Sitting of 20 January 1913

Preamble
The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.
NEW WRIT
For Londonderry City, in the room of James Albert Edward Hamilton, Duke of Abercorn, formerly a Member of this House (Manor of Northstead).—[Lord Balcarres.]
SHOPS ACT, 1912.
Copy presented of Orders by the Secretary for Scotland, dated 18th December, 1912, (1) in terms of Section 4 of the Shops Act, 1912, affecting butchers' and chemists' shops, and (2) in terms of Section 5, affecting butchers' shops, in the burgh of Greenock [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.

NATIONAL INSURANCE ACT.
Copy presented of Orders, dated 13th 20th January, 1913, made by the National the Glasgow Boundaries Act, 1912, by the Scottish Insurance Commissioners constituted under the National Insurance Act, 1911, as to the insurance committee for
2
the burghs of Partick and Govan [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
Copy presented of Table, dated 15th January, 1913, prepared by the National Health Insurance Joint Committee, of Reserve Values for Male Insured Persons, who at the date of joining an Approved Society or becoming a Person entitled to Benefits out of the Navy and Army Insurance Fund are serving in the Navy or Army, and to whom Section 46 of The National Insurance Act, 1911, applies [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
Copy presented of Regulations, dated 20th January, 1913, made by the National Health Insurance Joint Committee, entitled National Health Insurance (Administration Expenses) Regulations, 1913 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 447.]
Copy presented of Regulations, dated 20th January, 1913, made by the National Health Insurance Joint Committee and the Insurance Commissioners, acting jointly, entitled The National Health Insurance (Collection of Contributions) Regulations (England), 1913 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 448.]
Copy presented of Regulations, dated 20th January 1913, made by the National Health Insurance Joint Committee and the Insurance Commissioners, acting jointly, entitled National Health Insurance (Outworkers) Regulations (England), 1913 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 449.]

TRUSTEE SAVINGS BANKS.
Copy presented of Twenty-first Annual Report of the Proceedings of the Inspection Committee for the year ended 20th November, 1912, with Appendices [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
CRIMINAL LUNATIC ASYLUMS (RULES).
Copy presented of Rules made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, in pursuance of Section 5 of The Criminal Lunatic Asylums Act, 1860, for the government and management of Asylums, for the care and treatment of the Persons confined therein, and for the duties and conduct of the Officers thereof [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
LUNACY.
Paper laid upon the Table by the Clerk of the House:—Copy of Report to the Lord Chancellor of the number of Visits made, the number of Patients seen, and the number of Miles travelled by the Visitors of Lunatics between the 1st April and the 30th September, 1912 [by Act].

SHERIFF COURTS (SCOTLAND) BILL.
Reported, with Amendments, from the Standing Committee on Scottish Bills.
Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 445.]
Minutes of the proceedings of the Standing Committee to be printed. [No. 445.]
Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), to be taken into consideration upon Thursday, and to be printed. [Bill 348.]

CLERKS OF SESSION (SCOTLAND) BILL.
Reported, with Amendments, from the Standing Committee on Scottish Bills.
Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 446.]
Minutes of proceedings of the Standing Committee to be printed. [No. 446.]
Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), to be taken into consideration upon Thursday, and to be printed. [Bill 349.]

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.

  China (Opium Traffic).
  Mr. GINNELLasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he is now in a position to state substantially the terms of the proposed loan of £25,000,000 to China by the six-Power group; whether they include, or in any way depend on, the payment by China of £10,000.000 or any other sum for the opium sent by Indian speculators to Shanghai against China's protests, against China's interests, and against the successful efforts of the Chinese Government to stamp out the opium vice; whether China's refusal to submit to payment for this article, which she does not want, has been one of the difficulties in arranging loans; and, in view of the discredit attaching in China to the forcing of that drug upon that country and the consequent damage to British business and to British subjects in China, if he will say in what way and on what grounds the British Government is concerned to subject China's freedom to take a loan for beneficial purposes to a condition that she must pay for a drug admittedly injurious to her people?
  The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Acland): The answer to all parts of the question is in the negative.
  Mr. GINNELL: Does the British Government, knowing that China has no money for this loan, insist upon her paying for opium which she does not want?
  Mr. ACLAND: The suggestion is perfectly untrue and, if I may say so, is a very unworthy one.
  Sir GEORGE TOULMIN: May we assume that none of the money is going to be paid for opium, and that there is no condition of any kind relating to opium?
  Mr. ACLAND: There is no condition at all with regard to opium attached to the loan.
  Mr. GINNELL: Does the British Foreign Office insist upon China paying for this opium?
  Mr. ACLAND: There is nothing in the loan about opium.
  Mr. GINNELL: Does the British Foreign Office insist in China paying for opium she does not want?
  Mr. ACLAND: No, Sir.

  Tibet.
  Sir J. D. REESasked whether the independence of Tibet has been proclaimed at Urga; and whether an emissary, whether authorised or not, has stated in Urga that he is authorised to conclude an agreement with Mongolia and to negotiate with Russia, in view to placing Tibet under an Anglo-Russian protectorate?
  Mr. ACLAND: I have seen statements to that effect in the Press. I understand that an agreement of some kind has been signed at Urga. I cannot say what an emissary from Tibet may have stated in Urga, but the question of placing Tibet under an Anglo-Russian protectorate has never been discused or contemplated by His Majesty's Government.
  Sir J. D. REES: Does the hon. Gentleman understand an agreement has been signed, and does he know what the agreement was?
  Mr. ACLAND: I am afraid I cannot say. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would put down a question.
  Sir J. D. REESasked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether the Government of India are enforcing the regulations by which, under the treaties of 1893 and 1908, tea is imported into Tibet; and to what extent the provisions in the latter treaty to the effect that the administration of trade marts shall remain under Tibetan officials subject to Chinese supervision is being actually observed?
  The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. Harold Baker): The Trade Regulations of 1908 contained no provision regulating the import of tea into Tibet, which is still governed by Article 4 of the earlier Regulations of 1893. That article, so far as the Secretary of State is aware, is still operative. As regards the second part of the question, the administration of the trade marts remains under Tibetan officers. But, as I informed the hon. Member for Melton on 29th July, 1912, Chinese authority in Tibet has, so far as our information goes, ceased to be effective.
  Sir J. D. REES: Is the Government of India taking steps to ensure that the importation of tea from India into Tibet is at any rate not obstructed?
  Mr. BAKER: There have been difficulties, but I may say that is so.

  Small Holders (Loans).
  Sir JOHN SPEARasked the President of the Board of Agriculture if he is aware that his scheme of assisting small holders financially with loans through joint stock banks is unworkable because the condition that such loans are to be repayable on demand would make it impossible for the small holder to use the money in raising crops because of the liability of its recall before the crops are matured; and will he endeavour to arrange that the loans shall be for six months certain and mutually renewable?
  The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of AGRICULTURE (Mr. Runciman): I would remind the hon. Member that, although the loans will be nominally repayable on demand, the banks have expressly authorised the statement that they will in general practice be ready to lend for twelve months, and the loans will then be subject to repayment, renewal or reduction.
  Sir J. SPEAR: Do not the conditions stipulate that the loan is to be repayable on demand, and does the right hon. Gentleman really think that these conditions will be of any service to small holders in raising stock or crops?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: If the hon. Gentleman followed my answer clearly he would see that the banks expressly authorise the statement that they would, as a general practice, be ready to lend for twelve months.
  Sir J. SPEAR: Would it not be in the hands of the joint stock banks to call for the repayment of the money on demand? And is it not the case that since the joint stock banks would incur no liability as the money would be guaranteed by the cooperative societies, is it unreasonable that the small holders should have security for at least six months?
  Mr. HARRY LAWSON: Will there not be a legal liability on the borrowers to redeem on demand whatever the assurance of the banks may be?
  Sir H. CARLILE: May I ask the right, hon. Gentleman whether he is aware that a loan on these conditions for twelve months is worse than useless?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: That is a matter of opinion. I am informed by those with whom I have been in conference—many of them small holders—that most of these

  7
  loans will be of the greatest assistance. With regard to the point put by the hon. Member (Mr. Harry Lawson) I would point out that whatever may be the legal conditions entered into to provide for ordinary banking conditions the banks are prepared to give to the co-operative societies that which they sometimes give to private borrowers, an undertaking that they will not ask for repayment of the loan although it may be a loan formally repayable on demand until twelve months.
  Mr. WEDGWOOD: Will the Government undertake proposals for industrial enterprise on the same footing.
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: My Department deals with agriculture.

  Foot-and-Mouth Disease.
  Mr. GINNELLasked, in view of the loss imposed upon Ireland by the detention of Irish cattle for twelve hours at the landing places in Great Britain and subsequent restriction for twenty-one days at the places of destination, notwithstanding the present immunity of Ireland from cattle disease and notwithstanding examination by experts on both sides of the Channel, if he will say whether English cattle are subject to the restriction for twenty-one days; if not, what is the reason for the difference of treatment; and if he can now say when this discrimination against Ireland will be stopped?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: I have explained to the House on many occasions the reasons which make it impossible to draw any analogy between the movement of cattle from one part of England to another and the importation of cattle from Ireland. I hope, if nothing untoward occurs in the meantime, to be able to dispense with the requirement of twenty-one days' supervision in the case of Irish cattle early next month.
  Mr. PATRICK WHITEasked the Prime Minister whether, having regard to the fact that, when an outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease occurred in England in 1911, a Departmental Commitee was appointed to make inquiries into its possible origin and report what conditions and regulations should govern the restrictions on the movement of animals in the event of subsequent outbreaks so as to safeguard the interests of British agriculturists, he will now, if an application supported by the public opinion of Ireland is presented to him, appoint a similar
  8
  Committee or Commission of Inquiry into the necessities of Irish agriculturists arising out of the outbreak in that country last year?
  The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Asquith): As I recently stated, I still adhere, after careful consideration of the matter, to the opinion that no useful purpose would be served at present by the appointment of such a Commission or Committee as is suggested.?
  Mr. PATRICK WHITE: Is the right hon. Gentleman ignoring Irish opinion in this matter altogether?
  The PRIME MINISTER: No, Sir; Irish opinion is a very important factor.

  Public Veterinary Service (Notification of Vacancies).
  Mr. CHARLES BATHURSTasked the President of the Board of Agriculture, whether he proposes to take any steps, in accordance with the Report of the Depart mental Committee on the Supply of Veterinary Officers, to secure improvement in the method of notifying vacancies in the public veterinary service?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: The Report to which the hon. Member refers was published only a few days ago. Perhaps the hon. Member will repeat his question when I have had a little more time in which to consider the recommendations of the Committee on this important subject.

  Calton Gaol (Edinburgh).
  Mr. HOGGEasked the hon. Member for St. George's-in-the-East, as representing the First Commissioner of Works, whether he can state who are the owners of the site at present occupied by the Calton gaol in Edinburgh?
  Mr. WEDGWOOD BENN (Lord of the Treasury): The Prison Commissioners for Scotland are the owners of the site.
  Mr. HOGGE: Are there any title deeds?
  Mr. WEDGWOOD BENN: That is not a matter that comes within the knowledge of the Office of Works.
  Mr. HOGGEasked whether the necessary consents have been obtained for the erection of new building upon the site of the Calton gaol in Edinburgh?
  Mr. W. BENN: Any necessary consents either have been obtained or will be obtained before the buildings are erected.
  Mr. HOGGE: Has the consent of the Lord President of the College of Justice and the Lord Justice Clerk been obtained?
  Mr. W. BENN: It would not be for the Office of Works to obtain consent, but of the Prison Commissioners.
  Mr. WHYTE: Is there any truth in the rumour that other sites besides that of Calton gaol are in view?
  Mr. W. BENN: No, Sir.

  Office of Works (Established List).
  Mr. HOAREasked whether there are any engineers who, though not on the established list, are doing full time work for the Office of Works in the War Office; if so, how many; whether they are allowed the six days' leave a year which is allowed to stokers in a similar unestablished position; and whether, if their work is full time and of a permanent character, they could be placed upon the established list?
  Mr. W. BENN: There are twelve engineers of various grades employed at the War Office on full time work by the contractors who have the engineering maintenance contract. Of these men, the stokers alone, in accordance with the general practice, receive six days' leave a year with pay. The First Commissioner regrets that he does not see his way to carry out the hon. Member's suggestion.
  Mr. HOARE: Is there any distinction between the conditions of the labour of the stokers and the engineers?
  Mr. W. BENN: No, Sir. Both classes are treated according to the best conditions prevalent in the trade and in accordance with the Fair-Wages Clause.
  Mr. HOARE: Is there any reason why they should not be treated the same by the Office of Works?
  Mr. W. BENN: It is the practice of the contractors to observe the Fair-Wages Clause, and they do it both in the case of the engineers and the stokers.

  Trade Boards Act (Tailoring Trade).
  Mr. EDMUND HARVEYasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he can give an approximate estimate of the number of employed persons engaged in the tailoring trade who will be affected by the Trade Boards Act who are resident in Leeds and in the adjoining district;
  10
  and whether a local branch office of the Office of Trade Boards will be established to deal with this district and such towns as can conveniently be inspected from this centre?
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. J. M. Robertson): The Trade Boards Act applies only to certain branches of the tailoring trade, and there are no statistics relating to those branches as distinguished from the rest of the trade. My right hon. Friend is not at present proposing to establish a local branch office at Leeds, but he will give careful consideration to my hon. Friend's suggestion.

  Exports from United Kingdom, 1912.
  Mr. CROFTasked (1) what were the total values of exports from the United Kingdom in 1912 to France, Germany, Russia, Belgium, and the United States, respectively; and (2) what were the total values of exports from the United Kingdom in 1912 to Canada, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, and the Indian Empire, respectively?
  Mr. ROBERTSON: The information asked for in this and the following question is not yet available. It will be published in the ordinary course in the issue of the monthly accounts relating to trade and navigation for January which will appear on 7th February.

  Fish Delivered in Grimsby.
  Mr. J. M. HENDERSONasked for the weight of fish delivered in Grimsby and Aberdeen, respectively, during the years 1911 and 1912?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: I will circulate with the Votes the figures relating to Grimsby. With regard to Aberdeen, perhaps my hon. Friend will address a question to the Scottish Office.—[See Written Answers this date.]

  Taxi-Cab Drivers (Strike).
  Mr. CATHCART WASONasked if the right hon. Gentleman has been approached by taxi-cab owners and drivers with reference to a settlement of the present dispute; and, if so, if he will take into consideration suggestions as to an increase of fares up to 3d. a quarter of a mile instead of the present rate of 2d.?
  Mr. CASSELasked whether the right hon. Gentleman's Department has yet taken any steps, or proposes to take

  11
  any steps, with a view to bringing about a settlement of the dispute between owners and drivers of taxi-cabs?
  Mr. ROBERTSON: The Board of Trade have been and are in touch with both parties to the dispute, and are closely watching developments, but it would not appear that the Department can at present take any active step with a view to bringing about a settlement. I may add that any question of alteration in fares comes under the jurisdiction of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, and that the Board of Trade has no authority in regard to it.
  Mr. FLAVIN: Will the President of the Board of Trade take some effective steps to break down the petrol combination or trusts of that description?
  Mr. ROBERTSON: I must ask for notice of that question.

  High Sheriffs (Lancashire).
  Sir GEORGE TOULMINasked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster whether a Committee has recently inquired into the expenses incurred by the high sheriffs of Lancashire during their term of office; whether the Committee has reported; and, if so, whether he intends to publish the Report?
  The CHANCELLOR of the DUCHY Of LANCASTER (Mr. Hobhouse): The great difficulty I have experienced in obtaining the services of gentlemen to act as High Sheriff of the County Palatine led me to appoint a Committee, under the chairmanship of the Vice-Chancellor of the Duchy, on 10th October, 1912, to inquire into the costs incurred by gentlemen while serving the office of High Sheriff of Lancashire. The Report of the Committee, which I have just received, shows that very great cost is incurred, a good deal of which appears to be totally unnecessary and undesirable. The publication of the Report would depend upon the general desire of Members, especially from Lancashire, to read it.
  Sir G. TOULMIN: Can the right hon. Gentleman publish the conclusions at which they have arrived?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: Of course, I shall be very glad to take into consideration the wishes of my hon. Friend and the Members who represent Lancashire constituencies. There are one or two legal difficul-
  12
  ties in the way which will require legislation before some of this cost could be reduced, and if the House desires information on the point I shall be very glad to give it if I can.
  Mr. LYELL: Are the conclusions of the Committee applicable to other counties as well as Lancashire?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: No, I think not. Speaking generally, the inquiries of the Committee refer to expenses, which are confined to the county of Lancashire alone.

  Sentences on Youths.
  Sir WILLIAM BYLESasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has received a resolution lately passed by the Salford magistrates, asking that Courts of Summary Jurisdiction be empowered to sentence youths of sixteen to twenty-one to detention in a Borstal institution instead of sending them to a common gaol; and whether it is in his power to accede to this request?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. McKenna): I have received this resolution. It could only be carried out by legislation, and I doubt whether Parliament would consent to give to ordinary Courts of Summary Jurisdiction the very drastic powers which are suggested, but I am considering proposals for the amendment of the law which would go a long way in the direction which the magistrates desire.
  Colonel YATE: Will the right hon. Gentleman also consider the question of giving these juvenile offenders the birch instead of sending them to gaol?
  Mr. McKENNA: I should like to have notice of that question.

  Shops Act.
  Mr. KINGasked whether the right hon. Gentleman has had brought under his consideration the case of a carrier between Bristol and Portishead who has been in the habit of buying daily at a refreshment room in Pill a pennyworth of biscuits for the boy employed by him, but who now, owing to the Shops Act, is refused the biscuits on the early-closing day on the ground that biscuits are confectionery, not refreshments; and whether he will issue a Memorandum in order to make it clear that earriers' boys and other travellers may ask for biscuits, even in small amounts, without being

  13
  refused on the plea that biscuits are only sweetmeats and not proper food?
  Mr. McKENNA: The case has not come before me, and without further information as to the facts of the case, I should not like to express an opinion. I may point out, however, that the Act exempts the sale of confectionery as well as the sale of refreshments from the requirement as to closing for a half holiday. Perhaps my hon. Friend will communicate with me if he has any further information.

  Pit Ponies and Horses (Inspection).
  Mr. C. BATHURSTasked whether, seeing that the examination for the special inspectorships, under the Mines Act, 1911, of horses in South Wales coal mines took place at Cardiff on the 9th instant, the appointments have yet been made; and, if so, whether he will state the names of the persons appointed?
  Mr. McKENNA: I am informed by the Civil Service Commissioners that all the candidates have passed the examination, and that the medical and other inquiries will, it is hoped, be completed in a day or two. On receipt of the certificate of the Civil Service Commissioners, the appointments will be made at once.
  Mr. BUTCHERasked whether, in view of the fact that the Coal Mines Act, 1911, passed into law on the 16th December, 1911, and came into operation on the 1st July, 1912, and that no special inspectors of pit ponies, as provided by that Act, have yet been appointed, or, at any rate, had been appointed on the 10th January, 1913, he will call for special reports from the district inspectors of mines as to the treatment of pit ponies during the year 1912, and the observance of the regulations in relation to pit ponies contained in the Coal Mines Act, 1911; and whether he will cause such special reports to be laid upon the Table of the House?
  Mr. McKENNA: As I have stated in reply to previous questions of the hon. Member the district inspectors will report on this subject in their annual reports for 1912, which they will shortly be preparing, and these reports will be laid before Parliament. It would not be right to take up time which the inspectors should be giving to actual inspection by calling upon them to prepare special reports on this subject in anticipation of their annual reports.
  Mr. BUTCHER: Will the right hon. Gentleman give instructions to his inspectors to give as full information as they can in their reports with regard to the care and treatment of pit ponies and the observance of the regulations?
  Mr. McKENNA: I will certainly bear in mind what the hon. Member has suggested.

  St. Paul's Cathedral.
  Mr. KELLAWAYasked if the right hon. Gentleman has decided to hold an inquiry into the danger to St. Paul's Cathedral from motor omnibus traffic; by whom such inquiry is to be held; and whether the results of the inquiry will be laid before the House?
  Mr. McKENNA: I am consulting the National Physical Laboratory as to the possibility of their undertaking a series of tests with the object of estimating the amount of vibration caused by motor and other traffic at different periods of the day in the streets adjoining the cathedral, and the effect, if any, on the fabric. I am unable to make any further statement at present.

  Annual Attorney's Licences (Scotland).
  Mr. WATTasked the Secretary to the Treasury whether prosecutions have been instituted in three separate years, namely, in 1910, 1911, and 1912, by the solicitor to the Inland Revenue in Scotland against the same individual for non-payment of his £6 annual attorney's licence; in how many of these cases was the attorney imprisoned and for how long on each occasion; did he, before imprisonment, express willingness to pay the licence, but could not face the expenses incurred by the solicitor to the Inland Revenue; will he say the age of the individual thus imprisoned; and whether the solicitor to the Inland Revenue is still of opinion that poverty has not been proved?
  The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Masterman): The answer to the first and last parts of the question is in the affirmative. In each of the years 1910 and 1911 the attorney was imprisoned for ten days; the third ease is still pending. After judgment had been obtained in 1911 an offer was made to pay Certificate Duty, without expenses, at a deferred date. According to a statement made by the defendant in 1911 his age would now be about 62. The expenses incurred were £3 3s.

  NATIONAL INSURANCE ACT.

    MEDICAL BENEFIT.
    Lord NINIAN CRICHTON-STUARTasked whether the right hon. Gentleman is aware that Mr. F. C. Morgan, of 95, Inverness Place, Cardiff, was examined on 21st November last by a doctor and was told that he was suffering from tuberculosis; whether he was told by the specialist to the King Edward VII. Welsh National Memorial Association, on 8th December, to await notice from the medical superintendent of the sanatorium; whether that notice has been received; and, if not, why there has been this serious delay?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: No application was received in respect of this person until 4th December. He was examined by the tuberculosis officer and reported upon on 7th December, and recommended by the insurance committee for treatment in a sanatorium on 12th December. Arrangements have been made for him to enter a sanatorium this week. I am informed that the case was not an urgent one, and that the man was able to continue in employment.
    Mr. BARNESasked whether, in the case of an insured person who has been certified for sanatorium treatment, and for whom accommodation cannot be found, the National Insurance Commissioners have any power to render that person financial or other assistance pending his entry into a sanatorium; if not, whether it is anticipated that there will be any such cases in the normal working of the Act; and, if such cases will be possible or probable, steps can be taken to secure the power referred to?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: Yes, Sir. If there should be any such cases both financial and other assistance would be provided; for during any period between an insured person becoming incapable of work, and his actual entry into a sanatorium he would receive domiciliary treatment, including both medical attendance and the provision of medicines, and also extra nourishment, etc., ancillary to the treatment; and he will also be entitled, under the ordinary conditions, to sickness benefit, normally of 10s. a week.
    Dr. ESMONDEasked whether the right hon. Gentleman is aware that some benefit societies have issued circulars to their members urging them to select particular doctors on the panel, and have also
    16
    sent canvassers to their members to inform them that they are required by the society to select certain doctors who are named; whether in the majority of cases this is being done with reference to members of these societies who only became members of any friendly society for the first time under the provisions of the National Insurance Act, and who were not patients of the particular doctors named; and whether, in view of the effect of pressure such as this or canvassing carried on with the connivance of the doctors who are favoured by the officials of these societies upon the other doctors who have gone on the local panels, and whose patients are thus interfered with, the Insurance Commissioners will have immediate steps taken to prohibit societies interfering in this manner?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: Every insured person has a right to select the practitioner on the panel by whom he wishes to be attended, and the issue of any circular which conceals this fact would be unjustifiable. If my hon. Friend will inform me of any actual case in which a circular has been issued stating that members are required by the society to select certain doctors who are named, I will see if any action should be taken.
    Mr. WILLIAM THORNE: Are the panels filled throughout the country?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: I think, with a few tiny exceptions, the panels are now in operation in all districts.
    Mr. W. THORNE: Where the panels are not set up, how are the insured persons going to get medical benefits?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: In every case doctors are provided for insured persons.
    Mr. HOGGEasked what steps have been taken to acquaint insured persons with the names and addresses of doctors on the panel; and whether lists of their names and addresses have been circulated to each insured person, or, failing that, whether their names and addresses have been advertised in the local Press?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: Lists of doctors on the panel have been set up in all post offices, and in offices of the Customs and Excise officers, at police stations, Labour Exchanges, and hospitals, and have also been sent to the local branches of approved societies who asked for them. Lists have not been supplied to individual

    17
    insured persons, but certain newspapers have, I believe, published local lists.
    Mr. HOGGE: Does the right hon. Gentleman not think the best plan would be to advertise all these names and addresses in the local newspapers so as to avoid the necessity of workmen going to offices, particularly Excise offices, the addresses of which they do not even know?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: It depends entirely upon the local insurance committee, and they probably do not want to incur more expense than necessary.
    Mr. FELL: Can they not be communicated to the approved societies?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: Oh, yes; they are communicated to all the approved societies.
    Mr. NEWMANasked whether, be fore admitting the name of any practitioner who may apply to have his name placed on a panel in their area, the insurance committees have been directed by the Insurance Commissioners to investigate the validity and worth of any foreign or American degree that such applicant may adduce as proof of ability to fulfil the duties required of him?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: I am not aware that any medical practitioners have been included on any panel except duly qualified medical practitioners—that is, practitioners for the time being registered under the Medical Acts. No foreign or Colonial practitioner is entitled to be registered unless he possesses the qualifications prescribed by the Medical Act, 1886.
    Mr. NEWMANasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether his attention has been drawn to the difficulty caused to insured persons who are obliged to select a medical practitioner from their local panel owing to his status and degree being stated by means of letters of the alphabet only; whether on the Kensington panel two practitioners are described as L.K.Q.C.P.I. and L.R.F.P.S.G., respectively; and whether, in a revised or any subsequent copy of the panel that may be issued, the Insurance Commissioners will give directions that any qualifications in possession of the practitioner should be set out in more popular language?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: The question of the manner in which lists of doctors on the different panels are published is entirely a
    18
    matter for the insurance committees, themselves, acting in conjunction with the medical men on the panels. I believe there have been local variations in the procedure adopted, but I do not believe that these have caused any difficulties to insured persons making their choice.
    Mr. WHYTEasked when action will be taken upon the Report of the Highlands and Islands Medical Service Committee?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: This matter is receiving very careful consideration, but I fear I am not at present in a position to make any statement with regard to it.
    Mr. TOUCHEasked how many of the doctors on the panel for the county of London are also on the panels of neighbouring counties?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: I believe that some doctors resident near the border of the administrative county of London have arranged to continue to treat insured persons the other side of that border under the Insurance Act as formerly in private practice. A complete answer to this question would involve the separate examination and comparison of the panels of Middlesex, Surrey, Kent, Essex, West Ham, and Croydon. I will send the hon. Member, if he desires, the printed lists of doctors for all these areas.
    Mr. TOUCHEasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury if his attention has been called to a letter addressed by Dr. Glaister to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, informing him that Mrs. Peppiat walked from Clerkenwell to the offices of the London Insurance Committee at. 3, Pall Mall East, to ask for an answer to a request made by her husband about ten days previously for permission to contract out of medical benefit, she being prepared to give very definite reasons for his desire to do so; that, after interviewing five clerks, Mrs. Peppiat was informed that her husband must consult a panel doctor, and that if she persisted in putting difficulties in the way they could do nothings for her; and if the office staff had authority to adopt this attitude, and why no answer had been made to Mr. Peppiat's request?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: I will communicate with the London Insurance Committee in regard to the matter referred to in the hon. Member's question, but I must point out that the insurance committee is not

    19
    a department of the Insurance Commission, but a public body for whose office procedure I am not directly responsible.
    Mr. TOUCHEasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury if his attention has been called to a resolution passed by the London medical committee protesting against the recent formation of what is termed the London county medical committee (from among the members of which an executive committee has been formed), on the ground that in no sense consistent with reason, or in pursuance of Section 62 of the National Insurance Act, can the Insurance Commissioners be satisfied that such a committee could be regarded as representative of the 5,500 duly qualified medical practitioners resident in the county of London; and what steps are proposed to be taken by the Commissioners to secure that any body which is recognised under the Act satisfies the provisions of the Act?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: The Committee referred to in the question has not yet been recognised by the Commissioners under Section 62 of the Act, The Commissioners, when considering applications made to them by a medical committee for recognition under that Section, require full information as to its composition and the procedure by which it was brought into existence.
    Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANSasked whether a doctor may join the panel and by his agreement stipulate that he will give medical attendance and treatment only to patients who select him, and not to patients who may be assigned to him without their wish and without his consent lay the insurance committee?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: I would refer the hon. Member to the answers already given to similar questions by the hon. Members for Stirlingshire, London University, Haggerston, Nottingham East, and Islington North, on the 6th, 9th, 13th, 14th, and 15th instant, to which I have nothing to add.
    Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman for a specific answer to this question? It has never really been answered before.
    Mr. MASTERMAN: It has been answered three or four times.
    Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: Can the doctor stipulate by the agreement that he
    20
    shall only attend his own patients and not those assigned to him?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: If the insurance committee accepts that agreement, certainly.
    Major WHITEasked whether any doctors are entered on more than one panel under the National Insurance Act; if so, how many; and how many of these have been registered in more than two districts?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: Yes, Sir. Where a doctor living near the boundary between two contiguous areas has patients in both, he has, of course, placed his name on the panel of both. It would obviously have been detrimental to the interests not only of the doctors, but of insured persons, that any such artificial divisions as arise from local government boundaries should preclude insured persons from continuing to receive the services of their own doctors. The figure of 15,000, given as the number of doctors on panels in Great Britain was arrived at after making a liberal discount for cases of this kind.
    Major WHITE: Will the right hon. Gentleman say how many duplicates are upon the panels?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: That would involve an examination of all the boundaries of Great Britain.
    Major WHITEasked whether any doctors are entered on more than one panel in the county of London; and, if so, how many; and how many of these have been registered in more than two districts?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: There is only one panel for the county of London; its division into lists for the separate boroughs is for the assistance of the insured persons in their selection of a doctor within convenient distance of their homes. Doctors were asked what districts they wished to serve, and the lists were prepared accordingly. The number of doctors on the London panel in the first list was 780; and I learn that more than a hundred new names have since been received.
    Mr. W. THORNE: Have any steps been taken to prevent a doctor from having more patients than he can attend?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: I do not think any doctor has sent into us any list of the number he has already received.

    REGISTERED TRADE UNIONS.
    Mr. CHARLES DUNCANasked whether registered trade unions which have become approved societies are exempt from the payment of receipt stamps on all receipts exceeding the value of £2?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: The answer is in the negative. As I informed the hon. Member for South-West Ham on the 17th December last, the question of extending the exemption given by the Friendly Societies Act to registered friendly societies to approved societies generally, so far as regards their business under the Insurance Act, is under consideration.

    OUTDOOR RELIEF (SCOTLAND).
    Major HOPEasked whether it was the intention of the Government to make Clause 109 of the National Insurance Act applicable to Scotland by the Government Amendment leaving out the original limiting words "in England," which was carried on the Report stage of the Bill on 1st December, 1911?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: The answer is in the negative. Section 109 of the Act does not apply to Scotland.
    Mr. CASSEL: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that during the Committee stage of the Bill I pointed out the Section did not apply to Scotland, the Government acceded to my argument and stated that on the Report stage they would introduce an Amendment to make it applicable to Scotland? They did, in fact, introduce an Amendment on Report stage, but we were not allowed to discuss it.
    Mr. MASTERMAN: I was not aware of that fact. I can find no statement such as that the hon. Gentleman says we made, but I will gladly look it up.
    Mr. CASSEL: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will allow me to give him the reference?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: Yes, I shall be very glad if the hon. Gentleman will give me the reference.

    FARMERS AND PLOUGHMEN (SCOTLAND).
    MARQUESS of TULLIBARDINEasked whether, in the event of a ploughman writing to the Insurance Commissioners and asking if he is bound to pay his insurance premium, owing to the fact that many people similarly placed in his
    22
    neighbourhood have not done so, it is customary to send copies of Form No. 125 (Scotland) and to ask him to act as informer and collect evidence against his friends; and, if so, whether such a task can be performed by those who are paid for the purpose?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: The ploughman in question wrote a letter of complaint, asserting that a large number of persons were boasting that they would not come under the conditions of the Insurance Act and that no inspectors were taking any notice, and adding that this was unfair to loyal and law-abiding subjects. The Scottish Commissioners afforded him the opportunity, which he appeared to desire, of giving specific information as to these cases, which were unknown to the Commission.
    MARQUESS of TULLIBARDINE: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman if it is not a well-known fact that the farmers and ploughmen in this part of Scotland are not taking any notice of the Act, and is it not rather too much to expect a single individual ploughman to undertake the part of an unpaid or unofficial sneak among neighbouring employers and his own friends?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: There is no question of an unpaid sneak; but, when a letter is received practically alleging that the inspectors are in connivance with persons to elude the Act, it is quite right the person sending it should be asked to give specific instances.
    MARQUESS of TULLIBARDINE: Was it not a case of a ploughman, whose employer insisted upon observing the Act, asking that he might be allowed to keep himself off as it was notorious many farmers and employers in the district were not observing the Act; and will the right hon. Gentleman lay a copy of the report upon the Table of the House?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: I have seen the letter in question, and it is practically an allegation that the inspectors are conniving with certain persons in breaking the Act, and such allegations should not be made without specific instances are given.

    GAS LIGHT AND COKE COMPANY.
    Mr. WEDGWOODasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether the supernumerary lamplighters employed by the Gas Light and Coke Company and paid at the rate of 5s. 6d. a week are

    23
    having 4d. deducted from their wages for the national insurance; and whether he will have inquiry made as to whether any deduction should be made at all in the case of these men?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: I have no information with regard to the case referred to in the question, but I am communicating with the company and will inform my hon. Friend of the result.

    SHARE FISHERMEN.
    Mr. FELLasked if the Insurance Commissioners, when they decided that the share fishermen of Great Yarmouth and Lowestoft came under the provisions of the National Insurance Act on the ground that they were employed persons and not partners, had under their consideration the decision of the High Court that the same share fishermen were partners and so did not come within the provisions of the Workmen's Compensation Act; and, if not, whether their decision will be reconsidered?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: As fishermen paid by share are expressly excluded from the scope of the Workmen's Compensation Act irrespective of the question whether they are partners or servants, a decision given under that Act would not be relevant to any question under the National Insurance Act. The Commissioners see no reason for reviewing the decision already announced.
    Mr. FELL: Might I ask if the Insurance Commissioners will have a test case taken to the High Courts to see if these fishermen come under the Act or not?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: I do not think it is their function to have a case stated. I should have thought it was for the aggrieved person, if there is one; but I will consider the matter.
    MARQUESS of TULLIBARDINE: Are we to understand that all share fishermen come under the Act, and, if not, why not?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: Oh, no, it depends upon the conditions under which they are working.

    OUTWORKERS (NOTTINGHAM).
    Sir J. D. REESasked whether distress exists among outworkers in the lace trade in Nottingham in consequence of the imposition of the insurance tax; and
    24
    when some scheme will be introduced to mitigate the hardships under which they are suffering?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: Following upon the Report of the special inquiry which will be laid on the Table of the House in a few days, it has been decided to simplify the system of paying contributions in respect of outworkers by reference to work done. I am sending to the hon. Member particulars of the changes which are being made in the Regulations. No specific case of hardship in Nottingham has been brought to my notice, but if the hon. Member can furnish particulars of any case I shall be glad to have inquiries made.
    Sir J. D. REES: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the simplification to which he refers has been divulged, and does not adequately deal with the very considerable distress resulting from the imposition of this tax?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: I was not aware of it. The recommendations of the person who conducted the inquiry are, I think, meeting the special case of the Nottingham outworkers.
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Would the right hon. Gentleman say whether there are any impartial persons who conduct inquiries on behalf of the Government?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: I think by Statute all inquiries have to be conducted by impartial persons.
    Mr. W. THORNE: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he is aware that long before the Insurance Act came into existence there was a great deal of distress among the outworkers in the lace trade at Nottingham, and whether the hon. Gentleman (Sir J. D. Rees) has attempted in any way to advise the employers to raise the wages of these particular workers?

    CHARWOMEN.
    Viscount WOLMERasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether his attention has been called to the fact that Government inspectors are demanding that employers of charwomen, aged 67, who are employed for four hours every day and paid at the rate of 12s. per week, should fix stamps on their insurance cards to the value of 5d. or 6d. per week instead of 4d. as is provided by the National Insurance Act; and whether the Insurance Commissioners have issued any new regulations on the subject?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: Section 49 of the Act requires the same rates of contribution to be paid in respect of persons of the age mentioned as for employed contributors of other ages. Where, under the provisions altering the rates of contributions in respect of low-paid employés, the employer pays 5d. and 6d. a week, the employed person pays nothing. The rates are laid down in the Act and are not determined by Regulations of the Insurance Commissioners.
    Sir E. H. CARLILE: Are persons of this age entitled to medical benefit?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: They are entitled to such benefit as 9d. per week will provide from their approved society.

    ADVISORY COMMITTEES.
    Mr. PIKE PEASEasked (1) whether, when forming the advisory committees for the National Health Insurance Act, due consideration was given to the relative importance of manufacturing industries; (2) whether he has refused representation of the leather trade on the advisory committees in connection with the National Insurance Act; and, if so, whether, in view of the importance of this industry in Great Britain, he will consider the advisability of having at least one representative of this industry on the committee; and (3) whether, with a view to the advantage of the advisory committees dealing with the National Insurance Act, he will consider the appointment as members of representatives of industries like the leather trade, which is of a technical nature, to enable the committees to give advice of a satisfactory nature when cases from technical industries of this character are being dealt with?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: In appointing members of the advisory committees under the National Insurance Act, great care was exercised by the Joint Committee and the several bodies of Commissioners to ensure that the different types of experience were adequately represented both as regards employers' associations and trade unions. It was essential to adhere to a numerical limit of membership which would enable the committees satisfactorily to perform their duties, and it was, therefore, necessary to group the various trades affected, with the result that many branches of trade necessarily received no individual representation. At the same time, the Commissioners are always ready to receive direct from those interested in any trade
    26
    suggestions with regard to regulations by which such a trade may be specially affected.

    ARREARS OF CONTRIBUTIONS (AGRICULTURAL INDUSTRY).
    Mr. KELLAWAYasked if the inspectors in several districts where there has been determined opposition to the National Insurance Act have received instructions to tell the farmers that, if they will begin paying now in this the third quarter and deduct the tax from their men's wages, the Commissioners will excuse them from paying up the arrears of contributions due for the period from 15th July to 15th January?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: The answer is in the negative.

    COMPLETION OF PANELS.
    Mr. BOWERMAN: I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view of the decision arrived at on Saturday last at a representative meeting of members of the British Medical Association, it is intended to allow further time for the completion of the doctors' panels, and also when it is intended to set up the local medical committees?
    The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Lloyd George): So far as I am aware the panels are still open throughout the greater part of the Kingdom, and doctors may send in their names for addition to them to the local insurance committee. The date of publication of these names rests with the local committees. Applications for recognition from local medical committees can at any time be sent to the Insurance Commissioners for approval.

    Sewage Disposal (Royal Commission).
    Mr. WATTasked the President of the Local Government Board whether he proposes to introduce any legislation in accordance with the recommendations of the Royal Commission on Sewage Disposal so as to enable local authorities to deal satisfactorily with trade effluents which at present prevent purification of rivers; and, if so, will he say when he expects to introduce such legislation?
    The PRESIDENT of the LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. Burns): I have a Bill in preparation on this subject, but I am not at present in a position to say when it will be introduced.

