gates were fixed back and row upon row of glasses of whisky, no half glasses, were filled out ready for the men swarming in out of the yards after twelve o'clock. I write this letter to you as I understand your statement has been challenged, and I think it right that one who knows should support you with this information."
The other gentleman writes from a place near Glasgow, between Partick and Clydebank, which was mentioned the other day. I ought to say that when I made my statement I did not refer to Clydebank, and I have said so publicly since. This gentleman writes—
"During the discussion on the Scottish Temperance Bill presently before Parliament you made some comments on the mode of pushing the liquor trade by certain publicans in Clydebank, especially in the vicinity of large public works. Though the actual mode of procedure is somewhat different from what you described yet in substance your statement was substantially correct, and from what I have witnessed to-day in one of the public-houses near Brown & Co.'s shipyard I am prompted to write to you and state the actual facts. The men are usually paid at 12.15 p.m. and half an hour before that I saw a large number of glasses (I counted about 200 on one side of the counter alone) being filled each with a glass of whisky, while a number of pint measures were filled with beer till within about an inch of the top in order to enable the bar-tender to meet the rush which was presently to ensue."
I do not want to read the whole letter. He says he does not doubt that the pro-motors of the Local Veto Bill mean well, but what they will do may aggravate the evil. He goes on—
"For instance, in the vicinity of the shipyard I have mentioned there are, perhaps, five or six public-houses. Local Veto may restrict the number to three or four with the result that the remaining publicans, instead of preparing 300 glasses of whisky and beer, will probably double that number in order to meet the increased rush. On the other hand, it is unthinkable that under disinterested management so sordid and debasing a sight as I have witnessed to-day could possibly take place. I hope it may yet be possible to make the Bill a real temperance measure."
I thought it right, when I had myself fallen into an error and perhaps to some extent misled the House, that I should make this statement, and I promised to do so to correspondents who challenged the accuracy of what I had said. I am bound to add, in my own justification, that although what I said was not literally correct I do not think I overstated the difficulties and evils of the present system.
LORD BELHAVEN AND STENTON*LORD BELHAVEN AND STENTON moved an Amendment to substitute "nine o'clock" for "ten o'clock" as the hour of opening. The noble Lord said: It will be in the recollection of the House that when we were in Committee on this Bill I had an Amendment on the Paper in exactly the same words, but in consequence of the effect produced on myself as well as on the rest of the House by what was then said by Lord Balfour I thought it desirable not to move the Amendment. I have since heard that Lord Balfour, as he has now done, intended to modify the statement he then made, and I shall rather base the arguments which I will use with reference to the opening hour on what he has said. The present hour of opening, eight o'clock, is by the Bill to be changed to ten o'clock. At nine o'clock the men leave off work in the ironworks and steelworks with which I am acquainted and go and get breakfast. They have from nine o'clock till 9.45 for their breakfast, and they mostly go to public-houses, which are all obliged to supply them, besides liquors, with tea and coffee and bread and cheese if they choose to call for it. Many of these men have come from Glasgow—I am speaking of the district in which I live—by the five o'clock train, and by nine o'clock they have been at work and travelling for four hours. It is not unreasonable that they should want some refreshment by that time, and it is very hard upon them that the public-houses should not open until ten o'clock as they have to get back to their work by a quarter to ten. I submit, therefore, that it is only reasonable that the hour of opening should be nine o'clock. Lord Balfour has quoted to us, in the first letter he read, that in the dinner hour and at the conclusion of work these men rush in and get so many glasses of whisky and beer, and so on. How will changing the opening hour from eight to ten o'clock in the morning affect that? That will not produce any effect upon the men. Then, again, in the second letter that he read his correspondent said that it was on Saturday, the pay-day, at half-past twelve that they all came out and had a drink. I do not see how that would be affected by a clause which provided that the opening hour should be ten o'clock instead of eight. Therefore I move that the opening hour should be at nine o'clock.
Amendment moved—
Page 8, line 15, leave out ("ten") and insert ("nine").—(Lord Belhaven and Stenton.)
EARL BEAUCHAMP: I think I should repeat the reluctance which His Majesty's Government naturally feel towards accepting this Amendment. After all, a great deal of what was said by Lord Balfour of Burleigh really applied to this very hour which the noble Lord wishes to alter. In the figures he gave us he spoke of the very large numbers of men who went into the public-houses between nine o'clock and nine minutes past. They would be allowed to go in and get this drink under the Amendment moved by the noble Lord opposite, although I am quite sure it was the general feeling of your Lordships' House when this Bill was last before us that it was desirable to restrict these facilities. This is, I would almost say, one of the very few provisions of a purely temperance kind which has not been amended in this House during one of the stages of the Bill, and I venture to hope that your Lordships will agree to let it go through on this occasion without amendment. There is no doubt at all on the part of every social reformer that it is eminently desirable to restrict drinking at these early hours of the day.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
Clause 9:
Amendment of law relating to clubs.
9.—(1) Section seventy-eight, subsection (1), of the Licensing (Scotland) Act, 1903 (hereinafter in this section referred to as "the Act of 1903"), shall be amended (a) by substituting the words "and the names and addresses of the members" for the words "and the names of the members"; (b) by substituting the words "two members either of the licensing court or of the court of appeal for the county within which such premises are situate, or one member of each of such courts not being the same member, or, where such premises are situate within a burgh, either by two justices of the peace who for the time being are members of the court of appeal from the burgh licensing court or by two magistrates of the burgh, or by one justice, as aforesaid, and one magistrate," for the words "two justices of the peace for the county within which such premises are situate, or, where such premises are situate, within a burgh, either by two justices of the peace, as aforesaid, or by two magistrates of the burgh, or by one justice and one magistrate"; and (c) by adding the words "(1) any such justice of the peace or magistrate may, within ten days from the date on which he signed the certificate, withdraw his name from the certificate granted by him; and (2)," after the words "Provided that."
(2) Section seventy-nine, subsection (2), of the Act of 1903 shall be amended by including amongst those persons who may lodge objections to the grant or renewel of the certificate of registration the procurator fiscal and any person, or the agent of any person, owning or occupying property in the neighbourhood of the club, and by substituting the word "twenty-one" for the word "ten."
(3) Section seventy-nine, subsection (4), of the Act of 1903 shall have effect as if the power conferred thereby on the sheriff (to award expenses against the unsuccessful party where objection has been taken to the grant or renewal of a certificate) included the like power where a summary complaint has been lodged.
(4) Any person or council competent under the Act of 1903 to lodge objections to the grant or renewal of a certificate of registration may, within twenty-one days of the receipt of the notice of application for the grant or renewal of a certificate, lodge with the registrar objections to such grant or renewal of the certificate on one or more of the following grounds, and that in addition to the grounds specified in section eighty one of the Act of 1903:—

