§ (1) No person being a person in holy orders or a regular minister of a dissenting or nonconformist congregation shall be capable of being elected or of being a councillor unless and until he has ascertained, in the manner prescribed by this Act, that the majority of the parishioners in the parish under his charge or in which he is employed, or of his dissenting or nonconformist congregation, approve of his serving on the. council.
§ (2) Every person who desires to be nominated for the office of councillor who is a person in holy orders, and has charge of or is employed in a parish, shall, thirty days before the last day for the delivery of nomination papers for such election, send or cause to be sent to each person enrolled in the burgess roll of that parish a form drawn up in the manner hereinafter prescribed. On receipt of such form each parish burgess shall fill in the required answer, and shall return the form so filled in to the town clerk at least ten days before the last day for the delivery of nomination papers for such election. On the ninth day before the last day for the delivery of nomination papers for such election the town clerk shall, in the presence of the mayor, count 2010 such forms as he has received, and shall forthwith send notice of the result of such count to the candidate, and no candidate being a person in holy orders shall proceed to nomination or election as a councillor unless, as a result of such count, it is shown that a majority of his parishioners are in favour of his being nominated.
§ (3) Every person who desires to be nominated for the office of councillor who is a regular minister of a dissenting or nonconformist congregation and has charge of such a congregation shall, thirty days before the last day for the delivery of nomination papers for such election, send or cause to be sent to each person who is a regular attendant at the church or chapel of which he is the minister a form drawn up in the manner hereinafter described. On receipt of such form each regular attendant shall fill in the required answer and shall return the form so filled in to the town clerk at least ten days before the last day for the delivery of nomination papers for such election. On the ninth day before the last day for the delivery of nomination papers for such election the town clerk shall, in the presence of the mayor, count such forms as he has received, and shall forthwith send notice of the result of such count to the candidate, and no candidate being a regular minister of a dissenting or nonconformist congregation shall proceed to nomination or election as a councillor unless as a result of such count it is shown that a majority of the regular attendants at his church or chapel are in favour of his being nominated.
§ The Clause standing in my name is the same as that earlier on the Paper in the name of the hon. Member for Wells (Mr. Sandys), who unfortunately is not able to be here to move it. The Clause raises the very important point of requiring the approval of the congregation. I will not read the Clause, but I think anyone who looks at it will see that it is very well 2011 drafted. I do not claim credit for it. The hon. Member for Wells has, I think, made his point perfectly clear to the House. I know that some hon. Members on this side regard this Bill as unimportant. I do not. Neither do I regard this question as one which the House ought to pass over without some deliberation. The position of a minister or clergyman in relation to his congregation or parishioners is of a peculiarly confidential character, and the object which the hon. Member for Wells has in common with myself in putting this Clause down is that he should have the authority of his congregation. I should have thought that there would be very few clergymen and very few dissenting ministers who would go into the turmoil of a contested election unless they had the support of their own people. I think one of the things the House must guard against in considering this Clause is the fact that clergymen and ministers are in a position of exceptional influence. Later on the House will consider whether it will increase the influence and efficiency of these public bodies if these very desirable persons are allowed to take seats in them. I should have thought there could be no objection to the first Sub-section, that no minister or clergyman should seek election unless he had previously obtained the approval of his congregation. With regard to Sub-section (2), dealing with machinery, I do not think I need discuss that. I believe the hon. Member for Wells would have explained it at very considerable length, but I prefer to let the words speak for themselves. When we come to Sub-section (3), I have myself prepared an Amendment. There are in it a few words in the nature of a general expression as follows:—
§ "Every person who desires to be nominated for the office of councillor who is a regular minister of a dissenting or Nonconformist congregation and has charge of such a congregation shall, thirty days before the last day for the delivery of nomination papers for such election, send or cause to be sent to each person who is a regular attendant at the church or chapel of which he is the minister a form drawn up in the manner hereinafter described."
§ Strong objection might be taken to that part of the Sub-section, and I do not think I should press it upon the House. I think, however, that is the proper way to do it, 2012 giving ample notice to all the people connected with the place of worship. Why the hon. Member for Wells selected thirty days I do not know.
§ Mr. BOOTH
I thought the term "regular attendant" was used in Wales, but in the presence of an expert like my hon. Friend I do not press that point. In Scotland a different term is used, I quite admit, but if hon. Members will translate the words "regular attendant" into Scottish, they will see the point involved, The Sub-section carefully avoids the words "communicant" or "member," and in these days when opinion is becoming broader in matters of creed, and there are not the same distinctions drawn, I certainly defend the term "regular attendant" rather than "communicant" or "member." The latter part of the Subsection refers to disqualifications.
§ Lord ROBERT CECIL
On a point of Order. Is the hon. Member not referring to the other Clause in his name and not to the one that has been moved?
§ Mr. JOHN WARD
I beg to second the proposed new Clause.