    Poor Law Administration.
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKEasked the President of the Local Government Board if he can give the figures showing the number of ordinary indoor and out door paupers in London for the years 1900, 1901, 1911, and 1912, respectively; will he also give the percentage of the growth of population in London from 1900–12; and can he offer any explanation how it is that, in spite of the public moneys expended on emigration, old age pensions, feeding of school children, distress committees, and Labour Exchanges since 1900, the volume and cost of London pauperism has so largely increased?
    Mr. BURNS: I am sending the hon. Member a statement of the figures he requires, and will circulate the answer with the Votes.—[See Written Answers this date.]
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether, in view of the answer he is kindly circulating with the Votes, he still adheres to his statement that both the cost and volume of emigration in London is decreasing?
    Mr. BURNS: I see no relevancy in the question to the question on the Paper. When the hon. Member sees my answer he will find it more than sufficient for the purpose he desires.
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKEasked how the Poor Law expenditure for the year 1912 compares with that of 1911; and whether, in cases where the cost of relief has been reduced, all other items, including indoor maintenance, are higher?
    Mr. BURNS: The Poor Law expenditure of England and Wales shows a reduction for the year ended March, 1912, as compared with the year ended March, 1911, of approximately £600,000. The reduction in the amount of out-relief administered was £770,000, and it was accompanied by some reduction, taking the country as a whole, in the cost of maintenance of the indoor poor and in some other items. There were, however, increases in items of buildings, salaries, and superannuation allowances of officers and servants, and lunatics in asylums.
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Are we to understand that the entire cost is less?
    Mr. BURNS: The cost of indoor paupers is £11,000 less, and of outdoor paupers £770,000. Lunatics have gone up in cost by £38,000, and the net difference therefore is about £600,000.
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Less or more?
    Mr. BURNS: Less.

    Public Health (Acquisition of Water) Bill.
    Mr. PETOasked the Prime Minister whether the Public Health (Acquisition of Water) Bill will be proceeded with during the present Session; and, if so, whether he can state the date when it will be taken?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I fear that it will not be possible to give facilities to proceed with this Bill this Session.

    Franchise and Registration Bill.
    Mr. NEWMANasked the Prime Minister whether, if as a result of the passing into law of the Government of Ireland Bill, the field will be open to, without former complications, proceed with the re adjustment of electoral areas in Great Britain, he will say whether, in the event of the Government of Ireland Bill being on the Statute Book but not operative at the date of the dissolution of the Parliament now sitting, it is the intention of the Government to give effect to any scheme of re adjustment of electoral areas as fore shadowed on the introduction of the Fran chise and Registration Bill earlier in the present Session?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I can add nothing to the reply which I gave to the hon. Member on 16th January last as regards the intentions of the Government, except to refer him to what was said by the Secretary of State for the Colonies on 8th July last.
    Mr. NEWMAN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Secretary of State for the Colonies distinctly said we could not have redistribution till Members below the Gangway left the House?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I should like to have the reference to that before I answer.

    House of Lords.
    Dr. CHAPPLEasked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the extra and ever-increasing burdens placed on the State by sickness and industrial inefficiency, he will so frame his promised Bill for the reform of the Upper House that the present over-representation of the liquor traffic in that Chamber may be corrected?
    The PRIME MINISTER: As I have said before, in framing their proposals on this subject the Government will bear in mind all relevant material.

    Pilotage Bill.
    Sir EDWIN CORNWALLasked the Prime Minister whether lie is aware that, contrary to the findings of the recent Departmental Committee on Pilotage, the Select Committee on the Pilotage Bill, 1870, the Thames Traffic Committee, 1879, and the Select Committee on Pilotage, 1888, the Pilotage Bill largely extends the immunity of shipowners from liability for damage done by their vessels, and that the Port of London Authority and the London County Council and numerous harbour, dock, and other authorities and trading interests in many parts of the Kingdom are opposed to the Bill in its present form; whether the Government propose, notwithstanding this, to proceed with the Bill this Session; and, if so, will he arrange that the Bill shall not be taken after Eleven o'clock at night and that a sufficient number of days are given to the Report stage to allow these important authorities and trading interests who are adversely affected by the Bill to have their case properly put before Parliament and considered?
    Mr. ROBERTSON: My right hon. Friend has requested me to reply to this question. I cannot admit that the Pilotage Bill largely extends the immunity of shipowners from liability for damage done by their vessels. As my hon. Friend is aware, an Amendment has been introduced into the Bill by the Standing Committee which meets his point so far as closed docks are concerned, and the various questions at issue are likely to be again discussed to morrow by the Committee. I can only say that my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade will give the fullest consideration to any proposals which are put forward on behalf of the interests which my hon. Friend represents. The President hopes that the Report stage will be a short one, but he cannot at present give any undertaking in regard to it.
    Sir E. CORNWALL: Will the Prime Minister give this matter his consideration? I thought all questions relating to the business of this House were matters for him, and therefore I addressed the question to him and not to the President
    30
    of the Board of Trade. Will the right hon. Gentleman give this question his specific consideration?
    The PRIME MINISTER: Certainly I will.

    Anti-Vaccination Declaration.
    Mr. BARNESasked the President of the Local Government Board whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that Mr. C. Codling, of 8, Claremont Place, Rotherhithe, wont on 20th December, 1912, to Dr. Dixon, J.P., of Rotherhithe, to make a declaration of objection to vaccination for his child, whose age became four months a week afterwards; that Dr. Dixon refused to witness the declaration; that Mr. Codling, not knowing the address of another magistrate, had to wait till he could save 1s. 6d. with which to pay a commissioner for oaths to sign the form; and that thereby his declaration was three days overdue; and whether he can see fit to inform the vaccination officer that in this case he need not institute proceedings?
    Mr. BURNS: I have received a letter from Mr. Codling making the statements referred to in the question, and as the declaration was only three days late I have told the vaccination officer that, in my opinion, this is not a case in which he-should take further proceedings.

    Pauper Children (Maintenance).
    Mr. KEIR HARDIEasked the President of the Local Government Board whether his attention has been called to> the action of the Samford, Suffolk, Board of Guardians in causing a young woman at Hammersmith to be arrested, on the 4th January, for alleged failure to maintain her imbecile child in the workhouse; whether the woman had paid for maintaining the child for over six and a half years; whether it was taken to the workhouse without her knowledge; whether the guardians caused her to be arrested with out any previous intimation or notification that she was chargeable to them for the maintenance of the child; whether the address of the stepmother of the girl from whom the child was received, and also the girl herself, was well known to the clerk of the guardians; what action is he taking in connection with the matter; and whether, under the circumstances, he will call upon the guardians to apologise to the girl for having caused her to be arrested without cause, and to refund her all the

    31
    expenses to which she has been put in connection with the case, including the fine imposed upon her by the magistrate?
    Mr. BURNS: I have received a communication from the Samford Board of Guardians in this matter. It appears that the information before them was that Kate Tilbury had not for a considerable period made any payments in respect of the child's maintenance, and was about to leave the country. I have also received a letter from the South Street Mission, Hammersmith, in which statements are made which are inconsistent with those made to the guardians, and I am causing further inquiries to be made.
    Mr. WEDGWOOD: Is it the habit of the guardians to arrest the mothers of illegitimate children if they fail to pay their contributions?
    Mr. BURNS: Only under special circumstances, such as intention to leave the country or abandon the child.
    Mr. WEDGWOOD: Then are these women only arrested when it is thought they are going to leave the country or abandon the child?
    Mr. BURNS: The hon. Member must not read that suggestion into what I have just said.
    Mr. WEDGWOOD: Is it possible women can be arrested although they are not about to abscond from the jurisdiction of the Court?
    Mr. BURNS: That can only be determined when I have completed the further inquiries I have promised to make.

    Admiralty Contracts (Fair-Wages Clause).
    Mr. C. DUNCANasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he is aware that the Nestle and Anglo-Swiss Condensed Milk Company, who are contractors to his Department, are paying 2s. less per week to their workmen, and 1s. 7d. per week less to the workwomen, employed at their Chippenham factory than the same firm pays to similar workpeople at Staverton, in the same immediate district, and that they are employing their workmen at Chippenham five hours more per week than the employés of the same firm at Staverton, and six hours per week more than workmen of the same grade at Melksham, Wilts; and
    32
    whether he will make immediate inquiry into the matter with a view to the firm carrying out the Fair-Wages Clause in their contract?
    The SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY {Dr. Macnamara): The Admiralty contract is carried out at the Staverton works only, and it would appear that there is no complaint of the wages and hours at those works.

    Underground Telegraph Cables.
    Mr. MARK SYKESasked the Postmaster General whether, having regard to the recent dislocation of telephonic and telegraphic communication to and from the city of Hull caused by storms, and the consequent loss and inconvenience to merchants and traders, he will take steps to place the city of Hull in direct communication with the great centres of the country by underground cables?
    The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. Herbert Samuel): The pipe between Leeds and Hull has already been laid to carry the necessary cable, and the work of drawing in the cable will be proceeded with as soon as possible. The matter has been delayed owing to the necessity of awaiting the completion of some experiments that have been made as to the most suitable type of cable. A conclusion on this point has only lately been reached.
    Mr. ROBERT HARCOURT: Does the right hon. Gentleman say that the line from Leeds to Hull is much more important than one from Dundee to Edinburgh?
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: I am dealing with that in reply to another question.
    Mr. J. M. HENDERSONasked the Postmaster-General when the underground telegraph routes were first authorised by Parliament; the dates of any subsequent authorisations; and what amount was authorised to be spent per annum?
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: Provision was made hi the Post Office Vote for 1896–7 for the first section of an underground telegraph line between London and Birmingham; and sums for extensions of this line and for other underground telegraph lines have been voted each year since (except in 1900–1). The amount has varied with the urgency of the work and the state of public funds.
    Mr. J. M. HENDERSONasked the cost of laying the underground telegraph wires from London to Penzance and from London to Cardiff, respectively?
    Mr. ROBERT HAR-COURTasked (1) what difference of principle justifies an underground telegraph line between Exeter and Penzance but not between Edinburgh and Dundee; what is the proportion of cost to revenue in each case; (2) what special necessity induced him to undertake during the current financial year extensions of the underground telegraph system from Romford to Chelmsford and from St. Margaret's to Dover; what were the gross telegraphic revenue and cost of extension in respect of each district on the basis of figures given with regard to Dundee and Aberdeen; (3) why there is an underground telegraph line from London to Churchill via Marlborough, but not from London to Dundee via Rosyth?
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: The underground cables mentioned in these questions have been laid with a view to connecting with the submarine cables. The route by way of Marlborough, Exeter, and Penzance to Weston and Porthcurno connects with the submarine cables to America, Africa, Australia, New Zealand, the East and the Far East. The cable to Romford and Chelmsford will be continued to Bacton and Lowestoft, and will there connect with the submarine cables to Germany and Holland. The cable to St. Margaret's Bay and Abbotscliff by way of Dover connects with the submarine cables to France and Belgium. The revenue and importance of the whole foreign and Colonial telegraph business of the United Kingdom must be taken into account in considering the necessity for these lines. The cost of the Western underground, including the spurs to Weston and Plymouth, was £456,633, exclusive of headquarter charges. The cost of the extension from Bristol to Cardiff was £79,491. The London-Bristol section is common to both routes.
    Mr. R. HARCOURT: Is not the fact that it is telegraphic communication to the submarine base at Dundee and the naval "base at Rosyth an important factor in the matter?
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: It is not so important a matter as maintaining settled communication between the United Kingdom and the rest of the world.
    Mr. J. M. HENDERSON: Have any of these towns contributed, or been invited to contribute, towards the cost?
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: Not that I am aware of. The suggestion might be made as a possible means of removing the difficulty, but I confess I have not a very strong anticipation that such a suggestion will be accepted.
    Mr. R. HARCOURTasked the Postmaster-General if he will communicate to the chambers of commerce of Dundee, Aberdeen, and Arbroath copies of the map of underground telegraph routes which he has placed in the Library of this House?
    Mr. PIRIEasked the Postmaster-General, in view of the exposure of the partial and one-sided way in which the installation of the underground cables has been undertaken by his Department, which is afforded by the study of the small map placed by him in the Library, if he will cause copies of the same to be either issued as a Parliamentary Paper or else distributed to the Members of Parliament for Scotland?
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: I will send copies to the members of commerce mentioned in Question 58, and to the hon. bers who formed part of the recent deputation on this subject.
    Mr. PIRIE: It is worth while making such a small pecuniary saving, seeing that the cost of each map is only 4½d? Surely it is not worth the while of the Post Office to omit to send the maps to all Scottish Members in order to effect that saving?
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: It was not a question of saving. Many hon. Members are not anxious to receive more documents than are necessary, and so we thought it would be sufficient to send the maps to those Members who we know are directly interested.
    Major ANSTRUTHER-GRAY: Will the right hon. Gentleman send me the map?
    Mr. PIRIE: But in view of the exposure of the partial and one-sided way in which the installation has been carried out, would it not be well to circulate the maps to all Scottish Members?
    Mr. WHYTE: Will the right hon. Gentleman send the maps to all Members whose constituencies are directly or indirectly connected?
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: If it is desired the maps shall be sent to all Scottish Members, it shall be done.
    Mr. KING: And to the English Members as well?
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: A copy of the map will be placed in the Library.
    Mr. R. HARCOURTasked the Post master-General why there is a special section of underground telegraph route to Watford and St. Albans?
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: The underground telegraph line to Watford and St. Albans was laid to accommodate telegraph circuits up till then erected on road and railway routes, and was rendered necessary owing to the congestion of wires on the main routes out of London and the impossibility of finding room for additional overhead wires. The poles on the road were urgently required for long distance telephone trunk lines. Incidentally removal of the telegraph lines from the railways resulted in a saving of heavy annual payments to the railway companies.
    Mr. R. HARCOURT: Does the right hon. Gentleman really say that a line starting at Watford is more important than one from Edinburgh to Dundee?
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: It is not a question of relative importance. It is a question of how many lines can be accommodated on the roads leading out of London.
    Mr. J. M. HENDERSON: Have these underground communications in England been in respect of marine cables and nothing else?
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: Not all, but those about which I have been asked have been. We have been fortunate in being able to persuade the Treasury to spend sufficient money to enable us to lay underground cables to Glasgow and Edinburgh.
    Mr. J. M. HENDERSON: There are none beyond these two cities?
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: And there are none in Ireland as well as in large parts of England.
    Mr. R. HARCOURTasked why, in addition to the main underground telegraph route passing through Leighton Buzzard, another line has been deflected Westward for the sole purpose, as it would appear from his map, of serving the town
    36
    of Aylesbury; and what proportion the cost bears to the gross revenue for this section?
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: The cable to which my hon. Friend refers is the second main underground telegraph cable to Birmingham and the North. It was constructed to supplement the first cable, and the choice of route through Aylesbury had no connection with the amount of the Aylesbury telegraph traffic. The deflection was rendered advisable in order to enable a number of road telegraph lines and short telephone trunk lines to be taken into the cable.
    Mr. R. HARCOURT: I hope to raise this subject on the Motion for Adjournment to-night.
    Mr. PIRIEasked whether an extension of the underground telegraph lines from Leeds to Hull was due to any representations on behalf of the fish trade of Hull; and, if so, why the fishing interests of Aberdeen and the East Coast of Scotland should be penalised in favour of rival fishing interests?
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: Representations for an extension of the underground telegraph system to Hull were made to my predecessor by the Hull Chamber of Commerce, which is interested perhaps more in the shipping industry than in the fish trade. I may mention that the interruptions in the case of Hull have been far more serious than in the case of Aberdeen, and that the cost of the telegraph extension to Hull is much less than it would be to Aberdeen.
    Mr. PIRIE: Does it not depend upon where you start from? What point does the right hon. Gentleman think the centre of the extension should be?
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: The underground telegraph system already extended to Leeds, and the extension to Hull was a comparatively minor matter compared with the extension of the underground telegraph system from Edinburgh to-Aberdeen.
    Mr. PIRIE: Will the right hon. Gentleman explain why he made the extension to Hull and not to Warrington, which is a point on the main line?
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: Because when we were asked to extend to Hull we already had an underground cable to Leeds.
    Mr. PIRIE: Why did you take it to Leeds first?
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: Because of the importance of the telegraph traffic of of the whole of the West Riding, and also because Leeds was on the main route to Newcastle.

    Sierra Leone (Messrs. Lever Brothers, Limited).
    Mr. TOUCHEasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies the date of the Palm Oil Ordinance conferring on the Governor of the Colony of Sierra Leone power to grant exclusive rights over an area in the Protectorate of Sierra Leone not exceeding a circle with a twenty-mile diameter, in virtue of which exclusive privileges have been granted to Messrs. Lever Brothers, Limited; and whether this ordinance was passed to facilitate the granting of the monopoly to that firm?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. Harcourt): The Ordinance to which the hon. Member refers has not yet been passed. It will follow closely the lines of the proposed Gold Coast Ordinance, of which a copy has been presented to Parliament, and, like that Ordinance, will be quite general in character and has no reference to the proposals of any particular firm.
    Mr. TOUCHE: Is there any recent precedent in any Colony for passing a law to enable it to grant a monopoly?
    Mr. HARCOURT: I do not admit the assumption in the supplementary question, but I think there is a precedent for this purpose.
    Mr. RUPERT GWYNNE: Does the right hon. Gentleman think that monopolies of this kind are compatible with the principles of Free Trade?
    Mr. HARCOURT: Oh, yes, I do.
    Mr. SPEAKER: That is entirely a matter for argument. It is no good starting a Debate at Question Time.
    Mr. TOUCHEasked the essential terms of, and rights to be conferred by, the licence to construct railways in Sierra Leone or the Protectorate promised to Messrs. Lever Brothers, Limited, including the mileage of railway which may be constructed by them, and any restrictions on the construction of tracks within a specific area by the holders of other licences which may be hereafter granted; and what will be the nature and extent of
    38
    the monetary and other obligations of Messrs. Lever Brothers, Limited, under the licence?
    Mr. HARCOURT: So far as I am aware, Messrs. Lever Brothers have not yet applied to the Governor of Sierra Leone for a licence under the Proprietary Railways Ordinance, 1909, of that Colony. I must refer the hon. Member to the Ordinance which can be consulted in the Library of the House, for the conditions under which licences may be granted.

    Naturalisation Laws (Canada).
    Dr. CHAPPLEasked whether any negotiations are taking place in order to amend the existing naturalisation laws under which a Canadian subject is not a naturalised subject of the British Empire; and, if so, whether any progress has been made?
    Mr. HARCOURT: This question has been forming the subject of correspondence with the Canadian Government and it is hoped to settle very shortly the terms of a Bill to be introduced into Parliament dealing with the matter.

    South Africa (Indian Subjects).
    Sir J. D. REESasked what progress has been made in carrying out the com' promise arranged for, for the purpose of removing or alleviating the grievances of natives of India in South Africa?
    Mr. HARCOURT: The question has been occupying the attention of the Union Government who have stated that they will reintroduce the Immigration Bill at the earliest possible date during the course of the next Session of the Union Parliament.

    Emigration.
    Dr. CHAPPLEasked the right hon. Member whether his attention has been called to the increasing efforts of Australia and Canada to attract from Britain our best agriculturists, together with their increasing precautions against the immigration of the inefficient; and whether he would be prepared to set up a committee with instructions to report on the best means of co-ordinating the efforts of emigration societies whose best service to this country is to emigrate the worst with the efforts of the Colonies, whose best service to their respective countries is to attract the best, in order that from the mass of people between these two extremes a system of selection

    39
    and State aid may be established, beneficial alike to Britain, to the Dominions, and to the emigrants themselves?
    Mr. HARCOURT: I am aware that it is sometimes considered that the emigration of our agricultural population has attained excessive proportions, but I doubt whether the establishment of a committee such as is proposed would serve any useful purpose. The Dominions Royal Commission has already taken some evidence on the subject of migration within the Empire, and it will no doubt be prepared to hear further evidence on the subject later.
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Dominions Migration Committee have reported that it is essential to have a proper system of migration from this country to the Oversea Dominions?
    Mr. HARCOURT: I am aware of the contents of the interim Report of the Committee.

    Agriculture.
    Mr. C. BATHURSTasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) if he can state approximately from official information at the Treasury what relation the net profits of the industry bear to the amount expended on workmen's wages in the case of agriculture and in the case of the other five leading industries taken together, respectively; or, alternatively, how much greater is the ratio of profits to wages in the latter than in the former case; and (2) if from official figures at the Treasury he can state approximately what is the average return upon capital embarked in agriculture and upon that embarked in the next five leading industries of the country taken together or, alternatively, in all the other national industries?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The answer in each case is in the negative. I may, however, remind the hon. Member that as regards farmers Income Tax, except in a very few cases, is charged under Schedule B on a third of the rental.
    Mr. C. BATHURST: Will the right hon. Gentleman, when he does pursue an inquiry into this subject, take that into account among other factors, and, if possible, give the House the result?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: As the hon. Gentleman knows, we have no official information. The difficulty is that the farmers are the only industry who do not pay Income Tax upon their profits.

    Taxation on Food Stuffs.
    Mr. NEWMANasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he has been requested and consented to receive a deputation of Members of this House with regard to the remission in his forth-coming Budget of a portion of the taxation at present laid on food stuffs in this country; and whether, having regard to the delay and difficulties caused to certain trades and possible loss of revenue to the State owing to the uncertainty as to the exact burden which such food stuffs may be called on to bear, the result of such interview will be made public?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: No such request has been received by me.

    Land Valuation.
    MARQUESS of TULLIBARDINEasked the right hon. Gentleman whether valuers are bound to give detailed valuations; and whether cases have occurred in which gross valuations are given, and that difficulty has been experienced in extracting detailed valuations; and, if so, whether he proposes to take any action in the matter?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The Commissioners of Inland Revenue are required to cause a copy of their provisional valuation of any land to be served on the owner; under the provisions of Section 26 (1) of the Finance (1909–10) Act, 1910, this valuation is required to show separately the total and site value of the land, but as a matter of practice it contains considerably more information than is legally necessary. I do not propose to take any action in the matter.
    MARQUESS Of TULLIBARDINEasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that a certain valuer in Scotland, on objection being taken by a proprietor to a hill farm being valued at Carse rent, informed the complainant that if he reduced the value of the hill farms it would be necessary for him to increase the value of other parts of the estate, and in consequence hopes he will agree to the proposed valuation, this statement having been made in writing after the detailed valuation of the estate had been rendered; and whether this is the method intended of working the Act?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I am not aware of the case referred to by the Noble Lord. If he will give me particulars of it I will cause inquiries to be made.
    MARQUESS of TULLIBARDINE: In view of the fact that this valuer stated that if he gave a reduction on one item he would have to raise it on another, may I ask if this is according to the orders of the Treasury, and if estates are valued first as a total and then divided into items; and if objection is taken on one item the balance is added to another?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: If the Noble Lord will send me particulars I will inquire into the matter and let him know.
    MARQUESS of TULLIBARDINE: I will send the valuers' statement in writing.

    Road Board.
    Sir ARCHIBALD WILLIAMSONasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if his attention has been called to the proceedings when a deputation, representing the road authorities of the northern counties of Scotland, had a meeting with the Road Board on 13th December; whether he will consider the position in which these counties are placed owing to the very high assessment on a low rateable value caused by motor traffic; whether he is aware that assistance from the Road Board is limited to improvements, and involves a local contribution which still further increases the rates; and what steps, if any, he proposes to take in the matter?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I have seen the report of the proceedings referred to. The question of Exchequer Grants in respect of roads is under consideration by the Road Board.
    Sir A. WILLIAMSON: In the forthcoming Budget will the Chancellor of the Exchequer take into consideration a Grant to Scotland to meet this special case?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Parliament referred this question first of all to the Road Board, and it would be a mistake to take it out of their hands, because I think they are doing it very well.
    Sir A. WILLIAMSON: Is the Road Board only entitled to assist in the case of improvements and not maintenance?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I should not like to answer that without notice.

    Veterinary Education.
    Mr. C. BATHURSTasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether his attention has been called to the recently issued
    42
    Report of the Departmental Committee of the Board of Agriculture on the supply of veterinary officers, in which it is stated that a largely increased number of veterinary officers possessing special qualifications will be required for public services, and suggested that increased State aid shall be given to institutions devoted to veterinary education; and whether, in view of the increasing importance of expert veterinary science in order to cope effectively with the more serious contagious diseases of animals, he is prepared to consider sympathetically the above suggestion?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The matter is under consideration.

    Land Purchase (Ireland).
    Mr. FRANCIS MEEHANasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether he is aware that the tenants on the Johnston estate, Rossinver, couny Leitrim, petitioned the Estates Commissioners regarding the terms under which they were compelled to purchase their holdings, the flooding of the lands, the making of roads, and the redistribution of waste lands; whether these matters will be considered previous to the advance of the purchase money; and when will the estate be inspected and vested?
    The CHIEF SECRETARY for IRELAND (Mr. Birrell): The hon. Member presumably refers to the Johnston estate at Kinlough, county Leitrim, which is the subject of proceedings for sale direct by the owner to the tenants, who signed purchase agreements under the Irish Land Act, 1903, at prices agreed on between the parties. The owner has also agreed to sell some 440 acres of untenanted land to the Estates Commissioners at their estimated price, and when acquired by them this land will be available for the enlargement of small holdings on the estate. The estate has been inspected and will be dealt with at an early date. The Commissioners have not received the petition referred to in the question.
    Mr. JOHN ROCHEasked the Chief Secretary whether he is aware that Dr. Crean, of Ballyhaunis, county Mayo, holds a large tract of grazing land at Rookwood, county Galway, in the immediate neighbourhood of a large number of congested holdings the tenants of which have requested the Estates Commissioners to purchase the lands of Rookwood, and also waited on Dr. Crean requesting him to sell,

    43
    to which he then agreed; whether the Estates Commissioners made him an offer for the lands three years ago, which he refused, and subsequently a further offer; and, as the tenants are restless in consequence of their being deprived of the benefits of an Act of Parliament passed ten years ago, at the introduction of which they were told that the Act was chiefly intended for the benefit of such tenants, will he now say how the matter stands?
    Mr. BIRRELL: The Estates Commissioners inform me that Dr. Crean is the tenant of a large holding on the Bagot estate, county Galway. This estate was the subject of proceedings for sale in the Land Judge's Court, and was purchased by the Commissioners under the provisions of Section 7 of the Irish Land Act, 1903. In connection with the resale of the property, the Commissioners were desirous of acquiring portion of the holding as untenanted land for the enlargement of small holdings on the property, but were unable to come to an agreement as to price with Dr. Crean. They subsequently, at Dr. Crean's request, intimated to him the price they were prepared to give him for the entire holding, but he declined to sell at this price. The Commissioners are unable to advance under the Land Purchase Acts, having regard to the security for the repayment of the advance, such a sum as Dr. Crean will take for his interest.

    New Road (County Leitrim).
    Mr. FRANCIS MEEHANasked whether the Estates Commissioners re ceived a memorial signed by the tenants on the Montgomery, Hamilton, Johnston, Townsend, and Massey estates, county Leitrim, pointing out the losses, hard ships, and inconveniences they suffer for want of a road leading through these estates to the neighbouring towns of Drumkeerin and Dowra; and whether the Commissioners would favourably consider their memorial and make the road or give a Grant in aid of the same?
    Mr. BIRRELL: The Estates Commissioners have received the memorial referred to, but cannot see their way to take any action in the matter.

    Salaried Officials (Ireland).
    Mr. GINNELLasked, seeing that each Government Department in Ireland has got a list of its salaried officials with
    44
    their salaries and other particulars, and that the Return of salaried officials of which notice stands on the Order Paper could be compiled in less than a week and would be of special value in this standard year, whether that Return will be granted; and, if not, what the reason is for withholding it?
    Mr. BIRRELL: For the reasons I have already stated I am not prepared to grant this Return.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  Mr. BONAR LAW: I understand that the Prime Minister cannot make his statement as to business to-day. Will he kindly say when he can make it?
  The PRIME MINISTER: I am sorry for the delay. It is only for the purpose of consulting the general convenience of the House. I think to-morrow.
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: Will the right hon. Gentleman, when making the statement to-morrow, give the House some information as to when the Budget will be taken this year?
  The PRIME MINISTER: It will not be taken this Session.

  ESTABLISHED CHURCH (WALES) BILL.
  Further considered in Committee.
  THIRTEENTH ALLOTTED DAY.—[Progress, 17th January.]
  [Mr. WHITLEY in the Chair.]

  ESTABLISHED CHURCH (WALES) BILL.
    Part IV.—SUPPLEMENT.

      CLAUSE 19.—(First Fruits and Tenths.)
      As from the date of Disestablishment first fruits in respect of any subsequent appointment to any ecclesiastical office in the Church in Wales, and tenths in respect of any such office, shall cease to be payable:
      Provided that nothing in this Act shall affect the liability of any person who at the passing of this Act has an existing interest in the emoluments of any ecclesiastical office in the Church in Wales to pay tenths, but such tenths shall after the date of Disestablishment be paid to the Welsh Commissioners or as they may direct, and shall continue to be so payable so long as such person continues entitled to such an interest.
      Mr. HOARE: I beg to move, after the word "payable" ["shall cease to be payable"], to insert the words "Provided that the Welsh Commissioners shall pay to Queen Anne's Bounty a sum equal to fourteen times the annual value of the said tenths and first fruits circulated in respect of the fifty years preceding the passing of this Act, less the amount that is found due upon an actuarial basis in
      56
      respect of existing interests under this Act."
      The object of this Amendment, together with the next on the Paper, is simple. Under the Clause as drafted one of the central funds of the Church, Queen Anne's Bounty, would lose the sum of £841 1s. 8d. a year. Further, the effect, as far as I understand the Clause, would be this: Existing holders of offices which are now liable to these charges of tenths and first fruits would continue to pay them, but instead of having to pay them for Church purposes to the Queen Anne's Bounty Fund, would have to pay them to the Welsh Commissioners for secular purposes; secondly, their successors will not have to pay either of these two charges at all; and, thirdly, when all the existing holders of offices in the Church die out, the charge will cease, and this sum will then be enjoyed by the Welsh Commissioners, or the county councils, or the university institutions, which succeed to them, and as I say they will be used for secular and non-religious purposes. In any case Queen Anne's Bounty will lose a considerable body of income which amounts to a capital sum at fifteen years' purchase of £11,500. I desire to point out to the Committee' that both from the nature and history of these charges they should be regarded as a permanent charge upon the benefices and other offices for which they are now paid, and that when the proceeds of these benefices are transferred to the secular objects, the obligations for these payments should continue with them as a trust.
      Let me remind the Committee what is the nature of these charges. First fruits are a payment equal to the annual value of the ecclesiastical benefice or spiritual preferment as ascertained in the reign of Henry VIII., in what is known as the King's Book, except in the case of Bishops they are payable immediately upon entry into the offices by the holders. Tenths are an annual payment of one-tenth of the first fruits. If hon. Members will look back at the history of these charges, they will find that there is much ground for my contention that they should be regarded as a permanent charge upon the benefices and other offices. The charges, as was explained on Clause 8, were originally a Papal charge paid over to the representatives of the Vatican during the early Middle Ages. One of the first acts at the Reformation Settlement was that in which Henry VHI. assumed these payments for

      57
      the augmentation of the Royal Estate. Then, with a brief interval when they were restored to the Papacy in the reign of Queen Mary, they were enjoyed by the Sovereign up to the reign of Queen Anne. Queen Anne made, as is well-known, a Charter under which these funds were restored to the Church and made a permanent charge for the benefit of poor livings and poor clergy. Upon that short historical survey, two conclusions seem to me to arise. In the first place, these funds were left for spiritual purposes for all time. Let me quote the words of the Act of 1705 under which they were left by Queen Anne. The Act is intituled—
      "An Act for the making more effectual Her Majesty's Gracious intentions for the augmentation and the maintenance of the poor clergy, by enabling Her Majesty to grant in perpetuity the revenues of the First Fruits and Tenths."
      The Charter which was afterwards incorporated into an Act of Parliament is equally clear. There, again, it was explicitly stated that these funds were to be a perpetual charge for spiritual purposes. It states:—
      "Now know ye that we, to the end our said Gracious intentions may he made effectual, and that the Church may receive a great and lasting advantage from our parting with our said revenue of First Fruits and Tenths, and pursuant to the said Act of Parliament"
      Then it goes on to state who shall be the governors of the Bounty. The fact clearly established is that these funds were intended and confirmed by Act of Parliament as a perpetual charge for spiritual purposes. It may be said that these charges are not so much a charge upon property as a charge upon particular offices and particular officials. That may be so in theory, but I venture to think that the history of the practice under which tenths and first fruits have been collected proves that they may rightly be regarded as a charge upon property, and as a charge upon property I claim that they should remain a charge when that property is transferred to the county councils and the university institutions. I think that proposition may be substantiated by two facts. In the first place, I am told it has been the unquestioned practice of the treasurer of the Governors of Queen Anne's Bounty to recover tenths by, if necessary, sequestrating the proceeds of the living—certainly recovering them as they would recover any charge upon the benefice. That is borne out by a number of Statutes. I recall one which states that if the tenths are not paid the Crown may seize the tithe glebe and all the other property of the benefice. I think that points
      58
      to the fact that tenths have in practice been regarded as a charge upon the benefice. But secondly—and this is a stronger argument in that direction—the Ecclesiastical Commission, when they took over the estates of many benefices and offices of the Church in the early part of the nineteenth century, did so with the charge of first fruits and tenths upon them.
      4.0 P.M.
      I have here a list of the tenths and first fruits which are paid by parishes and offices in the Welsh dioceses, and I find that the Ecclesiastical Commissioners for the estates which they hold in Wales pay a considerable annual sum out of the £841 to which I have alluded as a charge upon these benefices both for tenths and first fruits. I therefore claim that tenths and first fruits should be regarded as a charge upon the property, and that the county councils and university institutions should be under obligation to continue to pay it. I think that that is in direct agreement with several Clauses of the Bill which we have already passed. For instance, Clause 4, Sub-section (2) says that property shall be transferred—
      "subject, in the case of all such property, to all tenancies, charges, and incumbrances, and to all rights and interests saved by this Act, affecting the property."
      And Clause 8, Sub-section (2) states:—
      "(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."
      One further objection may be urged against my contention. The Welsh Church owing to its poverty, has received larger sums from Queen Anne's Bounty and the Ecclesiastical Commissioners than they actually paid. That is a purely accidental circumstance which does not in the least affect my contention that this property should be transferred with its present legal obligations. If that is so the question arises how best this can be done. I quite acknowledge it would be extremely inconvenient if the county councils, universities and other institutions were to collect a number of small sums, which would, I believe, number 412. It would be much better to pay a lump sum for compensation at once. The Committee will remember that this is what was done in the

      59
      case of the Maynooth Grants, at the time of the passing of the Irish Church Disestablishment Act. In order to compensate Maynooth College for the withdrawal of the Annual Grant which had previously been paid to it the college was given fourteen years' purchase of the Grant, and I suggest that that would be a very fair way of compensating Queen Anne's Bounty for the £840 which they are to lose if the Clause passes in its present state. Another complication comes in. I quite see that if the lump sum is paid over at once in compensation towards this Annual Grant the Church might unfairly gain during the lives of the existing holders of the present offices liable to these charges, because their income would continue and at the same time there would be received the income from the lump sum.
      You must, therefore, exclude the charges for the existing holders from the calculation altogether, and I would suggest that you might adopt one of two ways. You might give Queen Anne's Bounty a deferred annuity, to come into operation at the end of the fifteen years when the existing holders of these offices have died off, or, still better, they might get the present value of the amounts due in fifteen years and discounted at 3½ per cent., which, I am told, would amount to a sum of about £7,000. I suggest that Queen Anne's Bounty has a very strong claim to this sum. It has the direct sanction of Parliament, in the words from those Acts which I have already quoted, stating that they are to enjoy this income for all time, and in actual practice this income has been regarded as a charge upon certain property. We claim that the Committee should not advise Parliament to take back this specific gift, but should compensate. Queen Anne's Bounty to the full. We shall not then go back upon the Acts of Parliament, and upon a Royal Charter, by providing that this property, which was considered and confirmed by Parliament in its destination as devoted to the augmentation of poor livings, should be abandoned to secular purposes under this Bill. I therefore beg to move.
      The CHAIRMAN (Mr. Whitley): The Amendment is not quite right in the form upon the Paper. The way in which I shall put it is to leave out all after "that" ["Provided that"] to the end of the Clause, in order to insert instead thereof,
      "The Welsh Commissioners shall pay to Queen Anne's Bounty a sum equal to
      60
      fourteen times the annual value of the said tenths and first fruits calculated in respect of the fifty years preceding the passing of this Act, less the amount that is found due upon an actuarial basis in respect of existing interests under this Act."
      The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. McKenna): The hon. Member has made an interesting and learned speech upon the subject of Queen Anne's Bounty, and I think I have appreciated the point of his case. As I understand, he says that the Queen Anne's Bounty Fund was a charge upon property, the property being certain of the ancient Endowments of the Church, that that charge was a gift by Queen Anne to the Church in Wales, and that consequently, when we take away the property, we ought not at the same time to take away the charge upon the property, which was a gift. That, I understand, is the case. He put the claim for his Amendment upon precisely the same basis as it would have if the Grant of Queen Anne's Bounty was to be regarded as a private benefaction. Now as to the effect of the Bill on Queen Anne's Bounty. We take, under the Bill, the whole of the ancient Endowments, treating them, as we believe rightly, as national property. The Queen Anne's Bounty Fund was derived exclusively from a charge upon these ancient Endowments, and it would seem to follow almost as a matter of course that if you take the whole of the Endowments on the ground that the whole of those Endowments were ancient national property, the tithes which have been subsequently extracted from those Endowments must quite clearly go with the original property. Before the institution of this system the whole of this property, according to our argument, was national property, but under the practice which arose in Papal times, the first fruits and tenths were a charge in many cases payable to the Papacy. We do not admit that those first fruits and tenths ought ever to have been paid as they were paid. In fact, after the Reformation, the first fruits and tenths continued to be a charge upon what we regard as national property, but were paid to the King.
      If the matter rested there it is quite clear that we should take over all the Crown rights in respect of any of the Church property in Wales, and we should take over these first fruits and tenths. Cain it be said that the grant of the first

      61
      fruits and tenths back to the institution which originally held the whole of this national property can in any way deprive the Welsh nation of its original rights? I submit not, and it was not on the ground that Queen Anne's Bounty was a private benefaction or on the ground that it was ever private property of any kind which we recognise as indicating private benefactions that, at early stage of the Bill, we agreed to leave to the Church the whole of the accumulated funds which had been raised by the savings made by the Queen Anne's Bounty Fund. What we surrendered, which came to a very considerable total of about £15,000 a year, represented, we said, not the first fruits and tenths payable to-day, but the accumulations of them which might have been spent in the past but had in fact been saved; and because we said they represented savings we left them to the Church and the Church will be in the enjoyment of them. That was the sole ground. We never admitted when surrendering this large sum that first fruits and tenths should remain a perpetual charge upon national property and should be paid over to Queen Anne's Bounty. I may observe to the hon. Member that in form, at any rate, his Amendment could not stand as it is. It is inconsistent with Clause 6, but that point could easily be dealt with by substituting representative body instead of Queen Anne's Bounty. But I am not going to deal with minor points of that kind: We have to deal with the question of principle.
      We say the whole of the ancient property shall be treated as Welsh National property, and is to be transferred to the public bodies on Disestablishment. This property, however, is to be transferred subject to the condition that those incumbents who have at the date of the passing of the Act any life interest shall preserve the life interest in the emoluments of their benefices. The emoluments at the present moment consist of emoluments of ancient Endowments, less such amount as is paid in first fruits and tenths. But if we abolished the first fruits and tenths at the date of Disestablishment, and at the same time preserved the life interest of the incumbent in the emoluments, we should, in fact, be giving a larger income than he now receives, and we cannot preserve the life interest and give him something more than he now receives. During the continuance of the life interest we maintain the payment of tenths, but those tenths are paid to the Welsh Commissioners, to
      62
      whom the whole corpus of the ancient Endowments, in respect of which these tenths are paid, is transferred. The principal point on which the hon. Member and I differ is very shortly this: He said that the first fruits and tenths paid to Queen Anne's Bounty ought to be treated as if they were a private benefaction. We say, on the other hand, that the first fruits and tenths are a charge of a somewhat later origin upon national property; that the first fruits and tenths themselves became-national property; that when they were re-transferred to the Church they were national property, and that when there is once more full control of what we regard as national property, first fruits and tenths must follow the rest of the property. We cannot, therefore, accept the Amendment of the hon. Member.
      Mr. POLLOCK: I listened with a certain amount of legal interest to the answer given by the Home Secretary, and I think the point upon which my hon. Friend, who moved the Amendment, and the Home Secretary differ, is as to the origin of first fruits and tenths, and their present nature. The Home Secretary regards them as a part of the ancient property, as a charge— that is to say, upon the ancient property which originally belonged to the nation. My hon. Friend says, "No; this property is clearly a benefaction which has been conferred by Act of Parliament, and you have no right really to go behind the Statute which, in the reign of Queen Anne, confirmed the payment of these first fruits and tenths to Queen Anne's Bounty for specific purposes; that, inasmuch as Parliament has confirmed that right, we ought to look, not only to this accumulated corpus which is at present in the hands of Queen Anne's Bounty, but also to the actual payments as following the same purposes at the same time." I want to go back a little further than the Home Secretary. I do not quite agree with his view of the origin of these payments. They were no doubt an imposition by the Pope, but the real origin, as I read ancient history and ancient books upon it, is found in the feudal system which obtained in the early Middle Ages, when the holders of certain feudal rights and wardships, and so on, maintained their right in the ease of any ward, or in the case of any heritage, to take the first year's income because of services they were supposed to lend to the ward or other persons whom they guarded. No doubt first fruits and tenths