(a) That the premises are, or the situation thereof is, not suitable or convenient for the purpose of a club; or

(b) That the club is to be used mainly as a drinking club; or

(c) That the officials and committee of management, or governing body, or the manager, or a servant employed in or by the club have, or has, or will have, a personal interest in the purchase by the club or in the sale in the club of excisable liquors, or in the profits arising therefrom; or

(d) That persons are habitually admitted or supplied as members without an interval of at least two weeks between their nomination and election as ordinary members; or

(e) That the officials and committee of management or governing body or the members are persons of bad character or who follow no lawful occupation and have no lawful means of subsistence; or

(f) That the club has been or will be used as the resort of criminals or persons of bad character; or

(g) That men or women of bad fame assemble in or frequent the club.

(5) Section eighty-nine of the Act of 1903 shall be read as if the words "an application with the "accompanying documents specified in section "seventy-eight, subsection (1), of the Act of 1903 "anyone of" were substituted for the words "an application for registration."
(6) This section shall take effect as from the passing of this Act.
VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYN VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYN moved to amend paragraph (a) of subsection (4) by inserting, after the word "club," the words "or that there is a drinking-bar or other part of the premises mainly or exclusively used for the consumption of excisable liquors." The noble Viscount said: After what the noble Earl opposite has just said I hope, as the Amendments standing in my name are intended to, and I believe would, promote the cause of temperance, he will be able to give them the favourable consideration of His Majesty's Government. I think any one who has taken an active part in the administration of the licensing laws must feel

255
that, however much good may be done by the total closing of public-houses in any district or by the diminution of their number, more harm than good will result from those processes if what happens afterwards is the starting of clubs where drink can be obtained in unlicensed premises without police supervision, open at any hours, and subject to practically no control. I have known cases where infinite harm has been done in that way in England, and I am quite sure that any one who has had similar experience in the administration of the law must have found the same state of things existing with regard to many clubs.
The law at present as to the registration of these clubs is by no means stringent. His Majesty's Government have felt that this is a serious danger, and have in Clause 9 of this Bill stiffened up the law and enabled objections to be made to the registration or the renewal of the registration of a club on additional grounds to those which are at present allowed. The first of those grounds is that the premises are, or the situation thereof is, not suitable or 'convenient for the purpose of a club. I propose to acid to those words, "or that there is a drinking-bar or other part of the premises mainly or exclusively used for the consumption of excisable liquors." If noble Lords will turn to Clause 3 of this Bill they will find that in cases where a no-license resolution is in force in any area no certificate shall he granted therein, with this exception—that a certificate may be granted for "an inn and hotel or for premises structurally adapted for use and bona fide used or to be used as a restaurant: Provided that any certificate so granted shall be deemed to include the conditions that there shall be on the certificated premises no drinking-bar or other part of the premises mainly or exclusively used for the sale or consumption of excisable liquors." I propose to apply those words in the case of clubs, and to enact that the existence of such a bar shall be a ground for the objection to the registration or renewal of registration of such a club.
I do not think anybody can argue that the existence of a drinking-bar is necessary in a club. There are very many clubs where no such drinking-bar exists at all, and when I heard the noble Earl opposite state, in the discussions in Committee on
256
this Bill, that His Majesty's Government had endeavoured to treat clubs as private houses it occurred to me that certainly it is not a usual thing to have a drinking-bar in any private house. The temptations that arise from, and the mischief that is done by, the existence of drinking-bars of the kind is notorious, and His Majesty's Government have admitted it by inserting in the Bill in Clause 3 the words I have read with regard to hotels and restaurants. I hope that, this being the case, they may he willing to agree to this Amendment. I trust your Lordships may feel that, although there are many reasons why we should not interfere with anything that is really necessary for a club, yet where a case of this kind exists, where the existence of a drinking-bar cannot be said for a moment to be necessary, it is no unfair interference with the freedom of those who desire to establish a club that a drinking-bar should be prohibited. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 9, line 26, after ("club") insert ("or that there is a drinking-bar or other part of the premises mainly or exclusively used for the consumption of excisable liquors").—(Viscount St. Aldwyn.)
EARL BEAUCHAMP: On behalf of His Majesty's Government I rise to say that we shall offer no opposition to the insertion of this somewhat drastic proposal, but we think it not unlikely that before we reach the Third Reading the noble Viscount himself may wish to make some amendment even to his Amendment. I am quite sure that we all realise that there are some clubs which are perfectly reputable and conducted in a perfectly respectable manner although they have drinking-bars on their premises. The other point to which I especially wish to direct the attention of the noble Viscount is whether this Amendment is not one which might have a very different effect upon clubs of a different social status. It is not easy to define "or other part of the premises mainly or exclusively used for the consumption of excisable liquors." Some people might think that the smoking rooms of some clubs which shall be nameless are very largely devoted to that purpose. Certainly it is a very difficult thing to judge, I should say, of any special room in any particular club whether it was mainly or exclusively used, or not used, for the consumption of excisable liquors.