This is an important Clause requiring in the case of clergymen standing for municipal positions that similar principles should be applied as is now often adopted in trade unions and in corporations. It is almost always necessary in the case of corporate authorities constituted by Act of Parliament that those who undertake work of this description should get the authority of those they are working for to stand for those positions. I have known more than one member of railway workers' societies to absolutely lose the whole of their life prospects by nominating themselves as candidates for public authorities of this description without first getting the sanction of those who employed them. When one comes to ministers it is most essential in the case of dissenters that they at least should get the authority and 2013 their congregation, and in the case of the Church it is still more important that they should get that sanction. I am bound to confess that one is not in a position to say that there is any prospect of disestablishment in England, and until the Bill before the House becomes law in Wales as well as in England, the clergy of the Church may be considered practically Civil servants. I am not so sure, unless a Clause of this kind is inserted, whether a clergyman being a Civil servant could, without some sanction of the kind, interfere in matters of the kind at all. When we consider the influence these people have in the localities it has not always been good for them to interfere in matters affecting their congregations. Divisions as to politics and local affairs, especially with reference to matters of education and of that description, and party differences have occurred in the congregations themselves, and where clergymen have interfered in those matters that has been the cause of very great disrupting influences in those congregations. Under those circumstances I think this Clause is most essential. In those municipal corporations there is only aye or nay to be said, and consequently before the apple of discord is thrown into the congregation in the way suggested by this Bill, at least the congregation should have the opportunity of deciding whether they would allow their minister to undertake work of that description that might injure the Church itself.
One could of course give numerous illustrations of difficulties of this description. Within my own knowledge I have known some public question raked up and dragged before the annual meeting of the church congregation which has been occupied not in discussing the management of the church, but the opinions of the pastor on public questions, even though they have only been local questions. Under those circumstances I suggest those who are promoting the Bill should accept this Clause, which does not interfere with the objects of the Bill in the slightest. The new Clause does not prevent the clergyman using his persuasive influence to get the opportunity, and the Clause is also desirable to prevent the possibility of confusion arising in the congregations. When I go to church, as I do almost every Sunday, it is because I get, for at least an hour or two every Sunday, out of the dust and turmoil of ordinary material affairs. While it 2014 amuses others I do not speak of it in any other than the most serious way. I an bound to confess that that is the impression and feeling that always comes over me that I have got out of the dust and dirt for an hour or two, and at any rate that is a great thing. But to have all the local affairs of my district brought into the discussion of the affairs of the church just because someone wants this Bill, and some clergymen are ambitious to get on the councils of the different authorities, that is a thing I protest against. I should at least want the minister of the church that I belong to before he started taking the rostrum on public affairs or on educational administration to consult his congregation as to whether they thought it desirable.
§ Lord ROBERT CECIL
The hon. Member stated he lives in Wandsworth. In that case his minister can sit on the borough council without any such provision. That is the present law.
§ Mr. J. WARD
I hope that that is so, but as the Noble Lord will see the thing I want for myself I want to see secured to everybody else. The Noble Lord tells me that I have all these powers at present.
§ Mr. J. WARD
The clergyman has the right to serve on a local body without getting the consent of his congregation?
§ Mr. J. WARD
Then I hope the Noble Lord will assist me in preventing that by supporting this proposed Clause.
§ Mr. LANSBURY
I hope the Mover and the Seconder, and the House generally, will not think I am wanting in respect if I deal with this matter very briefly. I, too, am anxious that this Bill should not take up more time than is absolutely necessary. The proposed new Clause is altogether inconsistent with the principle of the Bill. The object of the Bill is to make uniform throughout the country the qualification of certain persons for serving on local bodies. In London, in the Division in which the hon. Member for Stoke (Mr. J. Ward) lives Canon Anderson has been mayor of the borough, but the rector of Stoke could not possibly become a member of the Stoke town council. That is a grave injustice to clergymen of all denominations outside London. By inserting this Clause you would perpetuate the idea that 2015 clergymen outside the Metropolis are not to be trusted with this privilege. So far as London is concerned, the late Father Dolling, the present rector of Hackney, who was previously rector of Poplar, and a great number of dissenting ministers, have done excellent work on local authorities, and none of the awful things feared by my hon. Friend have occurred to disturb the peace of the congregations. I do not see why you should insist upon clergymen getting the consent of their congregations any more than you should stipulate that a trade union official who wishes to serve on a local authority should be obliged by Act of Parliament to get the consent of his union. As to clergymen being Civil servants, it has already been decided that Civil servants may take part in municipal administration. It is only from affairs connected with this House that they are excluded. Postmen and others sit on local authorities and take part in local work. Therefore I hope the House will reject the proposed new Clause.
§ 1.0 PM.