      63
      had their origin in this practice under feudalism, and the Popes adopted the principle for the purposes of maintaining their rights. If we come to discuss whether this is really ancient property, and if we regard first fruits and tenths quite apart from the fact that they are now paid into Queen Anne's Bounty to serve useful purposes, let us see what was said about first fruits and tenths in the past. I am going to read from an Act of Parliament in the year 1404. Parliament was then sitting in Coventry, and it was the sixth year of Henry IV. It described these payments of first fruits and tenths as "a horrible mischief and a damnable custom." I said that was the language of Parliament, because I was afraid you might say it was not Parliamentary language, but the words I have quoted express what was thought by Parliament in 1404. If that be so, is the Home Secretary quite right in claiming those payments as part of ancient Welsh national property?
      No; the truth is that you cannot justify the payment of first fruits and tenths as a payment out of national property. It was an imposition long protested against by those who bore it, and ultimately it was paid to the Crown under Statutes passed in the reign of Henry VIII. There was no justification for the payment of these first fruits and tenths, and no doubt public conscience at last became aware that there was no right that they should be paid to the Crown. So, while very grateful to Queen Anne for her Bounty, Parliament at last, by a Statute, did give legal and real origin to those payments, and the Act which my right hon. Friend has quoted granted them for the augmentation and maintenance of poor clergymen. That is the real basis of these payments of first fruits and tenths at the present time. There is no justification whatever for the payment of them in their naked origin; there is no justification or right to demand them as national property. They had for centuries been regarded as an imposition until the sanction of the State was given that these payments should be used for the augmentation and maintenance of poor clergymen. What does the Home Secretary propose to do? He has proposed to go behind the real sanction given by the Statute to the payment of these sums, and perhaps he has not conscious knowledge of the fact that he is once more going to take these pay-
      64
      ments, which were described by Parliament in 1404 in words, the whole of which I will not quote, but which might fairly still be described as "a horrible mischief." What is the position?
      Under this Bill you have got under the first portion of Clause 19, that first fruits and tenths, in respect of any office are to cease to be payable, and by Sub-section (3) of Clause 20, it is provided, "if any person so nominated or appointed to any office in pursuance of that Clause during the vacancy between the time of Disestablishment and the coming of the Act into force, then in respect of that period he is not to pay either tenths or first fruits." What is the justification for maintaining them at all? I have an Amendment on the Paper, which I should like to have an opportunity to move, to insert the words, "Further, that any sum accruing, due, or payable on account of first fruits or tenths in respect of an interest existing at the passing of this Act in the emolument of any ecclesiastical office in the Church in Wales, shall also cease to be payable." I submit that there is really no justification for holding persons bound to pay them who, under a previous contract, agreed to pay during their holding of the offices, these sums to Queen Anne's Bounty, and there is no reason why they should continue to pay them after the Church has been Disestablished, and when the tenths are not to be paid in respect of future holders of ecclesiastical offices.
      The CHAIRMAN: I may tell the hon. and learned Member that, on considering his Amendment, I find it to be equivalent to a negative of the proviso which we are now discussing. Therefore, the proper course is to first leave out those words, and that is the Question now before the Committee. I mention that in order that the hon. and learned Member may say now anything he desires to say.
      Mr. POLLOCK: I am much indebted to you, Sir, for what you have said, because it makes my course clear. The difficulty that my Amendment was intended to strike at is that there are persons at the present time who are under contract to pay year by year to Queen Anne's Bounty in respect of first fruits and tenths due from them upon their entry into an ecclesiastical benefice. Without some actual words releasing them from that, they have still got to pay those sums. The position, as I summarise it, is this: As from the

      65
      date of Disestablishment all first fruits and tenths are to cease; as regards any person appointed to an office between the date of the Act and the date of Disestablishment; but you are still going to ask persons to pay first fruits and tenths in respect of the emoluments of ecclesiastical offices which they have hitherto and are holding, and in respect of which they have hitherto paid. What is the justification for asking them to pay those tenths, not for the purpose of their being ultimately received by Queen Anne's Bounty or by the representative body, or other Church purposes, but for secular purposes?
      If you look at the true origin of these first fruits and tenths, there is really no justification for asking for a contribution out of the slender Endowments of these ecclesiastical offices—a contribution to be made to the secular purposes which are contemplated by this Bill; and the truth is that unless my hon. Friend's Amendment is accepted to once more give these contributions to religious purposes, you are placing what is a very hard task upon a number of persons, you are asking them to pay a portion of their income to secular purposes—a portion of the money received from religious Endowments—and you are certainly making it very hard upon them, because they will feel, not unnaturally feel, a conscientious objection to making those payments. We have often heard from the other side conscientious objections to making payments of a particular sort. Surely we may ask for the sympathy of hon. Members on the other side when we protest against the continuance of this imposition of "a horrible mischief," the purpose of which is not the religious purpose that has now been enforced for something more than 200 years, but which is once more to be the old secular purposes, making these moneys payable to the new objects contemplated under the Bill—objects which are not in any sense religious, which are entirely secular and which really ought not to find their place at all in any scheme for the alteration of the Endowments contemplated by this Bill. Because I believe the Home Secretary has not been able to give any historical justification for once more dipping his hands into sums which are received for ecclesiastical purposes, and no justification at all for asking persons who will be left with very slender incomes to continue those payments, I entirely support the Amendment. I hope we shall have some better answer than we have yet had from
      66
      the other side, and that that answer will show a little sympathy with the difficulties I have suggested, which go to the root of the payment, and which certainly go to the root of the authority of this House to require those payments still to be made.
      Mr. ELLIS DAVIES: There has been one advantage in the discussion of this Amendment, and that is that none of the speeches just delivered had any reference to the wishes of the pious ancestors. In fact it struck me that the pious ancestor is now in rather bad odour, not only from the speech delivered by the hon. Member who spoke last, but from statements made by the Bishop of St. Asaph in a book which he has written on the history of the Welsh Church. The pious ancestor is supposed to have been the giver of Welsh Endowments, but the bishop in his book says:—
      "Many donations were given by powerful chieftains in atonement for crime. One of the Church's most powerful weapons seems to have been a primitive species of excommunication."
      Mr. HOARE: On a point of Order. How does the pious benefactor come in at all on this Amendment? He has nothing whatever to do with tenths and first fruits, which is a charge on the bishops and clergy.
      The CHAIRMAN: I cannot see any connection.
      Mr. E. DAVIES: As the hon. Member referred to the origin of these payments, I thought it was in order to point out that it could not be claimed that these particular moneys were given by any pious ancestor. I should be sorry to use the language from this side which the hon. and learned Gentleman who spoke last, quoted from what I understand to be one of the old Statutes. If the hon. Member for Chelsea (Mr. Hoare) is averse to having the contention of the Bishop of St. Asaph as to the origin of the Endowments, I will not press the matter further.
      Lord ROBERT CECIL: It is not an Endowment at all.
      Mr. E. DAVIES: The hon. and learned Member dealt with the history of first fruits and tenths, but he forgot to tell us that from the thirteenth century to the time of the Reformation the money was actually received by the Pope. Under Henry VIII. it was taken possession of and became part of the revenue of the Crown.
      Mr. POLLOCK: I said so.
      Mr. E. DAVIES: Mary abolished it, and Elizabeth again seized it as part of the revenue of the Crown, and in the reign of Queen Anne the money was allotted, as it is now, for the maintenance of the Church. It should not be forgotten that whatever money Queen Anne allotted to the augmentation of poor livings, she also got an increase in the money which was voted for her from the taxes of this country; so that in any event an equivalent of the money which went to poor livings was actually received from the taxpayers. I observe that the hon. Member for Chelsea has considerably altered the form of his Amendment. On Friday his proposal was merely this, that the first fruits and tenths would cease to be payable. In other words, as the Home Secretary pointed out, it merely meant that in future those who are to retain their life interest in the revenue of the Church so far from having them reduced were to have them increased by one-tenth. The hon. Member to-day has dropped that Amendment, and he now proposes not that they should cease but that the amount received on an average during the last fifty years should be commuted at the rate of fourteen years' purchase. I listened to the speech of the hon. Member and to that of the Seconder, but neither made any attempt to justify the proposals to commute on the basis of fourteen years' purchase. I should like to know on what ground that suggestion is made. The suggestion made by the Home Secretary with regard to commutation was that they should commute on the basis of 12.8 years' purchase. I am anxious to know is the Amendment of the hon. Member and the suggestion of fourteen years to be considered as the idea of hon. Members opposite of approaching the whole question of commutation?
      Mr. HOARE: As the hon. Member challenges me, it is the Irish precedent.
      Mr. E. DAVIES: I am obliged for the information, but the hon. Member did not give it in his speech.
      Mr. HOARE: Yes, I did.
      Mr. E. DAVIES: There is another Clause in the latter part of his Amendment in which he states that the Amendment is to be subject to existing interests. I am rather curious to know to what he refers. I understand that the present position is this, that every living or a majority of the livings are subject to a
      68
      tax equal to one-tenth of the value. I understand that the life interest reserved by this Bill will under this Clause remain responsible for the payment of that tax so long as the life interest exists. If that life interest is to be commuted for fourteen years' purchase, what are the possible existing interests to which the hon. Member refers in his Amendment? There is an annual sum of £825 involved, which represents a capital value of between £10,000 and £11,000. I believe the hon. and learned Member stated that they were payable out of the slender revenue of the Church. We on this side do not concede that argument. We decline to believe that the Endowments of the Church are slender or inadequate for the work they are performing. The Bishop of St. David's pointed out that the effect of the present Bill would be to deprive half of the parishes in Wales of their Endowments, which means, of course, that since the Reformation Churchmen in Wales have contributed practically nothing by way of permanent Endowment for the work of the Church in Wales in half the parishes. I decline to believe that a Church to which-Churchmen have contributed nothing in half the parishes for two hundred and fifty years can be in that position that even a small sum of this kind would be of so much necessity to her. There is another point I should like dealt with by the Home Secretary. I understand part of the tax is a kind of commutation paid by the bishops. I understand, instead of paying one-tenth of their revenue, it has been arranged and commuted as an annual charge on the value of their sees.
      Mr. POLLOCK: By Statute.
      Mr. E. DAVIES: I take the hon. and learned Gentleman's authority for that. It is not quite clear from this Clause or under the Amendment what is to become of that charge. Is it to continue to be paid by the bishops?
      Mr. POLLOCK: I quite appreciate the point. It is not provided for, but I intended to do so in my Amendment as to-which the Chairman has pointed out a difficulty in the way of introducing it.
      Mr. E. DAVIES: I am sure the hon. and learned Gentleman will not think I am blaming him. I am addressing my remarks to the Home Secretary, and pointing out that that charge on the sees of the bishops is not met by this Clause or any Amendment. From anyone on behalf of the

      69
      Home Office who takes part in this Debate I shall be very glad to know whether this charge on the bishops' salaries is to continue, and for what purpose the money is in future to be applied.
      Lord ROBERT CECIL: This Clause is a singularly mean one. I think if you describe the Bill as robbery, this may be described as petty larceny. The object of the Clause is twofold. The first paragraph provides that the charge at present existing on the revenue shall cease to be paid to the Queen Anne's Bounty or Ecclesiastical Commissioners, and that the whole of the income should go over to the Welsh Commissioners. The second part provides that the charge shall go on the existing life interest, so that they are to be hit both ways. As long as the Church is in possession of this income the charge is to continue, but it is not to be paid to the Ecclesiastical Commissioners but to the Welsh Commissioners. Therefore, the first effect of the Clause would be to disendow the Ecclesiastical Commissioners and Queen Anne's Bounty by so much income as comes from Welsh sources during the lives of existing incumbents. For that there does not appear to be even the shadow of an excuse, and I cannot conceive on what possible ground it can be defended. Unfortunately, I was called out of the House when the Home Secretary was speaking, and I do not know what defence he put forward, but I do not imagine that he could have made any defence to that part of the Clause, which seems to me to be clearly unjust. You are leaving to the existing holders their ecclesiastical incomes. There is a charge on them for another ecclesiastical purpose at present existing, that, for some reason which I utterly fail to understand, you are going to make the existing incumbents pay on their tenths and first fruits, not to ecclesiastical purposes, but to the Welsh Commissioners. I cannot myself see that there can be any defence to that.
      Let me remind the House of the essentially ecclesiastical character of these payments. I do not think there is any doubt about it whatever that their origin was purely ecclesiastical. Something may be said, no doubt, though I think most fallaciously and untruly, about the origin of tithes, but no one can doubt that the first fruits and tenths, which were originally paid to the Pope, were paid for purely ecclesiastical purposes. It is quite true that it was a matter of constant dispute right through the Middle Ages between the
      70
      kings and the Pope as to whether or not the Pope had a right to these payments, and whether they should be paid to him or not. When Henry VIII. came to the throne he really did no more, as anyone acquainted with history knows, than to revive several of the old Statutes which had been discarded, and to put them into effect, being a stronger man than some of his predecessors. He took this money because he assumed, or affected to assume, a certain position with regard to the Church. It was, I think ever5'one really admits, a pure usurpation on the part of Henry VIII. He took it, and his successors continued to hold it until Queen Anne's reign. Queen Anne was troubled in her conscience, and as a matter of bounty gave it back to the Church. All this was recognised in the earlier stages of the Bill. The Government felt so-strongly about it that they considered they could not touch Queen Anne's Bounty, and they gave it back to the Church. But this miserable fragment of it they continue to take. I cannot imagine how a distinction can be drawn between the Queen Anne's Bounty, which has been given back to the Church by an earlier Amendment, and this portion of it—unless it be that the hon. Member for the Carmarthen Boroughs (Mr. Llewelyn Williams) has frightened the Government.
      I am not a very bold man, but I should never think of being afraid of the Welsh Radical party. They are always threatening awful things, but they never do them. The Government may disregard them perfectly safely. I do not know what the Chancellor of the Exchequer may think about it. I suppose that he has ceased to be a member of the Welsh Radical party. He is now a Cabinet Minister, which is quite a different thing. The other members of the Welsh Radical party are really absolutely negligible, and if the Home Secretary has been induced to commit this act of legislative petty larceny under terror of the hon. Member for the Carmarthen Borough and his colleagues, it is the least admirable feature in his character that I have yet observed. I really cannot understand what distinction the Home Secretary seeks to draw between this and the rest of the fund. I cannot see in what possible way he distinguishes Queen Anne's Bounty generally from this fragment of Queen Anne's Bounty—a source from which Queen Anne's Bounty has been slowly

      71
      amassed. If it was right to take Queen Anne's Bounty originally, it is right to take this; if it was not right, and the Government say that it was not, to take Queen Anne's Bounty originally, it cannot possibly be right to take the trickling drops which in past years have gone to make up the capital sum out of which Queen Anne's Bounty is now paid. The matter seems too clear for argument. I hope that some better reason than has yet been given for resisting the Amendment will be forthcoming from the Government before the Debate closes.
      Mr. LLEWELYN WILLIAMS: It is all very well for the Noble Lord to say that it was Henry VIII. who did this. As a matter of fact, it was not Henry VIII. at all. It was done in the first year of Queen Elizabeth. It is true that Henry VIII., as head of the Church, took tenths and first fruits for a time. Subsequently they were restored to the Church or not paid at all. Then the blessed and glorious Revolution took place. Queen Elizabeth came to the throne, and Sir William Cecil—who, I may be allowed to say, was the greatest of the Cecils, a fine Dis-establisher and Disendower, and perfectly logical—believed that Parliament could Disestablish and Disendow the old faith, and he decided that when he was going to do it he would do it thoroughly. In the first year of Queen Elizabeth, when the Act of Uniformity was passed, he insisted on the clergy paying their tenths and first fruits, and that these tenths and first fruits should go to the Civil List, the revenue of the Sovereign. For 150 years, until 1703, these tenths and first fruits were paid in that way. If you assume that Parliament has the right, as Sir William Cecil assumed, to alter the character of the Church, to alter the doctrines of the Church, to alter the government of the Church, and to alter the beneficiaries of the money which had been paid to the Church, it logically follows that Parliament could order tenths and first fruits to be paid to any person or to any institution it liked. Queen Anne lost her children, and she thought it was a visitation of God. She mentioned the matter to the archbishop, and on the advice of the pious archbishop she decided to make the best of both worlds by returning to the Church the tenths and first fruits, while at the same time her own privy purse was not to be depleted in any way by the proceeding. It is a very easy way of showing piety to
      72
      be generous at other people's expense. But though Queen Anne wanted to give back to the Church tenths and first fruits, she found she could not do it because of an Act of Parliament which had been passed. Therefore it was that she came to this Erastian Parliament to get power to return tenths and first fruits for the benefit of the Church, and that was done in 1702. Therefore, these tenths and first fruits in their nature and origin are not only national property, but have been given to the Church by a Parliamentary title.
      What is proposed to be done now? I quite agree with the remarks made by the Home Secretary. He drew a very ingenious distinction. I should have liked him to have gone further, and said that the whole of the tenths and first fruits were national property. He drew a very ingenious but perfectly good distinction between the payment of tenths and first fruits after Disestablishment, and that which has gone before. He said that it would be unfair because the Church saved this money instead of spending it year by year, to ask them to give up their savings now. In other words he said that he would deal with Queen Anne's Bounty exactly as he dealt with tithes. He did not ask the Church to restore all the tithe that they have drawn during the last 250 years, they have spent it, and it would be inequitable to ask them to return the money. In the same way, because Queen Anne's Bounty has not been spent, but has been saved, although they could have spent it if they liked, it would be inequitable, he says, to ask the Church now to give up their savings. But with regard to the future, quite a different position obtains. These tenths and first fruits were a charge upon the income of the clergy. Why should they pocket the tenths and first fruits in future, since they accepted their benefices subject to these charges? It is perfectly right and equitable under these circumstances that the clergy should continue to pay tenths and first fruits. But to whom? The hon. and learned Member for Leamington (Mr. Pollock), rather complained that the clergy should not be asked to pay them to the representative body. I quite agree that if these funds were not national funds it would be inequitable to ask the Church to pay them for anything but the services of the Church. If I took the same view as the hon. and learned Gentleman, I should agree with his conclusion. But I do not. I say that they are national property in their origin and essence, and

      73
      since they are national property there can be no manner of doubt that in future tenths and first fruits ought to be paid to the Welsh Commissioners.
      5.0 P.M.
      Mr. ALFRED LYTTELTON: The arguments used on the other side might be characterised as repugnant one to the other. The hon. and learned Member (Mr. Llewelyn Williams) has founded himself upon the Parliamentary title of Queen Anne's Bounty. His argument is that the fact that Queen Anne's Bounty has a Parliamentary title is equivalent to saying that it has no title worth having to the property it now possesses. I only hope that if there are any Nonconformists present who accede to that argument they will take note of it, because the Scottish Settlement was by an Act of Parliament, and in 1905 a large sum of money was voted by Parliament to the Free Church and the United Free Church. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] If the hon. and learned Gentleman's argument is well founded, those two bodies, who believe themselves to be in possession of their property by a recent and indefeasible title, are in no such position. The other argument used by Members opposite deals with the question of private benefaction. I do not care which way the case is argued. I think there are very strong historical grounds for saying that in substance—though I quite agree there was a Parliamentary Grant to validate it—this Bounty was the fruit of Queen Anne's benevolence. I think the hon. and learned Member was drawing somewhat on his imagination when he ascribed it to the misfortunes which Queen Anne sustained in her family life. I believe he was wrong in ascribing it to that cause in the first place. As a matter of fact, the originator of Queen Anne's Bounty was Bishop Burnet. Macaulay tells us that the position of the inferior clergy occasioned sore uneasiness to the kind and generous heart of Bishop Burnet, who was indefatigable, and at last succeeded in his attempt to obtain from the Crown that Grant which is known by the name of Queen Anne's Bounty. That was in 1689, before Queen Anne came to the throne. Queen Anne was not famed for beneficence. She was somewhat parsimonious, and, according to the view of the time, not at all up to the mark expected by her subjects in this respect. The hon. and learned Gentleman gave us no authority, and I believe that no such authority exists, for the statement that he made. The plain fact is that by the solici-
      74
      tation of Bishop Burnet the Crown was induced to grant this money for the service of the Church. If the hon. and learned Member wishes further authority on the (point he should look at the Charter, in which are recited this great solicitude for the suffering and misery on the part of the clergy and the sacrifices which the Queen made in order to minister to their wants. Therefore, in relation to Queen Anne's Bounty, I do not care which way it is. If it depends upon a Parliamentary Grant it is a Grant which ought not to be set aside. To set it aside would be to place in jeopardy some of those Endowments: which at the present time are regarded even by people of the party opposite as soundly based in public policy. If you do not regard it as originating in a Parliamentary Grant, but in private benefactions, you have ample historical grounds-for doing so. It was the greatest made by the Crown in 1700, and as such it comes after 1662 within the very principle of this Bill, and deserves to escape from the general spoliation.
      The CHANCELLOR of the DUCHY (Mr. Hobhouse): I only rise to answer a question put to mo by my hon. Friend behind me. He asked what was going to happen in the case of the payments now made by the bishops in commutation of the first fruits and the tenths. It is quite clear that the provision in the Bill does not specifically mention them. They are distinct from the first fruits and the tenths paid by the ordinary parochial clergy, and ought, I think, to have been covered by a distinct and specific Clause. Recognising that fact, the Government intend to cover their case by putting down an Amendment to Clause 35, which is a definition Clause, as an addition to that Clause, allotting distinctly and specifically the first fruits payable by the bishops and devoting the tenths, which are now commuted, and are commutable by payment, both to the same purpose as we shall devote the tenths of the parochial clergy.
      Mr. HOARE: First fruits or tenths?
      Mr. HOBHOUSE: The whole thing was settled by Order in Council in 1852. The first fruits in the case of the bishops were commuted to annual payments payable at such times and in such a manner as the tenths were payable. Therefore those payments are now regarded in the same position. The tenths are now in the same

      75
      position as the first fruits. The words which we will put down will make it clear that these payments, which are now paid in lieu of the tenths by the bishops, will be applied to the same purposes as the payment of the tenths.
      Mr. POLLOCK: That means that they may be applied to secular purposes?
      Mr. HOBHOUSE: Certainly—applied to secular purposes. Let me add a word in defence of my right hon. Friend in view of what was said by the right hon. Gentleman opposite. I do not think he intended to make out a Parliamentary title at all. All he said was that there was power to vary national property—assuming that it was national property—and he proceeded to give a certain Parliamentary title to certain things which Queen Anne did. He did not go beyond that. They treated it then as national property. We treat it as such. I think the distinction our right hon. Friend the Home Secretary drew was a sound and good distinction, and justifies us in the distinction which we have made.
      Mr. MONTAGUE BARLOW: I do not wish to follow the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite into his disquisition as to what took place under Queen Elizabeth. The suggestion that an entirely new Church was founded then by Act of Parliament is absurd to anyone who has examined the Statute. Any alteration, in fact, made was certainly not in the status of the Church. With regard to the question as to what took place in the time of Queen Anne, I should like to associate myself with everything that has been said as to the dilemma in which hon. Members opposite are. The arguments they have used are mutually destructive. When we were debating this question of Queen Anne's Bounty at an earlier stage of the Bill, I challenged hon. Members opposite to produce any evidence whatever that Queen Anne had, in effect, received an increase in the Civil List as the result of a Grant which she made. That was suggested at that time, and it is suggested with some assurance now, but on neither occasion did we receive any evidence of what was stated to be a fact, and what I firmly believe not to be a fact at all. I have some records here, and I can find no evidence of it. One more point as to the question by the Mover of this Amendment quoted fourteen years as the period. The speech of the hon. Gentleman opposite
      76
      who dealt with this point makes one despair, as indeed hon. Members opposite, whenever they quote an Irish Act, always do make one despair, of their having the slightest appreciation of the precedent in this matter of the Irish Act. When the Irish Act serves their purpose they know something about it. When it does not they have never heard of it, and if one quotes the Irish instance they ignore it altogether.
      What happened with regard to the Regium donum and the Maynooth Grant was quite simple. They were provided both by the Nonconformist clergy and also by the Catholics. These life interests were safeguarded under the Irish Act. Further than that there were certain charges in favour of certain people charged upon the funds and especially upon the Regium donum. There were annual sums paid to widows and orphans, annual sums paid into a certain fund, and other annual sums paid. Section 40 of the Irish Act expressly said that those sums so charged upon the Regium donum, and the other were not to be treated on the basis of life annuities—that they should be redeemed—the series are given in this Section—on a basis of fourteen years' compensation. What we say is that for all practical purposes this is an exact parallel to the case we are arguing here to-day. It is the case of a charge, not an Endowment, upon the income of ministers of the Church. That charge ought to be redeemed at fourteen years' pruchase exactly in the same way in which the charges on the Regium donum under Section 40 of the Irish Act were redeemed under a similar length of years' purchase. If it was allowed that it should be done in the Irish case it is abundantly so in the case of a poor Church. I cannot conceive what grounds the Government, when they have, as I suppose they would suggest, made a substantial concession in the earlier stages of the Bill in regard to Queen Anne's Bounty, refuse to make this very small adjustment, which in the name of equity and common sense is the proper course for them to adopt.
      Mr. HUME-WILLIAMS: First of all, I should like to offer my sincere congratulations to the reunited family party. At one time it was almost a pathetic sight to see the heroism of the hon. and learned, Member for Carmarthen Boroughs, who never hesitated to criticise the Government. Now he defends their action, and the least that the Government can do in return is to defend the history of the hon. and learned Gentleman. They both

      77
      require all the support that they can mutually afford each other. As has already been pointed out the little rift between the Government and the other Welsh Members never attained large dimensions. The hon. Member for Swansea Boroughs threatened very largely, and we were told there was to be an upheaval in the country. We are still watching and waiting for it. The only people really happy are the Government. Let me say a word upon what I suggest is the real smallness, if I may say so, of the opposition of the Government on this particular question. The amount is so small that it is fair to take account of the attitude of the Government. The whole basis of the case put forward by the Government is that this is national property. The hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Carmarthen, with his unexpected defence of the Cecil family, has, too, laid it down that this is national property. I cannot conceive how any amount of historical research, accurate or inaccurate, led to such a conclusion, because this is, after all, a contribution made by ministers of religion themselves. There can be no question here of gifts having been made, as is the case put forward by the Government. Nothing of that kind can here possibly arise. There always has been contributions made out of the stipends of the clergy to a common fund for the purposes of their Church.
      You might just as well seek in logic and justice to interfere with a payment of that sort as you would, say, to interfere with the system which I think obtains in India —I do not know whether it obtains now— under which Government servants were obliged to contribute a certain portion from their salaries to a central insurance fund. You might as well say that you will take that money away and devote it to the reconstruction of the new citadel at Delhi, or something of that kind. You have no right to interfere with that at all, and you have no right to interfere with this. Let me point out how hard this is, particularly on the bishops, because I am sure I can claim the active sympathy of the hon. Member for Carmarthen Boroughs in any case that affects their lordships. The matter in their instance is particularly hard for this reason, that when, they took this under an Order in Council the payments were commuted. Instead of paying one lump sum in payment of the tithes, it has been spread over annual payments. If it had been paid when they were appointed in one lump sum—as it would have been but for this Order in Council—it could not
      78
      have been touched by this Bill. It would not have come under the arguments of the Home Secretary. Now it is paid, and the natural consequence is that you sweep it in under this Clause and divert it from the bishops of the Church and give it to the county councils. In common sense, what possible foundation and what possible reason is there for taking away from men contributions that they are making themselves to their own support and giving it to purely different purposes to that for which they are making payment year by year? Is this to be an instance of the good feeling between the Church and the Nonconformists? Is this the sort of thing that is to free the Church and to induce that charity and amity of which we hear so much about and to which hon. Members look forward with so much hopefulness in the future? Are the clergy to know that during the acceptance of their present holdings they are to go on making payments which, instead of being returned in some form to the purposes of religion, are to be given to the county councils for secular purposes? The sum is small; the opposition from the benches behind the Government is, I will not say negligible because the opposition of those who have the votes is never negligible, but it is not as strong in this instance as it is in some others. Let the Home Secretary have the courage of his convictions, and allow this concession and allow those subscribers to have the advantage of it, instead of diverting it to other purposes.
      Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: We hear a great deal in these Debates about the beneficiaries of those tenths and first fruits. There are three beneficiaries. These have been the Sovereign, the poor, and the poor clergy through Queen Anne's Bounty. Now you propose utterly different beneficiaries. You propose to have what now forms a tax upon the clergy of Wales devoted to an entirely new object. It is perfectly clear that the origin and purpose of these first fruits and tenths have always been ecclesiastical. If they were given to a secular authority—that is, to the Civil List of the Sovereign—it was not because he was the head of a State, but as the supreme head or governor of the Church, and it is perfectly clear all through history that the beneficiaries under this system have been ecclesiastical beneficiaries. Now for the first time you introduce, not the Sovereign, not the Civil List of the Crown, not the clergy of the

      79
      Church, but you propose to hand this money over year by year to the Welsh county councils, and no possible defence is made of that flagrant breach of trust, and a revolution over the character of the beneficiaries under this Clause. I say it is very harsh treatment to take this sum from a large number of the poor clergy and to devote it to secular purposes when you might make this concession quite easily. I do not know that the hon. and learned Member for Carmarthen Boroughs would make much trouble if you do this, and, if hon. Members from Wales did make much fuss, why not adopt the course that was adopted in 1899 of putting some of them on the Front Bench or making them baronets or even peers? The Welsh Radical party have always been very easily placated; they have been very different from the Irish Nationalist party in that respect, and I do not think, if the Government treated this small point in a generous manner, that they would find very much trouble over it in the House.
      Sir J. D. REES: My hon. Friend (Mr. Hume-Williams) made a very apposite comparision when he referred to the Civil Service Pension Fund in India. I might re-enforce what he said by saying that the Government have made quite specious efforts to get the administration of this money into their hands, but the Civil servants of India have absolutely refused to allow it to be administered by anybody but themselves, and they have been very jealous of keeping the management of it in their own hands. The whole amount here is very paltry; it is about twice the salary voted to Members of Parliament by the Government without consulting the constituencies. The hon. and learned Member for Carmarthen suggested that the Bounty of Queen Anne was something like the bounty of that public man who "out of his great bounty built a bridge at the expense of the county." He seems to think that there was no better claim for the Bounty of Queen Anne, and for that reason I should like to read the preamble to the charter of Queen Anne dealing with that Bounty. I know the Government do not like preambles, but, however, I should like to read such selections from this preamble as I feel justified in asking the Committee to hear. The preamble states:—
      "The welfare and support of the Church of England as by law established being our greatest care, so we
      80
      have since our accession to the Crown frequently reflected upon the miserable position of a very great number of the clergy of this our Kingdom by reason of the mean and insufficient provision for their maintenance which tends so very much for the ruin of the Church."
      And a little later down the Queen says:—
      "We were resolved to do much as in us lay towards the earnings of the clergy, and we are graciously inclined to think that the ministers who serve these cures may in respect of their poverty be true objects of our Royal bounty, and that our Lord High Treasurer signifies our said bountiful attention by letters directed to our archbishops and bishops accordingly, and for the augmentation of their maintenance we first make a Grant of our Royal revenue arising out of first fruits and tenths which will be a great advantage to the public and very acceptable to us."
      I submit that that is not the language applicable to a Grant of the character which the hon. and learned Member for Carmarthen Boroughs ascribed to it, but rather bears out the contention of hon. Members upon this side of the House, who contend that it is a Grant of a totally different description. I urge that these words should be taken into account by the Committee and that they should also remember that the principle has already been practically given away by the decision already arrived at upon Queen Anne's Bounty, and that having accepted that principle in regard, so to speak, to the whole, it seems somewhat unreasonable and hard to the Church that you should shy at so small an amount, which is really not twice the salary paid to Members of Parliament. It is a very small matter. It would be superfluous to urge the length of time it has been enjoyed, because that applies to all the possessions of the Church, with which the House is at present dealing, and I should not feel justified in going over the arguments which apply to this as to every other possession of the Church. But I feel I should be in order in referring to what was said by the Noble Lord the Member for Hitchin in regard to the Welsh Parliamentary party. I feel inclined to defend that party from the 'strictures of the Noble Lord, because that party has been an exceedingly efficient instrument for the last six years in keeping this Bill and most other Welsh business from the consideration of the House of

      81
      Commons. It was suggested that the position of the Chancellor of the Exchequer was a doubtful one upon this matter.
      The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (Mr. Maclean): The hon. Member's remarks are not, I think, relevant to the Amendment.
      Sir J. D. REES: How is it irrelevant for me to deal with matters which were relevant in the speech of the Noble Lord, and also in the speech of the hon. Member for Denbigh Boroughs (Mr. Ormsby-Gore)? I do not want to go at any great length into it, but I was actually engaged in defending the Welsh party.
      The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I do not know what the ruling was that was given in regard to the observations of the Noble Lord and the hon. Member, but I do know that the observations the hon. Gentleman is now addressing to the Committee are out of order.
      Sir J. D. REES: May I submit that there was no ruling upon the remarks made by the Noble Lord or by my hon. Friend, because it was not suggested by anybody that they were out of order.
      The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is really only concerned with my ruling.
      Sir J. D. REES: That at any rate I am quite unable to contest, and I must accordingly leave that subject upon which I really have some knowledge and might have thrown some light. However, as you say, Sir, it is your ruling that concerns me, if you rule my remarks are out of order, I will leave that part of the question. For the other reasons I have given I venture to submit that the Amendment before the Committee is worthy of acceptance, and I submit that with regard to this Clause the Committee might very well adopt the motto of a famous public school and endeavour so far as possible to carry out its principle, Donorum Dei dispensatio fidelis.
      Mr. EVELYN CECIL: The hon. and learned Member for Carmarthen Boroughs has made a speech in which he regards Queen Anne's Bounty in a different light from that which is expressed in the Preamble read by my hon. Friend. I observe a somewhat cynical expression upon his face. The hon. and learned Member opposite in the course of his speech used the phrase that Queen Anne was generous at other people's expense. It may or may not be true, but what is the hon. Gentleman's attitude at
      82
      the present moment? We on this side of the House maintain that the hon. and learned Gentleman is calmly taking away the property of the Church in order to distribute it and gain credit in the process. I fail to see any distinction between the motives attributed by the hon. Gentleman to Queen Anne and his own motives or how the same simile would not apply to himself. The real point at issue I would rather say upon this particular Amendment is as to what is the origin of first fruits and tenths. We maintain it is throughout a strictly religious origin, and that it ought not to be diverted from the Church. The Government and hon. Gentlemen opposite maintain that it is and was and ought to be national property, and therefore that they are at liberty to-confiscate it. It has been already shown more than once that the real origin of first fruits and tenths was for ecclesistical purposes. Some may tell us that that ought never to have been so, but it was so. These things were paid to the Pope as head of the Church, and all that happened when Henry VIII. appropriated that tithe was that he did so on the express ground that he was defender of the Faith and head of the Church, and that he ought to receive these tithes as substitute for the Pope, because he was in precisely the same position then as the Tope was before. So the changes made both by the Statute of Henry VIII. and by the Statute of Queen Elizabeth were to ensure that the head of the Church should receive that which was religious in character and origin, and which was paid as religious offerings to the head of the Church. That being the historic origin of tithes it seems to me that there can be no question that the proper course for this Committee to pursue is to maintain that origin by allowing the Church to retain both first fruits and tithes, and to see that they are devoted strictly to religious purposes, and not diverted to other purposes as the Government propose under this Clause. I strongly maintain that first fruits and tithes both in origin and subsequent history were essentially intended for religious purposes, that they were paid to the head of the Church as such, and that we ought to continue to devote them to-religious purposes even after this Bill has passed.
      Mr. GEORGE GREENWOOD: The hon. Member, who has just sat down, says that these payments were made to the head of the Church as such for religious purposes.

      83
      It has also been argued that the Church as it exists now is really the same Church as that which existed when those payments were originally made, but really there was another Church brought into existence in the reign of Queen Elizabeth. There is no such thing as a corporation called the Church. Very often our arguments lose their force by talking of the Church as if it were a corporation, but if we look upon the Church as an organic institution, which has corporate continuity there is some reason perhaps for the argument which says that there was no change. If, however, you say that religion and doctrine have any part with regard to the essentials of a Church then I say there was a new Church called into existence in the reign of Queen Elizabeth. The 23rd Act of Elizabeth, Chap. 1, makes it actual treason—
      "to withdraw from the religion now by Her Highness's authority established in Her Highness's Dominion to the Romish religion."
      There is an old story in which the question "was asked: "Where was your Church before the Reformation?" The answer was: "You washed this morning, where was your face before it was washed?" It may be said that if a man dirties his face it is still the same face, and if it should please the Imperial Parliament to enact that in future the services of the Roman Catholic Church should be carried on in the Churches of the land, then, like the man who had only dirted his face, it would be, I suppose, the same Church.
      Nothing to me seems more preposterous than to seek the identity of the Church in some corporate continuity when you find the doctrines are absolutely different. It has been said that the doctrines of the Church of England are the same as the doctrines of Pope Gregory and St. Augustine. I admit that there are many different sections in the Church of England, and there may well be a section that holds that view. The late Lord Selborne said that the application of the theological microscope would hardly find any difference between the doctrines of St. Augustine and the doctrines of the Church of England, and Gibbon had already said that the theological microscope could find no difference between the doctrines of St. Augustine and of Calvin; yet the Church has canonised the one and reprobated the other. With regard to pre-Reformation times, it is absurd to say
      84
      that in regard to what is being proposed now there is any confiscation, because these funds were given to a Church which was quite a different Church to that which now exists. I have listened to these Debates with great interest, but I am bound to say that I take a much broader view than has been generally admitted. I think that this Church property is property, given for public uses, and, therefore, should be dealt with according to the principle of law which applies to public trusts. If property is given for public uses, whether ecclesiastical or secular, it must always be given subject to this condition that it is within the moral, as well as the legal, competency of Parliament to vary those uses in the interest of the community. And, after all, the basic principle of all legislation is, or ought to be, the interest of the community at large.
      Therefore on this principle it is within the moral as well as the legal competence of the State to change those uses. It does not matter in the least whether the money is devoted to ecclesiastical uses or not if it is given for public purposes, and if it is for the benefit of the State to apply old Endowments to other purposes. Of course, you do not apply this principle to recent Endowments, because it would be inequitable to do that when a man gave property confident that the law was going to support him in his act. For that reason it is that in all schemes of this character you must take a time limit, and you do not touch recent Endowments, but with regard to ancient Endowments it is within the moral as well as the legal competence of the State to divert those uses as long as you divert the money to public and not to private uses. I dissent from the argument used by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for St. George's, Hanover Square (Mr. Lyttelton), who laid so much stress upon property given for ecclesiastical or religious purposes, which means theological purposes, and only a certain kind of theology. Some hon. Members talk as if the world was divided into Roman Catholics, Churchmen, and Nonconformists, and that nobody else counted at all, a proposition which I entirely dissent from. If we find that in the interests of the community and in order to secure the greatest happiness to the greatest number, property left for religious purposes ought to be diverted to other uses, then it is within the legal moral and legal competency of Parliament to make such provision.
      Mr. KING: I wish to say how satisfactory to me this Debate has been throughout its whole course. The speech of the Home Secretary was full of conciliation, in sentiment and expression, and full of firmness in decision to stick to the Clause. That is entirely a line which I approve of, and I believe that the Committee generally approves of it. As I now see two or three right hon. Gentlemen on the Treasury Bench, I wish to point out

      Division No. 526.]