257
I think that some further precision is desirable in connection with this Amendment, something which would define more precisely the objects of the noble Viscount; but whether or not he would wish to make any amendment on a future occasion is not a thing we need discuss now, as I only rise to say that we accept the proposal On the present occasion.
VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYN: If the noble Earl will suggest amending words I shall be glad to consider them. I have simply taken the words in another part of the Bill.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYN: I beg to move the second Amendment which I have placed on the Paper. Paragraph (c) of subsection (4) of Clause 9 provides that it may be an objection to the registration of the club—
"That the officials and committee of management, or governing body, or the manager, or a servant employed in or by the club have, or has, or will have, a personal interest in the purchase by the club or in the sale in the club of excisable liquors, or in the profits arising therefrom."
I propose to add to those persons "the owner of the promises (when the same are not owned by the club) or the immediate lessor of the premises." There is a slight alteration of the words as they stand.
This and the following Amendment arise from cases which have come under my own knowledge. I remember in a parish in a neighbouring county to my own that the only public-house in that parish was closed by its owner. Directly afterwards a neighbouring brewer who had supplied that public-house built a small house very near to it, formed a club in that house, anti for years that place was carried on as a most mischievous club. It could not be suppressed. Year after year he applied for a licence for those premises and year after year the magistrates refused a licence, and in the end it became such a public nuisance that they were obliged to grant a licence in order to bring it under police supervision.
I will state another case which came within my own knowledge. A brewer gave up a licence on condition that a licence should be granted to him in another district. As soon as the licence was given
258
up he started the tenant of that public-house as the secretary of a club and supplied the club with beer and other liquors. He formed a club of the persons who had been frequenting the public-house at a nominal membership subscription of 1s. a year and that club has gone on to the present day. Those two instances are within my own knowledge, and I have put down these two Amendments in order to prevent that sort of thing happening in places where public-houses are closed.
Amendment moved—
Page 9, line 20, after ("That") insert ("the owner of the premises (when the same are not owned by the club), or the immediate lessor of the premises, or").—(Viscount St. Aldwyn.)
EARL BEAUCHAMP: I shall be glad to accept this Amendment.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Amendment moved—
Page 9, line 38, after ("members") insert ("or for a subscription of a merely nominal amount").—(Viscount St. Aldwyn.)
EARL BEAUCHAMP: I would ask the noble Viscount to be good enough to consider the question again somewhat more precisely as to the words "nominal amount." This phrase is one which it would not be very easy to have a decision upon, and in Scotland, where these questions come before the sheriffs, one sheriff might think one sum a sufficient amount and another might think it wholly inadequate and demand something greater. It is desirable, therefore, that something more definite should be in the Bill. Perhaps the noble Viscount will think it over between now and Third Reading so that more definite words may be put in on the next occasion.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD CHANNING: The new clause which I have placed on the Paper is to restrict the days and the hours of sale on the premises of registered clubs to the same days and the same hours as intoxicating liquors can be legally sold in public-houses. I will at once refer to one point which may occur to noble Lords—namely, that this would not be operative in a no-licence area. You would require, perhaps, further restrictions, which might be introduced later on, to deal with that difficulty.

259
Provisos might also be suggested with regard to residential clubs and otherwise which might have to be added if this clause were adopted. I am moving this clause at the request of the City Council of Glasgow in order to lay before your Lordships the definite claim which has been set up by the greatest municipality in Scotland to have these provisions placed at their disposal which in their opinion are necessary for social order and to carry out their immense responsibility for a population about a fifth of the whole of Scotland. They passed resolutions last spring and again this last autumn demanding these powers, and they have laid a Petition before your Lordships' House asking that this Amendment shall be inserted in the Bill. It seems to me that the demand of a great municipality of that kind does deserve some consideration from your Lordships' House.
Another point which seems to me to call for some consideration on this occasion is this, that this Amendment was moved in another place by one of the ablest of the Labour representatives in Parliament, Mr. Barnes, the Member for the Blackfriars Division of Glasgow, in a speech of remarkable ability and searching power. I would remind your Lordships that Mr. Barnes was for many years the representative of the greatest trade union affecting the whole of the Glasgow area—that of the engineers. You have, therefore, this proposal backed, not only by the municipality of Glasgow, but also by the representative of the greatest body of trade unionists in that district.
The whole course of licensing legislation has been to go farther and farther in the direction of restricting the opportunities of sale in public-houses. We have placed greater restrictions upon them, and the greatest and most important of these restrictions has always been conceded to be that limiting the hours during which the sale of liquor may be carried on. A similar tendency has been shown in all the legislation on this subject to apply to clubs the same restrictions that have been applied to public-houses, and undoubtedly this restriction as to the hours seems to anyone who is acquainted with the subject the most vital and most important of all. It seems to me it can be put in the briefest way thus. The hours during which the sale can be carried on in clubs tend to mark off the definite area, in which the good club passes into the bad club, and if your
260
Lordships were to adopt a principle of this kind you would be asserting the claim of Parliament to rescue the clubs from the graver temptations which tend to degrade and destroy the usefulness of clubs in themselves.
The noble Viscount who has just addressed the House and carried several Amendments of vital importance to this Bill spoke of his own acquaintance with this subject. I represented in the House of Commons for many years a division which contained, I believe, the largest number of workmen's clubs and of club men in any constituency in the country, and I am well acquainted with both the good and the bad side of clubs. Some clubs are praiseworthy; they have contributed largely to social life, to the promotion of hospitals and infirmaries, of horticulture, small holdings, art exhibitions, and every sort of good work in their area, and have legitimately met a real social want in providing for wholesome intercourse and recreation which is absolutely necessary in industrial districts. Other clubs in villages and towns with which I am familiar have not infrequently, I have been assured, poured out night after night, crowds of drunken men carrying uproar through the streets for hours and hours and causing discomfort and disorder in the district. I have had many representations from the clergy and from ladies who take up social work that the effect, especially upon young girls who are tempted to keep the late hours which obtain at drinking concerts in clubs, have sometimes been of the most disastrous and saddening description. These are matters deserving of the consideration of all who care for social well-being.
When you touch this question of hours you get to the root of the matter. There are many restrictions in Clause 9 of this Bill which will do good in removing the special difficulties which the Scottish authorities have found in dealing with the registration of clubs in Scotland. But I say that the City of Glasgow and the Labour representatives who have supported this principle have touched on the real point when they ask for this further restriction in regard to clubs. I remember very well when the present Prime Minister introduced his Licensing Bill in 1908 that the very first thing the then Leader of the Labour Party, Mr. Henderson, who was respected by all Members in the House of Commons, said