§ Mr. A. F. WHYTE
The proposal that before seeking or accepting office on a local body a clergyman should obtain the consent of a majority of his congregation simply means that prior to any muncipal election the issue would have to be carried right into the Church, and the struggle would have been forced upon the Church by the action of this House. The hon. Member for Stoke agrees that that would be most undesirable. We have in Scotland clergymen of all denominations on such bodies as the school boards. No one will pretend that there are not acute controversies in Scottish education; still less will they pretend that the presence of clergymen of different denominations on the public bodies has tended to anything but increasing the efficiency of the public service and a general rapprochement between the different denominations themselves. I cannot imagine anyone of my nationality saying there is any need for the proposed new Clause.
I am opposed to the Bill as a whole, but I shall vote for the proposed new Clause because I am afraid that the Bill may eventually be extended to Ireland, and in that case it would be an advantage to have a restrictive Clause of this kind in it. It is all very well for the hon. Member for Bow and Bromley (Mr. Lansbury) to say that in London the 2016 advantage of having clergymen on the local bodies is such that the power should be extended to other parts of the country without this Referendum to the parishioners. There is a great difference between London and smaller places throughout the country where feeling is much more local and the clergymen have a very preponderating influence on public opinion. In such places, when controversy arises over some purely lay matter, the clergy are from time to time forced to take strong views, which may conflict so far as the various denominations are concerned, and it is the greatest possible drawback to any country when the denominations as denominations fall out. This Bill, whether with the Clause or without it, will tend to accentuate differences between denominations in the smaller corporations throughout the country, and it is far better, if the Bill is to be passed that the various congregations should have an opportunity of saying whether or not they wish their clergymen to interfere in local affairs. There can be no harm in putting the onus on the congregations who in many cases have elected their clergymen. We Presbyterians in Ireland elect or call our clergymen, who very often, in reply to questions, give an undertaking not to engage in political controversy or to interfere in certain specific matters. It would be very hard indeed if this Bill becomes law without this Clause, and if clergymen are prevented taking a similar part to that which other clergymen in the district may be inclined to take, but who are not bound down by a pledge to be given to and accepted by their congregation. I think the parishioners of a parish or the congregations of the various denominations ought to have a say as to whether they desire their particular clergyman or minister to mix up in local affairs or not. I cannot see any drawback to the Clause as it is drafted, except one word "regular." Perhaps the hon. Gentleman, the Member for Pontefract, who introduced the Clause, will tell us what it means exactly.
§ Mr. BOOTH
Take one instance, the Independent Methodists. They do not have a paid clergy: their work is done by voluntary service. You have the regular Methodist bodies, the Wesleyans, Primitive Methodists, Bible Christians, and so on. They have ordained ministers; they also have local preachers. I admit that 2017 in some respects the proposed Clause might be amended, but the word "regular" is meant for the ordained clergyman or minister who devotes the whole of his time to his Nonconformist congregation, to distinguish him from, say, the local preacher, or the pastor who may only give his Sundays to the work.
Under the circumstances as there is an Amendment down on a similar particular point, I shall not press my remarks further. I was struck by the word being introduced into the Clause. I do not wish to say more on that point, except that I cannot see really in the first instance why the Clause should not be accepted by those in favour of the Bill. I think the Bill is a bad Bill, but I think it will be improved if this Clause is inserted. The hon. Gentleman opposite was quite right as to clergymen in Scotland and other parts of the country, by the nature of their occupations, being able to exercise great influence on educational matters. I agree that in Scotland it has been of the greatest possible benefit. But I think there is a wide distinction between clergymen interesting themselves in educational boards and clergymen having to have the sanction of their congregations before mixing themselves up in those heated matters which occur in municipal corporations, etc. I shall vote for the Amendment.
§ Mr. MARTIN
The hon. Gentleman the Member for Bow and Bromley resisted this Amendment, not because of any objection to the Amendment itself, but because he thinks it is necessary to have municipal law uniform in London and other parts of the country. That is a very poor argument indeed for opposing this Clause. It would be a good argument for supporting a consolidating measure. But surely the hon. Gentleman is too progressive a Member of this House to suggest to us as a general principle that because in 1888 a different House with a different political tinge passed a Clause affecting this subject in a particular way, that we, twenty-four years after, must follow in their footsteps, whether they were right or wrong? I am very much surprised indeed to see my hon. Friend taking so retrograde a stand. No such principle can be laid down effectively or can possibly get any support on this side of the House in considering a question of this kind. The Municipal Corporations Act was passed in 1882, long before the London County Council Act, and if the hon. Gentleman's 2018 argument is good for anything, then it was a very improper thing for this House in 1888, in constituting London a municipality and giving it municipal government, to depart from the principle laid down in regard to other municipalities throughout the country.
§ Mr. LANSBURY
The argument that I tried to advance was exactly the other way. Clergymen and others being allowed to sit as Members in London, I thought that so progressive an idea should be enlarged, and a larger number of people should be allowed to take their seats. This Amendment would inflict a hardship by saying that they still first of all get the permission of some one else to do something which Parliament has already said they may do. I said I thought that was reactionary.