      AYES.

      [5.40 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)

      Addison, Dr. C.

      Edwards, John Hugh (Glamorgan, Mid)

      Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

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

      Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

      Lardner, James Carrige Rushe

      Agnew, Sir George William

      Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)

      Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.)

      Ainsworth, John Stirling

      Essex, Sir Richard Walter

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

      Alden, Percy

      Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles

      Leach, Charles

      Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbarton)

      Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson

      Levy, Sir Maurice

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

      Ffrench, Peter

      Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

      Arnold, Sydney

      Field, William

      Lundon, Thomas

      Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry

      Fitzglbbon, John

      Lyell, Charles Henry

      Baker, Harold T. (Accrington)

      Flavin, Michael Joseph

      Lynch, A. A.

      Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsoury, E.)

      France, Gerald Ashburner

      McGhee, Richard

      Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

      Gilhooly, James

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

      Baring, Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple)

      Ginnell, Laurence

      Macpherson, James Ian

      Barnes, G. N.

      Gladstone, W. G. C.

      MacVeagh, Jeremiah

      Beale, Sir William Phipson

      Glanville, H. J.

      M'Callum, Sir John M,

      Beck, Arthur Cecil

      Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

      McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

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

      Goldstone, Frank

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

      Bethell, Sir J. H.

      Greenwood, Granville G. (Peterborough)

      M'Micking, Major Gilbert

      Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

      Greenwood, Hamar (Sunderland)

      Manfield, Harry

      Black, Arthur W.

      Greig, Col. J. W,

      Marks, Sir George Croydon

      Boland, John Pius

      Griffith, Ellis J.

      Marshall, Arthur Harold

      Booth, Frederick Handel

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

      Mason, David M. (Coventry)

      Bowerman, C. W.

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

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

      Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North)

      Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

      Meagher, Michael

      Brace, William

      Hackett, John

      Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

      Brady, Patrick Joseph

      Hancock, J. G.

      Millar, James Duncan

      Brocklehurst, W. B.

      Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis (Rossendale)

      Molloy, Michael

      Brunner, John F. L.

      Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

      Molteno, Percy Alport

      Bryce, J. Annan

      Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds.)

      Mond, Sir Alfred M.

      Buckmaster, Stanley O.

      Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire)

      Mooney, John J.

      Burke, E. Haviland-

      Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

      Morgan, George Hay

      Burns, Rt. Hon. John

      Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)

      Morrell, Philip

      Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

      Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

      Morison, Hector

      Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, North)

      Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

      Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

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

      Hay ward, Evan

      Muldoon, John

      Byles, Sir William Pollard

      Hazleton, Richard

      Munro, R.

      Cawley, Harold T. (Heywood)

      Healy, Timothy Michael (Cork, East)

      Munro-Ferguson, Rt. Hon. R. C.

      Chapple, Dr. William Allen

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

      Murray, Captain Hon. Arthur C.

      Clancy, John Joseph

      Henry, Sir Charles

      Neilson, Francis

      Clough, William

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

      Nicholson, Sir Charles N. (Doncaster)

      Collins, Godfrey P. (Greenock)

      Higham, John Sharp

      Nolan, Joseph

      Collins, Stephen' (Lambeth)

      Hinds, John

      Norton, Captain Cecil W.

      Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J.

      Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

      Nuttall, Harry

      Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

      Hodge, John

      O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

      Cotton, William Francis

      Hogge, James Myles

      O'Brien, William (Cork)

      Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

      Holmes, Daniel Turner

      O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

      Crawshay-Williams, Eliot

      Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

      O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

      Crumley, Patrick

      Hudson, Walter

      O'Doherty, Philip

      Cullinan, John

      Hughes, S. L.

      O'Donnell, Thomas

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

      Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus

      O'Dowd, John

      Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

      Jardine, Sir J. (Roxburgh)

      O'Grady, James

      Davies, Timothy (Lines., Louth)

      John, Edward Thomas

      O'Malley, William

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

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

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

      Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardigan)

      Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)

      O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

      Dawes, J. A.

      Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)

      O'Shee, James John

      Delany, William

      Jones, Leif Stratten (Rushcliffe)

      O'Sullivan, Timothy

      Devlin, Joseph

      Jones, W. (Carnarvon)

      Palmer, Godfrey Mark

      Dickinson, W. H.

      Jones, W. S. Glyn-(Stepney)

      Parker, James (Halifax)

      Dillon, John

      Joyce, Michael

      Pearce, William (Limehouse)

      Donelan, Captain A.

      Keating, Matthew

      Pearson, Hon. Weetman H. M.

      Doris, William

      Kennedy, Vincent Paul

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

      that if they go on upon these lines throughout this Bill and the other Bills which are to come before us before the Session ends, they will always be certain to receive my support.
      Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
      The Committee divided: Ayes, 260; The Committee Noes, 125.

      Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

      Roche, John (Galway, E.)

      Trevelyan, Charles Philips

      Pirle, Duncan V.

      Rowlands, James

      Verney, Sir Harry

      Pollard, Sir George H.

      Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

      Wadsworth, J.

      Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

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

      Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

      Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

      Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

      Waring, Walter

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

      Scanlan, Thomas

      Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

      Priestley, Sir Arthur (Grantham)

      Schwann, Rt. Hon. Sir C. E.

      Watt, Henry Anderson

      Pringle, William M. R

      Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)

      Webb, H.

      Radford, G. H.

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

      White, J. Dundas (Glas., Tradeston)

      Raffan, Peter Wilson

      Sheehy, David

      White, Patrick (Meath, North)

      Raphael, Sir Herbert H.

      Sherwell, Arthur James

      Whitehouse, John Howard

      Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields)

      Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John Allsebrook

      Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.

      Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

      Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim)

      Whyte, A. F. (Perth)

      Reddy, M.

      Snowden, Philip

      Wiles, Thomas

      Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

      Spicer, Rt; Hon. Sir Albert

      Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthen)

      Redmond, William (Clare, E.)

      Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)

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

      Richardson, Thomas Whitehaven)

      Sutherland, J. E.

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

      Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

      Taylor, John W. (Durham)

      Young, Samuel (Cavan, E.)

      Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

      Taylor, Thomas (Bolton)

      Young, W. (Perthshire, E.)

      Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)

      Tennant, Harold John

      Yoxall, Sir James Henry

      Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

      Thomas, James Henry

      Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

      Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

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

      Robinson, Sidney

      Thorne, William (West Ham)

      Roche, Augustine (Louth)

      Toulmin, Sir George

      NOES.

      Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

      Gardner, Ernest

      Newman, John R. P.

      Amery, L. C. M. S.

      Gastrell, Major W. Houghton

      Newton, Harry Kottingham

      Anson, Rt. Hon. Sir William R.

      Gilmour, Captain John

      Nield, Herbert

      Anstruther-Gray, Major William

      Glazebrook, Capt. Philip K.

      Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

      Ashley, Wilfrid W.

      Goldman, C. S.

      Parkes, Ebenezer

      Baird, John Lawrence

      Gordon, Hon. John Edward (Brighton)

      Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

      Balcarres, Lord

      Goulding, Edward Alfred

      Peel, Captain R. F.

      Baldwin, Stanley

      Greene, Walter Raymond

      Perkins, Walter F.

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

      Gretton, John

      Peto, Basil Edward

      Banbury, Sir Frederick George

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

      Pryce-Jones, Colonel E.

      Barlow, Montague (Salford, South)

      Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne)

      Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

      Barnston, Harry

      Hall, Fred (Dulwich)

      Rees, Sir J. D.

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

      Hambro, Angus Valdemar

      Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

      Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton)

      Harris, Henry Percy

      Samuel, Sir Harry (Norwood)

      Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

      Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

      Sanders, Robert Arthur

      Bird, Alfred

      Henderson, Major H. (Berks, Abingdon)

      Sanderson, Lancelot

      Blair, Reginald

      Hewins, William Albert Samuel

      Sandys, G. J.

      Boyton, James

      Hill, Sir Clement L.

      Sassoon, Sir Philip

      Bull, Sir William James

      Hills, John Waller

      Smith, Harold (Warrington)

      Burdett-Coutts, W.

      Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy

      Spear, Sir John Ward

      Burgoyne, Alan Hughes

      Hope, Major J. A. (Midlothian)

      Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

      Burn, Colonel C. R.

      Horne, E. (Surrey, Guildford)

      Strauss, Arthur (Paddington, North)

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

      Hume-Williams, W. E.

      Swift, Rigby

      Campion, W. R.

      Hunt, Rowland

      Sykes, Mark (Hull, Central)

      Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred

      Ingleby, Holcombe

      Talbot, Lord E.

      Cassel, Felix

      Jessel, Captain H. M.

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

      Cautley, Henry Strother

      Joynson-Hicks, William

      Terrell, Henry (Gloucester)

      Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

      Kebty-Fletcher, J. R.

      Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Down, North)

      Cecil, Lord Hugh (Oxford Univ.)

      Kerry, Earl of

      Touche, George Alexander

      Cecil, Lord R. (Herts, Hitchin)

      Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

      Tryon, Captain George Clement

      Chaloner, Col. R. G. W.

      Lane-Fox, G. R.

      Valentia, Viscount

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

      Larmor, Sir J.

      Walrond, Hon. Lionel

      Clyde, J. Avon

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

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

      Craig, Ernest (Cheshire, Crewe)

      Lewisham, Viscount

      Willoughby, Major Hon. Claud

      Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

      Lonsdale, Sir John Brownlee

      Wolmer, Viscount

      Crichton-Stuart, Lord Ninian

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

      Worthington-Evans, L.

      Dalziel, Davison (Brixton)

      Magnus, Sir Philip

      Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

      Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott

      Malcolm, Ian

      Yate, Col. C. E.

      Faber, George Denison (Clapham)

      Mallaby-Deeley, Harry

      Younger, Sir George

      Falle, Bertram Godfray

      Mildmay, Francis Bingham

      Fell, Arthur

      Moore, William

      TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. Pollock and Mr. Hoare.

      Fletcher, John Samuel (Hampstead)

      Mount, William Arthur

      Forstcr, Henry William

      Neville, Reginald J. N.

      Question put, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
      The Committee divided: Ayes, 262; Noes, 123.

      Baker, H. T. (Accrington)

      Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)

      O'Grady, James

      Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)

      Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

      O'Malley, William

      Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

      Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

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

      Baring, Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple)

      Hayward, Evan

      O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

      Barnes, G. N.

      Hazleton, Richard

      O'Shee, James John

      Beale, Sir William Phipson

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

      O'Sullivan, Timothy

      Beck, Arthur Cecil

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

      Palmer, Godfrey Mark

      Benn, w. W. (T. Hamlets, St. George)

      Henry, Sir Charles

      Parker, James (Halifax)

      Bethell, Sir J. H.

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

      Pearce, William (Limehouse)

      Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

      Higham, John Sharp

      Pearson, Hon. Weetman H. M.

      Black, Arthur W.

      Hinds, John

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

      Boland, John Pius

      Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

      Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

      Booth, Frederick Handel

      Hodge, John

      Pirie, Duncan V.

      Bowerman, C. W.

      Hogge, James Myles

      Pollard, Sir George H.

      Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North)

      Holmes, Daniel Turner

      Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

      Brace, William

      Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

      Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

      Brady, Patrick Joseph

      Hudson, Walter

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

      Brocklehurst, W. B.

      Hughes, S. L.

      Priestley, Sir Arthur (Grantham)

      Brunner, John F. L.

      Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus

      Pringle, William M. R.

      Bryce, J. Annan

      Jardine, Sir J. (Roxburgh)

      Radford, G. H.

      Buckmaster, Stanley O.

      John, Edward Thomas

      Raffan, Peter Wilson

      Burke, E. Haviland

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

      Raphael, Sir Herbert H.

      Burns, Rt. Hon. John

      Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)

      Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields)

      Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

      Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)

      Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

      Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, North)

      Jones, Leif Stratten (Notts, Rushcliffe)

      Reddy, M.

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

      Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

      Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

      Byles, Sir William

      Jones, W. S. Glyn- (Stepney)

      Redmond, William (Clare, E.)

      Cawley, Harold T. (Heywood)

      Joyce, Michael

      Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

      Chapple, Dr. William Allen

      Keating, Matthew

      Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

      Clancy, John Joseph

      Kennedy, Vincent Paul

      Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

      Clough, William

      Kilbride, Denis

      Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)

      Collins, Godfrey P. (Greenock)

      King, J. (Somerset, North)

      Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

      Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

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

      Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

      Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J.

      Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

      Robinson, Sidney

      Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

      Lardner, James Carrige Rushe

      Roche, Augustine (Louth)

      Cotton, William Francis

      Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.)

      Roche, John (Galway, E.)

      Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

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

      Rowlands, James

      Crawshay-Williams, Eliot

      Leach, Charles

      Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

      Crumley, Patrick

      Levy, Sir Maurice

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

      Cullinan, John

      Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

      Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

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

      Lundon, Thomas

      Scanlan, Thomas

      Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

      Lyell, Charles Henry

      Schwann, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles E.

      Davies, Timothy (Lines., Louth)

      Lynch, A, A.

      Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)

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

      McGhee, Richard

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

      Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardigan)

      Maclean, Donald

      Sheehy, David

      Delany, William

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

      Sherwell, Arthur James

      Devlin, Joseph

      Macpherson, James fan

      Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John Allsebrook

      Dickinson, W. H.

      MacVeagh, Jeremiah

      Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim)

      Dillon, John

      M'Callum, Sir John M.

      Snowden, Philip

      Donelan, Captain A.

      McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

      Spicer, Rt. Hon. Sir Albert

      Doris, William

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

      Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)

      Duffy, William J.

      M'Micking, Major Gilbert

      Sutherland, J. E.

      Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

      Manfield, Harry

      Taylor, John W. (Durham)

      Duncan, J. Hastings (Yorks, Otley)

      Marks, Sir George Croydon

      Taylor, Thomas (Bolton)

      Edwards, John Hugh (Glamorgan, Mid)

      Marshall, Arthur Harold

      Tennant, Harold John

      Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

      Mason, David M. (Coventry)

      Thomas, James Henry

      Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford)

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

      Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

      Essex, Richard Walter

      Meagher, Michael

      Thorne, William (West Ham)

      Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles

      Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

      Toulmin, Sir George

      Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson

      Millar, James Duncan

      Trevelyan, Charles Philips

      Ffrench, Peter

      Molloy, Michael

      Verney, Sir Harry

      Field, William

      Molteno, Percy Alport

      Wadsworth, J.

      Fitzgibbon, John

      Mond, Sir Alfred M.

      Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

      Flavin, Michael Joseph

      Mooney, John J.

      Wardle, George J.

      France, Gerald Ashburner

      Morgan, George Hay

      Waring, Walter

      Gilhooly, James

      Morrell, Philip

      Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

      Ginnell, Laurence

      Morison, Hector

      Watt, Henry Anderson

      Gladstone, W. G. C.

      Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

      Webb, H.

      Glanville, H. J.

      Muldoon, John

      White, J. Dundas (Glas., Tradeston)

      Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

      Munro, R.

      White, Patrick (Meath, North)

      Goldstone, Frank

      Munro-Ferguson, Rt. Hon. R. C.

      Whitehouse, John Howard

      Greenwood, Granville G. (Peterborough)

      Murray, Captain Hon. Arthur C.

      Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.

      Greenwood, Hamar (Sunderland)

      Neilson, Francis

      Whyte, A. F. (Perth)

      Greig. Col. J W,

      Nicholson, Sir Charles N. (Doncaster)

      Wiles, Thomas

      Griffith, Ellis J.

      Nolan, Joseph

      Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthen)

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

      Norton, Captain Cecil W.

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

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

      Nugent Sir Walter Richard

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

      Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

      Nuttan, Harry

      Young, Samuel (Cavan, E.)

      Hackett, John

      O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

      Young, W. (Perthshire, E.)

      Hancock, J. G.

      O'Brien, William (Cork)

      Yoxall, Sir James Henry

      Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis (Rossendale)

      O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

      Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

      O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

      Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds)

      O'Doherty, Philip

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

      Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire)

      O'Donnell, Thomas

      Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

      O'Dowd, John

      90

      91

      NOES.

      Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

      Gardner, Ernest

      Neville, Reginald J. N.

      Amery, L. C. M. S.

      Gastrell, Major W. Houghton

      Newman, John R. P.

      Anson, Rt. Hon. Sir William R.

      Gilmour, Captain John

      Newton, Harry Kottingham

      Anstruther-Gray, Major William

      Glazebrook, Capt. Philip K.

      Nield, Herbert

      Archer-Shee, Major M.

      Goldman, C. S.

      Ormsby-Gore, Hon William

      Ashley, Wilfrid W.

      Gordon, Hon. John Edward (Brighton)

      Parkes, Ebenezer

      Baird, John Lawrence

      Greene, Walter Raymond

      Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

      Balcarres, Lord

      Gretton, John

      Peel, Captain R. F.

      Baldwin, Stanley

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

      Perkins, Walter F.

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

      Gwynn, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne)

      Peto, Basil Edward

      Banbury, Sir Frederick George

      Hambro, Angus Valdemar

      Pollock, Ernest Murray

      Barnston, Harry

      Harris, Henry Percy

      Pryce-Jones, Col. E.

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

      Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

      Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

      Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton)

      Henderson, Major H. (Berks)

      Rees, Sir J. D.

      Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

      Hewins, William Albert Samuel

      Samuel, Sir Harry (Norwood)

      Bird, Alfred

      Hill, Sir Clement L.

      Sanders, Robert Arthur

      Blair, Reginald

      Hills, John Waller

      Sanderson, Lancelot

      Boyton, James

      Hoare, Sir J. G.

      Sandys, G. J.

      Bull, Sir William James

      Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy

      Smith, Harold (Warrington)

      Burdett-Coutts, W.

      Hope, Major J. A. (Midlothian)

      Spear, Sir John Ward

      Burn, Colonel C. R.

      Home, E. (Surrey, Guildford)

      Strauss, Arthur (Paddington, Nortn)

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

      Hume-Williams, W. E.

      Swift, Rigby

      Campion, W. R.

      Hunt, Rowland

      Sykes, Mark (Hull, Central)

      Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred

      Ingleby, Holcombe

      Talbot, Lord E.

      Cassel, Felix

      Jessel, Captain H. M.

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

      Cautley, Henry Strother

      Joynson-Hicks, William

      Terrell, Henry (Gloucester)

      Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

      Kebty-Fletcher, J. R.

      Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Down, North)

      Cecil, Lord Hugh (Oxford Univ.)

      Kerry, Earl of

      Touche, George Alexander

      Cecil, Lord R. (Herts, Hitchin)

      Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

      Tryon, Captain George Clement

      Chaloner, Col. R. G. W.

      Lane-Fox, G. R.

      Valentia, Viscount

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

      Larmor, Sir J.

      Wairond, Hon. Lionel

      Clyde, J. Avon

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

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

      Craig, Ernest (Cheshire, Crewe)

      Lewisham, Viscount

      Willoughby, Major Hon. Claud

      Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

      Lonsdale, Sir John Brownlee

      Wolmer, Viscount

      Crichton-Stuart, Lord Ninian

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

      Worthington-Evans, L.

      Dalziel, Davison (Brixton)

      Magnus, Sir Philip

      Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

      Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott

      Malcolm, Ian

      Yate, Colonel C. E.

      Faber, George Denison (lapham)

      Mallaby-Deeley, Harry

      Younger, Sir George

      Falle, Bertram Godfray

      Middlemore, John Throgmorton

      Fell, Arthur

      Mildmay, Francis Bingham

      TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr.

      Fletcher, John Samuel (Hampstead)

      Moore, William

      S. Roberts and Mr. Montague Barlow.

      Forster, Henry William

      Mount, William Arthur

      Three Tellers only presented themselves at the Table.
      The CHAIRMAN: We will take the result of the Division with three Tellers.
      Mr. BOOTH: On a point of Order. With regard to the last Division, might we know what has happened to the missing Teller? Has some accident happened to him or will his absence be placed on record?
      6.0 P.M.
      Mr. KING: On the same point, ought the hon. Member's vote to be counted? I maintain that it ought not to be counted.
      The CHAIRMAN: The Tellers' votes are not counted.

      CLAUSE 20.—(Vacancies during Suspensory Period.)
      If any vacancy occurs in any ecclesiastical office in the Church in Wales, between the passing of this Act and the date of Disestablishment—

      (1) His Majesty the King may in the case of a vacant bishopric, on the peti-
      92
      tion of the Archbishop of Canterbury, or of any three Welsh bishops, nominate a person to fill the vacancy; but any bishop so nominated shall not be summoned to or be qualified to sit in the House of Lords, and shall be subject to the provisions-hereinafter mentioned:

      (2) Any other vacancy may be filled by an appointment made by the same person in the same manner as if this Act had not passed:

      (3) A person nominated or appointed to any office in pursuance of this Section shall not be liable to pay any first fruits in respect of appointment to the office, or any tenths in respect of the office, but his interest as respects the office to which he is so nominated or appointed shall not be an existing interest within the meaning of this Act:

      (4) If the person so nominated or appointed was at the passing of this Act the holder of any other ecclesiastical office in the Church in Wales he shall, until the date of Disestablish-

      93
      ment, pay over to the bishop of the diocese the net income of the last-mentioned office, who shall thereout make such provision for the discharge of the spiritual duties of that office as he may think proper until the date of Disestablishment.

      Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: I beg to move, in Sub-section (1), to leave out the words "the Archbishop of Canterbury, or of."
      As the Amendment stands in my name, it is simply to substitute the words "shall" for "may," but my object is to ascertain which of the two alternatives is most desirable, and as my Amendment stands, the Clause will read—
      "His Majesty the King may, in the case of a vacant bishopric, on the petition of any three Welsh bishops, nominate a person to fill the vacancy."
      If the Government do not like that, I am prepared to leave out the three Welsh bishops and bring in a subsequent Amendment to leave in the Archbishop of Canterbury. I want to find out what the Government think is the proper course to take to fill up any vacancy. There is another Amendment that may be necessary. Two of the Welsh bishops may die at about the same time, and, therefore, it would be necessary to make an alteration in that respect. But the definite point I want to raise in this connection is as to the actual position of the Archbishop of Canterbury in this matter. Is the Archbishop as Metropolitan abolished altogether, or do you leave his Court as the ultimate jurisdiction of the Disestablished Church? You still require his consent to certain things being done under Clause 13, but why is the Archbishop of Canterbury brought in here, and why, if you bring him in, do you put this alternative? I do not say it is likely to arise, but there might conceivably be friction between the Disestablished bishop and the Established Archbishop of Canterbury. Why should a petition be necessary to fill up a vacancy between the passing of this Act and the actual date of Disestablishment? It does not appear to me that it is at all necessary, but, if it be so, I am anxious to know on what ground the Government intend to go. Further, I would like to know what would be the jurisdiction and position of the Archbishop of Canterbury in the Disestablished Church of Wales. Is it binding that the Disestablished Church should regard the Archbishop of Canterbury as its Metropolitan,
      94
      or is it going to be possible for that Church to set up her own Metropolitan without altering the terms of this Act?
      Mr. HOBHOUSE: I take it that the hon. Member, in moving this Amendment, did so in order to get an explanation as to what is our policy in this matter. During the course of his remarks he quoted certain words from the Clause dealing with vacancies which occur between the passing of this Act and the date of Disestablishment; that is to say, during the suspensory period. But if he will look back to the-first Clause of the Bill he will see that Disestablishment does not take place until after the appointed day; until, accordingly, the second period has been reached, the Church is not Disestablished and the Archbishop of Canterbury remains head of the Church in Wales and remains Metropolitan, and in the same relevant position to the bishops as at the present moment. No difference takes place at all until after the date of Disestablishment. I should have thought that there would be no desire on the part of the Church to get rid of the authority and power they may now exercise sooner than they are actually bound to do so. What would happen during the suspensory period would be-this: It is desirable, presumably, that the-vacancy in a bishopric should be filled up, otherwise the organisation of the Church might be seriously incommoded. It might result in disorganisation; therefore it is desirable, from the point of view of the Church, to appoint someone to the vacancy as soon as possible. But it is not desirable, I think, to further introduce the power of the State as a controlling connection with the Church. It is not desirable to bring in the Prime Minister for the time being. But I think it is desirable to get the opinion of the Welsh clergy as represented by their bishops or as represented by the Metropolitan. Therefore we have provided that on the petition of the Archbishop of Canterbury, or of any three Welsh bishops, the King may be asked to fill the vacancy. It is desirable to provide for an alternative as more than one> bishopric might be vacant at the same moment. It is a matter for the Welsh Church itself to decide whether it desires to continue its connection with the Archbishop of Canterbury, and we should be willing to accept its decision in that matter. But I repeat it may be necessary to reduce the number of Welsh bishops, who may have to subscribe to the petition.
      Mr. BALFOUR: Are they going to recommend the name to the King?
      Lord ROBERT CECIL: It is not stated.
      Mr. BALFOUR: But is it contemplated?
      Mr. HOBHOUSE: I do not see how I can go so far as to say that.
      Mr. BALFOUR: But who, except the Prime Minister, is to suggest a name to the King?
      Mr. HOBHOUSE: I confess the right hon. Gentleman has put me in a dilemma, and, for the moment, I cannot answer his question. But after that happy intervention on his part, I wish to point out that what we desire to do is to meet the views of the Welsh Church in this matter. It may be necessary to reduce the number of Welsh bishops signing a petition from three to two. We think it ought to be more than one.
      Lord ROBERT CECIL: I must say that the answer given by the right hon. Gentleman is most extraordinary. We have a definite proposal that the Archbishop and the Welsh bishops are to petition the Grown to nominate a person to fill a vacant bishopric while the Welsh Church is still Established. My impression is that in the early stages of our history it was settled, as a constitutional doctrine, that the Crown is not entitled to keep bishoprics vacant. That was, I believe, one of the matters disputed between the barons and King John at Runnymede. It was a question how long the Crown was entitled to keep a bishopric vacant. The stipend of the bishops went to the Crown while the bishopric was vacant, and, naturally, that was a strong recommendation to King John, who was always in want of money, to keep a bishopric vacant as long as he could; indeed, it was another form of Disendowment, a little cruder, perhaps, than that now before the Committee. This proposal is merely to provide that the Archbishop and three Welsh bishops may petition the Crown to do its obvious constitutional duty. That is the whole of this case. It cannot be right. It cannot possibly be the intention of the Government, and I imagine that the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster was wrong when he hastily answered the question of my right hon. Friend, and when he said that the name would not be submitted by the Archbishop and the three bishops. In that case we have a curious and unique constitutional position, namely, that the King
      96
      shall act, not on the advice of any of his Ministers, but on the advice of the Archbishop.
      Mr. HOBHOUSE: It is clear that I made a mistake. What I wanted to suggest to the House was, not that the Prime Minister should not nominate, but that it was not desirable to bring in the Government and the State to a greater extent than was absolutely necessary. It might well be that the Welsh Church might not desire to have a third or fourth bishop, and if they did not present a petition a bishopric might not be filled up.
      Lord ROBERT CECIL: I am still a little at a loss to understand the matter. Put in plain English, is the suggestion this, that the Welsh Church may distrust the existing Prime Minister, and may think that he will make a thoroughly partisan appointment? I should never make such a suggestion about the present Prime Minister, for, so far as his ecclesiastical appointments have been concerned, he has certainly been free from any bias of that kind. If that is not the suggestion, why should not the Welsh Church want the bishopric filled up? The Church cannot act without the bishop, who exists for carrying on the work of the Church. Do the Government really seriously say that they are putting some eight or ten lines of print into the Bill merely to provide for the extremely unlikely contingency that if there is a vacancy in a Welsh bishopric the Welsh bishops or the Archbishop of Canterbury would not require that bishopric to be filled up, or that the Crown should not nominate somebody to it? The Clause has, to my mind, an interesting aspect, quite apart from what the Chancellor of the Duchy has said. We have been told that one of the great evils of an Established Church is this appointment on the recommendation of the Prime Minister. What the Government really suggest to the Committee is how very easily that anomaly, if it be an anomaly, can be obviated without any Disestablishment of the Church at all. The Government are apparently anxious to show how little necessary their Bill really is, because they provide for such a case. I cannot think that the right hon. Gentleman is right in thinking that the provisions of the Clause will be held to mean that the archbishop or bishops may petition for a bishopric to be filled up. I think it must mean that they would petition the Crown to nominate a particular person, and that the Prime

      97
      Minister would then take the constitutional responsibility of nominating that person. If that is the real intention, there is a good deal to be said for the Clause, but I think it shows what nonsense is all the talk about the necessity of Disestablishment in order to get rid of the undue control of the State over the Church. It is obvious, if there is anything in it, that this Clause shows one of the very many ways by which all such anomalies could be removed without any displacement of the general connection between religion and the State.
      Sir JOHN JARDINE: The Clause as it stands is in need of amendment by way of making it much clearer than it is. The word "may," taken with the context, appears to be ambiguous. It may have to be interpreted as "shall." Possibly it means that if the Crown believes, on the advice of its Ministers, that the Welsh Church does not wish a particular bishopric to be filled up, that the Prime Minister might interpret the word "may" as giving him liberty not to fill up the vacant see. As the words stand, the power of nomination appears to be given to the Crown in the ordinary way, that is, on the advice of the Prime Minister. I quite agree with the Noble Lord opposite (Lord Robert Cecil) that the Crown has plenty of means of ascertaining and ought to ascertain, under the present law, whether any particular bishopric does happen to be vacant. Is the word "nominate" to be read as nominating the person recommended by the Archbishop of Canterbury or by the three Welsh bishops? If so, it seems to open up a serious question as to the government of the future Episcopal Church in Wales. I do not doubt that many Churchmen would not like the vacancies that occur in the interregnum to be filled up by the Archbishop of Canterbury or the three Welsh bishops. The present system has gone on for a long time, and I have heard hon. Members on both sides praise the Prime Minister for the way in which he makes appointments. I should like to know how we are to interpret this Clause. I see no reason whatever for doing away with the existing responsibility of the Prime Minister during this period. I think it would be fairer to the Welsh nation that he should make the appointments, rather than any theologian, however attached to the Church he might be. In any circumstances, I ask that, first, it should be made perfectly clear as to the powers of the Crown to fill up a
      98
      vacancy which occurs in the interregnum; and, secondly, whether the right of the Crown to fill up vacancies is to be diminished by handing it over to authorities which cannot be made responsible to the House of Commons.
      Mr. BALFOUR: I am afraid I put some questions to the right hon. Gentleman, the Chancellor of Duchy, at a rather inconvenient moment just now, when he was defending the Clause. Perhaps now that he has had a few minutes to think it over, he will make the intentions of the Government, when they drafted this Sub-section, quite clear. There are two or three possible meanings which the Clause may have. It may mean, as my Noble Friend (Lord Robert Cecil) has suggested, that the bishopric might be left vacant when it ought to be filled up. As my Noble Friend pointed out, the Church not being Disestablished, that is contrary to constitutional law. Therefore I dismiss that. The Subsection may mean that when a bishopric is vacant a name may be suggested to the Crown; in other words, advice may be given to the Crown either by the three Welsh bishops or by the Archbishop of Canterbury by petition. The understanding would then be that the Crown would probably take the advice so given, or at all events that the Crown would be in the same relation to the archbishop or the three Welsh bishops, as the case may be, as he is in now to the Prime Minister, who advises him in the case of an ordinary vacancy. I cannot believe that that can be the real meaning of the Clause for two reasons; in the first place, it seems to me that two different people may be nominated by these two authorities. Three Welsh bishops might nominate one man, and the Archbishop of Canterbury might nominate another man. The position of a constitutional monarch is sufficiently difficult already without asking him to take the advice of two people who advise him to take two directly different courses. Therefore I cannot believe that that is the intention of the Government. There remains the third, and, so far as I can see, the only remaining alternative, which is that either the three Welsh bishops or the Archbishop of Canterbury may by a petition to the Crown set the Prime Minister in motion and cause him to recommend to the Crown one, or more than one, name for the bishopric, in which case the Prime Minister would remain what he is now, the adviser of the Crown in the matter of filling up the Welsh

      99
      See. That is the only third alternative, but if that is the alternative, what on earth is the meaning of the last sentence of Sub-section (1), which says that the nominated bishop shall not in any circumstances be qualified to sit in the House of Lords? Why should he not be qualified to sit in the House of Lords? I suppose because he>s not to sit in the House of Lords after Disestablishment. But by hypothesis the Church is not Disestablished during this period, and why should a man who is recommended to the Crown for a Welsh bishopric during the period when the Welsh Church is not Disestablished not sit in the House of Lords?
      Mr. KING: On a point of Order. Is this in order on this Amendment?
      Mr. BALFOUR: If the hon. Member will consider the matter, he will see that I am asking questions which are almost suggested by the Government's reply as to the meaning of the Sub-section and the bearing of the last sentence of the Subsection on the meaning of the first sentence of the Sub-section. I ask what meaning the last sentence of the Sub-section can have, if the meaning of the first sentence is that the Prime Minister shall in reality be the adviser of the Crown in the matter of filling up the bishopric, although the pure formality is gone through of setting him in motion, either by the three Welsh bishops or the archbishop himself. I think I have made my questions quite clear. They touch interesting constitutional points on which I should like to hear the great constitutional authorities who are now sitting on the Front Bench. They are very important to the welfare of the Welsh Church, and I think they are legitimately raised by this Clause, and I hope we shall have a clear answer.
      Mr. HOBHOUSE: I think it will be satisfactory to the right hon. Gentleman and to the Committee if I answer at once. The right hon. Gentleman asked me three questions. He asks, would the King not fill up the bishopric? If he received no petition he would not proceed to fill the bishopric.
      Mr. BALFOUR: Under the existing law?
      Mr. HOBHOUSE: Under this Clause—
      Mr. BALFOUR: Perhaps I did not put the matter quite clearly. I have not gone into it, but I am disposed to agree with
      100
      the version of our present Constitution given by my Noble Friend (Lord Robert Cecil). He said that under the existing law the Crown cannot keep a bishopric in the Established Church vacant. This Church is Established by hypothesis during the whole period that this Clause will operate. Therefore the existing constitutional law is sufficient to set all the machinery of the Constitution at work to prevent a bishopric remaining vacant.
      Mr. HOBHOUSE: The King will not in future fill up the bishopric unless he gets a petition asking him to do so.
      Mr. BALFOUR: He must.
      Mr. HOBHOUSE: That is the intention of this Bill, after it becomes law.
      Mr. BALFOUR: There is nothing in this Clause to relieve the Crown of that constitutional duty. The Sub-section does not say that the Crown shall not fill up the vacancy at all. If it said that, of course the Crown would be relieved of the constitutional duty of filling up the bishopric. I say the Crown must fill it up.
      Mr. HOBHOUSE: The Sub-section says:—
      "His Majesty the King may in the case of a vacant bishopric, on the petition of the Archbishop of Canterbury… nominate a person to fill the vacancy."
      The word "may" in that respect means "shall." It means "shall" on a petition. Unless the King receives that petition there is no obligation upon him to fill up a vacancy. That is my reading of the Clause, and that is the answer I give to the righthon. Gentleman's first question. The second question he asked is, "Who is to advise the Crown?" My answer to that is quite clear, the Prime Minister. His third question was, "What is to be the position of the bishop in the House of Lords?" It seems to us that as we are going to Disestablish the Church, and as the tenure of the newly appointed bishop of his seat in the House of Lords will be of a fleeting and temporary character, it would be very much better during that short period—it can only be a short period —that he should not be a Member of the House of Lords.
      Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: I am really taken rather by surprise in regard to this Clause. I agree that "may" means "shall," and that the meaning of the

      101
      Clause is that His Majesty shall nominate on petition from the archbishop, but supposing there is no petition? The point made by the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Balfour) is absolutely unanswered. If the Clause was struck out of the Bill there is still the liability upon the Crown by the Constitution of this realm to appoint a new bishop. You cannot leave a bishopric vacant.
      The UNDER-SECRETARY for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Ellis Griffith): Clause 1 says "Save as by this Act provided, no person shall, after the passing of this Act, be appointed or nominated by His Majesty or any person." Does not the hon. Member think that meets his point?
      Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: I am bound to confess I think the hon. and learned Gentleman has found an answer. Subject to further consideration I think it is quite possible that in Clause 1 you have limited the power of the Crown to appoint bishops, and if the Crown did not fill up a bishopric the answer would be found by the provisions of Section 1 of the Act. The last paragraph of Clause 1 of the Bill possibly refers to appointments after the passing of the Act. I will leave that point and take the second point. On the ordinary reading of Sub-section (1) of Clause 20, I was extraordinarily astonished when the Chancellor of the Duchy told us it was the Prime Minister and not the bishops who was going to nominate: "His Majesty the King may in the case of a vacant bishopric, on the petition of the Archbishop of Canterbury, nominate a person to fill the vacancy." It does not say "shall on the petition of the archbishop." I think that ought to be put in if the petition was merely one to fill a vacancy, leaving the appointment of the name to the Prime Minister. Under the actual reading of the words here the petition is one to nominate a specific person to the vacant bishopric. That certainly is my reading of the language of the Clause, and I think it is the right reading. The State says "we are going to Disestablish the Church at the earliest possible moment. We will have no further connection with the Church. We will leave it to manage its own affairs." Hon. Members opposite congratulate the Church that they are going to get out of the shackles of the connection with the State, and many hon. Members have told us they are specially going to get out of the appointment of their bishops by the Crown.
      102
      By the provisions of this Bill you are going to Disestablish the Church. The Church is, after the passing of this Act, Disestablished, Disestablishment dating from a date a few months ahead, but when the Act is passed Disestablishment is complete, and it will take place at a date fixed under the provisions of this Bill. That being so, I suggest that they have no right, having once Disestablished the Church, to cling to the patronage which the Establishment of the Church gives them. They have no right, if a vacancy occurs in the suspensory period when the Church is already Disestablished by law, to cling to their privileges and appoint a vacant bishopric. The Church in Wales would feel that a rather intolerable hardship-after the Act is passed, after they know they are going to be Disestablished, not to take the nomination of the Welsh bishops or the archbishop, but to appoint anyone they like and fetter the Church for the next twenty or thirty years with a new bishop of their own appointment. I appeal to Welsh Members. I do not think that is fair. This is not a monetary concession. I appeal to the hon. Member (Sir D. Brynmor Jones). During the suspensory period they should let us appoint our own bishops.
      Sir D. BRYNMOR JONES: The hon. Gentleman has appealed to me. I can only say, in answer to him, it appears to me that the whole of this Clause 20 is inserted for the benefit of the Church in Wales. It is evident that the remarks of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Balfour) were misconceived, because he had not observed Clause 1 of the Bill which put an end once for all, from the date of the passing of the Act, and not from the date of Disestablishment, to the right of the Crown to appoint any bishops at all. Therefore, the view that we take of this Clause is that it is inserted, as several other Clauses have been, in order to make the transition of the Church in Wales as now Established to the position of the Church in Wales when Disestablished, as easy as possible, and to secure that the Disestablished Church shall start under the freest possible auspices with a view of being an effective National Church. The actual question before us is whether the words "of the Archbishop of Canterbury, or" ought to remain in. There, again, I have only to say that we do not care whether the words "Archbishop of Canterbury, or" are in or are not in. The whole of this Clause, and of many other