261
was that he hoped that the proposal of this Amendment would be a portion of that great Bill. That is an illustration of the attitude of Labour in this matter. The worst mischiefs which arise from clubs are largely due to providing liquor at hours when it cannot be got at public-houses. I would draw attention specially to the fact that Scotland is a country under Sunday closing with general approval. The adoption of this Amendment would be to diminish what is, perhaps, the greatest social evil in the present state of things arising from clubs in Scotland. The City of Glasgow obtained figures at the time when they prosecuted some forty-three of the clubs under the Act of 1903. Those figures gave 3,285 persons coming out of the clubs in a state of intoxication during the years in which observations were carried out, and of those persons no fewer than 2,200 issued from those clubs in a state of intoxication on Sundays. That, I think, is a most deplorable and saddening state of things.
Again, it seems to me that if you do not restrict the hours of clubs to the same hours as public-houses you are doing away with the real value of the reform in Clause 8 of postponing the opening of public-houses to 10 o'clock, to which Lord Balfour of Burleigh alluded. The evidence given before Lord Peel's Commission was decisive on the point of the danger to industrial efficiency and social morality of this early drinking by workmen. That would be, of course, at once passed over to the clubs, and the clubs would be tempted to drop into that line of action. I have thought it my duty to bring this question before the house. It seems to me a matter of very vital importance, and I am confident that this principle will be, at one time or another, carried into effect in practical legislation. It seems to me utterly unreasonable and unjust that it should be assumed that it is a great crime, a crime which society should employ all the instruments of law to prevent and check and punish, for men to get drunk in public-houses, and at the same time to allow unchecked the destruction of social morality which goes on in clubs owing to the late hours at which they keep open and to the Sunday morning drinking which is one of the worst features of club life in England, and a feature which an Amendment of this kind would certainly meet and deal with. This has been demanded, as I say, by the voice of Labour
262
and by the voice of the largest municipality in Scotland, and I venture, in moving this new clause, to submit those considerations with all respect to your Lordships' House.
Amendment moved—
Insert the following new clause:—
Hours for supply or sale of excisable liquors in clubs.
. Excisable liquors may be supplied or sold in a registered club to any member thereof only on the days on which, and during the hours within which, excisable liquors may be supplied or sold in public houses within the burgh or county or county district, as the case may be, in which the said club is situated, and at no other time.—(Lord Channing).
EARL BEAUCHAMP: Your Lordships have already passed Amendments of a somewhat far-reaching character dealing with clubs, and I venture to hope that they will be found satisfactory to my noble friend behind me. We all admit the existence of a general desire that the law with regard to clubs should be somewhat tightened up. That has been done by the Amendments to which your Lordships have just agreed, and I am inclined to think that a great part of the support which my noble friend who has just sat down tells me is behind his Amendment would be equally behind those Amendments to which we have just agreed. I feel sure that a large number of those who sympathise with the noble Lord's Amendment also sympathise with the Amendments which we have just put in, and I therefore am inclined to ask him whether he does not think, for the present at any rate, we have gone far enough in altering the law with regard to clubs, and whether he would not rather wait and see how the Amendments we have made in the law with regard to clubs work before asking for further Amendments to this Bill.
Your Lordships will see in a moment that if this Amendment were accepted it would put clubs even in a worse position than hotels in so far that no excisable liquors could be supplied even to residents in the clubs during the days on which, or after the hour at which, public-houses are closed within the burgh or county or county district within which the club was situated. Hotels and restaurants, under very careful supervision, are excepted under certain conditions. Those conditions apparently would not apply to clubs if the Amendment of my noble friend were accepted. I must tell him also that during the short time this

263
Amendment has been on the Paper many representations have been received from clubs of all shades of political opinion against it. They all object to it, and I am quite sure that your Lordships would be acting in accordance with their wishes if this Amendment were rejected this evening. I venture to hope, therefore, that my noble friend will be content with the real alterations which have been made in the law and will not press his Amendment to a Division.
LORD CHANNING: I shall not proceed further with this Amendment. At the same time I would remind the noble Earl on the Front Bench that the objections taken to the suggestion of the Glasgow Corporation by the clubs are not an absolutely conclusive argument on this question. The chairman of the largest conference of clubmen that I have ever had the pleasure of addressing rather accepted the principle by saying that the best clubs always wished to be closed at the same time as public-houses. I beg to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 10:
Amendments of 3 Edw. 7. c. 25 ss. 16 and 31.
10.—(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in section sixteen of the Licensing (Scotland) Act, 1903, it shall be lawful for the licensing court and the licensing appeal court, in any case where there are more than one application for a certificate for the same premises, to hear and consider the said applications together.
(2) Section thirty-one, subsection (2), of the Licensing (Scotland) Act, 1903, shall be amended by substituting the, words "until the twenty-eighth day of May or the twenty-eighth day of November following, as the case may be," for the words "until the next general half-yearly meeting of the licensing court."
(3) This section shall take effect as from the passing of this Act.
EARL BEAUCHAMP: I have an Amendment to this clause to insert a new subsection. This is in accordance with an undertaking which I gave to meet a point raised by Lord Balfour of Burleigh in Committee.
Amendment moved—
Page 10, line 12, at the beginning of the line insert as a new subsection:
("(1) Section 5, subsection (9) of the Licensing (Scotland) Act, 1903, shall be amended by the insertion at the end thereof of the words 'provided that in the absence of a quorum the chairman of the court or in his absence, the clerk may call a further meeting in lieu of the meeting not held'").—(Earl Beauchamp.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD LAMINGTON: I move the insertion after Clause 14, of the new clause standing in my name. My Amendment deals with a subject which I have previously brought before your Lordships' notice, and I do not think what is aimed at in this new clause in any way conflicts with the principle of the Bill. What it seeks to do is to allow those licence-holders who wish to raise the status of their houses to put them in a better position than hitherto. I think everyone who speaks at all on temperance matters, except the very fanatical opponents of any licences at all, agrees that it ought to be the aim and object of all to improve the condition of public-houses and make them places to which decent people can take their families. I need not enlarge on that point now. The opponents to any such proposal have always been people on the licensing Bench who half-heartedly approve this desire to make public-houses better but who impose such onerous terms upon the licence-holder that he is unable to give the undertaking that is demanded of him. There are also those on the licensing Bench who are sometimes animated by corrupt purposes, and cases have arisen where it has been a distinctly lucrative operation for persons to get on the Bench in the guise of strong opponents of any licence. By that means publicans have been corruptly induced to offer money or bribes to these gentlemen who have been entrusted with the question of the determination of licences, and it is to obviate this danger that I propose to introduce this clause. As I say, it does not conflict ill any way with the provisions of the Bill, but it will put houses where there have been real bona fide improvements executed in a better position than hitherto.
Amendment moved—
Insert the following new clause.
"Improved Public House Certificates.
".—(1) Where licensed premises are not merely places for the consumption of intoxicating liquor, but can contain adequate provision for the supply of food, light refreshments, and for recreation, and are airy, commodious and comfortable, and have proper seating and sanitary accommodation, the licensing court shall, on the application of the licence holder, when the application for the grant or renewal of a licence is heard, issue a certificate that the premises form 'an improved public house.'
"(2) An appeal to the Court of Appeal shall lie against refusal by the licensing court to grant such a certificate, and against withdrawal thereof.
"(3) For the period during which a non-licence resolution remains in force in any area, licensed