§ Mr. MARTIN
I did not so understand my hon. Friend's argument. What I am. now trying to deal with is the old argument that we have had from the promoters of the Bill, who would reject this Amendment, not because it is a bad Amendment—the hon. Member did not suggest the Amendment was a bad one—
§ Mr. MARTIN
What he did suggest was that what we want is to allow clergymen to take part in municipal matters, and that it would be wrong to have one law in. London and another in the outlying municipalities. I think that is no argument. We are not bound to what was done twenty-four years ago even if in the meantime it has been shown that this Amendment of the law which was given to London was a step in the right direction. That precedent does not bind us one way or the other. It is no argument whatever to say, that because in London a clergyman is allowed to stand for municipal office without any qualification that we should not consider the question as regards outside municipalities; or that while we are in favour of the general principle we also think that it should be limited in a particular way by this Amendment. The hon. Member for Perth did deal with the merits of this Amendment, and his idea was that it would be a most unfortunate thing that a question of a clergyman being a candidate for municipal purposes should produce discord between the clergyman and his congregation. I submit that this Amendment is calculated to deal with that very question. Whether there is to be any discord depends upon 2019 circumstances, and circumstances may differ in different places. If there is no disagreement, and if it is perfectly agreeable to the congregation that their clergyman should be a candidate for municipal honours, then, when the question comes up under this proposed Amendment, there will be no disturbance in the congregation, which will act unanimously. The matter will pass through the congregation as this Bill goes through this House, without the knowledge of nine tenths of the Members at all, because no body takes any particular interest in the matter, though my hon. Friend the Member for Pontefract (Mr. Booth) is present every day, and is very watchful to prevent questions slipping through after eleven o'clock at night without coming before the House for general discussion. If, on the other hand, it is not agreeable to the congregation, if the question is a live question in the congregation as to whether it is proper for their minister to take part in municipal affairs, can it be suggested for a moment that the fact that it is not formally submitted to the congregation is going to prevent it being a burning question in the congregation. If there is to be trouble it all depends upon circumstances, and I contend that this Amendment really does away with the objection which the hon. Member for Perth has.
I think the House can see that there may be many circumstances and many election contests in which it would be most unfortunate for the pastor of a congregation of any kind or description to become a candidate, as, for instance, if the question which was really before the people at the municipal election, when their minister was proposed as a candidate, was one which was a bitter question affecting his own congregation. In the county of London, for instance, municipal elections are really conducted on a party basis. That may not be the case in all the municipalities throughout the country, but in London there are two political parties, one called the Moderate, or Municipal Reform party, and the other the Progressive party, composed practically of the same class of individual whom we see, when Parliamentary matters are discussed in this House affecting London, take the side of Liberal or Conservative. So in London and in municipalities like London, where municipal matters are conducted upon purely party lines, I say it would be a most unfortunate thing for the interests of the congregation and the municipality to 2020 have a clergyman put forward as a candidate with his congregation divided up and voting on purely party lines.
It might be a question of education. We know that the question of education, while admitted by everyone to be of great public importance, probably brings up and accentuates more bitterness and hurtful feeling than any other question that comes before the public. My hon. Friend the Member for Bow and Bromley says there is no person more fitted to take part in the question of educational administration than clergymen. I doubt that very much. While he may be better fitted by his education to come to an opinion than the ordinary man, yet from his position he is most unfitted to take part in contests which involves such bitter feeling as arises on the question as to the relation of the State to religion, and such matters which have occupied this House for months and months and almost for years, and yet with no conclusion arrived at as to what really is the proper relation of the State to the public on the question of education. Yet, under this Bill, you are going to allow a clergyman, if he sees fit, to accept the offer of nomination from a party in a municipal campaign, and to accept that offer without any regard whatever as to the effect it may have upon the congregation. The effect may be all right, but I submit that this Clause is a most democratic proposal that the clergyman should not be allowed to decide any important question without the assistance of his congregation. As was stated by an hon. Member opposite (Captain Craig) this Amendment can do no harm. That is the great point. It cannot hurt the Bill; it is not put forward in any way whatever for the purpose of hurting or wrecking the Bill in any particular. The House is content to accept the principle of the Bill, and has done so. This Amendment does not attack the principle of the Bill; it says, if clergymen are to be candidates for municipal honours they must see that their public position as head of congregations is recognised, and they must go through the form, at any rate, of consulting their parishioners. In those cases, which will occur quite frequently, though not in a majority, where there is a strong feeling from the party standpoint or the educational standpoint, or any other that may occur to the congregation if the question was submitted to the congregation, and a considerable minority vote against 2021 the clergyman taking the position as candidate, I assume that any level-headed clergyman would at once say to his friends who asked him to accept the position, "I think it would be a great mistake in the interests of my congregation to do so, and I must stand on one side." I must say I am quite surprised at this Bill being delayed by discussion on such a reasonable Amendment as this. I think the hon. Member for Bow and Bromley knows that time is precious in this House, and he ought to accept this Amendment. The Noble Lord, the Member for Bath, tells us that the Bill was not discussed at all in Committee, and that it went through Committee in a most irregular manner. The Noble Lord told us the Committee never deliberated upon it at all.