      103
      Clauses of the Bill, is devoted to the object I have said. I am sure I do not misinterpret the view of the Home Secretary when I say he would be quite willing, if upon consideration it is really desirable to leave out the words proposed to be left out, that they ought to be left out. At any rate in answer to the appeal made from the other side, I should say we are only anxious to comply with any reasonable wishes which may conduce to the welfare of the Disestablished Church.
      Mr. WYNDHAM: Whatever be the intention of the Clause, it is very important that the Committee should understand its bearings. In Clause 1 occur the words referred to by the Under-Secretary, which prima facie lay down that after the passing of the Act no person shall be appointed by His Majesty, or otherwise, save as hereafter provided. It is quite clear that the subsequent provisions in the Clause make no difference except in the case of the bishops, because Sub-section (2) says all is to go on until the date of the operation of the Act. Therefore the area is limited, and we have to consider the case o? vacancies in the bishoprics. Subsection (1), in spite of Clause 1, declares that His Majesty, if he makes an appointment, is to make it on the advice of the Prime Minister, but the relief from the obligations of the Constitution in Clause 1 shall not obtain if either the Archbishop of Canterbury or the three Welsh bishops invite the Prime Minister to make an appointment. If no representation is made by the Archbishop of Canterbury or the three Welsh bishops, then the bishopric remains vacant, but if cither of those parties, or both of them, ask to have the sees filled up, the see will be filled up by the Prime Minister as is now the case.
      Sir D. BRYNMOR JONES: May be.
      Mr. WYNDHAM: If no petition is put forward from these two quarters, the archbishop or the three bishops, the vacancy is not filled. If a petition is put forward from one or other or both, the Prime Minister fills the vacancy. That is the effect of the Clause. My hon. Friend said, "Why do you not allow the Welsh Church to settle that matter?" There is a good deal to be said for that suggestion, but is it possible till the Act comes into operation? I do not think it is. There are two alternatives, and only two. The first is that the vacancy is not filled up; the second is that the vacancy is filled up
      104
      by the Prime Minister only if he is asked to fill it up by the archbishop or the three bishops. Take the choice which is left to the Church. Supposing they prefer that the nomination should not be made by the Prime Minister, as the law now stands the Endowment of that bishopric would be lost during the interval. When the bishopric is not filled up, as the Constitution now stands, would it go to the representative body?
      Mr. McKENNA: No.
      Lord HUGH CECIL: To the Crown.
      Mr. WYNDHAM: That is my point. If the Welsh Church wishes that the appointment should be absolutely in their hands, and not in the hands of the Prime Minister, then during the interval between the vacancy of the see and the day of the Act coming into operation the stipend would be lost to the Church. That seems very wrong, to put, so to speak, monetary compulsion upon the Church. You allow the Prime Minister to fill up the vacancy, and that ought to be got rid of.
      Lord HUGH CECIL: I wish to say a word on the Clause, because I have observed that the Government have never called attention to what is merely the existing machinery for appointing a bishop, which it seems unnecessary to alter in the way they suggest. The present proceeding would be, of course, that the Crown should issue a letter to the Dean and Chapter of the see which is vacant, nominating a particular person. Surely far the simplest way of getting out of the difficulty is simply to allow the Dean and Chapter a congé d'élire without any directions from the Crown. There was generally a great row in medieval times between the King, the Pope, and the monks of the cathedral which of the three should appoint to a vacant bishopric, and I do not remember that the Archbishop of Canterbury ever claimed the right to appoint bishops belonging to a Metropolitan see. The Dean and Chapter, of course, represent the old electors, and do, as a matter of fact, elect. Can there be anything more cumbrous than that the archbishop or the Welsh bishops should petition, then the Crown should issue a congé d'élire to the Dean a"d Chapter, who also issue a letter nominating a person? If you wish to give the deans the freedom of the ecclesistical authority between the passing of the Act and the date of Disestablishment, which I con-

      105
      ceive is the grand purpose of this Clause, surely the simple plan is to empower the Dean and Chapter to exercise the power of nomination, which they have now, for the filling up any vacancy that happens to take place during the interval. There is another obscurity in the Clause. What will happen in other cases of Crown patronage? I gather that they are all to stand over. Sub-section (3) says—
      "Any other vacancy may be filled by an appointment made by the same person in the same manner as if this Act had not passed."
      There is a very elaborate provision in Sub-section (4), which says—
      "If the person so nominated or appointed was at the passing of this Act the holder of any other ecclesiastical office in the Church in Wales he shall, until the date of Disestablishment, pay over to the bishop of the diocese the net income of the last-mentioned office, who shall thereout make such provision for the discharge of the spiritual duties of that office as he may think proper until the date of Disestablishment."
      My reason for mentioning that in this connection is this: As the right hon. Gentleman knows, if a man is appointed to a bishopric from a benefice, the next appointment to that benefice goes to the Crown. I do not understand how Subsections (1), (2), and (4) work together. Supposing the incumbent of a benefice in private patronage was appointed to a bishopric under Subsection (1), the Crown under Sub-section (2) would not have the right to fill up the vacancy. The provision in Sub-section (4) seems to indicate that the office should be kept vacant. The former incumbent will receive the money and pay it over to the bishop of the diocese, who will make provision for the discharge of the spiritual duties of the vacant office. What I do not understand is why Sub-section (4) is necessary if Subsection (2) applies, as I suppose it does apply, to cases where persons have been promoted from an inferior office to a bishopric.
      Mr. McKENNA: He retains his life interest. A person who was in office A, and is transferred to office B, retains the emoluments of office A, but has to pay some person to the date of Disestablishment. He pays the net income over to the bishop under Sub-section (4) to the date of Disestablishment, and after that date he pays over the emoluments to the representative body.
      Lord HUGH CECIL: Surely the words at the conclusion of Sub-section (4) suggest that the office is vacant, and that you do not make provision for the performance of the spiritual duties.
      Mr. McKENNA: There is no obligation upon the Disestablished Church to fill up the incumbency. If they choose to fill it up, then the bishop can make payment for the services of the incumbent out of the life interest of the incumbent who has been transferred to another living.
      Lord HUGH CECIL: My point is this. A person who is an incumbent is nominated to a bishopric. The Crown fills up the vacancy under the existing law, if it is still in force, and a vacancy is so created. The duties of the vacant benefice must be discharged by the person who accepts the incumbency. I am afraid this is going beyond the limits of order, but I raise the point now because this is the only opportunity we shall have of discussing the matter in Committee. The simplest way out of the difficulty would be to leave the Dean and Chapter to fill up the vacancy, and in that way make the minimum alteration of the existing law until the Church has power to regulate the matter by its own representative body. The matter is very intricate, and, judging from their answers, I do not think the Government have considered it very closely. I would suggest that they should bring up an Amendment to the Clause on the Report stage.
      Mr. McKENNA: I think the matter might be settled now. This Clause is precisely similar to the one in the Irish Church Act. We are quite willing to accept the Amendment. The provision made by this Clause is only for the short interval between the passing of the Act, and the date of Disestablishment. As to the proposal of the Noble Lord, the' objection to it, I think, is a serious one. Although the Dean and Chapter are supposed to elect the bishop, they do not in fact do so. The Prime Minister appoints the bishop. It may be that the Home Secretary has recommended the man. It might be said that no person should be appointed to a bishopric except one who would be agreeable to the Welsh Church. We meet that so far as Ave can. We say that he shall only be appointed on the petition of the Archbishop of Canterbury, or of any three Welsh bishops. If hon. Members like, we will limit it to the petition of any three Welsh bishops.
      Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: The petition of the archbishop, or of the three Welsh bishops, would include a name, and that name would go forward as the nominee.
      Mr. McKENNA: It may include a name. They might say, "We desire to present a petition for this name, and if it is not accepted, we will not present a petition." In practice what would happen would be that the three Welsh bishops would agree upon the person most suitable for the appointment, and they would petition that that person be appointed. Only upon these terms would the candidate in question be appointed. There are no emoluments attaching to this office in future— or rather only such emoluments as the Disestablished Church chooses to give. Consequently the Prime Minister would be bound to accept the recommendation made. As regards the point raised by the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Wyndham) that if they did not petition, they would lose the amount of the emoluments during the period that no bishop is appointed. I do not think there is much in the point. The amount of money would be small in any case. If there was no bishop, there would be nobody to whom the money could be paid. This would only be for a month or two.
      Sir J. JARDINE: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman what is to be done if the archbishop nominates one person and the three Welsh bishops nominate another?
      Mr. McKENNA: We need not exaggerate our difficulties. We are willing to accept the Amendment moved by the hon. Member.
      Mr. WYNDHAM: The Home Secretary seems to think that the point which I raised has no serious value. Why should we put a pecuniary obligation on the exercise of the option? If the vacancy is not filled up, and if I hey prefer to take time to consider it, the money in the interim goes to the Crown. Why should it go to the Crown? Why should it not, on your own premises, go to the representative body? Why should we not have an Amendment on Report carrying out that view?
      Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: In view of the speech of the Home Secretary, I think I must ask leave to withdraw the Amendment. There is not time to discuss the matter now in the way it should be dis-
      108
      cussed. We shall certainly divide against the Clause, for it is very unsatisfactory. I moved my Amendment for the purpose of eliciting some explanation from the Government. I do not think it would make the Clause very much better if it were accepted. I think the subject ought to be considered by the Government in the spirit they have shown this afternoon, namely, that they desire to do in this matter what the Church wishes. I think, after we have consulted the. Welsh bishops and the Archbishop of Canterbury, an Amendment can be put down for the Report stage. I hope the Home Secretary will give attention to this matter in the meantime.
      Mr. POLLOCK: If the Home Secretary's view of the Clause is the right one, then the Sub-section must be altered slightly. He must say "the three remaining Welsh bishops." If one bishop has died, then there ought to be three left. Under the Sub-section as it stands you might have a collocation of three other bishops. You should put in words to the effect that the petition is to be by the Archbishop of Canterbury or all the remaining Welsh bishops. You cannot have "any three." If you leave in the words "any three," it might be supposed that you were to include the Bishop of Hereford.
      Mr. McKENNA: If the hon. Member would move to substitute the words "the surviving" for "any three," I would accept the Amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      Mr. POLLOCK: I beg to move, in Subsection (1), to leave out the words "any three" ["or of any three Welsh bishops"], and to insert instead thereof the words "the surviving."
      Amendment agreed to.
      It being Seven of the clock, the CHAIRMAN proceeded, pursuant to the Order of the House of the 28th November, 1912, to put the Question necessary to dispose of the business to be concluded at Seven of the clock at this day's sitting.
      Question put, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
      The Committee divided: Ayes, 275; Noes, 155.

      Division No. 528.]

      AYES.

      [7.0 p.m.

      Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour)

      Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

      Morrell, Philip

      Acland, Francis Dyke

      Goldstone, Frank

      Morison, Hector

      Adamson, William

      Greenwood, Granville G. (Peterborough)

      Morton, Alpheus Cleeophas

      Addison, Dr. Christopher

      Greenwood, Hamar (Sunderland)

      Muldoon, John

      Agnew, Sir George William

      Greig, Colonel J. W.

      Munro, R.

      Ainsworth, John Stirling

      Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

      Munro-Ferguson, Rt. Hon R. C.

      Alden, Percy

      Griffith, Ellis J.

      Murray, Capt. Hon. A. C.

      Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbarton)

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

      Neilson, Francis

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

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

      Nicholson, Sir C. N. (Doncaster)

      Arnold, Sydney

      Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

      Nolan, Joseph

      Asquith, Rt. Hon Herbert Henry

      Hackett, J.

      Norton, Captain Cecil W.

      Baker, H. T. (Accrington)

      Hail, F. (Yorks, Normanton)

      Nugent, Sir Walter Richard

      Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.)

      Hancock, John George

      Nuttall, Harry

      Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

      Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)

      O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

      Baring, Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple)

      Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

      O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

      Barnes, G. N.

      Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds)

      O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

      Beale, Sir William Phipson

      Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire)

      O'Doherty, Philip

      Beauchamp, Sir Edward

      Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

      O'Donnell, Thomas

      Beck, Arthur Cecil

      Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)

      O'Dowd, John

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

      Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

      O'Grady, James

      Bethell, Sir J. H.

      Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

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

      Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

      Hayward, Evan

      O'Malley, William

      Black, Arthur W.

      Hazleton, Richard

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

      Boland, John Plus

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

      O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

      Booth, Frederick Handel

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

      O'Shee, James John

      Bowerman, C. W.

      Henry, Sir Charles

      O'Sullivan, Timothy

      Boyle, D. (Mayo, N.)

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

      Outhwaite, R. L.

      Brace, William

      Higham, John Sharp

      Palmer, Godfrey Mark

      Brady, P. J.

      Hinds, John

      Parker, James (Halifax)

      Brocklehurst, W. B.

      Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

      Pearce, William Limehouse)

      Brunner, John F. L.

      Hodge, John

      Pearson, Hon. Weetman H. M.

      Bryce, J. Annan

      Hogge, James Myles

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

      Buckmaster, Stanley O.

      Holmes, Daniel Turner

      Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

      Burke, E. Haviland-

      Howard, Hon Geoffrey

      Pollard, Sir George H.

      Burns, Rt. Hon. John

      Hudson, Walter

      Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

      Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

      Hughes, S. L.

      Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

      Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, North)

      Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus

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

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

      John, Edward Thomas

      Primrose, Hon. Neil James

      Bytes, Sir William Pollard

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

      Pringle, William M. R.

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

      Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)

      Radford, G. H.

      Chapple, Dr. William Allen

      Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)

      Rattan, Peter Wilson

      Clancy, John Joseph

      Jones, Leif Stratten (Rushcliffe)

      Raphael, Sir Herbert Henry

      Clough, William

      Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

      Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields)

      Collins, Godfrey P. (Greenock)

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

      Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

      Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

      Joyce, Michael

      Reddy, M.

      Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J.

      Keating, Matthew

      Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

      Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

      Kennedy, Vincent Paul

      Redmond, William (Clare, E.)

      Cotton, William Francis

      Kilbride, Denis

      Richards, Thomas

      Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

      King, J.

      Richardson, Albion (Peckham)

      Crawshay-Williams, Eliot

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

      Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

      Crumley, Patrick

      Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

      Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

      Cullinan, J.

      Lardner, James Carrige Rushe

      Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

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

      Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, West)

      Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)

      Davies, E. William (Eifion)

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

      Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

      Davies, Timothy (Lines., Louth)

      Leach, Charles

      Robertson, John M. (Tyneside)

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

      Levy, Sir Maurice

      Robinson, Sidney

      Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardiganshire)

      Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

      Roche, Augustine (Louth)

      Dawes, James Arthur

      Low, Sir Frederick (Norwich)

      Roche, John (Galway, E.)

      De Forest, Baron

      Lundon, Thomas

      Roe, Sir Thomas

      Delany, William

      Lyell, Charles Henry

      Rowlands, James

      Denman, Hon. R. D.

      Lynch, A. A.

      Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

      Devlin, Joseph

      McGhee, Richard

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

      Dickinson, W. H.

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

      Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

      Dillon, John

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

      Scanlan, Thomas

      Donelan, Captain A.

      Macpherson, James Ian

      Schwann, Rt. Hon. Sir C. E.

      Doris, W.

      MacVeagh, Jeremiah

      Scott, A, MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)

      Duffy, William J.

      M'Callum, Sir John M.

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

      Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

      M'Curdy, Charles Albert

      Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

      Duncan, J. Hastings (Yorks, Otley)

      McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

      Sheehy, David

      Edwards, John Huqh (Glamorgan, Mid)

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

      Sherwell, Arthur James

      Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)

      M'Micking, Major Gilbert

      Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John Allsebrook

      Essex, Sir Richard Walter

      Manfield, Harry

      Smyth, Thomas F, (Leitrim, S.)

      Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles

      Marks, Sir George Croydon

      Snowden, Philip

      Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson

      Marshall, Arthur Harold

      Spicer, Rt. Hon. Sir Albert

      Ffrench, Peter

      Martin, Joseph

      Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)

      Field, William

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

      Sutherland, J. E.

      Fitzgibbon, John

      Meagher, Michael

      Sutton, John E.

      Flavin, Michael Joseph

      Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

      Taylor, John W. (Durham)

      France, G. A.

      Millar, James Duncan

      Taylor, Thomas (Bolton)

      Gilhooly, James

      Molloy, M.

      Tennant, Harold John

      Gill, A. H.

      Mond, Sir Alfred Moritz

      Thomas, J, H.

      Gladstone, W. G. C.

      Mooney, J. J.

      Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

      Glanville, Harold James

      Morgan, George Hay

      Thorne, William (West Ham)

      110

      111

      Toulmin, Sir George

      Watt, Henry A.

      Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

      Trevelyan, Charles Philips

      Webb, H.

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

      Verney, Sir Harry

      White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)

      Young, Samuel (Cavan, East)

      Wadsworth, J.

      White, Patrick (Meath, North)

      Young, William (Perth, East) -

      Walsh, Stephen (Lanes., Ince)

      Whitehouse, John Howard

      Yoxall, Sir James Henry

      Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

      Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.

      Wardle, George J.

      Whyte, A. F. (Perth)

      Waring, Walter

      Wiles, Thomas

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

      Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay

      Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthen)

      Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

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

      NOES.

      Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

      Glazebrook, Capt. Philip K.

      Parkes, Ebenezer

      Aitken, Sir William Max

      Goldman, C. S.

      Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

      Anson, Rt. Hon. Sir William R.

      Gordon, Hon. John Edward (Brighton)

      Peel, Captain R. F.

      Anstruther-Gray, Major William

      Goulding, Edward Alfred

      Perkins, Walter F.

      Ashley, W. W.

      Greene, W. R.

      Peto, Basil Edward

      Baird, J. L.

      Gretton, John

      Pollock, Ernest Murray

      Balcarres, Lord

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

      Pretyman, Ernest George

      Baldwin, Stanley

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

      Pryce-Jones, Col. E.

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

      Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne)

      Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

      Banbury, Sir Frederick George

      Hambro, Angus Valdemar

      Rees, Sir J. D.

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

      Harris, Henry Percy

      Remnant, James Farquharson

      Barlow, Montague (Salford, South)

      Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

      Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

      Barnston, Harry

      Helmsley, Viscount

      Rolleston, Sir John

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

      Henderson, Major H. (Berks, Abingdon)

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

      Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton)

      Hewins, William Albert Samuel

      Salter, Arthur Clavell

      Beckett, Hon. Gervase

      Hill, Sir Clement L.

      Samuel, Sir Harry (Norwood)

      Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

      Hills, John Waller

      Sanders, Robert A.

      Blair, Reginald

      Hill-Wood, Samuel

      Sanderson, Lancelot

      Boyle, William (Norfolk, Mid)

      Hoare, Samuel John Gurney

      Sandys, G. J.

      Boyton, James

      Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy

      Sassoon, Sir Philip

      Bull, Sir William James

      Hope, Major J. A. (Midlothian)

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

      Burdett-Coutts, W.

      Home, E. (Surrey, Guildford)

      Smith, Harold (Warrington)

      Burn, Colonel C. R.

      Hume-Williams, Wm. Ellis

      Spear, Sir John Ward

      Butcher, J. G.

      Hunt, Rowland

      Stanley, Hon. Arthur (Ormskirk)

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

      Hunter, Sir C. R.

      Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

      Campion, W. R.

      Ingleby, Holcombe

      Strauss, Arthur (Paddington, North)

      Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred

      Jessel, Captain H. M.

      Swift, Rigby

      Cassel, Felix

      Joynson-Hicks, William

      Sykes, Alan John (Ches., Knutsford)

      Cautley, H. S.

      Kebty-Fletcher, J. R.

      Sykes, Mark (Hull, Central)

      Cave, George

      Kerry, Earl of

      Talbot, Lord E.

      Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

      Kimber, Sir Henry

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

      Cecil, Lord Hugh (Oxford University)

      Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

      Terrell, H. (Gloucester)

      Cecil, Lord R. (Herts, Hitchin)

      Lane-Fox, G. R.

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

      Chaloner, Col. R. G. W.

      Larmor, Sir J,

      Touche, George Alexander

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

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

      Tryon, Capt. George Clement

      Clay, Capt. H. H. Spender

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

      Tullibardine, Marquess of

      Clyde, J. Avon

      Lewisham, Viscount

      Valentia, Viscount

      Coates, Major Sir Edward Feetham

      Locker-Lampson, O. (Ramsay)

      Walker, Col. William Hall

      Craig, Ernest (Cheshire, Crewe)

      Lonsdale, Sir John Brownlee

      Walrond, Hon. Lionel

      Craik, Sir Henry

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

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

      Dalziel, D. (Brixton)

      MacCaw, Wm. J. MacGeagh

      Willoughby, Major Hon. Claud

      Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott

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

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

      Faber, George Denison (Clapham)

      Magnus, Sir Philip

      Wolmer, Viscount

      Falle, Bertram Godfray

      Malcolm, Ian

      Worthington-Evans, L.

      Fell, Arthur

      Middlemore, John Throgmorton

      Wright, Henry Fitzherbert

      Finlay, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert

      Mildmay, Francis Bingham

      Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

      Fisher, Rt. Hon. W. Hayes

      Moore, William

      Yate, Col. Charles Edward

      Fitzroy, Hon. Edward A.

      Mount, William Arthur

      Yerburgh, Robert A.

      Fletcher, John Samuel

      Neville, Reginald J. N.

      Younger, Sir George

      Forster, Henry William

      Newman, John R. P.

      Gardner, Ernest

      Newton, Harry Kottingham

      TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. Ormsby-Gore and Lord N. Crichton- Stuart.

      Gastrell, Major W. H.

      Nield, Herbert

      Gilmour, Captain John

      Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend)

      CLAUSE 21.—(Provision as to Trusts.)
      Question put, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

      Division No. 529.]

      AYES.

      [7.10 p.m.

      Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour)

      Arnold, Sydney

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

      Acland, Francis Dyke

      Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry

      Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

      Adamson, William

      Baker, H. T. (Accrington)

      Black, Arthur W.

      Addison, Dr. Christopher

      Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.)

      Boland, John Pius

      Agnew, Sir George William

      Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

      Booth, Frederick Handel

      Ainsworth, John Stirling

      Baring, Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple)

      Bowerman, C. W.

      Alden, Percy

      Barnes, G. N.

      Boyle, D. (Mayo, N.)

      Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbarton)

      Beale, Sir William Phipson

      Brace, William

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

      Beck, Arthur Cecil

      Brady, P. J.

      The Committee divided: Ayes, 277 Noes, 159.

      Brocklehurst, W. B.

      Hinds, John

      Parker, James (Halifax)

      Brunner, John F. L.

      Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H,

      Pearce, William (Limehouse)

      Bryce, J. Annan

      Hodge, John

      Pearson, Hon. Weetman H. M.

      Buckmaster, Stanley O.

      Hogge, James Myles

      Pease, Rt. Hon. Joseph (Rotherham)

      Burke, E. Haviland-

      Holmes, Daniel Turner

      Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

      Burns, Rt. Hon. John

      Hudson, Walter

      Pollard, Sir George H.

      Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

      Hughes, S. L.

      Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

      Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, North)

      Illingworth, Percy H.

      Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

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

      Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus

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

      Byles, Sir William Pollard

      Jardine, Sir J. (Roxburgh)

      Primrose, Hon. Neil James

      Carr-Gomm, H. W.

      John, Edward Thomas

      Pringle, William M. R.

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

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

      Radford, G. H.

      Chapple, Dr. William Allen

      Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)

      Raffan, Peter Wilson

      Clancy, John Joseph

      Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)

      Raphael, Sir Herbert H.

      Clough, William

      Jones, Leif Stratten (Notts, Rushcliffe)

      Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields)

      Collins, G. P. (Greenock)

      Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

      Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

      Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

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

      Reddy, M.

      Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J.

      Joyce, Michael

      Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

      Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

      Keating, Matthew

      Redmond, William (Clare, E.)

      Cotton, William Francis

      Kennedy, Vincent Paul

      Richards, Thomas

      Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

      Kilbride, Denis

      Richardson, Albion (Peckham)

      Crawshay-Williams, Eliot

      King, J.

      Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

      Crumley, Patrick

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

      Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

      Cullinan, J.

      Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

      Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

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

      Lardner, James Carrige Rustic

      Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)

      Davies, E. William (Eifion)

      Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, West)

      Robertson, Sir G S. (Bradford)

      Davies, Timothy (Lines., Louth)

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

      Robertson, John M. (Tyneside)

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

      Leach, Charles

      Robinson, Sidney

      Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardiganshire)

      Levy, Sir Maurice

      Roche, Augustine (Louth)

      Dawes, James Arthur

      Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

      Roche, John (Galway, E.)

      De Forest, Baron

      Low, Sir Frederick (Norwich)

      Roe, Sir Thomas

      Delany, William

      Lundon, Thomas

      Rowlands, James

      Denman, Hon. R. D.

      Lyell, Charles Henry

      Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

      Devlin, Joseph

      Lynch, A. A.

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

      Dickinson, W. H.

      McGhee, Richard

      Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

      Dillon, John

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

      Scanlan, Thomas

      Donelan, Captain A.

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

      Schwann, Rt. Hon. Sir C. E.

      Doris, W.

      Macpherson, James Ian

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

      Duffy, William J.

      MacVeagh, Jeremiah

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

      Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

      M'Callum, Sir John M.

      Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

      Duncan, J. Hastings (Yorks, Otley)

      M'Curdy, Charles Albert

      Sheehy, David

      Edwards, John Hugh (Glamorgan, Mid)

      McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

      Sherwell, Arthur James

      Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

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

      Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John Allsebrook

      Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)

      M'Micking, Major Gilbert

      Smith, H. B. L. (Northampton)

      Essex, Sir Richard Walter

      Manfield, Harry

      Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

      Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles

      Marks, Sir George Croydon

      Snowden, Philip

      Ferens, Rt. Hon Thomas Robinson

      Marshall, Arthur Harold

      Spicer, Rt. Hon. Sir Albert

      Ffrench, Peter

      Martin, Joseph

      Strauss, Edward A, (Southwark, West)

      Field, William

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

      Sutherland, J. E.

      Fitzgibbon, John

      Meagher, Michael

      Sutton, John E.

      Flavin, Michael Joseph

      Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

      Taylor, John W. (Durham)

      France, G. A.

      Millar, James Duncan

      Taylor, Thomas (Bolton)

      Gilhooly, James

      Molloy, M.

      Tennant, Harold John

      Gill, A. H.

      Mond, Sir Alfred Moritz

      Thomas, J. H.

      Ginnell, L,

      Mooney, J. J.

      Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

      Gladstone, W. G. C.

      Morgan, George Hay

      Thorne, William (West Ham)

      Glanville, Harold James

      Morrell, Philip

      Toulmin, Sir George

      Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

      Morlson, Hector

      Trevelyan, Charles Philips

      Goldstone, Frank

      Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

      Verney, Sir Harry

      Greenwood, Granville G. (Peterborough)

      Muldoon, John

      Wadsworth, J.

      Greenwood, Hamar (Sunderland)

      Munro, R.

      Walsh, Stephen (Lanes., Ince)

      Greig, Colonel J. W.

      Munro-Ferguson, Rt. Hon R. C.

      Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

      Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

      Murray, Captain Hon. Arthur C.

      Wardle, George J.

      Griffith, Ellis J.

      Neilson, Francis

      Waring, Walter

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

      Nicholson, Sir C. N. (Doncaster)

      Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay

      Gulland, John William

      Nolan, Joseph

      Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

      Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

      Norton, Captain Cecil W.

      Watt, Henry A.

      Hackett, J.

      Nugent, Sir Walter Richard

      Webb, H,

      Hall, F. (Yorks, Normanton)

      Nuttall, Harry

      White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)

      Hancock, John George

      O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

      White, Patrick (Meath, North)

      Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)

      O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

      Whitehouse, John Howard

      Harcourt, Robert V, (Montrose)

      O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

      Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.

      Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds)

      O'Doherty, Philip

      Whyte, A. F. (Perth)

      Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire)

      O'Donnell, Thomas

      Wiles, Thomas

      Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

      O'Dowd, John

      Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthen)

      Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)

      O'Grady, James

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

      Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

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

      Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

      Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

      O'Malley, William

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

      Hayward, Evan

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

      Young, Samuel (Cavan, East)

      Hazleton, Richard

      O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

      Young, William (Perth, East)

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

      O'Shee, James John

      Yoxall, Sir James Henry

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

      O'Sullivan, Timothy

      Henry, Sir Charles

      Outhwaite, R. L.

      TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. G. Howar and Captain Guest.

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

      Palmer, Godfrey Mark

      Higham, John Sharp

      114

      115

      NOES.

      Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

      Gastrell, Major W. H.

      Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend)

      Aitken, Sir William Max

      Gilmour, Captain John

      Parkes, Ebenezer

      Anson, Rt. Hon. Sir William R.

      Glazebrook, Capt. Philip K.

      Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

      Anstruther-Gray, Major William

      Goldman, C. S.

      Peel, Captain R. F.

      Ashley, W. W.

      Gordon, Hon. John Edward (Brighton)

      Perkins, Walter

      Baird, J. L.

      Goulding, Edward Alfred

      Peto, Basil Edward

      Balcarres, Lord

      Greene, W. R.

      Pollock, Ernest Murray

      Baldwin, Stanley

      Gretton, John

      Pretyman, Ernest George

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

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

      Pryce-Jones, Col. E.

      Banbury, Sir Frederick George

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

      Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

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

      Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne)

      Rees, Sir J. D.

      Barlow, Montague (Salford, South)

      Hambro, Angus Valdemar

      Remnant, James Farquharson

      Barnston, Harry

      Harris, Henry Percy

      Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

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

      Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

      Rolleston, Sir John

      Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton)

      Helmsley, Viscount

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

      Beckett, Hon. Gervase

      Henderson, Major H. (Berks, Abingdon)

      Salter, Arthur Ciavell

      Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

      Hewins, William Albert Samuel

      Samuel, Sir Harry (Norwood)

      Blair, Reginald

      Hill, Sir Clement L.

      Sanders, Robert A.

      Boyle, William (Norfolk, Mid)

      Hills, John Waller

      Sanderson, Lancelot

      Boyton, James

      Hill-Wood, Samuel

      Sandys, G. J.

      Bull, Sir William James

      Hoare, Samuel John Gurney

      Sassoon, Sir Philip

      Burdett-Coutts, W.

      Hope, Major J. A. (Midlothian)

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

      Burn, Colonel C. R.

      Home, E. (Surrey, Guildford)

      Smith, Harold (Warington)

      Butcher, J. G.

      Hume-Williams, William Ellis

      Spear, Sir John Ward

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

      Hunt, Rowland

      Stanier, Beville

      Campion, W. R.

      Hunter, Sir C. R.

      Stanley, Hon. Arthur (Ormskirk)

      Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred

      Ingleby, Holcombe

      Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Presten)

      Cassel, Felix

      Jessel, Captain H. M.

      Strauss, Arthur (Paddington)

      Cautley, H. S.

      Joynson-Hicks, William

      Swift, Rigby

      Cave, George

      Kebty-Fletcher, J. R.

      Sykes, Alan John (Ches., Knutsford)

      Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

      Kerry, Earl of

      Sykes, Mark (Hull, Central)

      Cecil, Lord Hugh (Oxford University)

      Kimber, Sir Henry

      Talbot, Lord E.

      Cecil, Lord R. (Herts, Hitchin)

      Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

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

      Chaloner, Col, R. G. W.

      Lane-Fox, G. R.

      Terrell, H. (Gloucester)

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

      Larmor, Sir J.

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

      Clay, Capt. H. H. Spender

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

      Touche, George Alexander

      Clyde, J. Avon

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

      Tryon, Captain George Clement

      Coates, Major Sir Edward Feetham

      Lewisham, Viscount

      Tullibardine, Marquess of

      Craig, Ernest (Cheshire, Crewe)

      Locker-Lampson, O. (Ramsey)

      Valentia, Viscount

      Craik, Sir Henry

      Lonsdale, Sir John Brownlee

      Walker, Col. William Hall

      Crichton-Stuart, Lord Ninian

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

      Walrond, Hon. Lionel

      Dalziel, D. (Brixton)

      Lyttelton, Hon. J. C. (Droitwich)

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

      Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott

      MacCaw, Wm. J. MacGeagh

      Willoughby, Major Hon. Claud

      Duke, Henry Edward

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

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

      Faber, George Denison (Clapham)

      Magnus, Sir Philip

      Wolmer, Viscount

      Falle, Bertram Godfray

      Malcolm, Ian

      Worthington-Evans, L.

      Fell, Arthur

      Middlemore, John Throgmorton

      Wright, Henry Fitzherbert

      Finlay, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert

      Mildmay, Francis Bingham

      Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

      Fisher, Rt. Hon. W. Hayes

      Moore, William

      Yate, Col, Charles Edward

      Fitzroy, Hon. Edward A.

      Neville, Reginald J. N.

      Yerburgh, Robert A.

      Fleming, Valentine

      Newman, John R. P.

      Younger, Sir George

      Fletcher, John Samuel

      Newton, Harry Kottingham

      Forster, Henry William

      Nield, Herbert

      TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. Mount and Mr. Hohler.

      Gardner, Ernest

      Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

      CLAUSE 22.—(Saving for Marriage Law.)
      Nothing in this Act shall affect the law with respect to marriage in Wales or Monmouthshire, or the right of a bishop of the Church in Wales to licence churches for the solemnisation of marriage or to grant licences to marry:
      Provided that where neither party to a marriage is a member of the Church in Wales they shall not be entitled as of right to have the marriage solemnised in a church of the Church in Wales.
      The CHAIRMAN (Mr. Whitley): Mr. Malcolm.
      Mr. HOARE: On a point of Order, Sir. May I ask you a question with reference to an Amendment in my name, and which raises the general question as to the con-
      116
      dition of the Marriage Laws? Will the Amendment just called cut mine out or will it not?
      The CHAIRMAN: No; I think the hon. Member will be entitled to move when this Amendment has been disposed of. The Amendment to be moved by the hon. Member for Croydon (Mr. Malcolm) deals with a specific point, while that of the hon. Member for Chelsea (Mr. Hoare) deals with a very general one.
      Mr. MALCOLM: I beg to move, at the beginning, to insert the words,
      "The Deceased Wife's Sister's Marriage Act, 1907, shall be repealed in Wales and Monmouthshire in so far as it compels any bishop or clergyman of the Church to administer the sacraments of

      117
      the Church to any persons contracting marriage under the aforesaid Act; and in no church in Wales or in Monmouth-shire shall it be lawful to solemnise the marriage of a man to his deceased wife's sister unless and until the bishops of the Church in Wales so decree."
      The Home Secretary will no doubt appreciate that we are now approaching a criticism of this Bill which deals with matters of a doctrinal character, and that, as such, they should be treated with tender care. Let me admit, for the purpose of this Amendment only, that you are en titled, if you choose, to sever the age-long connection between the Church of Wales and the State; let me admit, also, that you are legally and morally entitled to take from the Church those Endowments which, we believe, for ages past have belonged to her, what is it for which you really get support of your Bill? The support surely is given to you for this, that nothing you are prepared to do in this Bill will in any way limit the freedom of the Church, or limit her religious action, or things of that kind; that you really mean, by this Bill, to free her from all those trammels and limitations which are the corollary of State control. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I am glad to hear those cheers, for I believe that without this Amendment you would really be doing grievous harm to the freedom of the Church which you are proposing by your Bill to Disestablish. You would be branding her with a badge of recognised inferiority compared with the other non-established churches. Whilst, as you say, you are going to strike the fetters from her, you will, at that very moment, unless you accept this Amendment, be shackling her feet with other fetters of State control which would impede her marching along the path which she has trodden for centuries.
      Our Church has its own unchanging laws. One of these forbids marriage, as we all know, with the deceased wife's sister. Before the year 1907, when the Statute law coincided with the Church law, the people who contracted such a marriage were known in the forcible language of those days as "notorious and evil livers." Then the State changed its law, and since the year 1907 has declared that a marriage of that kind, marriage with the deceased wife's sister, can be legalised, though not necessarily solemnised, in the Church of England. The State was very scrupulous, and wisely
      118
      scrupulous, I think, upon this point, and enacted in set terms that there should be no penalty or censure upon a clergyman for refusing to marry a person with his deceased wife's sister, if he conscientiously believed it would be contravening the law of the Church; and Lord Chancellor Loreburn, in recommending the measure to the House of Lords, said:—
      "If any further words are necessary to free the conscience of clergymen, let those words be inserted."
      Then there came the judgment, well known in this House, in Thompson v. Dibdin, which declared that a clergyman in the Church of England was bound to administer the Sacrament of Holy Communion to persons whom he had refused to marry because he would be thereby contravening the law of the Church. I believe that this interpretation of the intention of Parliament is utterly foreign to, and utterly contrary to what Parliament then intended. I really think it would be cruel and fantastic to suppose that Parliament intended, after having said to the clergyman that he was not to marry a person anxious to marry his deceased wife's sister, to compel that clergyman to offer to those persons the highest privileges of the altar which a Church of England can confer. Though this is not the point at which to raise that question, I do devoutly hope that some Government will choose an early date to make this interpretation impossible in future. But in the meanwhile I hope this Amendment will be accepted in order that it shall not be binding upon the non-established bishops and clergy of the Church in Wales. I venture to believe that His Majesty's Government will accept this Amendment, first of all, as a proof of their bona fides that Disestablishment means greater freedom for the Church with which they are dealing.
      There is another reason. Bight hon. Gentlemen who sit along that Front bench are the foremost champions just now of the Reformation Settlement. What did the Reformation Settlement do? Above all it made this perfectly clear, that there are in the State two entities—the spiritual entity and the temporal entity, each with its own separate jurisdiction—defined by a line of demarcation for which all creeds in this country have most steadfastly and strenuously contended. But the Act of 1907, as interpreted by the Courts, claims for the State this very spirituality which the Reformation Settlement denied to it. It is therefore in our opinion a violation of the Reformation Settlement itself and an

      119
      unconstitutional aggression upon the severed Church. If the State arrogates to itself no such power at all over the Non-established Churches within this realm, I think it is absolutely inconceivable that this Parliament really intends to decide for the Church which it is about to emanicpate from State control, whom she shall admit or whom repel from the privileges of her altar. This, therefore, will be, in my opinion, a scandalous refusal if this Amendment is not accepted. It will work for infinite harm to the organisation and discipline of our Catholic Church in Wales. It will, incidentally, fundamentally change the conception of the relations that exist or ought to exist between the Free Churches of this country and Parliament, and it will preclude by a sort of twentieth-century Test Act many devout and faithful men from entering the service of the Church in Wales, or, if they do enter it, it will make it difficult for them to be loyal both to their faith and State.
      I believe that justice and expediency alike would recommend any Christian Government to accept the Amendment which is down in my name. You have been profuse with our money, as we think, when we would have wished you to be frugal. We rely on the Government not to be niggardly in respect of our claims to our spiritual freedom when indeed they may be bountiful. We all admit, even in these contentious days, how wrong it was in the past to deny civil franchise to Un-established Churches simply on account of their faith. How much more wrong is it now, or would it be now, to deny to our Church this claim for spiritual freedom in this profoundest aspect of its faith, and to compel that denial by the votes of people belonging to other denominations. To proceed for us would, I think, be to provoke once again in this country one of those terrible conflicts which have taken place in the past between the supporters of religious freedom and supporters of State tyranny. For let it be well understood that a civil Government, wearing its broad phylacteries of toleration for progressive and free opinion, can never hope to control or dragoon our ancient faith into accepting its interpretation of our theology and of our doctrine. It is in order to try and prevent so disastrous and so catastrophic a consummation to this Bill, which you believe is for the good of our Church in Wales, a Bill pro-
      120
      posed for a God-fearing nation by a Christian Government, that we ask His Majesty's Government to accept this Amendment, and, by accepting it, to show their real adherence to the spirit of the Reformation Settlement, and to grant to the Church, which they are now emancipating from State control in Wales, no less a body of freedom than is granted to all the other Established Churches in these matters.
      Mr. McKENNA: The hon. Gentleman has made one of the most eloquent speches which we have heard in this House in favour of Disestablishment. He will be interested to hear that the Bill does for him precisely what he asks. We propose by the Bill, as it stands, to leave to the Disestablished English Church in Wales hereafter to decide for itself whether its clergymen shall or shall not, according to the rules of their own Church, administer Holy Communion to persons who have married their deceased wife's sister. That will be the free condition of the Disestablished Church.
      Mr. MALCOLM: I should like to know-how will that interfere with case-made law, as I suppose it is called, of Thompson and Dibdin.
      Mr. McKENNA: That judgment deals with a Church which is Established, and which has got to abide by the civil law of the country for the time. But all ecclesiastical law until this Bill is binding upon the Disestablished Church only so long as the Disestablished Church does not make alterations. The Noble Lord (Lord E. Cecil) shakes his head, but that is Clause 3.
      Lord ROBERT CECIL: That is excluded by this Clause.
      Mr. McKENNA: This is not dealing with marriage law. The giving of Holy Communion to a person who has married his deceased wife's sister is not marriage law. This law deals with something quite different, and that is where the hon. Member has gone wrong. The Clause provides:—
      "The ecclesiastical law of the Church in Wales shall cease to exist as law."
      By a later Sub-section, the Church is enabled to make changes in that law so far as it affects its own members. What is it that Clause 22, which appears to be quite misunderstood, purports to do? At the present time the Church of England enjoys certain privileges under the marriage law. Marriage solemnised in the Church of