265
premises within that area to which an 'improved public house' certificate is attached shall be taken to be premises structurally adapted for use and bona fide used or to be used as a restaurant."— (Lord Lamington.)
EARL BEAUCHAMP: Your Lordships will hardly expect us to accept this Amendment. I think the subject of this Amendment has been debated before. If I remember right, the noble Lord introduced a Bill specially dealing with this subject in a previous session, but it did not receive unanimous approval' in this House.
LORD LAMINGTON: It passed Second Reading.
EARL BEAUCHAMP: Yes; but it did not meet with unanimous approval. The noble Lord, apart from the question of principle, will expect me also probably to say something with regard to the form in which he has moved his Amendment. The first section of this proposed clause, in our opinion, is far too vague for statutory purposes. For instance, the questions of proper seating and sanitary accommodation and the question of "an improved public-house" are so much matters of opinion that we do not think it would be very easy to administer the law, certainly not in the direction which the noble Lord would wish it to be administered. Let me point out an apparent contradiction between the first subsection and the second. In the first subsection the noble Lord seems to say that the Licensing Court shall issue a certificate; but in his second subsection he appears to contemplate a power to refuse to grant that certificate, because he allows an appeal to th3 Court of Appeal. In our opinion subsection (3) would practically nullify the whole of this Bill. Your Lordships will see that during the time when a no-licence resolution remains in force, after all the conditions and all the difficulties have been overcome with which the attainment of a no-licence resolution is surrounded, even then any licensed premises to which an improved public-house certificate is attached apparently are to be used for a public-house or for a restaurant as the owner might wish. This is really taking directly away, not only from the voters but also from the Licensing Court, any real power to deal with the licences in their area.
LORD LAMINGTON: It only comes under the operation of Clause 3 in the same way as the other case of hotels and restaurants.
EARL BEAUCHAMP: It allows anybody apparently who chooses to spend the money in making these improved public-houses attractive to have a licence, and so far removes, as I say, not only from the voters but also from the Licensing Court, their power to prohibit the licence from being issued. The Amendment is so entirely contrary to the whole principle of the Bill that His Majesty's Government are unable to accept it, and I venture to hope that your Lordships will not agree to insert the proposed new clause.
THE LORD BISHOP OF WAKEFIELD: May I ask the noble Lord opposite whether subsection (3) of his Amendment would bring such improved public-houses under the same regulation as applies to restaurants?
LORD LAMINGTON: Yes, exactly the same.
THE LORD BISHOP OF WAKEFIELD: If so, they would have to dispense with any "drinking-bar or other part of the premises mainly or exclusively used for the sale or consumption of excisable liquors," and such liquors would have to be sold therein "by retail only and to none but persons lodging or residing in the hotel, or persons taking a meal in the restaurant." The improved public-house would therefore really to all intents and purposes be a restaurant, and would not be a house used for the purposes of an ordinary public-house.
LORD LAMINGTON: To all intents and purposes yes, according to the definition in the first subsection.
THE LORD BISHOP OF WAKEFIELD: I am glad that the noble Earl has pointed out the extreme uncertainty of the first section of this clause. Anybody who has followed, or who has had anything to do with, the proceedings of Licensing Committees can see at a glance that this would create a great many questions which would be extremely difficult to decide, and I am afraid, although I know it is not the intention of the mover, that as it stands the effect of this proposed clause would be that a very large number of public-houses would be able to place themselves entirely out of the control of the Licensing Committee.
LORD LAMINGTON: I do not think so at all; they would have to get their certificate.
THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH: Having taken a great interest in the object which my noble friend Lord Lamington has in view, I would like to say a word of thanks to him for having brought this Amendment forward. I do not think that any one who heard the cordial reception that was given by a large majority in this House to the words used by the noble Earl on the Cross Benches, Lord Grey, on the Second Reading, when he was describing the value of what he called the improvement in the condition of public-houses, can doubt that there is a great amount of sympathy in this House with the object which the noble Lord has in view. For my part I feel that the future improvement of public-houses is a most important element in the increase of temperance throughout the country. At the same time I am not unaware of the difficulties of suggesting any new clause of this sort in the present Bill. After the observation made by the noble Marquess behind me (Lord Lansdowne) on another suggested Amendment and the view that he then took of the difficulty of introducing into this Bill fresh matter which was not entirely in conformity with the rest of the Bill, I should not be surprised if he took the same view about this proposed clause. But I could not allow the opportunity to pass without rising to say that for my part I think the objects and intentions of this clause are thoroughly sound, and I sincerely hope that before very long, in some shape or another, the objects which my noble friend has in view may be carried out.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: I remember very distinctly the occasion on which my noble friend behind me introduced a Bill in this House dealing with the subject of his Amendment, and I am sure he is right in believing that on that occasion he received a great deal of support from different parts of the House so far as the general idea of his measure was concerned. But I must say that I doubt very much whether he will be well advised to press this Amendment after what has been said by the noble Earl in charge of the Bill. My noble friend observed incidentally that he thought his Amendment did not conflict with the Bill, but I must; say there would, in my opinion, be considerable difficulty
268
in fitting it into the scheme of the Bill on the Table. This Bill is already not wanting in complication, and the Amendment would have the effect of introducing into the Bill a new variety of public-house—the "improved public-house" of my noble friend's Amendment. I doubt extremely whether it would be possible to make this addition to the Bill without rendering an already complicated measure even more difficult to administer than it will be as it is at present.
LORD LAMINGTON: I withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 16:
Definitions.
16. The several words and expressions used in this Act shall unless otherwise provided or unless there be something in the subject or context repugnant to such construction have the same respective meanings as in the Licensing (Scotland) Act, 1903:
Provided that in this Act—
"Area" means—

(a) in the case of a burgh the population of which within the police boundaries thereof according to the census for the time being last taken is less than twenty-five thousand, the whole burgh;