§ Mr. SPEAKER
That is going back on the old ground, and I must ask the hon. Member to confine himself to the question before the Chair.
§ Mr. MARTIN
I think the hon. Member for Bow and Bromley ought to accept this Amendment, and if he does he will bring into line in support of the Bill many who would not otherwise support it, and who would be against legislation being forced through the House in the arbitrary manner in which the hon. Member has indicated. The hon. Member for Bow and Bromley says, "Look at other Acts affecting the county of London, and you will find no such qualification there." That argument does not appeal to me at all. I hope this Amendment will be supported by such a number of Members of this House as that it will be incorporated in the Bill. I do not wish to follow the voluminous speech of the hon. Member opposite, but I should like to remove the difficulty felt by my hon. Friend behind me who objects to the words "regular minister." The only reason this is introduced is that under the Municipal Corporations Act of 1882, when these restrictions were first introduced, the phrase was "A minister in Holy Orders or a regular minister." As only the minister of other churches were disqualified, we withdrew the words in the Act of 1882. I sincerely hope the House will not pass this new Clause, although I am not strongly in favour of the Bill itself. I think it would be a very great mistake if we were to put this statutory duty upon congregations to decide whether a minister shall present himself for election or become a candidate without going through this preliminary inves- 2022 tigation by his congregation. I do not think this ought to be done by Statute, and it is a matter of the feeling of the congregation itself. If any small body of the congregation object to their minister standing as a candidate for a local body that ought to prevent him doing so. There might be a vote taken and a clergyman or a minister might find a majority of his congregation slightly in his favour and then he might decide to stand for election. I cannot imagine anything more calculated to create dissatisfaction in a congregation than to have a small majority in favour and a large minority against him. The question whether a clergyman should serve on a public body ought to be simply a matter of good feeling, and I hope for the sake of peace in congregations this House will not insist upon adopting this new Clause.
§ Mr. STEPHEN COLLINS
By passing this proposal the House would be placing a very great responsibility upon churches and congregations. I think this proposal would defeat the principal object for which the hon. Member for Stoke pleaded, mainly, the peace and harmony of the churches. I think it would defeat that object. The hon. Member for Stoke referred to his own district, and I happen also to reside in that district. I know Ministers of all denominations who have taken part for years and done excellent service in municipal and public affairs, and I have never heard complaints from members of their congregations. I believe the minister of the church where the hon. Member for Stoke worships does good service in Wandsworth, and I have not heard any complaint from anyone. I believe in this matter there is a tacit understanding between church and congregation. They know the mind of the minister and the minister knows the mind of the congregation, and if the minister has a feeling that his congregation do not want him to take part in public affairs, if he is a wise man he will not take part. In nine cases out of ten the minister takes up that attitude, but generally a church allows its ministers to take part in public affairs, and I think it is a good thing they do, because they bring all their experience derived from going amongst the people in all circumstances of life to good account, and who knows better than the minister or the clergyman what is best for the locality in which he lives. Provided he does not neglect his higher spiritual duties, I think 2023 it is a good thing that the minister or clergyman should take part in public affairs. I think that to put this matter to the test of a vote of the congregation will bring in strife and disagreement, which this Clause is supposed to avoid. At the present time there is no such strife or disagreement, but there is a general agreement that clergymen and ministers should be allowed to take part in public affairs, because in fact all good work is sacred, and when it is carried out in that spirit, whatever work it may be—A servant with this clauseMakes drudgery Divine,Who sweeps a room as to these lawsMakes it and the action fine.So it is with the minister and the clergyman who carry out municipal duties. I think all the clergy and ministers who honour public boards and institutions by serving them adorn the office and do good work for which their congregations as a whole are very grateful. I shall oppose this new Clause.
§ Sir J. D. REES
I support this Amendment for the reason that I think it would make the purpose of this Bill more difficult to carry out. I think the clergyman might very well remain outside public affairs and remember that—They also serve who only stand and wait.I wish to call attention to the extraordinary fact that a new Clause of this kind should have come from the hon. Member for Pontefract who last Friday stigmatised all the Amendments moved from this side of the House as not being genuine Amendments. I may point out to the hon. Member that I put down several Amendments entirely on my own account without any communication with any other hon. Member.