      121
      England does not require the presence of a registrar. The presence of an incumbent is sufficient. We propose that nothing in this Bill shall affect the marriage law— that is to say, that a bishop of the Church in Wales shall maintain his right to licence churches for the solemnisation of marriages, and to grant licences to marry. The effect of this Clause would be this: That so long as the Church of England in Wales, as regards the solemnisation of marriage, has the same rites and ceremonies as exist in the Church of England in England as an Established Church, so long will the law of marriage in Wales remain unaffected. There is preserved to the Church of England in Wales the privileges or advantages, if you call them so or practices, as I prefer to call them, with regard to marriages which the Church of England has enjoyed in the past. The reason for the distinction in this respect between the Church of England and all other Churches is a very simple one. The Church of England in Wales takes over all the existing churches. In those churches there is at the present time the right of the parishioner to be married. The Disestablished Church taking over the churches, and getting the benefit of the churches, cannot altogether get rid of the right of the parishioner to be married in that building, but we limit the right of the parishioner in future to those cases in which either both or one of the parties is a member of the Church of England. So that the effect of the Clause, taking the whole thing together, is this: that the Church of England, when Disestablished, retains the use of the church—that is, the parish church, and the parishioners' existing right to be married in the parish church is retained, but to the limited extent only of those cases m which one or both of the parties is a member of the Church of England. The practice of marriage in the Church of England Churches will continue in the future precisely as it is at present. Nothing in this Act affects the law relating to marriage so long as the rites and ceremonies and practices of the Church of England remain the same as they are now.
      Mr. BALFOUR: Where is that provided?
      Mr. McKENNA: I should have to go over a considerable number of Clauses—
      Mr. MALCOLM: Before the right hon. Gentleman answers that point, I would like to ask him whether he will assure me with regard to this specific point as to the
      122
      result of the civil case, Thompson v. Dibdin, whether that judgment will apply in Wales, and in the case of a man who has married his deceased wife's sister who, with his new wife, is refused Holy Communion in the Church of England, whether the clergyman will then be under pains and penalties as stated in the Thompson and Dibdin case.
      Mr. McKENNA: That was not a civil case in the construction of the marriage law.
      Lord ROBERT CECIL: The law with respect to marriage.
      Mr. McKENNA: The immediate case did not arise with respect to marriage. It was in respect of a person whose supposed offence was due to his having married a particular person, but the administration of the Holy Communion was not at the time of the marriage and could not have affected the legality of the marriage itself. The marriage law here referred to is the law which determines the legality or otherwise of marriage. With regard to the point the right hon. Gentleman put to me, my reason for my statement was this: In the Clause he will find the words, "Nothing in this Act shall affect the law in respect to marriage in Wales or Monmouthshire." What is the existing law with respect to marriage? It is that where a marriage is solemnised according to the rites and ceremonies of the Church of England, speaking now of the Church of England as an Established Church, the presence of a registrar as one condition is not necessary. Hereafter, as nothing in this Act affects the law, so long as the marriage is conducted in accordance with the law, that is to say in accordance with the rites and ceremonies of the Church of England, nothing in this Act will affect it. Hereafter in Wales, and this is the construction I am giving to the Clause, the marriage law affords the only exception in the whole of this Bill in which the Church of England will differ from all the other Free Churches. As I have endeavoured to explain, the difference arises because the Church of England cannot have the churches except subject to the rights of the parishioners. One of those rights being marriage, we are bound in the Bill to have regard to the condition of the Church as affected by the law of marriage, and to have regard to the parishioner's right to be married in a particular building. Turning to the Amendment, the hon. Member will not suggest

      123
      that in this Bill we should repeal the Act of 1907 in Wales. He would not suggest that we should say that in Wales marriage with a deceased wife's sister is to be illegal. He only wishes the Church in Wales to be free in regard to such a marriage. The hon. Member referred to what has been described as the scandal of the law at the present day. That scandal, as he regards it, exists, and will continue to exist, in England where the Church is Established. But it will not exist in Wales.
      Lord HUGH CECIL: Why not?
      Mr. McKENNA: In England the scandal exists because the marriage is against what the hon. Member believes to be the wish of the Church. He would not say it was a scandal if the ecclesiastical governing body, the Church of England, did not wish the Holy Communion to be denied to a person who married his deceased wife's sister. He is bound to do it by civil law. In Wales that will not be so. If the ecclesiastical governing body of the Church in Wales lay it down as a rule of their Church that no clergyman is to administer the Communion to a person who has married his deceased wife's sister, the clergy will be bound by that rule.
      Mr. HUME-WILLIAMS: Where does the right hon. Gentleman find that in the Bill?
      Mr. McKENNA: If the hon. and learned Member turns to Clause 3 he will find that in the future ecclesiastical law in Wales will all be subject to the agreement of the Welsh Church. Although the Welsh Church starts as a new body with the implied assent to all existing ecclesiastical law, the moment it is a free Church it can review the whole mass of that ecclesiastical law, and make its new law, by which its members will be bound, to please itself. The Noble Lord says with the single exception of the marriage law.
      Lord ROBERT CECIL: No, I did not say that. I say that there are many more exceptions, but we have not been able to discuss them.
      Mr. McKENNA: It is not my fault that the Noble Lord has not been able to discuss them.
      Lord ROBERT CECIL: Yes, it is.
      Mr. McKENNA: I should not agree with that; but I do not want to raise con-
      124
      troversy on that point. This is my construction of the Bill. The marriage law referred to in Clause 22 is no exception with regard to the point raised by the hon. Member. The exception is only such an exception as I have stated to the Committee, and was made only for the reason which I have given with regard to the claim of the parishioners to be married in the parish church.
      Lord HUGH CECIL: I was very interested in the Home Secretary's speech, but I confess that the right hon. Gentleman has not convinced me that his interpretation of the Bill is correct. It would not be in order on this Amendment to controvert the statement at great length, but the right hon. Gentleman says that although the churches are handed over to the Church they remain subject to the parishioner's right. Whatever it may be called, that is not Disestablishment. The very essence of Disestablishment is to destroy a person's civil right to what remains of the ecclesiastical property of the Disestablished Church.
      Mr. McKENNA: It is only under this Clause.
      Lord HUGH CECIL: So far as this Clause goes it is flatly inconsistent with the principles of Disestablishment. The parishioner retains his right not because he is a member of the Church, but because he is a civil parishioner, a subject of the King. There can be no justification for that, in fact, if you are Disestablishing the Church at all. The right hon. Gentleman represents it as retaining a privilege to the Church. The Church would a great deal prefer to be placed in the position of a Nonconformist body, and to be subject to the same conditions in regard to marriages if on those terms she had complete liberty to her own services.
      Mr. LLEWELYN WILLIAMS: Even the presence of the registrar?
      Lord HUGH CECIL: Certainly; why not? If the Church is to be Disestablished, let it be Disestablished. To make a solitary exception of this kind is an absurdity; it is only a rather veiled insult to the discipline of the Church. I think the right hon. Gentleman is wrong about this specific point of the Amendment. The judgment in the Banister case rests upon this point: The Courts held that what Parliament said was a marriage the Church could not treat as an act of evil life. That is the point of the judgment.

      125
      In spite of the very strong words in the Act of Parliament saving the clergy from censure, it was thought to be inconceivable that what Parliament intended and decreed to be a marriage could by the Church be treated as an act of evil life. That will apply in Wales as far as I can see. The Clause says, "Nothing in this Act shall affect the law with respect to marriage." Evidently it is part of the law with respect to marriage that a marriage with a deceased wife's sister is a marriage and not an immoral union. That is manifestly a part of the law of the land with respect to marriage, and that is part of the law with respect to marriage which is saved by this Clause. That will operate. Although the words, "Nothing in this Act shall affect the law," seem limited to this Act, it is clear from the right hon. Gentleman's explanation that the parishioners' rights in respect to the Church are to be outside the jurisdiction of the representative body and are to be protected against that body, so that the representative body is not to be able to say to a parishioner, "You must not be married in the Church, because we disapprove of what you have done." Similarly is it not perfectly clear that the Clause will also operate and say, "You must not say that this marriage is not a marriage, but an immoral union"? I should have thought that it was perfectly plain that if you preserve the law with respect to marriage in this Clause you preserve the whole of it, and a part of the law with respect to marriage is that such marriages are marriages and are not to be treated as though they were not marriages. It is perfectly plain that the representative Church body will not be able to treat them as though they were not marriages.
      Mr. McKENNA: It is only in the Church of England as established by law that the Banister judgment has effect. The representative Church body, as representing a free Church, can make what rules it pleases. The Noble Lord has not appreciated the difference. The discipline, rites, and ceremonies of the Church of England are governed by law, but in a Disestablished Church they can have their own rules as to discipline, rites, and ceremonies, and can say that this shall not be done.
      Lord HUGH CECIL: That is not what the right hon. Gentleman himself said. He said that the representative Church body could not exclude a parishioner's rights.
      Mr. McKENNA: Specifically under this Clause.
      Lord HUGH CECIL: Specifically they cannot override the law as to marriage.
      Mr. McKENNA: The civil law.
      Lord HUGH CECIL: The representative body cannot override the law of marriage in respect to the Church; therefore they are always to treat these marriages as marriages if the State says they are marriages. If the State says that a particular union—it does not matter whether it is with a deceased wife's sister or with a divorced person; they are on exactly the same footing—
      Mr. McKENNA: May I interrupt the Noble Lord? I have here the judgment of the House of Lords:—
      "The rights of parishioners in this matter depend primarily upon Statute 1, Edw. 6. c. 1., under which the incumbent of a parish may not, without lawful cause, deny the Holy Communion to any parishioner who would devoutly and humbly desire it."
      That is the condition in the Church of England established by law. But the Disestablished Welsh Church will be able to deny the Holy Communion to anybody according to its own rule.
      Lord HUGH CECIL: It must be obvious, to the right hon. Gentleman that the Church neither desires to deny nor would dream of denying the Holy Communion to any person, except on the ground that his marriage was in the view of the Church an immoral union. The whole thing turns on the character of the union. The whole purpose of excommunication has reference to the moral teaching of members of the Church. The whole point is that the Church considers that these are not true marriages, and because persons are not truly married they must not come to Communion. If the law as to marriage still operates, it is evident that the authorities of the Church will lay themselves open to proceedings in the ordinary State Courts, because they would be making an imputation which was not justified on the character of the person concerned. In the case of marriage with a deceased wife's sister or with a divorced person, the bishop gives directions that such a person is not to be admitted to the Communion. That direction certainly implies, according to the formularies of the Church, that the person has done something immoral. The person therefore brings a suit for libel against the bishop, and he argues it in this way: "It has been

      127
      imputed to me that I have committed an immoral act. On the contrary, I am lawfully married. I am lawfully married, not only according to the law of the State, but according to the law of the Church, because the Church is bound to accept in this one particular the law of the State. The law of marriage is made operative by Act of Parliament within the Church as within the State; therefore according to the bishop's own principles I am to be regarded as married. What right has he to say that according to Church law I have committed an immoral act?"
      8.0.P.M.
      The point is that this Clause does exempt the marriage law from the general operation of the Bill, and in so doing it leaves the clergyman under all the restrictions implied in the marriage law. And it leaves a remedy in the Civil Courts against the clergyman who acts on the theory that the Church has a right to its own marriage law as distinct from the laws of the State, because this Clause expressly says that the law of the State as regards marriage still binds the Church when Disestablished just as it has hitherto when the Church was Established. There is in this respect a great deal of misapprehension. Many people think that the refusal of the Communion-excommunication is something very mediæval, and that if it be practised by anybody now it is only by the Roman Church. I was very much struck in the course of the inquiry by the Welsh Church Commission to find that excommunication was a well-known penalty within the discipline of every Nonconformist body. It is a very remarkable circumstance that the Church of England has over the laity the laxest spiritual discipline of any religious body in the world. I do not myself in the least desire to see the Church of England treading in the steps either of the Roman Church or of the Nonconformist bodies in the general matter of ecclesiastical discipline. The particular rules which might be laid down by a Non-established part of the Anglican Church would raise questions confessedly of great difficulty. But what I do earnestly contend for is that it should be left to the absolute decision of the Church itself, that it should excommunicate anybody it thought right, and should restrict the ceremony of marriage in any way it thought proper. I may observe, in passing, that this retention of the right of a parishioner to be married in the Church
      128
      is certainly most inconvenient in respect to the marriage of divorced persons. Under the Divorce Act a person has a right to go and demand the use of the Church, the use of the actual building, to have performed a marriage which the Church regards as an immoral union. The right hon. Gentleman, I am sure, on reflection will see that this is wholly inconsistent both with the rest of his Bill, and the purport and substance of his speech. I urge upon hon. Members opposite that they are bound to act up to their principles. If this Clause is really intended to give a privilege to the Church it is not wanted in that shape. If we are to be Disestablished—as we think wrongly —we ought really to be treated precisely as any other Unestablished Church. If you retain fragments of the Establishment you are acting inconsistently with your principles, and unjustly and unfairly.
      Sir D. BRYNMOR JONES: We are quite willing to give to the Disestablished Church the right to alter the present rules of the Church of England in any way she pleases. As I understand Clause 22, it has been put in for the convenience of the Church, and so as not to limit the operations of the Church.
      Lord ROBERT CECIL: We would rather not have it.
      Sir D. BRYNMOR JONES: Does the Noble Lord want Clause 22 to be dropped —the whole Clause?
      Lord HUGH CECIL: Yes.
      Sir D. BRYNMOR JONES: Supposing this Clause is dropped, will the Noble Lord ask us for any other Clause, or that any other words should be put into the Bill?
      Lord HUGH CECIL: I have not any words in my own mind at the present moment, and I cannot give an answer to that.
      Sir D. BRYNMOR JONES: We do not want to take advantage of any admission made by the Noble Lord if he has not considered the whole matter.
      Lord HUGH CECIL: I have considered this matter as far as this Clause is concerned.
      Sir D. BRYNMOR JONES: Supposing the Clause goes out, then the new Church

      129
      in Wales will be in exactly the same position as a Nonconformist body. Do you desire that?
      Lord HUGH CECIL: Certainly.
      Sir D. BRYNMOR JONES: If that be so, I rather agree with what the Noble Lord said, that in accordance with our principles we should assent to it. The Noble Lord thinks that it would be an advantage to the Church in Wales. I do not believe the evils suggested with regard to the operation of this Clause will really arise, if we look at the Act of 1907 and consider what the position is in practice. If the Church of Wales chooses to take advantage of its power to alter the existing regulations, the evils, to my mind, cannot possibly arise. Supposing the proviso is left out, then it reads:
      "Nothing in this Act shall affect the law with respect to marriage in Wales and Monmouthshire or the right of a bishop of a Church of Wales to licence Churches for the solemnisation of marriage or grant licences to marry."
      Lord HUGH CECIL: We want the whole Clause left out.
      Sir D. BRYNMOR JONES: There seems some confusion of thought at the present moment. The Noble Lord should move to leave the Clause out.
      Mr. BALFOUR: There appears to be, by those who have the right to speak for the Established Church in Wales, a desire that this Clause should be left out altogether. On that point I do not say a word. If the Clause is conceded to be strictly in order, surely all ambiguity could very easily be put aside by introducing words to carry out quite clearly what is the intention of the Clause, namely, that nothing connected with the celebration of legality of marriage is to be affected by anything in this Clause. My Noble Friend, and the hon. Member who moved the Amendment which we are discussing, took the view that the collateral remarks to the Act of 1907 are such that practically any clergyman who refused to give Holy Communion to persons whom he considers to be living in an immoral relation—although it was a legal marriage—would be open, not indeed to ecclesiastical punishment, but to an action for libel under the common law. That, I understand, to be my hon. Friend's view. I am convinced that the Government could really remove that ambiguity, and ought to do so, by introducing words indicating clearly that it is merely a legal
      130
      matter which is in question. That is all in their minds. The right hon. Gentleman made that perfectly clear. He said he had nothing else in his mind but the actual celebration of a legal marriage. He would quiet the anxieties of my noble relative and other hon. Friends if he would put in words making his opinion absolutely unmistakable. I strongly urge him to do so. I would ask him for my own satisfaction—he has said that these marriages are only to be legally celebrated away from a registrar, without the registrar being present, so long as the ceremony is conducted in a manner of the ceremony in the Established Church of England—there are, as everybody knows perfectly well, small variations in the celebration of that marriage service. They are in small matters and not in essential matters. I should like to know whether it would be possible for anybody to contend, if a marriage has been conducted in what we shall all admit to be the substantial marriage service of the Church of England, but at which, nevertheless, something was omitted which was part of the ordinary Prayer Book, that that marriage was illegal? I do not know. I suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that it is most important that there should not be the least doubt or ambiguity in a matter so unimportant as that. Perhaps if he has not got his answer absolutely ready he will consider it before he allows this Clause to leave the Committee.
      Mr. McKENNA: My answer to the last point, which is a very important one, is shortly this: If such deviation did not render the marriage illegal in England it would not be illegal in Wales, because the law in the two countries will remain precisely the same. As to the matter urged upon me by the Noble Lord and others to leave out Clause 22, the Clause has only been inserted with the view—perhaps a mistaken view—that it would be for the advantage of the Church. I do not think, with great respect to the Noble Lord, that I should be absolutely justified in withdrawing this from the purview of the House at the request of one party in the House, and at this stage, because of that party's view on the matter. Amendments have been put down by hon. Members opposite, which Amendments imply that they do not wish the Clause to be omitted. If, however, I am assured that it is the general view of representatives of the Church on the opposite side of the House that the Clause should not go into the Bill, I am

      131
      perfectly willing to omit it. In place of it I would simply add a short Clause explaining the law as it is laid down in regard to Nonconformist marriages in regard to the Disestablished Church of Wales. But I cannot make that alteration unless it is represented to me that it is a general desire. As I have put this Clause into the Bill for the benefit of the Church, I cannot deprive hon. Members on the opposite side of the House of the advantage of the Clause merely because representatives of a small section press me to leave out the Clause. If they are supported generally on the opposite side, I will certainly move its omission on Report.
      Mr. WYNDHAM: I do not feel at all competent to express a competent opinion upon what is a very difficult matter, but I think that the Government are not entitled to say, "Very well, we will leave out the Clause." We want some light upon what the whole bearing of that would be on the Bill. So far as I can follow the matter, the effect of leaving out the Clause would be, though I am not sure of this, to deprive the Church of all enabling powers of marriage. Would it only come to this, that the Registrar would have to be there? I do not think that the mere leaving out of the Clause effects the case. The difficulty, so far as I can follow, arises in Clause 8, Sub-section (2)—and, indeed, it was stated by the Home Secretary at the beginning of his remarks—that as the Church was left the fabrics, therefore the existing rights of persons in those fabrics in respect of marriage must be retained. If that be so, why limit the freedom which by common sense ought to be accorded to a Disestablished Church? That is a point on which we are entitled to an answer. I do not think it is met merely by leaving out the Clause. It must be met in other ways. They ought to tell us exactly what they mean by preserving the rights of parishioners. Are they to be the rights accorded to the Churches?
      Mr. LLEWELYN WILLIAMS: This Clause as well as other Clauses which we have been discussing to-night is one to give freedom to the Church of Wales. Therefore, hon. Members who are in a position to speak for Church organisations are entitled to every consideration at the hands of the Government, and at the hands of Members on this side. The Noble Lord the Member for Oxford University made a very interesting speech. In my opinion, the major portion of it was based on
      132
      a wrong assumption. The hon. Member who moved the Amendment also, I think, made the same mistake. I do not think this Clause will affect the Deceased Wife's Sister Act at all. I agree there is one matter of very great importance to the Church which was mentioned by the Noble Lord, which this Clause will affect, and that is in regard to the marriage of divorced persons. My view of the matter is this. After the Church is Disestablished in Wales, it will not be possible for a person to marry a deceased wife's sister in a church against the wish of the bishop or clergyman any more than in England That is provided for in the Act of 1907, and that part of the marriage law would not be affected by this Clause at all; but the point is this. If a man had married his deceased wife's sister in a church or before a registrar the clergyman of the parish of an Established Church has no right to excommunicate that man on the ground that he is a notorious evil liver. Hon. Members will agree that that was the effect in the case of Banister v.Thompson.
      Mr. HUME-WILLIAMS: And the effect of the Statute.
      Mr. LLEWELYN WILLIAMS: Suppose the same thing happened in a Free Church; suppose a Free Church in England passed a rule for its own internal government that any member of that body who married a deceased wife's sister should cease to be a communicant of that church, this rule for the internal government of their church passed, say, by Baptists or Congregationalists would enable any minister of that Baptist or Congregational communion to refuse to allow that man who committed that breach of rule of the Church, not a breach of the law, but a breach of the voluntary association of which he is a member, to partake of communion, and therefore the Church in Wales, after she is Disestablished, will regain that freedom; she will be in exactly the same position as the Free Churches now are. She can make her own rules for her membership, and she can say that any man who breaks these rules, which she has set up for her internal government, whether they are in accordance with the law of the land or not, shall not be looked upon as a member of her community. Take the case of the strict Baptists. They say that unless a man is baptised by immersion he shall not partake of communion in the Baptist Chapel; he is

      133
      excommunicated. He may be a man of excellent character and conduct, yet if he offers himself at a Baptist chapel in order to partake of communion he can be publicly refused communion, and there is no remedy; and that constantly happens in all Nonconformist communions, as the Noble Lord has said. Last year no less than 8,000 Baptists were struck off the list of the Baptist denomination. We wish under this Bill to give the Disestablished Church the same freedom as the Nonconformist churches enjoy to-day; but I do not think, looking at the thing as dispassionately as I can, that the point made by the hon. Gentleman opposite at the beginning of this discussion, in his very interesting and eloquent speech, is really material to the Clause. I quite see that another point made by the Noble Lord the Member for Oxford is a good point, because, as the Home Secretary has said—I confess I did not quite understand it before—the main effect of this Clause would be that the existing rights of parishioners to be married in parish churches of which one of the parties was a member would be preserved. Suppose one of the parties was a divorced person, and that either party was a member of the parish church where he or she wished to be married, there is nothing in the divorce laws which exempts a clergyman from the duty of performing the marriage ceremony, as in the case of the deceased wife's sister.
      Lord HUGH CECIL: Not performing the ceremony, but lending his church.
      Mr. LLEWELYN WILLIAMS: The Church, in the view of the clergyman, might be desecrated by being the scene of a ceremony which he disdained and did not believe in, and, therefore, from that, point of view, I agree that the retention of the Clause in this regard might have a bad effect. If hon. Gentlemen think that is so great as to entitle them to ask the Government to drop this Section or to alter it or amend it in any way in accordance with their wishes, I am perfectly sure after what my right hon. Friend and Leader (Sir D. Brynmor Tones) said that I and no other Welsh Member, or any Nonconformist or Liberal would offer any objection.
      Mr. BOOTH: Oh, wait a minute.
      Mr. LLEWELYN WILLIAMS: I see that my hon. Friend the Member for Pontefract takes a different view. He can speak for himself. But with regard to Welsh Members who are mainly, I sup-
      134
      pose, concerned with promoting this Bill, we look upon it as a matter of internal arrangement by Churchmen, and we are quite willing to allow Churchmen perfect freedom to do as they like. If the views of my hon. Friend the Member for Pontefract are predominant in the Church in Wales, let them prevail. If, on the other hand the views of the Noble Lord the Member for Oxford, and the hon. Gentleman who moved this Amendment are predominant, let them prevail. We wish to give perfect freedom to the members of the Church to do exactly as they like in this matter, and if hon. Members think they are promoting that object better by dropping this Clause, I, for one, and I am perfectly certain all other Welsh Members are agreed.
      Mr. HUME-WILLIAMS: I think the point raised by this Amendment is a very short point. I do not go into the points raised by the hon. and learned Member opposite as to whether or not it is desirable that persons who have been divorced should be married in a church. At any rate, that point is not raised by the Clause at the present time. I suppose objection would arise as to leaving out the Clause altogether. The question is this. Section 22 clearly deals only with the existing law as to the right to marry a deceased wife's sister. That is quite clear. It is only intended to deal with that point. This condition of things has arisen owing to the decision of a case which has been more than once quoted in which it is held that if the parties have done that which the law entitles them to do, marriage with a deceased wife's sister, which is the result of a Statute, deprives the clergyman of the right to refuse them communion. Everyone on the other side, and I think on our side, combines in the desire to give the internal decision of a question of that kind to the Church. The only question is whether this is done by the Bill. As the decision points out it is based upon Statute which gave the right to have the Holy Communion, and on the interpretation of that Statute the Court held that the man had not lost his right to have the Holy Communion on account of what he had done. This Bill gives power to make fresh ecclesiastical law and regulations, but when it comes to repealing Statutes it confines their power to the matter set out in Sub-section (4) of Clause 3:—
      "The power of making by such constitution and regulations, alterations

      135
      and modifications in ecclesiastical law shall include the power of altering and modifying such law so far as is embodied in the Church Discipline Act, 1840."
      And the other Acts mentioned in the Subsection. It is operative and binding upon the Church in Wales, and if it is, then the general power to alter the ecclesiastical law will not give to the Church in Wales that which you desire the Church to have, namely, the power to settle this particular question for themselves. If these words have no binding effect upon the Church leave them as they are. It is quite clear that the intention is to give to the new church power to make regulations to settle the details of ecclesiastical law, but not to abrogate that which the Statute provides. The provision to which we have alluded is founded upon a Statute which you do not give your new body power to abrogate.
      Mr. ELLIS GRIFFITH: Will the hon. Member read the last words of Subsection (3), which are "or any other Act of Parliament."
      Mr. HUME-WILLIAMS: You are making a specific exception with regard to a particular branch of statute law, and if you really intend to leave the power to the new body either to abrogate the statute mentioned, or to make these regulations, it is quite easy to accept the suggestion made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the City of London and insert simple words in Clause 22, which will make the point clear.
      Mr. BOOTH: The hon. Member opposite confined his speech to the Amendment and rather indicated that to discuss the other point you have been discussing was not convenient, but I would like to remind the hon. Member that this discussion arose owing to the intervention of the Noble. Lord the Member for Oxford University, and he was supplemented by his distinguished relative above the Gangway. A conversation arose, and a reply was given by the Home Secretary.
      Mr. HUME-WILLIAMS: I said the question of divorce did not arise. I do not think that the suggestion came from anybody on this side.
      Mr. BOOTH: The first mention of a divorced person came from the Noble Lord the Member for Oxford University, and if was because he introduced this larger and
      136
      more, direct question that we thought the simplest way to avoid all these difficulties was to delete the Clause. The Home Secretary made a promise that he would be prepared on the Report stage to delete the Clause if it was the general wish of the Opposition. I want to say, in reference to the suggestion which I understood the Noble Lord the Member for Oxford University to put forward, that the Church should be put on the same footing as an ordinary Nonconformist denomination, that the presence of the registrar on each occasion is not a proposal which I think would command the entire approval of all Churchmen in this House. You must remember that marriage in the Church is the cheapest and simplest, and I am sure the Church people of Wales would not thank the High Churchmen in this House for a contribution of that kind to this Bill, which would mean a message to the whole Church in Wales that the present system of publishing the banns and marrying for a small fee would be discontinued, and that they must always have the attendance of the registrar, and so on. I urge the House and the Government not to make a change of this kind which would not be generally acceptable to the worshippers in the Church and the poor people throughout the country. I have not consulted with the Liberal Churchmen in this House, but I see present the hon. Member for Bolton (Mr. Thomas Taylor), who represents a constituency where a large proportion of the poor people solemnise their marriages in the Church, and I ask him whether he would like to go back to his constituency and tell them that the old system has been done away with to which they had been accustomed so long. I am sure the hon. Member for Bolton would not like that.
      Mr. THOMAS TAYLOR: Hear, hear.
      Mr. BOOTH: I am glad that the hon. "Member for Bolton supports me in that view. I think we should preserve this right in the interests of the very poorest and the simplest persons, and, if you like, the most illiterate persons who know little of law, and who are imperfectly educated, although they understand going to the nearest parish church and putting up the banns, because that is a practice which bas gone on for so many generations. I hope hon. Members opposite will regard my contribution to this Debate as one made in the interests of the poorest people.
      Viscount WOLMER: No one desires that the poorest people should be put to any unnecessary expense with regard to their marriages, but as a matter of fact this difficulty could easily be remedied by a special Clause or a special Sub-section dealing with that question. We are dealing here with a question of high principle. I would like to say that this Clause, and the efforts hon. Members are making to get out of this Clause, is only another instance of the absolute impossibility of turning the Church into a voluntary association in a manner which they think is possible. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] I will explain. Clause 22 to my mind is wholly objectionable from beginning to end. I think it is a perfectly monstrous provision that any man who chooses to call himself a Churchman and who desires to contract a marriage with a divorced person or with somebody of a different religion altogether, with a Jew or a Mahomedan, should have the power to demand as a right that the marriage should be solemnised in the Church. I know that point comes up on a later Amendment, but I was simply answering an interruption of the hon. Member who asked me why I thought Clause 22 was wholly objectionable. The whole of the Clause shows it is impossible to give the Church the same freedom that belongs to Nonconformists at the present time in the matter of marriages.
      The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I have allowed the Debate so far to range quite widely because I thought it was the general sense of the Committee that probably the Home Secretary's offer would be accepted, but, as far as I can see now, the Debate seems to be going away from that. I must therefore ask the Noble Lord to defer his remarks until he catches my eye when the Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill" is put, and to confine his observations now more particularly to the Amendment before the Committee.
      Viscount WOLMER: Of course, as you say, the discussion has ranged over a wide field up to this moment, and I think there are certain points which have been raised by the Home Secretary and by the hon. Member for the Carmarthen Boroughs (Mr. Llewelyn Williams) which have not yet been answered from this side of the House. If we get an opportunity of discussing the Question, "That the Clause stand part," of course we can make some answer, but there are many other Amend-
      138
      ments on the Order Paper and that seems to me wholly improbable. I will, with deference to your ruling, address myself to this particular Amendment with the remark that the mere dropping of this Clause would not satisfy us in any way at all owing to Clause 8 and the impositions thereby put on the Church. It appears to me our contention that the judgment in the case of Thompson v.Banister will be binding on the Disestablished Church in Wales has not been answered in any respect at all. That judgment decides that persons who have married their deceased wife's sister are legally married, and therefore cannot be described as "notorious evil livers," which is how the Church describes them, and that binds the Church in Wales just in the same way as it binds the Church in England.
      Sir D. BRYNMOR JONES: It is perfectly competent to the Disestablishd Church to lay down a rule either that there shall be no marriage between persons who have been divorced or with a deceased wife's sister.
      Viscount WOLMER: I do not admit that the right hon. Gentleman is correct, but, assuming he is, what is the position in which you are putting the Disestablished Church? You are Disestablishing the Church and leaving her admittedly, as we have seen, with her organisation on the scrap-heap, her corporation dissolved, the Ecclesiastical Courts newly constituted, and, with all the difficulty of calling together the new Synod and governing body of the Church, which, we have always maintained, cannot be done properly in the time allowed by the Government. The Church would be left with a marriage law which it entirely repudiates, and one of the first things the Church would have to do would be to alter the marriage law. The Church in her new freedom would not start off with a marriage law which is the Church's marriage law, but with an Erastian marriage law, which it repudiates. That alone is inflicting a great injustice on the Church. I do not admit the right hon. Gentleman is correct, because both he and the Home Secretary said the concluding words of Clause 3 enabled the Church to alter any Act of Parliament. It is expressly said in Clause 22—
      "Nothing in this Act shall affect the law with respect to marriage in Wales and Monmouthshire."
      Clause 3 is in this Act, and therefore it is impossible to argue that something con-

      139
      tained in Clause 3 enables the Church to alter the mariage law in Wales. If Clause 3 was left by itself, and if the Church was given this extraordinary power of being able to alter any Act of Parliament, then there might be something in the right hon. Gentleman's contention; but when there is a specfic Clause inserted in the Bill saying nothing in this Act shall in any way enable the marriage law of Wales to be altered, it seems to me the Church is definitely bound by that provision, and that the liberty which Clause 3 gives is withheld in this respect. That is my answer to the right hon. Gentleman. He is correct in his interpretation of the Bill. The Church has admittedly got to commence a new life after Disestablishment, with a marriage law which she repudiates and which is a great difficulty thrust upon her in an hour already full of difficulty and embarrassment. The Church is manacled in a manner which absolutely deprives her of the liberty of setling the elementary points of government and discipline. It seems to me, although hon. Members opposite have spoken very conciliatory words this afternoon, they do not quite realise what they are doing by this Bill. They talk about the liberation of the Church, and, when we point out the manner in which the Church is being bound, they say, "We will do what we can to remove those manacles," but I do not think hon. Members opposite have fully realised in what they are involved when they once set out upon their career of freeing the Church. Let us take this question of the deceased wife's sister. The Church must have the power to settle its own marriage law, and, when we talk of the Church in a matter of that sort we mean the clergy of the. Church, because in our communion, the laity, although we desire in every way they should have a hand in the making of the Church, have no authority in matters of doctrine. Therefore, any doctrine in the Church has always to be determined by the bishops and clergy. They must have the power to repudiate a law like the Deceased Wife's Sister Act; they must have the power to excommunicate those who avail themselves of divorce or other laws contrary to the doctrine of the Church. But hon. Members opposite are opening the door of the Church so that she may revert to the mediæval ages and become the most powerful body in the land,
      140
      wielding spiritual powers over the subjects of the Kingdom, and giving the State no control. That is what it seems to me hon. Members opposite are doing. They are not giving the Church liberty to deal with doctrines as between the Church and the laws of the State.
      I should like to draw the attention of the Committee to the latter part of the Amendment which is that in no Church in Wales or Monmouthshire shall it be lawful to solemnise the marriage of a man to his deceased wife's sister unless and until the bishops of the Church in Wales so decree. Do hon. Members opposite really mean to give the Church liberty in matters of this kind? Are the bishops and the clergy to be the authority to determine the doctrine? It would be most unfair to restart the Church without power to issue licences under the marriage laws, which she repudiates. She repudiates the law of the Church and desires to bring it back to what it was before the Deceased Wife's Sister Bill was passed, and she wishes to place it in the hands of the bishop or the general council to alter- the law if they so think fit. Although we have had smooth words this evening we have not had a really whole-hearted admission of the principles I have been trying to put forward. It seems to me that both by the spirit in which Clause 22 is drafted and by the guarded manner in which hon. Members opposite have said: "We will try to free the Church if we can," that they are not prepared really in their hearts to give the Church that absolute liberty which is the only consistent course with a Disestablishment Bill of this kind.
      Mr. LEACH: This has up to the present been a very interesting discussion. I speak as a Nonconformist, but if I were a Churchman I should be very unwilling to have this Clause deleted from the Bill, if I knew as much of Nonconformists as I do. It is just as well that the Committee should realise that there are some small differences between Churchmen and Nonconformists in relation to the marriage laws. If this Clause be carried the bishops would have the power of licensing Churches for marriages. But there is no bishop who could give a licence to a Nonconformist Church.
      Mr. CAVE: On a point of Order. Is it open for the hon. Gentleman to enter into the general discussion?
      The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I was about to draw the attention of the hon. Member

      141
      to the fact that he was discussing the Clause and not the Amendment.
      Mr. MALCOLM: After what we have heard from the Government to the effect that they are prepared to reconsider the question of Clause 22 on Report, I am willing, in order that the Debate may reach a wider sphere, to ask permission to withdraw my Amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      Mr. HOARE: I beg now to move to leave out the words, "The law with respect to marriage in Wales and Monmouthshire or."
      This will make the Clause read—
      "Nothing in this Clause shall affect the right of a bishop of the Church in Wales to licence Churches for the solemnisation of marriage or to grant licences to marry."
      I think this Amendment will have the effect we all desire of enlarging the scope of the discussion. The object is to omit all reference to the marriage laws in Wales and Monmouthshire, and the effect is to open out discussion to a much wider range. I think that is necessary in view of the very important speech which we recently heard from the Home Secretary. The right hon. Gentleman made an offer that if there was a body of representative opinion on this side of the House that desired the omission of Clause 22 he would be prepared to omit it on the Report stage. I speak as an ignorant layman. I do not know, therefore, whether or not it would be advisable to have the Clause omitted. My personal inclination is to see it kept out. But I do not feel at present in a position to say whether that is wise or not. Therefore I desire that the Members of the Committee should have an opportunity of discussing the point, and of saying whether or not they wish to have this or a similar Clause in the Bill. After all, it is a very important matter that we are considering. It is a much more important question than that which faced the House when it was considering the subject of marriages in Ireland. Members of the Committee must remember that there are more marriages solemnised in the Church of England in Wales than in all the Nonconformist chapels put together. The figures in the Report of the Welsh Commission are that there were 5,246 marriages solemnised in the Church of England in Wales, and 4,652 in the Nonconformist chapels. Therefore, a Clause of this kind may seriously affect a
      142
      very large percentage of the inhabitants of Wales. The Home Secretary's speech was important for another reason. For the first time in my recollection he stated the fact that the churches were being transferred to the Synod and the representative body, with all the various parochial obligations upon them.
      Mr. McKENNA: I did not say that.
      Mr. HOARE: Then I misunderstood the right hon. Gentleman. I was under the impression that one of the points to which the right hon. Gentleman attached some importance was that the rights of the parishioners, so far as the marriage laws were concerned, would go on even after the Church was Disestablished, and the parochial system as a legal system ex hypothesi broken down. The right hon. Gentleman now assures me that that only refers to marriages.
      Mr. McKENNA: This Clause.
      Mr. HOARE: It does not refer to questions like sittings in a church, or the right to ministration?
      Mr. McKENNAindicated dissent.
      9.0 P.M.
      Mr. HOARE: That is a relief. But even as it affects marriages, it seems to me very unfair that you should impose upon the Church all the obligations of Establishment when you have taken away any advantages, if advantages there be, that Establishment confers upon it. I think the Committee would do well to obtain some further information as to what the rights of parishioners will be, so far as marriages are concerned, when this Bill passes. Take the case to which my Noble Friend (Lord Hugh Cecil) referred—the marriage of divorced persons. Will a clergyman in a Disestablished Church be in a position to refuse the use of his church for the marriage of divorced persons? That is a simple question, and no doubt one that the right hon. Gentleman opposite will be able to answer when he comes to reply. Take, again, the question of the incumbents. I cannot see how you will be able to maintain the rights of parishioners so far as marriage is concerned when, under the Bill, there is no reason why parishes should continue. I imagine that the Church will be quite free to rearrange its boundaries. How then can you maintain parishioners' rights when it may very well come about that the parochial system, as it now exists in Wales, will I come to an end? Take a further point,

      143
      which refers to the publication of banns. I understand that under Clause 3, Subsection (4), the General Synod can, if it so wills, repeal or modify the Church Discipline Act, 1840, and I understand that under that Act certain penalties are imposed upon the clergy if they refuse to publish banns in a recognised manner or if they marry persons when their banns have not been so published. If they can repeal or modify the Sections in the Church Discipline Act under Clause 3, Sub-section (4), how can you say that—
      "Nothing in this Act shall affect the law with respect to marriage in Wales."
      Take the position in which the State will find itself. I am speaking now simply of marriage in its civil aspect. The State at present recognises the Church as one of its official agents for performing a civil act, but under this Bill you break up all that organisation. How can the same relation continue in the future? How can you say, when you have broken up the organisation as we at present understand it, with which the Church performs the civil act on behalf of the State, that we should go on exactly as if nothing had happened, and that—
      "Nothing shall affect the law with respect to marriage in Wales or Monmouthshire."
      These difficulties are not problematical. When the Irish Church Act was passed there was no such Clause in the Act at all, and there was no reference to the law of marriage. The whole thing was left un-mentioned and indefinite. I understand that the result was a state of confusion. After the passage of that Act people did not know what, from the civil point of view, constituted a marriage in a church of the Church of Ireland, or whether particular persons were or were not married. The consequence was that the very next year after the passage of the Irish Act it was found necessary to pass in this House the Matrimonial Clauses Act for Ireland—a long Act composed of more than forty Clauses, in which the state of affairs was set out, and it was stated that explanation was found necessary as to how the law of marriage stood when the Church had been Disestablished. I am very much afraid, if this Clause is taken out altogether, that the Church in Wales will find itself in a similar difficulty, and that it may come about that we shall be compelled, either next Session
      144
      or in some future Session, to pass a similar Act for Wales and involve ourselves in a long and complicated discussion in order to clear up the confusion. I should like an answer from one of the right hon. Gentlemen opposite on a point with reference to licences. What is going to happen to the archbishop's licence? As they are aware, the archbishop can at present issue special licences for marriage at any convenient time and for any convenient place. No reference is made to that in this Clause at all. Reference is made to the bishops' licences, but no reference is made to the archbishop's licence. Is the archbishop's licence going' to continue or not? There is a further point connected with licensing churches for the solemnisation of marriage. Under this Clause the bishops' licence for solemnisation of marriage is to continue, but it is a very restricted licence, and it is only used in certain cases. Surely, if you are going to Disestablish the Church, you must initiate quite a new system of licensing churches altogether, and you should leave it quite free to the bishops of the Church in Wales to license not a few churches in particular places, which is all they would be allowed to do under this Clause, but to license any churches anywhere. That is what happened in Ireland. There is a Schedule in the Irish Act setting out a number of officials, all of whom can licence churches anywhere. These are all practical questions, which we have a right to have answered before we can possibly be in a position to decide whether this Clause should remain or not. No one is more anxious than I am that the Church should be perfectly free, just as free as any Nonconformist body in Wales is now, with reference to performing marriages and to licensing churches for the solemnisation of marriages, but until I have the questions answered which I have put I cannot understand what would be the exact effect of taking the Clause out of the Bill altogether.
      Mr. ELLIS GRIFFITH: If I follow aright the speech of the hon. Member, this Amendment is moved, in substance, in order to consider again the question we have been discussing for some time. We have already for some time been considering the question whether this Clause should remain or not, and the questions the hon. Member has put are rather designed to enable him to make up his mind upon that point. As I understand it, the church