(b) in the case of a county, the parish, as defined in the Local Government (Scotland) Act, 1891, excluding any burgh or part of a burgh therein, and where a parish is situated within two counties, the portion in each county shall, for the purposes of this Act, be deemed to be a separate parish:

"Burgh" means a royal, parliamentary, or police burgh:
"County means a county exclusive of any burgh or part of a burgh comprised therein:
"Certificate" means any certificate for the sale by retail of excisable liquors granted in terms of or under the provisions of the Licensing (Scotland) Act, 1903: Provided that for the period during which a no-licence resolution is in force in any area, no dealer's licence for the sale of excisable liquor by wholesale shall be granted therein by the Commissioners of Customs and Excise or by any officer of Customs and Excise, except to brewers of beer for sale, distillers, rectifiers, or compounders of spirits, makers of sweets, or wholesale dealers in spirits, wine beer, or sweets for premises for which similar licences have been taken out for twelve months before the date of the poll, including any reconstruction of, addition to, or extension of such premises on the same or an adjoining site, and any premises in substitution for such premises from which the holder of the licence removes without the production of a certificate authorising such sale from the licensing court; which certificate shall be applied for, granted, confirmed, transferred

269
and renewed in the same manner as though it were a certificate authorising such sale by retail; and provided, further, that subject to the variation of conditions prescribed by this Act the form of certificate for an inn and hotel or for a restaurant granted under section three of this Act shall be, respectively, the first and second form prescribed by the Sixth Schedule of the Licensing (Scotland) Act, 1903.
"Elector" means, in the case of—

(a) a burgh, any person registered as entitled to vote at an election of town councillors for that burgh, and when used in relation to any area in a burgh means a person so registered as entitled to vote at an election for that area; and in the case of—

(b) a parish (excluding any burgh or part of a burgh therein), any person registered as entitled to vote at an election of parish councillors for that parish, excluding as aforesaid: Provided that the last preceding supplementary register made up under section twenty-eight of the Local Government (Scotland) Act, 1889, shall continue in operation for the purposes of a poll taken in the first year in which a poll can be taken under the provisions of this Act; and provided, further, that for the purposes of a requisition in the, year of a triennial election of county councillors before the register of parish council elector; is made up "elector" means any ratepayer within the parish, excluding as aforesaid:

"The expression "grant" when used in relation to a certificate includes the grant of a certificate by way of renewal or transfer:
"Local authority" means in the case of—

(a) a burgh, the town council thereof; and

(b) a county, the county council thereof:

"No-change resolution" means a resolution that the powers and discretion of the licensing court in regard to the grant of certificates or otherwise shall remain unchanged, and in section two as applied to a further poll in any area where a limiting resolution is in force means a continuance resolution.
EARL BEAUCHAMP EARL BEAUCHAMP had two Amendments on the Paper to amend the definition of "Area" so that it would read—
(a) in the case of a burgh which is not divided into wards, or of a burgh the population of which within the police boundaries thereof according to the census for the time being last taken is less than twenty-five thousand, the whole burgh, and in the case of other burghs each ward thereof.
The noble Earl said: On Clause 16 I have two Amendments to meet a criticism which fell from the noble Earl below the Gangway, who pointed out, quite rightly, in Committee that further words were necessary. I was unwilling to accept them without seeing them. I have now put the words on the Paper, and I hope they will be generally acceptable to your Lordships.
270
The Bill as it stood provided that where a burgh was divided into wards the ward should be the area provided the population of the burgh was not less than 10,000. The noble Earl below the Gangway proposed to raise that to 30,000. We compromised at 25,000, and that figure was inserted in the Bill. We did not deal with those burghs where the population was more than 25,000, and it is with those burghs that this Amendment will deal. Let me take Aberdeen and Dundee, where the average population of the ward is, in the first case, 14,000, and in the second case, 18,000. Then I take two small places such as Hamilton and Clydebank, in which the population respectively is only 38,000 and 37,000. In the first case the average population of the ward is 7,700, and in Clydebank 7,500, so that your Lordships will see there will be a considerable number of people voting in each area as defined by the Bill. Although we may not be going so far as suggested by the noble Earl below the Gangway, as this carries out practically what was agreed upon in the Committee stage I hope your Lordships will look upon this as a consequential Amendment. I beg to move the first of my two Amendments.
Amendment moved—
Page 12, line 11, after ("burgh") insert ("which is not divided into wards, or of a burgh")—(Earl Beauchamp.)
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: The object of my noble friend's Amendment, I understand, is that in all burghs above 25,000 the ward shall be taken as the area. Where we do not agree is on this question of the ward being the right area in all cases The question of the ward being the suitable area was argued in Committee, and I do not think it is necessary that I should repeat the arguments. But your Lordships will remember it was said, I think in the case of Glasgow, that there were three wards which run down close to the Central Station. The result would be that if one ward was a no-licence ward and the others were not, a person from the no-licence ward could go into one of the wards where drinking was still permitted by simply walking a few steps. It is for that reason—and I need not elaborate it further—that I object to the ward as the area. I have an Amendment which follows which deals with this in a different way. It says that the ward is not necessarily to be; he area, but that