§ Sir J. D. REES
That is an explanation which admits the offence presuming it is an offence. I am surprised that this new Clause should have come from the hon. Member who took that view of Amendments moved from this side of the House, because this Amendment attempts to do in a new Clause in another way what I endeavoured to do when I drafted an Amendment, which may not be reached, to the effect that no clerk in holy orders having 2024 a cure of souls shall become a candidate unless he shall previously have received a certificate in writing from the bishop of his diocese that the spiritual interests of his cure would not suffer by his election. It seems to me that an Amendment is considered to be genuine or not according as it comes from one side or the other of this House. I think the action of the hon. Member for Pontefract is strikingly illustrated on this occasion, and but for the fact that I know how genuine is his dislike to Private Bills I should have thought that there was some ulterior object in moving this Clause which would ill become me to suppose the hon. Member could be guilty of. It appears to me to be a good thing, instead of facilitating the entrance of ministers of religion into: these municipal bodies that it is better in every way to obstruct them. I believe the principle is generally held on the other side of the House that secular and spiritual affairs, should be separate, and there is a very important Bill before the House to carry out that principle. It does not seem to me opportune that at a moment like this clergymen and ministers should be encouraged to deal with secular affairs to a greater extent than they do now. I believe municipal bodies will have no more difficulty in getting people to serve them in the future than they have in the past, and I think this Bill is entirely unnecessary. I also urge that it is extremely undesirable to impose upon a country, surfeited with elections and election procedure, and detesting elections which are occurring from day to day, month by month, and week by week, another election which the hon. Members's new Clause would institute, and which my Amendment would not dot Nor can I see there is anything in the claim of uniformity. Uniformity has no merit in itself, and it is a singular argument to come from hon. Gentlemen opposite, who at the present time have another Bill before the House, to commence a system of separation in the United Kingdom and to encourage the passage of diverse laws and the adoption of different attitudes in different parts of the country in regard to any question. It seems to me always a bad argument, and it is peculiarly inopportune coming at a moment like this from hon. Gentlemen opposite. I should like to object to the intervention of clergymen and ministers in secular business on general grounds. There is no one who has been an administrator in the East who has not suffered at some time In his 2025 life by the active intervention of ministers in public business, which can do very well without their assistance, and which is likely to be adversely affected by it.
§ Sir J. D. REES
I was endeavouring to show the intervention of ministers was toad, and I thought that was within the Clause. Then I take exception to the Clause. It seems to me the words "regular ministers" are open to objection. It is extremely difficult to define them, and they will lead to endless complication.
And, notice being taken, at twenty minutes before Two of the clock, that forty Members were not present, the House was told by Mr. SPEAKER, and thirty-nine Members only being present, Mr. Speaker retired from the Chair. At seven minutes before Two of the clock forty Members were found to be present, and the sitting was resumed.
§ Sir J. D. REES
The few observations I was making may conveniently be continued on the Third Heading, and I do not therefore propose to trouble the House any more at the present moment.
§ Mr. T. E. HARVEY
I rise for the purpose of making an appeal to the hon. Member for Pontefract (Mr. Booth). It is quite obvious to the House he has displayed his usual great ability in the way in which he proposed the new Clause—an ability he is quite capable of displaying at still greater length at future stages. But I think he is not opposed to the Bill in principle—very few Members are—and I therefore appeal to hon. Members not to allow their objection to the tactics pursued in this House last week to lead them to follow the example then set, and thereby prevent the discussion of another Bill which is of a very important character. The hon. Member having shown what he can do, will, I trust, allow us not only to carry this very useful little Bill, but also to deal with the measure which stands second on the Order Paper.
§ Mr. CARR-GOMM
I desire to associate myself entirely with the words addressed to the House by my hon. Friend (Mr. Edmund Harvey). I think it would be more in keeping with the dignity of this House if we were to deal with the Amendments to the present Bill as quickly as possible, and 2026 then get on to the private Bill on which Standing Committee "A" spent a considerable amount of time. That is a matter of social reform that the House should deal with at the earliest possible moment. Many Members on this side of the House sympathise with the hon. Member's appeal.
Sir G. BARING
With all respect to my hon. Friends, I am not greatly impressed by their lectures on Parliamentary deportment. I understand that they want to discuss the Housing Bill. I am sure my hon. Friend the Member for Pontefract (Mr. Booth) will not deal at any great length with the Amendments on the Paper, but there are a great many important Amendments down which. I should like to remind the House, proceed largely from hon. Gentlemen on the other side of the House. I say that we have a right to carefully consider this question. The hon. Member for Perth (Mr. Whyte) condemned, in very strong terms, the character of this Clause. He said it was unworkable and that it would have a serious effect on municipal government. The hon. Member is a Scottish Member, and I believe he has never had anything to do with English municipal government. He will pardon me for saying he is not a great authority on the matter. I have spent twenty years in municipal life, and speaking with some experience of municipal administration, I am a very strong supporter of this Clause. I can give an instance in my experience in connection with the county council where a restriction such as is proposed in this new Clause would have had a very wholesome effect. A reverend gentleman was a very active member of the county council, and a large part of his time was devoted to the work of the county council, and to the meetings of the county council itself and the committees associated with it. I believe he spent three or four days a week pursuing his work as a county councillor. After a time, some of his congregation not unnaturally objected to finding their rector always absent at county council meetings, and one or two residents in the parish asked him if he did not think it would be better if they had a little more ecclesiastical work from him and a little less county council activity. His answer was that he had been elected to the county council and that he proposed to continue his work for the county council, and he did go on for some years with his county council work. Not 2027 a man who knew these circumstances was not of opinion that the work of the parish gravely suffered by the reverend gentleman's constant absence at county council meetings. There is another point. Municipal elections are conducted now-a-days on strictly party lines. In small boroughs party feelings are higher at local elections than in connection with Parliamentary elections. What happens in the case of a reverend gentleman who puts up for election? He has to hold meetings and make speeches. He gives expression sometimes to very strong opinions and raises a great deal of party heat. Is it pretended that the reverend gentleman's spiritual work is favourably affected by a course of action of that kind?