      145
      will make its own rules and its own constitution, and all the questions which the hon. Member has put to us would be answered with reference to those rules and that constitution. If the Church of England makes a rule that no divorced person shall have a right to be married in any Church of the new denomination—I do not use the word offensively—divorced persons cannot be married in those Churches if the Clause is left out. The Noble Lord drew a tremendous picture of what the Church in Wales would be unless certain reforms that he advocated are passed, but he really described the position of the Church of England in Wales at present, and as far as I can follow his argument there is a very much better chance to have freedom from the scandals and abuses to which he refers in a Disestablished Church rather than an Established Church. The hon. Member referred to Ireland. One is aware that there was an Act passed the very next year in order to deal with the matter. I quite understand the hon. Member's point of view. He is rather loth to let the Clause go before he konws exactly what would happen if it were taken out of the Bill. The position in Ireland is not exactly the same as the position in Wales, because in Wales there is only one privileged church with regard to the law of marriage, while in Ireland there were two or three churches at any rate, which had a separate status as to the law of marriage and the difficulty was much greater.
      Our position in regard to this Clause is this. We shall be interested to know what are the view's of the hon. Member (Mr. Ormsby-Gore) on the question because, in accordance with our practice throughout, though we attach importance to views from all quarters of the House, we really attach more importance to the opinions of Welsh Churchmen. The Noble Lord (Viscount Wolmer) referred to the bishops and clergy as being the real authorities in matters of doctrine, and I have no doubt that is so according to one extreme view of the Church. Still, that is not quite our attitude as far as this Clause is concerned. We not only want to know the views of the bishops and the clergy, but we should also like to know the views of representative laymen from Wales. Therefore I repeat that the position taken up by my right hon. Friend is that if before Report stage we have a fairly representative expression of opinion of Churchmen in Wales that they would
      146
      prefer to have this Clause deleted, deleted it shall be. At the same time our contention is that the Church when Disestablished and Disendowed, though it will be deprived of a good many of its rights and privileges, should retain the right to frame its own constitution and to live its spiritual life and doctrinal life and synodical life as free as possible from all restraint and control from Parliament or from anyone else. I think hon. Members will give us Nonconformists credit for our sincerity in this. We are anxious that the Church should have self-government and self-control, and we do not want as a Parliament to impose upon the Church any restraint in that respect, and if the Church representatives think they would rather be under the law of 1898, relating to the attendance of registrars at marriages in Nonconformist places of worship, we are perfectly ready to meet them.
      Mr. CAVE: I quite agree, it is very important that we should hear the views of Members from Wales, but at the same time we are all responsible for this Clause, and I hope I may be allowed to say a few words, not so much from the ecclesiastical as from the general point of view. I should not myself like to see the Clause deleted unless some satisfactory Clause or Clauses were put in its place. I do not think this particular Clause a good one. It is open to a great deal of criticism, and in saying that I am not speaking my own opinion, because I know many people in this country with the very greatest knowledge and experience of marriage matters are very anxious as to the effect of the Bill upon marriages. I think the whole matter requires further and more careful and closer consideration. I hope I may be allowed to ask the Government what, in their view, is the effect of the Bill, either with or without this Clause, upon certain matters affecting marriage. Let me take, for instance, the question as to whether marriages may be solemnised in a particular church. At present, in every ordinary parish church where banns may be put up a marriage may be solemnised without the grant of a licence to the Church. Any parishioner may go and claim to be married there, and no licence need be obtained for the marriage. But, apart from that, no licence is necessary for the church itself. Is that position intended to be preserved or not? It is a matter of moment to a great many people. They like to feel that they have a right to go and be married in their parish church. So much so that the

      147
      proportion of the marriages in Church of England Churches is far greater than the proportion of members of those churches. The members of many other churches prefer to be married in a Church of England. Is it intended to affect the status of a Church of England Church in respect of marriage? I see in this Clause a provision which says:—
      "Nothing in this Act shall affect the law with respect to marriage in Wales or Monmouthshire, or the right of a bishop of the Church in Wales to license churches for the solemnisation of marriage or to grant licences to marry."
      Well, of course, nobody knows better than the right hon. Gentleman that there are comparatively few Church of England churches which are so licensed. In most of them marriages are solemnised without any licence at all. It is only chapels-of-ease which are in the position of requiring a licence now. Is it intended, in the first place, that a licence shall be needed for every church? Secondly, what about the duty of the incumbent in relation to marriage? Is that to remain or not? Under the Bill as it stands, I am disposed to think that it might remain, not only under this Clause, but under Clause 8, Sub-section (2), which provides that "all property transferred under this Section shall be held subject to all public and private rights." That may include the right of any person to be married in the church. I think we should all like to know what is the intention of the Government, and what in their view will be the effect of the Bill.
      Take the matter of returns to the registrar. Is it the intention that the registrar shall be notified of the existence of a church where marriages may be solemnised? He has certain returns now, and I do not know whether it is intended to make special provision for them in this Bill. Take also what I think is a consideration of importance. Under the law as it stands it is the duty of the incumbent of a church to take a number of precautions to see that he does not solemnise the marriage of people who ought not to be married—that is, of people one of whom has been married before, or who may be in the prohibited degrees, or in respect of whom there may be some impediment. There is a danger of putting an end to that safeguard under the Bill. For instance, under the law as it stands,
      148
      in order to be married in the Church one of the parties must be resident for a certain time in the ecclesiastical parish in the church of which he or she is going to be married. It may be the effect of this Bill to efface the parish boundaries altogether. You would probably find that it would be so. In many Nonconformist Churches there is no such thing practically as a parish boundary. It has no practical effect in their administration. The result of the Bill may be that a minister may not know the boundaries of his parish, and still less where the particular person to be married resides. In that way the check on bogus marriages will go, unless you put some special provision in its place. Take the case of marriage by licence. I want to know what the effect of the Bill is upon licences. Under present conditions a licence is issued through the Chancellor or Surrogate. There are forms to be gone through. The licence has to be issued under the seal of the Court. These officials have certain statutory or canonical duties which can be enforced, but under the Bill you are destroying the Court and you are abolishing the officials. There is no one to perform these statutory duties. There is no one, so far as I can see, to exact or to take an affidavit. After all, if under Clause 3 of the Bill you are abolishing ecclesiastical law and Ecclesiastical Courts, it may be that no one will have the right to take an affidavit of that kind. Has that been thought of? Do you not think it quite possible that the effect of the Bill may be to throw over the whole of the marriage laws, and to encourage a loose system such as that which in past times encouraged bogus marriages and caused a great deal of trouble? It may be so again.
      Supposing an incumbent under your new law should not comply with his obligations, whatever they are, who is going to enforce them upon him? You will have lost the Ecclesiastical Court, which is very strict in enforcing these obligations in respect of marriage. You would have no one to enforce them, and the effect might be to loosen the law of marriage, to make marriage more easy to obtain, and to increase the number of irregular unions. I am only detailing these matters to show that the whole subject requires much more careful consideration than it can have had. The whole object of what I am saying is this: I do not like this Clause; I do not think

      149
      it meets a tithe of the real difficulties we have before us. At the same time only to withdraw it will lead to worse confusion. What I wish the Government to do is to take a little trouble now before the difficulties become real practical difficulties, and to try to frame some kind of code which will regulate marriages in the Church of England in Wales after the Bill is passed. I have put on the Paper a series of Clauses which have been framed with that view. I am not the least in love with the particular Clauses I have put on the Paper. By the courtesy of the right hon. Gentleman I have seen a criticism to the effect that they are unnecessary as re-enacting the existing law. Well, whoever said that did not realise the effect of the other parts of the Bill, because the very purpose of the Clauses is to re-enact the existing law. In my view the earlier Clauses, and especially Clause 3, destroy the existing law. The object of the Clauses of which I have given notice is to re-enact the existing law of marriage in Churches, and, at all events, to frame some sort of definite code which would regulate marriages in the future. I do not press any particular Clause on the Government, but what I want them to do is to reconsider this matter, and to believe me when I say that the effect of the Bill, with or without the Clause we are now discussing, will be to throw the whole law of marriage into confusion, and probably to lead to a great deal of trouble. After all, a good deal could be done before the Report stage, and I press them now to reconsider the whole question and not to leave it to be done in twelve months by an amending Bill, but to make it part of the present Bill.
      Mr. McKENNA: I think the hon. and learned Member does us an injustice when he suggests that this matter has not been fully thought out. So farfrom that being the case the very greatest attention has been paid to this point. The hon. and learned Member knew Clauses were carefully examined. The suggestion made to us by the right hon. Gentleman, the Member for Sheffield, who unfortunately is absent, was considered also, and we consulted an authority whom we regarded as the best able to advise us on this point, the Registrar-General. He assured us that under the Clause as it now stands the position of the Church of England in Wales hereafter in point of law will be precisely what it is to-day, and on this question of marriage we do by this very simple Clause
      150
      re-enact the existing laws. What we are doing in the gross the hon. and learned Gentleman proposes to do in detail. I submit that it is an altogether unnecessary proceeding when you have re-enacted a code of law by saying that this code shall be law, then by a variety of Clauses to set out that code in detail. The hon. and learned Gentleman was not present when the discussion on the previous Amendment took place. I am not imputing any neglect to him for that—it is impossible for anyone to be present through the whole Debate—but he was not present at the time when it was very strongly pressed on us by both sides of the House that we should not give the Church of England any privileged position in regard to the marriage law which was not shared by all the other free unestablished Churches. It was pressed upon me from both sides of the House to drop Clause 22. I then stated that we could only do so on condition that we substituted for this another Clause which would in fact apply to the Disestablished Church of England in Wales the whole of the existing marriage law as applied to the existing Nonconformist Churches.
      The right hon. Gentleman says that merely to withdraw Clause 22 would not be sufficient. We are quite willing to put the Disestablished Church in Wales in exactly the same position as that in which any other Free Church in Wales is at this moment, and we should be very glad to be in a position to see a request in an authoritative manner made from that side of the House that we should take that course because if such a request were made we should be most ready to accede to it. It might be asked why did we introduce the Bill with this Clause in it as it stands. I may briefly state the reason now. We took the Clause in its present form because we could not entirely deprive the parishioners of their existing rights and we could not at the same time impose upon the Church of England when Disestablished all the obligations which the parishioners would have imposed upon them with regard to marriages in churches, unless at the same time we put the Church of England in a sort of quasi-privileged slate. Therefore, balancing the advantages and obligations with regard to the Church of England in respect of marriage law we adopted this Clause. But we are quite willing to omit the Clause, and, on the whole, my opinion is if that is acceptable to hon. Members opposite it would be the best course to take. This

      151
      would remove from this Bill any suggestion that we are giving to the Church of England a privileged position, or that we are dictating in any way to the Church of England what its future constitution shall be in Wales. If that view finds acceptance, I will undertake to move to omit this Clause on the Report.
      Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: I cannot claim at this moment to speak with any authority on behalf of the Church in Wales or of any very large number of the Church in Wales, but I give my opinion for what it is worth. I am inclined to agree with the suggestion of the Home Secretary that probably the Clause had best be withdrawn. Certainly I do not like the Clause as it stands, and I am not at all sure whether the proposal of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kingston would not have the effect of binding the Church rather more in its future actions than it is desirable it should be bound. On the other hand, I listened to the speech most carefully, and I thought there were many points in his speech which did not bear particularly on the concrete proposals in this new Clause which did require further consideration, and the drafting of this Clause which the Home Secretary suggests, putting the Church of England in Wales when Disestablished in the same position as the Nonconformist bodies in Wales, would not be a suitable place by any means. It seems to me it would require very careful drafting indeed, because the whole history and legal position of marriages as solemnised by the Church of England is so different from similar ceremonies in Nonconformist chapels, that to put them on exactly the same plane would not be a very easy matter. I cannot speak with any great authority at the moment, but I think that the best course would be for the Home Secretary to omit this Clause now and produce another Clause on the Report, and, if not agreed, at any rate that he would consult one or two of us as to whether we had any serious objection to that Clause beforehand. I think this is a matter which can be dealt with by negotiation, as it is perfectly clear that there is a real desire on that side of the House that we should have no difficulty and no need of further discussion with regard to this marriage question; and certainly there is no desire on this side of the House that the Church should remain in a privileged position in regard to marriages when Disestablished in Wales.
      152
      A very large proportion of the marriages in Wales are performed according to the rites of the Church of England, and I do think it would be a very great loss if there was anything which compelled a falling off in that respect. I think over one-third of the total number of marriages in Wales, including those not solemnised according to any religious rites, are solemnised in the Churches. A very strong sentiment exists, I believe, among certain Nonconformists that they should be married in the parish church, although I think we should secure for the Church power to prevent the incumbents suffering because they would not solemnise the marriage of divorced persons or the marriage of a man with his deceased wife's sister. Personally, I do not think from any experience of the Church in Wales that the rather extreme cases put forward by my Noble Friend the Member for Newton are likely to prevail in that Church. I do say it would be undesirable to put an incumbent of the Disestablished Church in a position of ambiguity or menace in any way because he refused to solemnise a marriage of that kind. After all, the traditions of the Church are against that kind of marriage. I think it is a matter for extremely grave consideration, and I think the Government certainly do want to put the Church in Wales on the same footing as other Churches, though the Church in Wales may ask for an entirely different constitution. It would not be in order, however, to discuss that. For my part, without binding anybody else, I would suggest that this Clause should be withdrawn, and that the Home Secretary should take advice, and, after very careful consideration, should draw up a Clause putting marriages in the Disestablished Church in Wales on the same footing as marriages in the Nonconformist denominations in Wales, but having careful regard to those Acts especially affecting the marriage of certain people who are referred to in the Clause put down by the hon. and learned Member for Kingston (Mr. Cave). I confess that I had not given this Clause any great attention until the Under-Secretary for the Home Office made a special appeal to me. As far as I am personally concerned. I have not had much dealing either with the marriage service or anything else of that kind, and I am not particularly well informed in regard to the law or customs of marriage either in Wales or in England. I hope that the Home Secretary will not

      153
      take anything I have said as binding on anyone else. I will take the advice of the bishops of the Church in Wales, and I hope that he, too, will take advice, and on the Report stage will submit something acceptable to all sides of the House.
      Mr. KING: I have heard with peculiar pleasure the Debate this evening, and I find myself in unexpected agreement with hon. Members on the other side of the House. That is a pleasant feeling which I am afraid is not likely to be repeated indefinitely. At the same time I thank hon. Members opposite for expressing so generously their feeling, which certainly I believe is the feeling of the great majority of the House, and which should be the feeling of all men of ordinary common sense everywhere, namely, that when the Church in Wales is Disestablished it ought to stand with regard to ceremony and privilege in regard to marriage just where all the other denominational Churches stand. Therefore I hope very earnestly that the Home Secretary will be able to carry through a proposal to omit this Clause, and to substitute a simple Clause which will put the Disestablished Church absolutely on a level of equality with other churches. I would like to refer to a few remarks which fell from the hon. Member for Pontefract (Mr. Booth). I wish to recall the protest he made on the ground that a marriage in the Church of England was more economical, was less costly, than a marriage performed in any other manner. The hon. Gentleman is generally very accurate in all statements of this kind, but on this point I am sure he is quite wrong. I myself have had a single experience in this matter, but I know from what my own people tell me that the cheapest way to get married is to go to the registry office. At the present time the practice is growing and is becoming much more common to have the marriage performed legally at the registry office, and, with the certificate, to go to a chapel where the ceremony is performed, though not with the actually legal binding service. In that way marriages are now very widely performed, and with very great economy.
      Mr. BOOTH: I think the hon. Member has not quite stated my position as I wish the House to understand it. I did not say that marriage in the Church of England is always cheaper than in Nonconformist places, but what I do say is that it is almost as cheap as in any other church,
      154
      and cheaper than in some. But I was putting the matter only partially on the ground of economy, and with respect to the poorest of people.
      Mr. KING: I quite see the hon. Member's point, but we will not go into it further now. I dare say the difference between us will be considered by the Home Secretary, and I will only conclude by saying, that it seems to be agreed on both sides of the House the main course to pursue in this matter, and it ought not to be beyond the ability of Parliamentary draftsmen to frame a Clause which will satisfy all parties in this House.
      Mr. WYNDHAM: I think that is so. I understand that, subject to existing powers under Clause 22, the Home Secretary desires to preserve the rights of parishioners. [HON. MEMBERS: "No, no."]
      Mr. McKENNA: I offered to omit the Clause.
      Mr. WYNDHAM: I know that.
      Mr. POLLOCK: I wish to make a few remarks on what the Home Secretary said when he suggested omitting this Clause as meeting the difficulty. There are really two points on which this Clause has to be considered. One has reference to the rites and ceremonies which are to be administered by ministers and priests of the Church in Wales, and the other is the rights which parishioners have to the use of the parish church for the purpose of the solemnisation of their marriages. I agree that this Clause does not prevent all questions of ritual, all questions of rules of law, all questions of rules and of Church law being maintained and considered by the new Church when it has been reconstituted in Wales. In my view Clause 3 is sufficient for that purpose. I think the Home Secretary gave us that explanation on a previous Amendment, and, in my view, I think he sufficiently elaborated his reference to the new Church under Clause 3. To my mind that sweeps away any question as to whether or not you are imposing upon the new Church some difficulty as to matters of ceremonial, or rites, or rules in the exercise of her own particular rules and impose her own conditions upon those who seek the services of her priests and ministers.
      But there still remains the point of the right to have marriages solemnised in a church of the Church in Wales. The hon. Member for Pontefract said, and I quite agree with him on this point, that it is

      155
      the custom of many, particularly among poor people, to go to the parish church for the purpose of getting married. They know the Church and her custom, the practice of putting up the banns and so forth, and it would be an unfortunate thing if this were taken away from them. Let us assume that is an aspiration which, if we can, we ought to fulfil. What is the difficulty that this Clause imposes upon the new Church? One has got to remember, as my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kingston pointed out, that under Clause 8, Sub-section (2), property transferred under that Section shall be held subject to all existing public and private rights, so that you have this point: As I understand from the right hon. Gentleman, they, the churches, are handed over subject to the rights of parishioners. It is quite true that this proviso says that where a person is not a member of the Church in Wales he shall not be entitled as of right to have a marriage solemnised in the Church. Remember that by the common law at the present time every parishioner is entitled of right to a seat in the parish church, and to go to the parish church for the purpose of getting married therein. Until you have taken away that right you have not left the Church free and the common law stands. There is nothing in this Clause which takes away that right, and indeed, as I understand, the Home Secretary means expressly to reserve those rights. You thus put the invidious task upon the Church of separating those who are entitled as parishioners to go to the Church to have their banns published and marriage solemnised, and those who by reason of not being members of the Church of England are not entitled to do that.
      In a previous speech I mentioned that Lord Selborne pointed out that every parishioner is primâ facie entitled to those privileges in the Church and is entitled to be assumed to be a member of the Church and as a parishioner to have those rights. If he is held to be a Nonconformist the burden of the onus of proving that lies upon the Church. Under this proviso you make it no better. You say that the parishioner is not as of right entitled, but he may claim his rights and ask that they should be examined into, and the question whether he is entitled to have those ministrations in the Church is laid for decision on the Church. That is a very unfortunate fetter to impose on the new Church in
      156
      Wales. The truth of the matter comes to this, that you are not making clear what you are doing. There is nothing in this Clause to negative the existing rights which prevail at common law. The Clause says nothing in this Act shall affect the law, so it stands where it did before, and the rights of the parishioners of access to the Church and their common law rights remain. The difficulty of this Clause is that you do not define what you mean, and do not take away the existing right which can be claimed, while the onus is laid on the new Church of deciding whether a particular person has those rights or not. That is a very unfortunate position in which to leave the matter, I do not think this Clause touches any question of ritual or ceremonial or as to the conditions of marriage within the Church. It does not explain or take away the common law rights, and the Home Secretary has said he wishes those to be preserved. You have, in fact, several Clauses safeguarding the rights of the parishioners, not taking them away, and you are leaving those rights which are ill-defined. That is almost an impossible position to occupy.
      The Home Secretary wishes to be perfectly generous in this matter, and there is no desire on either side of the House to impose difficulty on the new Church. I accept that to the full, but the point has not been fully understood and appreciated by a number of Members on both sides who want to find a solution. The Home Secretary tells us he has obtained the advice of the Registrar-General. I wish to speak with every respect of the Registrar-General, but I really doubt whether he is the most competent legal opinion you could find to clear up this difficulty. I do not know whether he considered the matter from this point of view, or whether the question of the right of the parishioner was placed before him. I rather assume it was not, so that the answer of the Home Secretary comes to nothing. If this point was placed before the Registrar-General I would like to know what he said. In the case of the other Free Churches in Wales, they have not got to deal with the common law rights which necessarily belong to the parishioner. They are bodies joined together by contract or connection between the members, and in their case they are not fettered by what I would call the troubles of the common law. In the case of the Church in Wales, the position is quite different. The Home Secretary states that he is reluctant to deprive parishioners

      157
      of any existing right. If that be his purpose he has at the present time, certainly in this Clause, raised a very serious difficulty for the new Church. Some more effective Clause than this is necessary, but I should regret to see this Clause deleted before we see what the new Clause is going to be. I am quite certain some new Clause is necessary for dealing with the difficulties I have pointed out. I am quite sure this question needs far more consideration, particularly having regard to the fact that the object of the Home Secretary is to give freedom to the Church in Wales. You cannot give that freedom unless you negative some of the existing rights at common law which have existed for centuries past.
      Mr. WYNDHAM: I would ask the Home Secretary to respond to the request of my hon. and learned Friend that this Clause ought not to be deleted until we have the opportunity of studying the alternative Clause which, I understand, the Government are prepared to bring up on Report stage. Under those circumstances I must take upon myself the responsibility of advising my hon. Friend not to vote against this Clause until we see the alternative. I speak not only for myself, as I know that is the opinion of my right hon. Friend the Member for the City of London. The truth is that we have struck upon a radical difficulty. It is very hard to disestablish an Established Church, and this is one of the difficulties which attaches to that operation. As far as I can gather the feeling of the Committee, and I wish to put this to some of my hon. Friends below the Gangway, there is a desire in many parts of the House that the rights of parishioners shall be preserved. There is a desire in many parts of the House, and not only a desire but a determined intention, that, the Disestablished Church in Wales should have absolute liberty of conscience in regard to the marriage law. The problem is to reconcile those two points. Many of us desire to preserve the rights of parishioners. Speaking for myself, I would go so far as to say that if a man had left the Church and joined another Christian community, or even if he had ceased to be a Christian and desired to be married in the Church, I would go a considerable way to meet him. We must arrive at some kind of general decision in this matter. Whatever private views there may be in any quarter of the Committee, there is a strong ease for not destroying more than you need destroy,
      158
      and for not needlessly destroying the rights of parishioners, which many of us would like to preserve. If that be so, the mere deletion of this Clause would not really satisfy the opinion of any quarter of the Committee.
      If you out out Clause 22 you will have to amend the whole of the Bill. If Clause 22 were omitted, when lawyers came to interpret Clause 8 (2) they would find the words "save as otherwise provided in this Act, all property transferred under this Section shall be held subject to all existing public and private rights," and any Court of Law would then declare that any person might be married in the parish church under his existing constitutional rights as a parishioner. So that would be no solution of the difficulty. It would simply land us into a morass of nonsense; the Bill would not read. Evidently that is not the course that I could advise any hon. Member to take. I would suggest that we allow the Clause to go through with the assurance that the Government, whose duty it is and not ours, will find a solution to the difficulty. Let there be no misunderstanding. The exercise of rights which have operated in the past is one thing, but the question of any person in this country asking a priest against his conscience to perform the marriage rite is another. The Government have to provide a Clause to 'meet both those points—to preserve the hereditary and ancestral right of the parishioner on the one hand, and to give to the Church when Disestablished at least that, same liberty of conscience which is allowed to every other Free Church.
      10.0 P.M.
      Mr. HUGH EDWARDS: I think I may speak on behalf of my colleagues from Wales when I say that we entirely appreciate the point put forward on the other side. I was much struck by the remark of the hon. Member for Denbigh Boroughs, than whom no one in this. House has a better right to speak for Welsh Churchmen, that he claims no privilege for the Church in Wales apart from the Nonconformist bodies. We on this side would assure him and his colleagues that we are quite prepared to give to the Church full liberty of action. We want to do nothing that could in any way do violence to the traditions of the Church. I was much struck by the remark of the hon. and learned Member for Leamington when he spoke of a "fetter" of the Church. We are anxious to put the Church in

      159
      Wales on an exact equality with the Nonconformist bodies. I have sufficient faith in the fairness and statesmanship of the Home Secretary—[An HON. MEMBER: "Oh!"]—I speak from some experience; I think he has shown generosity, patience, and statesmanship in this matter, and we have sufficient faith in him to believe that he will go out of his way to meet the objections made on the other side. There seems to be an impression on the part of hon. Members opposite that the Established Church in Wales is really the custodian of marriage. The hon. Member for Kingston seemed to fear that if anything was done in this direction bogus marriages would take place. I agree that a large number of Nonconformists like to be married in the parish church. I can understand it. If inquiry is made it will be found that it is generally the wish of the bride. It is a feminine weakness in Wales. They seem to like the choral service, and there are spectacular advantages which are not to be found in the Nonconformist churches. But what are the facts in regard to Wales? In 1908 5,518 marriages were solemnised in the Established Church, whereas outside the Church over 12,000 marriages were solemnised. So that the great bulk of marriages even in Wales are solemnised outside the Church. We are prepared to do all that we can to remove the "fetter" of the Church, and so to help make the passage of the Bill easier. I am in the same unfortunate position as the hon. Member for Denbigh Boroughs, in that I cannot speak from practical experience of the marriage ceremony; but I venture to say that when he does embark upon that state, he will bear with him the best wishes of all the Parliamentary representatives of Wales.
      Lord ROBERT CECIL: With the concluding remark of the hon. Member opposite I am in hearty concurrence, but I am not sure that I find myself so much in agreement with the hon. Member in other respects. I quite understand his wish to make the passage of this Bill easier. But there is no question about this Clause making the passage of the Bill easy or hard. This is really only a detail; it is not a matter of any essential importance to the Bill.
      Mr. HUGH EDWARDS: Perhaps I ought not to have used that phrase. What I meant to say was that we are very
      160
      anxious not to wound the feelings of our opponents in the matter.
      Lord ROBERT CECIL: I am sure the hon. Gentleman is perfectly sincere in making that statement. I confine my acceptance of it to himself. The hon. Member attributed the preference to marriage in the Church in Wales to a feminine weakness. That is a rather old story: "The woman gave it me." I am quite ready to agree with the hon. Member—he knows his country better than I do—if he tells me that the more ornate service is an attraction to the bride. I quite appreciate and accept that, but I do not think that is the whole account. It is no use hon. Members opposite trying to believe that a Church which has been Established for so many years has not got an historical position. In spite of all that they may say, that is a fact which they must realise, and which everyone does realise in his heart. That is the truth. And when you come to Disestablish such a Church, when you try to take it up by the roots, you are met at every turn with difficulties and anomalies because of the essential difficulty of the operation. What do you try to do in this Clause? I shall say something about the wording of it in a moment. This particular Clause saves a particular part of the law ecclesiastical. Just look at what you have really done under your Bill. You begin by Clause 1, in which you say the Church shall cease to be Established by law. We have asked in vain for an explanation of what that means. It probably means the repeal of all law affecting the Church—not only Statute law, but common law. The whole of that part of ecclesiastical law which is part of the law of the realm ceases by these words to be. By Clause 3 you set it up again—you have to do that in order to keep the institution going at all—and you immediately have to make an exception, an exception which has not been sufficiently noticed in this discussion. It has a very important bearing on the marriage law. The contractual law, or the effect of it, at any rate, is not binding on any person who has not given his express consent to it. I think I have quoted the substance of Sub-section (2) of Clause 8. There you have an immediate exception. You go on to in Sub-section (4) to repeal all existing Statutes. We have never been able to know quite what the effect of that will be. My own view is that that Sub-section alone will lead to the greatest confusion, because no one knows

      161
      why you put it. You come to Section 4. It is repeated in much greater form in Subsection (2), Section 8, which certainly appears to preserve the rights of the parishioners in the parish Church. We have no answer from the Government whether that does or does not. It has a very vital bearing on this Clause which we are now discussing. If Section 8 Subsection (2) does preserve all the rights of the parishioners in the parish Church then this Clause is not necessary.
      In so far at any rate as it secures the right of a person to be married at their own Church it is very doubtful whether they would not have that right without the Clause. It is to be observed unless that exists, it is very doubtful whether this Clause does anything at all, because the representative body will be the owner of the Churches, and they will be able to exclude anybody, and may give their authority to exclude anybody from the Church. Therefore, to give a person the right to be married in a Church, and at the same time to give another authority the power to exclude everybody from the Church whether they like it or not leaves everything in the most open confusion. The real truth is that these are essential difficulties. You have to walk extremely warily when you are tearing up an institution which has lasted for centuries. You have to look very carefully to avoid at all costs everything in the nature of a short cut. This is a short cut, and a very bad one. I am amazed that the Home Secretary should be advised by any authority that it is quite clear that this Clause re-establishes in Wales the law with respect to marriage which exists in England. In terms it does. But who knows what is the meaning of the law in respect of marriages? The phrase is capable of a most diverse interpretation. We have been told by the Home Secretary that it would not affect or import into Wales the position in the case of Thompson v.Banister. He says that is not a law in respect of marriage—that is, a law with respect to the discipline of the Church. It is admitted that it would impose upon the Church obligations imposed by the Divorce Act. But what of this? Does it, or does it not, oblige the clergyman to use the marriage service? The right hon. Gentleman, when my right hon. Friend the senior Member for the City put that question in some form or another, said that all he could say was that what made a marriage
      162
      valid in England would produce a valid marriage in Wales. Yes, but that is not our point at all! Suppose you have a portion of the marriage service omitted and somebody raised an objection? Is the clergyman, or is he not, subject to ecclesiastical censure? That is a part of the law in respect to marriage. The law in respect to marriage involves all the sanctions of the law in respect of marriage. Suppose he omits to publish the banns? The matter is of vital importance as to the sanctity of marriage, and matters were elaborately devised by our ancestors in order to preserve the sanctity of marriage.
      When you come to civil marriages you have similar provisions applying with the same object. What about that? I suppose—I speak from recollection—a marriage, even if the banns have not been properly published, is a good marriage, though it exposes the clergyman to a penalty. What is the penalty in this case? Is it an ecclesiastical penalty? No! Your Ecclesiastical Courts are gone. Then the law in respect to marriage is not preserved, because you have a duty that you have no Courts to enforce, and a duty without any Courts to enforce it is not a duty at all. The truth is, the thing cannot be done by a short cut. This Clause is indefensible, and ought never to have been put by the Government into this Bill. They had to effect the object aimed at by an elaborate Statute of forty Sections re-enacting the marriage in the Irish Act; they ought to have been warned by that precedent of the Irish Act. But this is part of the whole disgusting system by which we are legislating now. Acts are drawn so as not to be intelligible, and not to work, but merely to be got through Parliament. They are made as short as possible. We have to work under rules which make it perfectly impossible for us to do anything effective. The truth is this exemplifies the utter decay of the House of Commons. I am quite clear myself that Clause 22 cannot possibly remain in its present form after the Debate of this evening. It will not do if it is merely struck out; I am quite confident that that will not do. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Dover pointed out that the existence of Section 8 Sub-section (2) makes that quite impossible. You will have to re-model the whole of that Sub-section of Clause 8. That is not a very easy thing to do. You would have to select what rights you intend to preserve and what to reject. It will make a complicated matter,

      163
      but if you are going to make this decent legislation that is what you are going to do. You have to find out what else you intend to preserve and what you intend to reject. Do you intend to give the right of access of the parishioners to the parish church? That is a very important matter. Are you going to give an absolute right to the representative counsel to exclude everybody from the parish church? I am not at all sure how I myself would answer that question, but it is evidently a question that must be answered, and answered finally. It is not answered in this Bill, except by a general phrase in Clause 8. Merely repealing Clause 22 or leaving it out would leave the matter in just as great confusion, or almost as great. The truth is that the matter is one that requires profound reconsideration, and what will happen in actual fact is this, it will be perfunctorily reconsidered by the Government, who do not care, and who are absolutely free from any fear of the House of Commons. Nothing but their official conscience will restrain them, and I have not much confidence in that. The Bill will go to the other House, and we shall never in the two or three years before us, if certain events happen, be able to amend it. We cannot do it because of your ridiculous farcical Parliament Act; however we demonstrate in the course of the next few months that the Bill is unworkable and ridiculous, your power will be supreme. That is the condition of the present situation in spite of the characteristic interruption of the hon. Member opposite who appears to devote his talents to becoming the buffoon of the House.
      Mr. KING: Is language of that character in order when applied to an hon. Member who was sitting perfectly quiet?
      The CHAIRMAN: I did not see where the interruption came from. There was some remark interjected. If the Noble Lord was mistaken, I am sure he will apologise.
      Mr. KING: May I assure the Committee and the Noble Lord that I did not make any interruption?
      Lord ROBERT CECIL: Of course, if the hon. Gentleman assures me he made no interruption, I congratulate him upon his almost unique self-control.
      Mr. KING: Will the Noble Lord also withdraw his opprobrious epithet?
      Lord ROBERT CECIL: I am very ready to withdraw anything which the hon. Member thinks offensive, and if he thinks it offensive to be described as the buffoon of the House I certainly withdraw, but I thought that was his occupation. I do not wish to detain the Committee any longer. I tried to show the Committee why I think the course of omitting this Clause or retaining it are alike impossible, and I venture to ask that the Government will do their best under the conditions to make this Bill at least worthy of the ancient traditions of the legislation of this country.
      Lord HUGH CECIL: I should like to ask the Home Secretary exactly how this matter stands. I understand he is going to put down a new proposal before the Report stage. Can he give the Committee any indication what opportunity the House will have upon Report to consider the Clause he proposes to move?
      Mr. McKENNA: It is quite obvious I cannot now state what the course will be that will be taken on the Report stage. I said quite definitely what the Clause is I propose to bring up. I shall propose on Report stage to omit Clause 22, and I suggest a new Clause which will put the Disestablished Church in Wales upon precisely the same footing as any other Free Church in Wales.
      Lord HUGH CECIL: Will the right hon. Gentleman give an undertaking that we shall have an opportunity of discussing that Clause?
      Mr. McKENNA: Obviously I cannot say what the opportunities will be under the Closure Resolution. Whether the Opposition will have an opportunity of discussing any particular Clause will depend upon themselves.
      Viscount WOLMER: I attach very great importance to what the right hon. Gentleman has said when he declared it is the intention of the Government to give the Church in Wales exactly the same liberties as are at present possessed by any Nonconformist body. I am sure Churchmen are not asking for anything more. That is all the Church asks, but I would point out that it is not only Clause 22 that is involved in this question. What I have in my mind at this particular moment is the conjunction of Clause 22 and Clause 8, and if the churches of the Church in Wales are to be handed over to the Church subject to the rights of parishioners to be married

      165
      there, which is, as I read it, the effect of Clause 8, especially when taken in conjunction with Clause 22, then it is obvious the Church in Wales will not have the same liberties as are at present enjoyed by the Nonconformist Churches. The Church in Wales must have the power to refuse to marry anybody whom she does not desire to marry just in the same way as the Nonconformists have that power. The word "parishioner" has been mentioned on this side of the House. I do not myself see how a parishioner can have any claim against a Disestablished Church. Most people would like to make as little break with the past as possible, and they would like to see the same state of affairs as we know it to-day continued, but I do not see how it can ever be admitted that a man because he happens to reside in a parish, whatever his theological opinions and religious beliefs may be, has a legal claim against the Disestablished Church. That feature in this Bill must be removed if the Government are going to emancipate the Church. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will bear those considerations in mind when he introduces his Amendment on Report.
      Mr. McKENNA: I cannot on Clause 22 go beyond what I have said, but the Noble Lord has quite correctly understood me. I will bring up a new Clause which will put the Disestablished Welsh Church precisely on the same footing of freedom as regards

      Division No. 530.]

      AYES.

      [10.25 p.m.

      Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour)

      Carr-Gomm, H. W.

      Ffrench, Peter

      Acland, Francis Dyke

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

      Field, William

      Adamson, William

      Chapple, Dr. William Allen

      Fitzgibbon, John

      Aqnew, Sir George William

      Clancy, John Joseph

      Flavin, Michael Joseph

      Ainsworth, John Stirling

      Clough, William

      Gill, A. H.

      Alden, Percy

      Collins, G. P. (Greenock)

      Gladstone, W. G. C.

      Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbarton)

      Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

      Glanville, Harold James

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

      Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J.

      Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

      Arnold, Sydney

      Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

      Goldstone, Frank

      Baker, H. T. (Accrington)

      Cotton, William Francis

      Greenwood, Granville G. (Peterborough)

      Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.)

      Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

      Greenwood, Hamar (Sunderland)

      Baring, Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple)

      Crawshay-Williams, Eliot

      Greig, Colonel J. W.

      Barnes, G. N.

      Crumley, Patrick

      Grey, Rt. Hon Sir Edward

      Beale, Sir William Phipson

      Cullinan, J.

      Griffith, Ellis J.

      Beauchamp, Sir Edward

      Davies, E. William (Elflon)

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

      Beck, Arthur Cecil

      Davies, Timothy (Lines., Louth)

      Gulland, John William

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

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

      Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

      Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

      Dawes, James Arthur

      Hackett, J.

      Black, Arthur W.

      Delany, William

      Hall, F. (Yorks, Normanton)

      Boland, John Plus

      Denman, Hon. R. D.

      Hancock, John George

      Booth, Frederick Handel

      Devlin, Joseph

      Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)

      Bowerman, C. W.

      Dickinson, W. H.

      Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

      Boyle, D. (Mayo, North)

      Dillon, John

      Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds)

      Brace. William

      Donelan, Captain A.

      Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

      Brady, P. J.

      Doris, W.

      Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)

      Brocklehurst. W. B.

      Duffy, William J.

      Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

      Brunner, John F. L.

      Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

      Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

      Bryce, J. Annan

      Duncan, J. Hastings (Yorks, Otley)

      Hayward, Evan

      Buckmaster, Stanley O.

      Edwards, John Hugh (Glamorgan, Mid)

      Hazleton, Richard

      Burke, E. Havlland

      Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipnerary, N.)