271
the ward or a part of the ward or a combination of wards may be taken in these large towns by the town council, who, of course, would know all the local circumstances. The town council would submit their suggestion of the area to the Secretary for Scotland, and if he approved of it it would be the area. Those are the two opposing views in the matter, and I naturally prefer my own. I do not object to the first of the noble Earl's two Amendments.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
EARL BEAUCHAMP: My second Amendment applies only to those burghs winch have a population of more than 25,000. You must have some limit, and whatever limit you adopt you must somewhere or other suddenly drop into the wards which are generally the more convenient things to take. We all know what a ward is. It is a well defined area in local government, and it seems to me the most convenient area we can take.
Amendment moved—
Page 12, line 14, after ("burgh") insert ("and in the case of other burghs each ward thereof").—(Earl Beauchamp.)
LORD BELHAVEN AND STENTON: May I give your Lordships one case which is just on the boundary line? I refer to the burgh of Wishaw, which happens to have just over 25,000 inhabitants. There are four wards there. Those wards are very small ones, and if one only had adopted a no-licence resolution you would merely have to walk across the street from the no-licence ward into the one with full licences.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: The matter is not quite so easily disposed of as the noble Earl in charge of the Bill seems to think. There must be some difficulty somewhere whatever dividing line you take. I venture to suggest to him that the divisions set-out in the next Amendment in the name of Lord Camperdown would meet the case much better than the words in the noble Earl's Amendment. What you want to do is to avoid an arbitrary line. It is all very well to say that the wards are well defined for the purposes of local government, but the purposes of local government are very different from the purposes we are discussing. An almost imaginary line is quite good enough when you are dealing with sanitary questions, or police adminis-
272
tration, but when you are dealing with a case of a man going out of his own district into another district an imaginary line will not do. You must take the local and the central authority into consultation with each other, and that is done in simple language in the Amendment standing in the name of my noble friend. From such knowledge as I have of local government in Scotland I would prefer the words of Lord Camperdown's Amendment than the words of the Amendment of the noble Earl in charge of the Bill.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I hope the Government will give way on this. I have not any special knowledge of this particular matter, not being a Scotsman, but it does seem very hard indeed to have the cast-iron area of the wards. The objection to the ward area might be very great indeed, and it might be quite obvious when you came to the administration of the Act that the arbitrary line of the wards could not be defended. Therefore what you want is to introduce some elasticity. It is quite probable in the case of a very large burgh that you could not treat it as a whole, and therefore you must divide it up; but there must be some elastic provision so that those who are interested can make suitable areas, and, failing a better one, I should have thought that the suggestion proposed by my noble friend Lord Camper-down was the better one.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: I now move my Amendment, after the word "burgh" at the end of paragraph (a) of the definition of "Area," to insert "and in case of any other burgh, any ward or combination of wards or parts of wards, proposed by the town council and approved by the Secretary for Scotland, of which the population shall not be less than twelve thousand." I have already made the few remarks I wanted to make on this Amendment, and I will not trouble your Lordships by saying anything more.
Amendment moved—
Page 12, line 14, after ("burgh") insert ("and in the case of any other burgh, any ward or combination of wards or parts of wards, proposed by the Town Council and approved by the Secretary for Scotland, of which the population shall not be less than twelve thousand").—(The Earl of Camperdown.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.

SCHEDULE II.
FORM OF BALLOT PAPER.
(Ballot Paper for [here insert name of area].)

Counterfoil No.

NO-CHANGE RESOLUTION

1

(means that the powers and discretion of the licensing court shall remain unchanged).

DISINTERESTED MANAGEMENT RESOLUTION

2

(means that all new certificates for the sale of excisable liquors shall be granted only to an authorised public company whose surplus profits are to be devoted to works of public utility in the area; and that existing certificates may be so granted in accordance with the provisions of this Act).

LIMITING RESOLUTION

3

(means that the number of certificates for the side of excisable liquors shall be reduced by one quarter in accordance with the previsions of the Act).

NO-LICENCE RESOLUTION

4

(means that no certificate for the sale of excisable liquors shall be granted except for inns and hotels or restaurants in special cases in accordance with the provisions of this Act).

Indicate your vote by making a X in the right-hand space opposite the resolution for which you vote. You have one vote, and may vote for one resolution only.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH moved to omit from Schedule II the words defining a disinterested management resolution, and to insert new words. The noble Lord said: My Amendment to Schedule 2 is a drafting one, and to make it in accordance with the ordinary practice it ought to have added to the words printed on the Paper the words "in accordance with the provisions of this Act." I move it with the addition of those words.
Amendment moved—
Page 16, leave out line 10 to 17 inclusive, and insert ("means that certificates for the sale of excisable liquors shall only be granted to an authorised public company, and that the surplus
274
profits of such company, after the payment of specified charges are to be paid to a fund for use for public purposes throughout Scotland in accordance with the provisions of this Act").—(Lord Balfour of Burleigh.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Amendment moved—
Page 16, line 28, leave out ("this") and insert ("the").—(Earl Beauchamp.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: In moving to insert after Schedule II, the new schedule standing in my name I do not propose to go into the subject again unless your Lordships wish me to do so. I shall, of course, be glad to deal with any question put to me, but as the main discussion has already been taken upon the clause I do not propose to add anything.
Amendment moved—
Page 16, insert the following new Schedule:
"1. Before the twenty-eighth day of May next after the passing of this Act, every holder of a certificate shall become a member of a Mutual Insurance Association (in this Schedule referred to as "an association") which shall be an association not carried on for profit, and shall be registered under the Companies (Consolidation) Act, 1908, or the Friendly Societies Acts. The affairs of an association shall be subject to the absolute control of its members and one of the objects of an association shall be the insuring of every member of the association against loss arising from the withdrawal of his certificate by reason of a resolution under this Act. An association shall have a membership of not less than:

"(a) in the case of an association insuring only "on" licences persons holding in the aggregate not less than one thousand such Licences; or

" (b) in the case of an association insuring only "off" licences persons holding in the aggregate not less than five hundred such licences; or

"(c) in the case of an association insuring both "on" and "off" licences persons holding in the aggregate not less than one thousand "on" licences and persons holding in the aggregate not less than five hundred "off licences"

"2.—(1) The application to become insured in an association shall be signed by the applicant and shall contain a declaration of the value in accordance with rules made by the Scottish Licence Holders Central Insurance Board (hereinafter called "the declared value") of the certificate to be insured.
"(2) The declared value shall be an amount not exceeding seven years' purchase of the net annual profit from the sale of excisable liquors carried on under the certificate, ascertained on the average of the three preceding years.
"3. The premium payable to an association in respect of the insurance of a certificate under this Act shall be an annual premium payable in advance and inclusive of the expenses of administration shall be at such rate not exceeding one half per centum of the declared value as the central board (established under this Schedule) may determine.
"4.—As soon as may be, but not later than four months after the passing of this Act there shall be constituted a Board to be styled the "Scottish Licence Holders Central Insurance Board" (in this Schedule referred to as the "Central Board").
"(2) The Central Board first constituted shall be elected by holders of certificates and shall consist of nine members of whom four shall be "on" licence holders, two "off" licence holders and the remaining members a brewer, distiller, and wholesale dealer respectively, who may act with a quorum of three and shall hold office for not more than two years.
"(3) The Central Board shall be a body corporate with a common seal, and shall elect a chairman from their own number.
"(4) The Secretary of the Licensed Trade Defence Association of Scotland shall receive nominations for membership and proceed to the election of a Central Board within three months after the passing of this Act, which election shall be decided by the holders of a majority of the certificates voting for a representative of each of the several classes of constituent members of such Board, and the expenses of such election shall be a charge against the first premiums payable in respect of insurance under the provisions of this Act.
"5. The Central Board shall within twelve months after the passing of this Act, and from time to time thereafter if occasion arises, may make rules prescribing amongst other things—

"(1) The conditions on which the declared value of certificates may be ascertained, approved, modified, or readjusted, and the method of verification of declared value if a certificate is withdrawn.