Is it really necessary that clergymen of the Church of England, or Nonconformist clergymen, should take part in work of that kind? In answer to the criticism made on this Clause by the hon. Member for Bow and Bromley (Mr. Lansbury), I say that it will not have the effect of excluding Church of England or Nonconformist clergymen from acting as municipal councillors if they secure sufficient support. I may say that what my hon. Friend (Mr. Booth) wishes to secure, is that before a reverend gentleman submits himself to election, and the results that election might have, he should receive the consent of the congregation to whom he ministers. That seems to be a very reasonable proposal. It in no way restricts his liberty of action. We have had many speeches as to what would happen when the consent was asked for, and some parishioners expressed the view that he should not serve. We were told that that would stir up bitter strife within the congregation. I should think that if any reverend gentleman, when he sent round asking whether he could receive consent to his standing for election, found a considerable proportion of the congregation thought it would be better he should not stand, it would be a natural thing for him to say that he would rather not submit himself in these circumstances and withdraw his candidature. It is something approaching a scandal that clergymen of the Church of England or Nonconformist ministers should be absent at municipal meetings and committee meetings, and of necessity neglect the work for which they are primarily responsible. The work of municipal corporations in towns like Birmingham or Leeds, is of a particularly arduous 2028 character. Some of those councillors meet on three to five days a week. Can it be pretended that work of that arduous character has any consonance with the proper, faithful, and efficient performance of a clergyman's work. I hope the House will give its assent to this Clause. I do not think the machinery of the Clause is very appropriate, and I shall, if the Clause is read a second time, submit an Amendment to omit Sub-section (3). I am quite certain the principle is not in any way undemocratic. It is a principle which any Liberal can conscientiously support. I. do not want to exclude anyone standing for election to any body in this country, but this in no way traverses any democratic doctrine; it simply asks that congregations should have a chance before their minister or pastor stands for election to express an opinion, aye or no, whether they shall take part in elections of that kind.
§ Mr. MACPHERSON
I always thought that the hon. Member for Pontefract (Mr. Booth) was the democrat of democrats in this House, but when I find him acting as sponsor for a Tory Amendment which seeks to restrict religious life in this country on the part of clergymen to Sunday observances, I bid farewell to his democratic sentiments. We are living in progressive times, and I should be exceedingly sorry if the House were to sanction, by passing this Clause, the assertion that the religious life of the country is to be divorced from its social life. I know perfectly well as a Presbyterian I should strongly object to any State sanction being given to any interference in any Presbyterian body to which I belonged. Here we are placing more disability upon clergymen of all denominations. I know perfectly well in Scotland we solved this question long ago. At almost every poll in the various districts you will find that the men at the top of the poll for the various local bodies are the clergymen, whether they belong to the Roman Catholic faith, the Church of England faith, or the various Presbyterian faiths, and the reason is not far to seek. The people, especially the Presbyterian churches, elect clergymen largely because they are men of intellect and high mental calibre, who are accustomed to take a deep and abiding interest in the social life of the community, and if you are to say that you are not to allow a clegyman who does take an abiding interest in the social life of the community to be elected 2029 on local bodies that is an end of the real true democracy. I will give my vote, even though it severs me from party connection with two such hon. Friends as the hon. Member (Mr. Booth) and the hon. Gentleman (Sir Godfrey Baring) in opposition to this Amendment. The time has come when we ought to recognise that the clergyman is a proper person to take his place upon local bodies, especially as we recognise a new and ever-increasing revival of the religious life of the country, which does not consist merely of Sunday observances. The clergyman ought to be employed during the six days of the week in connection with the social life of the people and in the amelioration of the lot of the working classes. I shall certainly vote against the Amendment.
§ Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr. Maclean)
We are discussing a new Clause to the Bill, and the hon. Member must confine himself to that.