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

      Burns, Rt. Hon. John

      Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)

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

      Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

      Essex, Sir Richard Walter

      Henry, Sir Charles

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

      Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles

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

      Byles, Sir William Pollard

      Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson

      Higham, John Sharp

      marriage as the Free Churches in Wales now find themselves. I shall bring up that Clause in substitution of the present Clause.
      Mr. WYNDHAM: I understand that that Clause will come within the proviso in Clause 8, Sub-section (2), "Save as otherwise provided by this Act." Will it be covered by that? Is that what I understand?
      Mr. McKENNA: Certainly.
      Mr. MOUNT: The right hon. Gentleman said that whether we should have an opportunity of discussing this on Report depended on this side of the House. May I point out that we have had since this Bill came into Committee two very important questions suddenly started upon the House. One was the question of commutation and the other is the question we have just been discussing. When the time-table was introduced these two questions were not before the House, and if the Government at that time thought two days were necessary for the Report, I do not think it is too much now to ask for one day more for the Report stage to consider these two important questions.
      Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
      The Committee divided: Ayes, 211; Noes, 153.

      Hinds, John

      Mooney, J. J,

      Robinson, Sidney

      Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

      Morgan, George Hay

      Roche, Augustine (Louth, N.)

      Hodge, John

      Morison, Hector

      Roche, John (Galway, E.)

      Hogge, James Myles

      Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

      Roe, Sir Thomas

      Holmes, Daniel Turner

      Muldoon, John

      Rowlands, James

      Holt, Richard Durning

      Munro, R.

      Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

      Hudson, Walter

      Munro-Ferguson, Rt. Hon. R. C.

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

      Hughes, S. L.

      Murray, Captain Hon. A. C.

      Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

      Illingworth, Percy H.

      Neilson, Francis

      Scanlan, Thomas

      Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus

      Nicholson, Sir C. N. (Doncaster)

      Schwann, Rt. Hon. Sir C. E.

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

      Nolan, Joseph

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

      Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)

      Norton, Captain Cecil W.

      Sheehy, David

      Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)

      Nuttall, Harry

      Sherwell, Arthur James

      Jones, Leif Stratten (Rushcliffe)

      O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

      Shortt, Edward

      Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

      O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

      Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John Allsebrook

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

      O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

      Smith, H. B. L. (Northampton)

      Joyce, Michael

      O'Doherty, Philip

      Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

      Keating, Matthew

      O'Donnell, Thomas

      Spicer, Rt. Hon. Sir Albert

      Kennedy, Vincent Paul

      O'Dowd, John

      Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)

      Kilbride, Denis

      O'Grady, James

      Sutherland, J. E.

      King, J.

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

      Sutton, John E.

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

      O'Malley, William

      Taylor, John W. (Durham)

      Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

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

      Taylor, Thomas (Bolton)

      Lardner, James Carrige Rushe

      O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

      Tennant, Harold John

      Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, West)

      O'Shee, James John

      Thomas, J. H.

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

      O'Sullivan, Timothy

      Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

      Leach, Charles

      Outhwaite, R. L.

      Toulmin, Sir George

      Levy, Sir Maurice

      Parker, James (Halifax)

      Trevelyan, Charles Philips

      Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

      Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

      Verney, Sir Harry

      Low, Sir Frederick (Norwich)

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

      Wadsworth, J.

      Lundon, Thomas

      Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

      Walsh, Stephen (Lanes., Ince)

      Lyell, Charles Henry

      Pirie, Duncan V.

      Walton, Sir Joseph

      Lynch, A. A.

      Pollard, Sir George H.

      Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

      McGhee, Richard

      Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

      Wardle, George J.

      Maclean, Donald

      Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

      Waring, Walter

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

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

      Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay

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

      Priestley, Sir Arthur (Grantham)

      Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

      Macpherson, James Ian

      Pringle, William M. R.

      Watt, Henry A.

      MacVeagh, Jeremiah

      Radford, G. H.

      Webb, H.

      M'Callum, Sir John M.

      Raffan, Peter Wilson

      White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)

      McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

      Raphael, Sir Herbert H.

      White, Patrick (Meath, North)

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

      Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields)

      Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.

      M'Micking, Major Gilbert

      Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

      Whyte, A. F. (Perth)

      Manfield, Harry

      Reddy, M.

      Wiles, Thomas

      Markham, Sir Arthur Basil

      Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

      Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthen)

      Marks, Sir George Croydon

      Redmond, William (Clare, E.)

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

      Marshall, Arthur Harold

      Richards, Thomas

      Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

      Martin, Joseph

      Richardson, Albion (Peckham)

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

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

      Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

      Young, Samuel (Cavan, East)

      Meagher, Michael

      Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

      Young, William (Perth, East)

      Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

      Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

      Yoxall, Sir James Henry

      Millar, James Duncan

      Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)

      Molloy, M.

      Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

      TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. G. Howard and Captain Guest.

      Mond, Sir Alfred Motriz

      Robertson, John M. (Tyneside)

      NOES.

      Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

      Cave, George

      Gretton, John

      Anson, Rt. Hon. Sir William R.

      Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

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

      Baird, J. L.

      Cecil, Lord Hugh (Oxford University)

      Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne)

      Balcarres, Lord

      Cecil, Lord R. (Herts, Hitchin)

      Hall, D. B. (Isle of Wight)

      Baldwin, Stanley

      Chaloner, Col. R. G. W.

      Hall, Fred (Dulwich)

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

      Clay, Captain H. H. Spender

      Hambro, Angus Valdemar

      Banbury, Sir Frederick George

      Clyde, J. Avon

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

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

      Coates, Major Sir Edward Feetham

      Harris, Henry Percy

      Barlow, Montague (Salford, South)

      Craik, Sir Henry

      Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

      Barnston, Harry

      Crichton-Stuart, Lord Ninlan

      Helmsley, Viscount

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

      Croft, H. P.

      Henderson, Major H. (Berks, Abingdon)

      Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton)

      Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott

      Hill, Sir Clement L.

      Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks

      Duke, Henry Edward

      Hills. John Waller

      Beckett, Hon. Gervase

      Eyres-Monsell, B. M.

      Hill-Wood, Samuel

      Bonn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

      Falle, Bertram Godfrey

      Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy

      Bird, A.

      Fell, Arthur

      Hope, Major J. A. (Midlothian)

      Blair, Reginald

      Finlay, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert

      Home, W. E. (Surrey, Guildford)

      Boyle, William (Norfolk, Mid)

      Fisher, Rt. Hon. W. Hayes

      Hume-Williams, William Ellis

      Boyton, James

      Fitzroy, Hon. Edward A.

      Hunt, Rowland

      Bull, Sir William James

      Fletcher, John Samuel

      Hunter, Sir C. R.

      Burdett-Coutts, W.

      Forster, Henry William

      Ingleby, Holcombe

      Burn, Colonel C. R.

      Gardner, Ernest

      Jessel, Captain H. M.

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

      Gilmour, Captain John

      Joynson-Hicks, William

      Campion, W. R.

      Glazebrook, Capt. Philip K.

      Kebty-Fletcher, J. R.

      Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred

      Goldman, C. S.

      Kerry, Earl of

      Cassel, Felix

      Gordon, Hon. John Edward (Brighton)

      Kimber, Sir Henry

      Castlereagh, Viscount

      Grant, J. A,

      Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

      Cautley, H. S.

      Greene, W. R.

      Lane-Fox, G. R.

      168

      169

      Larmor, Sir J.

      Pollock, Ernest Murray

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

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

      Pretyman, Ernest George

      Thynne, Lord Alexander

      Lewisham, Viscount

      Pryce-Jones, Col. E.

      Touche, George Alexander

      Londsale, Sir John Brownlee

      Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

      Tryon, Captain George Clement

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

      Rees, Sir J. D.

      Tullibardine, Marquess of

      Lyttelton, Hon. J. C. (Droitwich)

      Remnant, James Farquharson

      Valentia, Viscount

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

      Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

      Walker, Col. William Hall

      Magnus, Sir Philip

      Royds, Edmund

      Walrond, Hon. Lionel

      Malcolm, Ian

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

      Ward, A. S. (Herts, Watford)

      Mason, James F. (Windsor)

      Salter, Arthur Clavell

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

      Middlemore, John Throgmorton

      Sanders, Robert A.

      Willoughby, Major Hon. Claud

      Mildmay, Francis Bingham

      Sanderson, Lancelot

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

      Mills, Hon. Charles Thomas

      Sandys, G. J.

      Winterton, Earl

      Moore, William

      Sassoon, Sir Philip

      Wolmer, Viscount

      Mount, William Arthur

      Smith, Harold (Warrington)

      Wood, John (Stalybridge)

      Newton, Harry Kottingham

      Spear, Sir John Ward

      Worthington-Evans, L.

      Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)

      Stanler, Seville

      Wright, Henry Fitzherbert

      Nield, Herbert

      Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

      Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

      Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

      Strauss, Arthur (Paddington, North)

      Yate, Col. Charles Edward

      Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend)

      Swift, Rigby

      Yerburgh, Robert A.

      Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

      Sykes, Alan John (Ches., Knutsford)

      Younger, Sir George

      Peel, Captain R. F. (Woodbridge)

      Sykes, Mark (Hull, Central)

      Perkins, Walter F.

      Talbot, Lord E.

      TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. Hoare and Mr. Hewins.

      Peto, Basil Edward

      Terrell, H. (Gloucester)

      It being after 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 necessary to dispose of Clause 22, to be concluded at this day's sitting.
      Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.
      Committee report Progress; to sit again to-morrow (Tuesday).

  ESTABLISHED CHURCH (WALES) (MONEY).
  Considered in Committee.
  [Mr. WHITLEY in the Chair.]
  Motion made and Question proposed, "That it is expedient to authorise the advance out of the Consolidated Fund of any sums necessary for payment of the

  Division No. 531.]

  AYES.

  [10.40 p.m.

  Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour)

  Brocklehurst, William B.

  Davies, Timothy (Lines., Louth)

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Brunner, J. F. L.

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

  Adamson, William

  Bryce, J. Annan

  Dawes, J. A.

  Agnew, Sir George William

  Buckmastcr, Stanley O.

  Delany, William

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Burke, E. Haviland-

  Denman, Hon. R. D.

  Alden, Percy

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Devlin, Joseph

  Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbarton)

  Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Dickinson, W. H.

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

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

  Dillon, John

  Arnold, Sydney

  Byles, Sir William Pollard

  Donelan, Captain A.

  Baker, Harold T. (Accrington)

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  Doris, William

  Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.)

  Cawley, H. T. (Heywood)

  Duffy, William J.

  Baring, Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple)

  Chapple, Dr. William Allen

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

  Barnes, George N.

  Clancy, John Joseph

  Duncan, J. Hastings (Yorks, Otley)

  Beale, Sir William Phipson

  Clough, William

  Edwards, John Hugh (Glamorgan, Mid)

  Beck, Arthur Cecil

  Collins, Godfrey P. (Greenock)

  Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

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

  Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

  Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)

  Birrell, Rt. Han. Augustine

  Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J.

  Essex, Sir Richard Walter

  Black, Arthur W.

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles

  Boland, John Pius

  Cotton, William Francis

  Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson

  Booth, Frederick Handel

  Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

  Ffrench, Peter

  Bowerman, C. W.

  Crawshay-Williams, Eliot

  Field, William

  Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North)

  Crumley, Patrick

  Fitzgibbon, John

  Brace, William

  Cullinan, John

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Brady, P. J.

  Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

  Gill, A. H.

  principal and interest of all or any part of any money borrowed by the Welsh Commissioners and guaranteed by His Majesty's Treasury under any Act of the present Session to terminate the Establishment of the Church of England in Wales and Monmouthshire, and to make provision in respect of the Temporalities thereof and for other purposes in connection with the matters aforesaid."—[Mr McKenna.]
  It being after half-past Ten of the clock, the CHAIRMAN proceeded, pursuant to the Order of the House of 28th November last, to put forthwith the Question necessary to dispose of the Business to be concluded at half-past Ten of the clock at this day's sitting.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 258; Noes, 146.

  Gladstone, W. G. C.

  McGhee, Richard

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Granville, H. J.

  Maclean, Donald

  Redmond, William (Clare, E.)

  Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

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

  Richards, Thomas

  Goldstone, Frank

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

  Richardson, Albion (Peckham)

  Greenwood, Granville G. (Peterborough)

  Macpherson, James Ian

  Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

  Greenwood, Hamar (Sunderland)

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Greig, Colonel James William

  M'Callum, Sir John M.

  Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

  Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

  McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

  Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)

  Griffith, Ellis J.

  M'Laren, Hon. F.W.S. [Lines.,Spalding)

  Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

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

  M'Micking, Major Gilbert

  Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

  Gulland, John William

  Manfield, Harry

  Robinson, Sidney

  Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

  Markham, Sir Arthur Basil

  Roche, Augustine (Louth)

  Hackett, J.

  Marks, Sir George Croydon

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Hall, Frederick (Normanton)

  Marshall, Arthur Harold

  Rowlands, James

  Hancock, John George

  Martin, Joseph

  Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

  Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis (Rossendale)

  Meagher, Michael

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

  Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

  Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

  Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

  Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds)

  Millar, James Duncan

  Scanlan, Thomas

  Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

  Molloy, Michael

  Schwann, Rt. Hon. Sir C. E.

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

  Mond, Sir Alfred Moritz

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

  Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

  Mooney, John J.

  Sheehy, David

  Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

  Morgan, George Hay

  Sherwell, Arthur James

  Hay ward, Evan

  Morlson, Hector

  Shortt, Edward

  Hazleton, Richard

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

  Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John Allsebrook

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

  Muldoon, John

  Smith, H. B. L. (Northampton)

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

  Munro-Ferguson, Rt. Hon. R. C.

  Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim)

  Henry, Sir Charles

  Murray, Capt. Hon. A. C.

  Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, W.)

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

  Neilson, Francis

  Sutherland, J. E.

  Higham, John Sharp

  Nicholson, Sir Charles N. (Doncaster)

  Sutton, John E.

  Hinds, John

  Nolan, Joseph

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

  Norton, Captain C. W.

  Taylor, Thomas (Bolton)

  Hodge, John

  Nuttall, Harry

  Tennant, Harold John

  Hogge, James Myles

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Thomas, James Henry

  Holmes, Daniel Turner

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

  Holt, Richard Durnlng

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Toulmin, Sir George

  Hudson, Walter

  O'Doherty, Philip

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Hughes, S. L.

  O'Donnell, Thomas

  Verney, Sir Harry

  Illingworth, Percy H.

  O'Dowd, John

  Wadsworth, J.

  Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus

  O'Grady, James

  Walsh, Stephen (Lanes., Ince)

  Jardine, Sir J. (Roxburgh)

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

  Walton, Sir Joseph

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

  O'Malley, William

  Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

  John, H. Haydn (Merioneth)

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

  Wardle, George J.

  Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Waring, Walter

  Jones, Leif Stratten (Notts, Rushcliffe)

  O'Shee, James John

  Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

  O'Sullivan, Timothy

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  Jones, William S. Glyn- (Stepney)

  Outhwaite, R. L.

  Watt, Henry A.

  Joyce, Michael

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Webb, H.

  Keating, M.

  Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

  White, J. Dundas (Glas., Tradeston)

  Kennedy, Vincent Paul

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

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  Kilbride, Denis

  Phillips. John (Longford, S.)

  Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.

  King, J.

  Pirie, Duncan V.

  Whyte, A. F.

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

  Pollard, Sir George H.

  Wiles, Thomas

  Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

  Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

  Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthen)

  Lardner, James Carrige Rushe

  Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

  Williamson, Sir A.

  Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, West)

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

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

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

  Priestley, Sir Arthur (Grantham)

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Leach, Charles

  Pringle, William M. R.

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

  Levy, Sir Maurice

  Radford, G. H.

  Young, Samuel (Cavan, E.)

  Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Raffan, Peter Wilson

  Young, W. (Perthshire, E.)

  Low, Sir F. (Norwich)

  Raphael, Sir Herbert H.

  Yoxall, Sir James Henry

  Lundon, T.

  Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields)

  Lyell, Charles Henry

  Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. G. Howard and Captain Guest.

  Lynch, A, A.

  Reddy, M.

  NOES.

  Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

  Burdett-Coutts, W.

  Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M.

  Anson, Rt. Hon. Sir William R.

  Butcher, John George

  Falle, Bertram Godfray

  Baird, J. L.

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

  Fell, Arthur

  Balcarres, Lord

  Campion, W. R.

  Finlay, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert

  Baldwin, Stanley

  Cassel, Felix

  Fisher, Rt. Hon. W. Hayes

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

  Castiereagh, Viscount

  Fitzroy, Hon. E. A.

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Cautley, H. S.

  Fleming, Valentine

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

  Cave, George

  Fletcher, John Samuel (Hampstead)

  Barnston, Harry

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Forster, Henry William

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

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Oxford University)

  Gardner, Ernest

  Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton)

  Cecil, Lord R. (Herts, Hitchin)

  Gilmour, Captain John

  Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks

  Chaloner, Col. R. G. W.

  Glazebrook, Captain Philip K.

  Beckett, Hon. Gervase

  Clay, Captain H. H. Spender

  Goldman, C. S.

  Bean, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

  Clyde, James Avon

  Greene, W. R.

  Bird, A.

  Coates, Major Sir Edward Feetham

  Gretton, John

  Blair, Reginald

  Craik, Sir Henry

  Guinness, Hon. W.E. (BuryS.Edmunds)

  Boy ton, James

  Crichton-Stuart, Lord Ninlan

  Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne)

  Bull, Sir William James

  Duke, Henry Edward

  Hall, D. B. (Isle of Wight)

  172

  173

  Hall, Fred (Dulwich)

  Lyttelton, Hon. J. C. (Droitwich)

  Stanier, Beville

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

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

  Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

  Harris, Henry Percy

  Malcolm, Ian

  Strauss, Arthur (Paddlngton)

  Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

  Mason, James F. (Windsor)

  Swift, Rigby

  Helmsley, Viscount

  Middlemore, John Throgmorton

  Sykes, Mark (Hull, Central)

  Henderson, Major H. (Berks, Abingdon)

  Mills, Hon. Charles Thomas

  Talbot, Lord E.

  Hewins, William Albert Samuel

  Morrison-Bell, Major A. C (Honiton)

  Terrell, Henry (Gloucester)

  Hill, Sir Clement L.

  Mount, William Arthur

  Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Down, North)

  Hills, John Waller

  Newton, Harry Kottingham

  Thynne, Lord A.

  Hill-Wood, Samuel

  Nicholson, William G (Peterstield)

  Touche, George Alexander

  Hoare, S. J. G,

  Neild, Herbert

  Tryon, Captain George Clement

  Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy

  Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

  Tullibardine, Marquess of

  Hope, Major J. A. (Midlothian)

  Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend)

  Valentia, Viscount

  Home, E. (Surrey, Guildford)

  Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

  Walker, Col. William Hall

  Hume-Williams, William Ellis

  Peel, Capt. R. F.

  Walrond, Hon. Lionel

  Hunt, Rowland

  Perkins, Walter Frank

  Ward, A. S. (Herts, Watford)

  Hunter, Sir Chas Rodk.

  Peto, Basil Edward

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

  Ingleby, Holcombe

  Pollock, Ernest Murray

  Willoughby, Major Hon. Claud

  Jessel, Captain Herbert M.

  Pretyman, E. G.

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

  Joynson-Hicks, William

  Pryce-Jones, Col. E.

  Winterton, Earl

  Kebty-Fletcher, J. R.

  Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

  Wolmer, Viscount

  Kerry, Earl of

  Rees, Sir J. D.

  Wood, John (Stalybridge)

  Kimber, Sir Henry

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  Worthington-Evans, L.

  Kinloch-cooke, Sir Clement

  Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

  Wright, Henry Fitzherbert

  Lane-Fox, G. R.

  Royds, Edmund

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  Larmer, Sir J.

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

  Yate, Col. C. E.

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

  Salter, Arthur Clavell

  Yerburgh, Robert A.

  Lee, Arthur H.

  Sanders, Robert Arthur

  Younger, Sir George

  Lewisham, Viscount

  Sandys, G. J.

  Locker-Lampson, O. (Ramsey)

  Sassoon, Sir Philip

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. H. Carlile and Mr. M. Barlow,

  Lonsdale, Sir John Brownlee

  Smith, Harold (Warrington)

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

  Spear, Sir John Ward

  Resolution to be reported to-morrow (Tuesday).

  QUESTION OF PROCEDURE.
  Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORD: On a point of Order. I wish to ask you, Mr. Speaker, whether it is not a breach of the privileges of this House to pass a Money Resolution without going into Committee at all? Of course, I am aware that, under the time-table which has been laid down for the regulation of our procedure on the Established Church (Wales) Bill, the Money Resolution was with certain Clauses of the Bill to be closured at half-past ten. When the Money Resolution came to be put in Committee there was no sitting whatever of the Committee, and there was no opportunity for discussion. I find it laid down in all the books on Parliamentary procedure that a question of public money has got to be dealt with by this House as representative of the people. The taxpayers are entitled to have a sitting of the Committee and to see what the money is and what is to be done with it. We have been entirely and absolutely shut out, and I submit to you as a point of Order that, notwithstanding the fact that it is laid down in the timetable that we should have the guillotine at half-past ten, it is a breach of the privileges of this House.
  Mr. SPEAKER: I think it would be a breach of the Rules of the House if I were to upset the time-table. The time-table
  174
  was fixed by the House after full consideration, and it is being carried out. I did not quite follow the hon. Member when he said that there had been no sitting of the Committee. The fact is that it is the only sitting of the Committee at which I have been present.

  MARKET GARDENERS' COMPENSATION (No. 3) BILL.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
  The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of AGRICULTURE (Mr. Runciman): This is a single Clause Bill, and is all that remains of the Market Gardeners Bill which was introduced earlier in the Session. They both had as their object the annulling of a decision which entirely upset the custom in the market gardening districts, and particularly the district of Evesham, and which made the work of the market gardeners who had to do with holdings in the districts almost impossible. The two Bill were introduced early in the Session, and both were committed to Grand Committee. There was considerable divergence of opinion there as to Clauses which had been added to the main proposals. The smaller Bill dealt primarily with what is known as the Kedington case. The Bill introduced by an hon. Friend of mine on this side went

  175
  further than the Kedington case, and introduced a larger number of matters which were controversial. We were unable to arrive at the Grand Committee at a unanimous decision with regard to it. At this late stage of the Session we should be jeopardising whatever chance there was of setting right the Kedington case if we were to go into these other matters. This Clause deals with that case, and nothing else. The Grand Committee was unanimous in desiring to have this matter remedied, and, as hon. Members on both sides are also anxious to have the matter put right, I hope that the House will now give the Bill a Second Reading.
  Mr. BOOTH: Is it intended to commit the Bill to a Committee of the Whole House, or send it back again?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: I shall move that it be committed to a Committee of the Whole House.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill read a second time.
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: I beg to move, "That the Bill be committed to a Committee of the Whole House."
  Question put, and agreed to. Bill committed accordingly for to-morrow (Tuesday.)

  TELEGRAPHIC FACILITIES (SCOTLAND).
  The Orders for the remaining Government business were read and postponed.
  Whereupon Mr. SPEAKER, pursuant to the Order of 14th October, proposed the Question, "That this House do now adjourn."
  Mr. R. HARCOURT: I desire to call attention to a matter of more than local concern. Of course, it only affects a limited number of persons, but it is a matter of very serious interest to the East Coast of Scotland. As Scottish Members are already aware, about ten days ago a deputation waited on my right hon. Friend the Postmaster-General to urge or rather to repeat, for it has been put very often before, the case for an extension North of Edinburgh of the underground telegraph system, which is apparently the only effective way of guarding against the isolation of large areas of country owing to storms
  176
  which blow down poles and wires. The deputation was one of exceptional size and strength. It included many Members of this House, and Lord Provosts, Knights, and merchant princes who came down five hundred miles at a considerable loss of time and money to complain, and I think, justly complain, of the loss of time and money they had already incurred. I am afraid that it was only a case of throwing-good money after bad. For all the satisfaction which they got they might just as well have stopped at home.
  Indeed, I mean no discourtesy whatever to my right hon. Friend the Postmaster-General, but he had apparently made up his mind to return a point-blank refusal, and it is a little difficult to understand why he allowed sixteen gentlemen to come up from Scotland when he could have conveyed the same decision on half a sheet of notepaper. I emphasise the postal method because if he had been moved by business ardour to use the telegraph within two days after receiving the deputation, he would not, despite the statements, of his officials, have established communication. The right hon. Gentleman said that we have hardly had isolation or interruption since that date, but we have had a storm, and it is precisely because those storms are periodically occurring, and indeed with increased severity in that portion of the country, that we ask for an extension of the underground system. Really, to the least imaginative man there seems to be an element of poetic justice in the swiftness and relentlessness with which rude nature once again disposed of the prim Departmental non possumus,because within twenty-four hours after the statement that nothing much was the matter the whole area was once again, for practical purposes, isolated. The Postmaster-General this afternoon, in answer to a question, said that the English centres were being linked up with the submarine cables. There is something to be said for the Scottish centres also. Dundee deals with Calcutta, Aberdeen does a very large trade in fish with Germany; and, at the same time, Arbroath, the town I represent, and others, get raw material from Russia, and send the finished material to America. We ask for a capital sum of £130,000, or about £11,000 a year, and we have not an unreasonable claim when over £2,000,000 has been spent already mainly upon English centres. The right hon. Gentleman says, first of all, that the

  177
  service will not pay. We reply, in general terms, that the service is not expected to pay; that the function of a monopolist profit-making Department is not to square up its accounts with each isolated town or district. You have to consider general business interests. Trade suffers; the proper distribution of food, cattle, and fish is seriously impeded, and even, the safety of ships and the security of the Navy might be prejudiced. In capital matters of that kind you cannot merely strike a profit and loss account. It is not, as the Prime Minister said in another connection, a question "of nicely calculated less or more." On the second point, I think the right hon. Gentleman, acting under the directions of the Treasury, rather exaggerates the case by taking too short a period, namely, fifteen years, for his sinking fund. Surely that is not a reasonable estimate of the life of the earthenware ducts, which I believe are the chief elements in the case.
  On the point merely of the way-leaves to railways, which he is paying at the present moment, I am told there is to be a considerable reduction; and in answer to Question No. 61, this afternoon, he said that on the line to Watford there had been a considerable saving on that head. But the last point is by far the more serious. He based his cast, in answer to the deputation, largely upon figures; and on the first day that I was able to put a question to him my right hon. Friend, admitted that those figures even on the basis on which they were given, were grossly and, indeed, grotesquely inaccurate. I am compelled to believe that the figures were only used as "illustrations." His case was that the gross revenue of Dundee and Aberdeen was so small that it was the main ground of his refusal. The cost of the line was put at £11,000, and against that he said, "I can only set a gross revenue of £16,000, and you have two-thirds of the cost already." It now turns out that the £16,000 which he gave should be at least £30,000, an error of 87 per cent., the cost not being two-thirds but little more than one-third. I am bound to say that seems to be a rather serious matter. He knew the correct fact last Monday, and he did not know it upon the preceding Thursday. It is a mistake of the departmental officer but I do not think human nature can resist the comment that it is singularly unfortunate when he was receiving an expert and highly aggrieved
  178
  deputation that he should have been allowed to make an error of nearly 100 per cent, in favour of his own case. He based his case largely upon figures which collapsed the very moment they were examined. We say that even those figures left out of account a large number of industrial towns which must be large telegraph users. The figure which he was good enough to give me of seven counties I had selected in the North-Eastern corner, was £61,000. From that you have to deduct a large sum undoubtedly, as he said, for the local traffic, and you therefore have a figure something between £30,000 and £61,000. It is a matter of pure hypothesis what figure you take, but for the purposes of argument, taking it at £44,000, and the cost at £11,000, it gives only 25 per cent, of the gross revenue instead of the 70 per cent, which he represented. I do not think that he would expect a business community which has already lost faith to-accept conclusions based upon premises which have been wholly falsified. He has chosen the ground on which he desires to stand, and it appears to me that the ground has crumbled under his feet. I do say most seriously to him that he is bound to reconsider the whole case, and that it is impossible that we should rest satisfied with the anwer which he has already given.
  The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. Herbert Samuel): Of the many unpleasant duties that devolve upon a Minister from time to time, there is none more unpleasant than refusing, on financial grounds, requests that are made to him by Members of this House in the interests of their constituents. That is a duty in the performance of which the Minister never gets any sympathy or any support from any quarter of the House. When we are discussing the amount of national expenditure and the necessity, from time to time, of increasing taxation, then, indeed, many Members rise in their places from all quarters and protest against the lavish increase of our national expenditure, but when on any particular occasion any individual Minister raises objections on grounds purely of economy to some particular proposel for large increased expenditure, then, as I say, the support which he receives is usually of the smallest. I well recognise the grave inconvenience that is caused on a few days, I am afraid every year, to the people of Dundee and Aberdeen, and to other parts

  179
  of the country which have not the advantage of underground telegraph communication, and those comments upon my reply to the deputation the other day which have represented me as minimising that inconvenience are, I think, wholly unjustified. My remarks to the extremely influential deputation, which many of my hon. Friends attended, were made in answer to a statement that Dundee and Aberdeen were frequently isolated from all communication with the outer world, and that therefore they had an unanswerable claim for the establishment of underground cable communication. While I fully admitted the inconvenience caused by the delay to traders, newspaper proprietors and readers in those districts, I felt it my duty to point out that it was not the fact that these cities had, as a matter of fact, been completely cut off from communication with other parts of the country and of the world. I think my hon. Friend has done me less than justice when he represents me as saying that I thought there was not much the matter in conection with this question. The point is, is the inconvenience, which admittedly is suffered by these districts, such as to require the Government to spend, at the cost of the general taxpayers of the country, a sum of £130,000? That is the only point which has to be considered.
  Mr. PIRIE: The real point is whether we get a fair distribution of the money spent on underground cables as between centres in England and centres in Scotland. We get a most unfair distribution.
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: The question is whether in this particular case the grievance is of such a character as to justify the expenditure of this large sum of money. My hon. Friend said quite truly that the figure which I quoted the other day was incorrect. I had asked my Department to furnish me with the gross telegraphic revenue of Dundee and Aberdeen. They telegraphed to Scotland for the figures, and the figures came back showing a total of £16,000 a year. It was afterwards found that these figures had been supplied from the Accountant General's Department in Edinburgh, and that they related only to the telegraphic revenue of the head offices of Dundee and Aberdeen, and did not include the branch and sub-offices of the two cities. The mistake was an inexcusable one, and I can offer no defence of it. I think my hon. Friend was fully justified in
  180
  the strictures he has made, and those who were responsible have, of course, been censured for this error.
  Mr. R. HARCOURT: The matter has been before the Post Office for five years.
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: These particular figures were newly asked for at that time. I cannot agree with my hon. Friend when he proceeds to base upon that error the conclusion that the matter is now disposed of, that since a wrong figure was supplied the case against the proposal falls to the ground, and that the expediture of £130,000 must necessarily follow. I do not think he can draw so sweeping a conclusion as that. The facts are these. I was using, as he says, for the purposes of illustration, the gross figures of revenue—not the net figures, but the total receipts, without allowing anything for the wages and salaries of the officers employed, for the capital expended upon plant, for the maintenance and engineering cost of plant, or for the headquarters charges and the telegraph service. I was simply taking the total net sum received into the pockets of the Post Office for these two cities. If the figure is £30,000 a year gross instead of £16,000 I do not think that that justifies the expenditure of £130,000 for this purpose. My hon. Friend said that we should save greatly in way-leaves to the railway companies. I am afraid that that would not be so, because we certainly could not remove our wires from the railway companies, and put them underground. The value of underground telegraph wires is greatly exaggerated. The telegraph engineers find that they are not nearly as suitable for the transmission of telegraphic messages as aerial wires. Owing to the difficulties of insulation and other causes, into which I do not wish to venture to-night, the communication along the underground wires is very much slower than overhead wires—so much so that they cannot be used at all for Press work. When an occasion does occur that the overhead wires are down, and the underground wires are used alone, there is so much congestion that the traffic is very much more slowly got through. During the recent storm, which caused so much havoc over the aerial lines the delay was very much greater to many towns which have got the underground telegraph cables, such as Newcastle, than to Dundee and Aberdeen which have not. That is a fact of great

  181
  importance. If the underground cables had been laid to Dundee and Aberdeen, while I admit in those two cases the delay would have been somewhat lessened, it must not be supposed that no delay would have occurred and that the services would have gone on as usual. Therefore it is a mistake to say that we should save by putting wires underground. However, I believe, though I have not verified this, that these particular wires that we are now speaking of, run along by the roads and not on the railways, and that we have no wayleaves to pay. In view of the very large expenditure involved, I think it is important to the public and the taxpayer to see if there is any other alternative. In that direction my efforts have been directed. Two proposals have been made by officers of my Department who have had experience with a view to remedying this evil. One is to make use of the trunk telephone lines for telegraph purposes on occasions when the telegraph wires are down. The routes are different to a large extent. The telephone lines can now be used for telegraphic purposes, as I explained to the deputation, by means of phantom circuits, and the same wire can be employed at one and the same time for the purposes of speech through the telephone. The same telegraphic and telephonic instruments can be used, and the same telegraphic wires for that purpose. The system is enormously extended in the United States where tens of thousands of miles are used by the phantom circuits. I saw a statement in the Aberdeen Press that this system was tried during the recent storm, and was found to be a failure. That was not so. There was no apparatus available at the time for the use of telephone wires for telegraphic purposes, and the phantom circuit expedient was not tried. The apparatus has been ordered and will be supplied to Aberdeen and Dundee. Of course, immunity from interruption cannot be guaranteed. The second proposal under consideration is the use of wireless telegraphy. I know it is said that commercial men have put forward objections to the use of wireless telegraphy in view of the ease with which messages can be tapped. These messages they say are not as secret as the ordinary telegraphic message. I think they would rather have wireless, though than leave things as they are. A wireless installation will be very much cheaper than the capital expense upon the other expedient of underground wires.
  182
  This is a matter which deserves the most careful consideration The wireless telegraphic stations in these districts would, I think, be serviceable for other purposes, possibly for the Admiralty, and the suggestion is one that is receiving the immediate attention of my Department in conjunction with the Admiralty. If high-speed apparatus were introduced we should be able by means of wireless telegraphy to make good much of the deficiency which occurs when storms arise and breakdown of wires occur. I deeply regret I have not been able to meet the wishes of my hon. Friends in this matter. Various districts always press Ministers for expenditure of one kind or another. Sometimes it is for harbours. In other counties, where we spend money upon roads or bridges or railways, we find continually that groups of Members representing districts are always urging the Government of the day to spend money here and there. It is the duty of the Minister concerned to weigh all these proposals, and to see whether they are justified. There are very many districts in England which have got no underground communication. There are no underground cables in Ireland. Scotland benefits already by an underground cable system for communication, such as is secured between Edinburgh and Glasgow and the whole of the rest of the country, and in these circumstances I ask my hon. Friend to see what can be done by means of using, possibly, telephone wires and wireless telegraphy before asking me to press the Treasury for the expenditure of this very large sum.
  Sir G. YOUNGER: The right hon. Gentleman always makes very clever and interesting speeches, and he read us one or two homilies which, I suppose, we are all the better for hearing. The real question is whether or not Scotland has been quite fairly treated in comparison with other districts served by underground cables. It is no use talking about gross revenue or net revenue. This is a public service which ought to be fairly and reasonably distributed over the various districts of the country, and the very fact that at the end of his speech the right hon. Gentleman said that communication was not interrupted between Edinburgh and London is a very strong argument in favour of this communication being extended to Dundee and Aberdeen. We know the great loss suffered through these interruptions. We

  183
  know that storms of the blizzard sort are more frequent in the North-East of Scotland that in some of the districts of England, and I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman has made out any case at all for economising in this matter. He wants to save this expenditure of £100,000. It is not always economy to save expenditure in this matter. Of course it is quite reasonable that the right hon. Gentleman in the position in which be is should take great care of the taxpayers' money. But that must not be done by being penurious, and it is not fair or reasonable that penuriousness should be extended, as it always is, where the Treasury is concerned, to Scotland, in comparison with the generosity which is extended to other parts of the country. The right hon. Gentleman for many weeks has been lavish in his financial doles to Ireland. The Grants to Ireland at the present moment amount to £3,000,000 a year. Scotland gets £1,500,000, while she contributes an enormous balance to the Treasury, yet the moment we ask for anything we are met with a non possumus by the Treasury. It is time we should protest against that. This is another case in point, and really the time has come to say to the right hon. Gentleman that we ought to be treated with a little more generosity. There is a strong case. The right hon. Gentleman talked about using telephone wires, but they are always the first down, as they were in the storm the other day. The right hon. Gentleman talked about a phantom system, but for this purpose he would find the telephone wires were a phantom. The poles were broken and the wires were down upon the ground before the telegraph wires. As for wireless, if the right hon. Gentleman could send telegrams to Aberdeen and Dundee by a wireless system I am sure the Aberdeen and Dundee people would like to see it. They do not say the wires should be underground. They say, "Give us communication that will stand the storm." If he will do that we should be quite contented to have it. If he cannot, he ought, in honesty and fairness to Scotland, to extend the underground system to Aberdeen.
  Mr. MUNRO-FERGUSON: I am really astonished, if there is so little advantage attaching to underground telegraph cables, that there has been an expenditure of £2,000,000 upon them and that the expendi-
  184
  ture is still going on, an expenditure to which Scotland has contributed over £200,000. I am quite accustomed to this kind of attitude on the part of the Post Office, because, although my Constituents are not concerned in this matter—and that enables me to speak with greater freedom—it took about as much trouble to get underground cables to Edinburgh and Glasgow as it is taking now to get them further North. It is not a question merely of Aberdeen and Dundee. The whole of the great county with which I am associated, the county of Fife, lies between Edinburgh and Dundee, and there are large cities and industrial districts besides Dundee and Aberdeen and those lying further North. We are told now to look to the telephone system as an alternative to our cables. The telephone wires were about the first thing to come down, and, as to it being an intermittent matter, I have been isolated in the Highlands for eight days without the use of trains, telegraph, telephone, or any thing else. I wish the Postmaster-General knew as much about the East Coast of. Scotland as I do. He certainly would not have offered this telephone remedy. I have never heard such an absurd suggestion before from the mouth of a responsible official. There are no underground cables in Ireland, but if such industries and districts as exist on the East Coast of Scotland were in Ireland to be deprived of communication because you did not ex tend the underground system—if such industries in the centre of Ireland were cut off by snowstorms, long before now there would have been underground cables to Dublin and Belfast in connection with the sea cables. We have been put off with every kind of excuse. In England we were told the climate was worse than in Scotland, and that snow fell from East to West instead of from North to South and so we have all this extension of under ground cables in England. What is good for the English goose would not be found bad for the English gander, and the mere fact of the extension and continued extension of these underground wires is sufficient reason for extending them further North. As for the strategic question of the Fleet—
  It being half an hour after conclusion of Government business, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put.
  Adjourned at Twenty-four minutes after Eleven o'clock.

NATIONAL INSURANCE ACT.
  POST OFFICE WORK.
  POST OFFICE WORK.
  Workmen's Halls and Institutes (Income Tax).
  Workmen's Halls and Institutes (Income Tax).
  Old Age Pensions.
  Old Age Pensions.
  Clonakilty Agricultural School.
  Clonakilty Agricultural School.
  National School Teachers (Ireland).
  National School Teachers (Ireland).
  Reinstatement Application (County Carlow).
  Reinstatement Application (County Carlow).
  Boyle River (Flooding).
  Boyle River (Flooding).
ROYAL NAVY.
  TORPEDO-BOAT FLOTILLA (GIBRALTAR).
  TORPEDO-BOAT FLOTILLA (GIBRALTAR).
  Living on Immoral Earnings (Deportation of Prisoner).
  Living on Immoral Earnings (Deportation of Prisoner).
  Isle of Man (Constitution).
  Isle of Man (Constitution).
  Coinage of Silver (Indian Mints).
  Coinage of Silver (Indian Mints).
  Australia (Nominated Passages).
  Australia (Nominated Passages).
  Poor Law Administration.
  Poor Law Administration.
  Manufactured Goods (Value of Exports, 1912.)
  Manufactured Goods (Value of Exports, 1912.)
  Parcels Post (Trans-Siberian Railway).
  Parcels Post (Trans-Siberian Railway).
  Electric Lighting Department (Post Office).
  Electric Lighting Department (Post Office).
  Redenham Village Play-Green.
  Redenham Village Play-Green.
  Small Holders (Wiltshire).
  Small Holders (Wiltshire).
  Fish Delivered in Grimsby.
  Fish Delivered in Grimsby.
  Export of Decrepit Horses (Inspection).
  Export of Decrepit Horses (Inspection).
  Cattle Disease.
  Cattle Disease.
  Mental Deficiency Bill.
  Mental Deficiency Bill.