"(2) The manner of subsequent election and the number of members of the Board, which shall not exceed twenty-one, the quorum, the duration of their office and the basis of representation. Provided that at least nine members shall be elected in the same proportions and in the same manner as in the Central Board first constituted, and in addition, each association may elect one member to the Central Board for every one thousand certificates insured with such association.

"(3) The furnishing of receipts by secretaries of associations for premiums or levies.

"(4) The mode in which claims and payments in respect of claims are to he made.

"(5) Any matters incidental to the proper conduct of the affairs of the Board and to carrying out the provisions of this Act.

"Provided always that no such rule shall contain anything inconsistent with the provisions of this Act, and every such rule shall be subject to the approval of the Secretary for Scotland.
"6.—(1) On or before the thirtieth day of June in each year every association shall pay to the Central Board eight shillings and sixpence per centum of the declared value from the amount of the premiums received by the association under the provisions of this Act.
"(2) The amounts received in respect of premiums paid by holders of certificates for on-licences and by holders of certificates for off-licences respectively, shall he carried by the Central Board to two separate accounts to be called respectively "The On-Licence Holders' Insurance Fund" and "The Off-Licence Holders' Insurance Fund." No part of the "On-Licence Holders' insurance Fund" shall be applied to the payment of any claim relating to an off-licence and no part of the "Off-Licence Holders' Insurance Fund" shall be applied to the payment of any claim relating to an on-licence. The Central Board shall have the management of the said funds, and the investment thereof, and the whole of the said funds shall be applied to the payment of claims as provided by this Act.
"(3) The necessary preliminary and office and administration expenses of the Central Board shall be contributed by each association in proportion to the total declared values of the certificates insured by said associations. Provided that the fees to members of the Central Board shall not exceed an aggregate of one thousand pounds in any one year.
"7.—(1) When a certificate is withdrawn by reason of any resolution carried under this Act, a claim upon the appropriate fund to an amount not exceeding the declared value shall thereupon arise, provided that no such claim shall be enforceable against the Central Board except in respect of the year in which such certificate is withdrawn.
"(2) When either of the funds of the Central Board is insufficient to meet the claims of members of associations in any particular year, the appropriate fund shall be divided among such members in proportion to the declared value of the certificates.
"8.—(1) Where in any year the respective amounts paid by the Central Board are insufficient to pay in full the respective claims arising in that year of "on" or "off" licence holders a claim shall thereupon be enforceable against an association by any member thereof whose claim against the Central Board in respect of a certificate insured by such association has not been paid in full and the directors of an association shall impose upon the on-licence holders or off-licence holders (as the case may require) who are members of the association a levy not exceeding one and a half per centum of the declared value of each certificate.
"(2) If the proceeds of the levy are insufficient to pay in full the claims in respect of which it was made, the unpaid balance of the claims shall be carried forward for the two following years, and in each of these years, if necessary, the like levy shall be made and the proceeds thereof shall be applied to the payment of all outstanding claims, and to no other purpose.
"(3) After the distribution in the third year all claims against an association in respect of a certificate which has been withdrawn shall be deemed to have been discharged.
"9. The holder of a certificate who has paid the premium payable in respect of the insurance of the certificate or a levy under Secton 8 of this Schedule shall be entitled to deduct from the interest on any loan advanced to him under any agreement, undertaking, or covenant binding him to obtain a supply of excisable liquor from the lender a sum bearing such proportion to the said premium or levy as the loan bears to the declared value of the said certificate. Provided that the lender shall have a right to any sums receivable under this Schedule, proportionate to the premium

277
or levy paid by him, and in default of agreement the amount of premium or levy to be deducted or the sum due to the lender shall be determined by the Sheriff.
"10. All sums due by an authorised company under the provisions of Subsection (5) Of Section 3 of this Act shall be paid to the Central Board, and shall be applied by the Central Board towards the payment of the claims of the licence holders in respect of the withdrawal of whose certificates such sums are payable.
"11. The clerk of a licensing court shall, on request, in writing, furnish to the Central Board or to an association or before the constitution of the Central Board to the secretary of the Licensed Trade Defence Association of Scotland a list of all the persons who have obtained certificates for the sale by retail of excisable liquor in the district within the jurisdiction of the licensing court for the current year, in conformity with the conditions set out in section twenty-live of the Licensing (Scotland) Act, 1903, which shall apply with the necessary modifications.
"12. In this Schedule unless the context otherwise requires—
The expression "on licence" means a licence for the sale of any excisable liquor for consumption on the premises:
The expression "off licence" means a licence for the sale of any excisable liquor not to he consumed on the premises.—(The Marquess of Salisbury.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Bill to be read 3a on Tuesday next, and to be printed as amended. (No. 190.)

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: Before the House adjourns, I should like to ask the noble Marquess opposite whether he will tell us on what day he proposes to
278
take the Second Reading of the Government of Ireland Bill. We were under the impression that the 27th instant was the day decided upon, but an impression has got abroad that an earlier day is in the contemplation of the noble Marquess, and it will, perhaps, relieve anxious minds if he can make an announcement on the subject.
THE MARQUESS, OF CREWE: I dare say your Lordships will remember that when the question of the date on which the Second Reading of the Government of Ireland. Bill was likely to be taken was discussed before we adjourned for the Christmas holidays I professed myself unable to name a date as at all a certain one because the arrival of the Bill in your Lordships' House was then somewhat distant. Now I understand that the last stage of the Bill is sure to be completed in the course of the present week in another place. In those circumstances if the Second Reading of the Bill here is put down for the 27th, the date suggested by noble Lords opposite, I think that will give plenty of time for the Bill to be printed and in the hands of members of your Lordships' House. I hope that arrangement will meet the convenience of your Lordships. I propose to put the Second Reading down accordingly for the 27th.
House adjourned at twenty-five minutes past Seven o'clock, till To-morrow, a quarter past Four o'clock.