§ Mr. WATT
I was going on to say that I think the hon. Member (Mr. Booth) is quite right in his line of action and in seeking to delay a Bill which has these characteristics. The admission of clergymen to municipal bodies is a blunder. I think the fact that clergymen take a leading part on school boards is the main reason why they do not do their duty well. Our national Bard has said that the reason why Scotland has only one House of Parliament is that people do not want to hear the same blethers twice, and if clergymen are admitted to municipal bodies in my country as well as to school boards we shall have the same blethers three times. They have really in Scotland got a monopoly of school boards. I do not believe there is a school board in Scotland which has not a clergyman as a member, and in many school boards there are four, five and six clergymen, and, of course, the talking there is worse than in Parliament on a Friday. Naturally they get a monopoly of these places because they are all blessed by Providence with what we call the gift of the gab. They can make speeches which electrify the electors, and they are returned in pre- 2030 ference to others. But coming to this particular Clause, I object to it because it does not fit into the needs of the country which I am sent here to represent. It does not suit Scotland at all. The phraseology of the hon. Member (Mr. Booth) has so circumscribed it that it does not suit the needs of Scotland at all. The burgess, roll of the parish, for example, is to be the electoral roll in deciding whether a clergyman is to be permitted to stand for a municipality or not. If the measure is to become law the idea that the hon. Member has in his mind, namely, that the congregations should give their assent and consent to the candidature of these gentlemen, is a good one, but he has not carried out his good idea in a thorough fashion, because he has, as an Englishman usually does, absolutely forgotten Scotland, so the position would be that clergymen in England could go on local bodies whereas in my country they would be prevented from so doing. I do not desire my countrymen to be put under an embargo such as that. If clergymen in England are to be permitted to go on to municipal bodies I desire that Scotch clergymen should have the same privilege. But I think, as I said earlier in my observations for my local paper, that clergymen should be entirely excluded from these local bodies.
Will the hon. Member tell the House what is the name of the local paper to which he is speaking now?
§ Sir F. CAWLEY
I rise to support the Clause. There are a great many reasons why clergymen of the Church of England do not go on municipal bodies. I happen to know something of municipal bodies and the office of mayor, or lord mayor, is a very onerous one. It requires the whole attention of the man if he is to do his duty, and how anyone can do his duty to the parish as clergyman and to the borough as mayor passes my understanding. In fact, I think the two offices are incompatible, because he cannot perform them both with any efficiency or justice to the ratepayers. I was very much struck with the argument of the hon. 2031 Member for East Down (Captain Craig), who stated that a great many Nonconformist ministers in trying to secure a call from a congregation have to go through an examination, and amongst the rest they have to say, or they might have to say, that they would not desire any municipal honours of any sort. Therefore, the congregation would have a hold on him, and not only so, but, so far as I understand the organisation of Nonconformist bodies, they can get rid of the clergyman who ministers to them. But in the Church of England the clergyman is appointed as a rule by some outside authority, and he has not to go and see the congregation to which he is to minister. He is appointed by some patron, very often residing at a distance, and because possibly of some family influence. Therefore the congregation to which he is to minister very likely do not know, and are not able to question him, his political opinions in any way whatever. If he likes to mix himself up with politics and municipal affairs, he can do so absolutely against the desires of his congregation. In the Church of England, as we all know, it is very difficult to get rid of a clergyman, however obnoxious he may be to the people to whom he ministers. If a clergyman were a member of a town council, it is very likely that he would have to consider some Parliamentary Bill to which he objected, though the view he took might be quite contrary to the opinion of his congregation, and they would have no chance of getting rid of him.
If this Clause is passed, it will be possible to ascertain whether the views of the clergyman somewhat coincide with those held by the congregation themselves. On this account I think it is extremely desirable that the clergy of the Church of England should not be allowed to become members of town and city councils unless practically with the consent of their congregation. I could quite well understand that in a small borough, or in a small district, there may be a very strong-minded clergyman, and the only place in the borough or district where the people could vote against the predominance of the clergyman would be the municipal council. The town council, or the urban district council, would be the only place where people could be entirely free from this supervision. Therefore, I think, on all grounds it is not desirable that the clergymen of the Church of England should have the power, without 2032 any reference to their congregations, of mixing themselves up with municipal matters, and of taking political sides in municipal contests. For these reasons, I shall support the Clause moved by my hon. Friend. I think the difference between clergymen of the Church of England and Nonconformist clergymen in that the one can be got rid of and the other cannot possibly be got rid of, makes all the difference in the world. It would be a deplorable thing, I think, if any clergyman of a large parish were to go into municipal affairs against the wish of his congregation, and so, in my opinion, do something which would detract very much from his influence as spiritual adviser. I think most clergymen of the Church of England, especially in large parishes, have quite enough to do in looking after the spiritual welfare of their congregations without mixing themselves up in the politics of a particular place.
§ Mr. EDGAR JONES
If my hon. Friend presses this Clause to a Division, I shall be bound to vote against it. He will find that the whole thing is perfectly unworkable. The Clause begins by referring to "the majority of the parishioners in the parish." There is no definition of "parishioner." Is he to be resident in the parish for six or twelve months? What makes a person a parishioner? We have found in our investigations in relation to the Welsh Church that there is no definition, legal or otherwise, of the term "parishioner." For that reason, I think the Clause would be wholly unworkable.
§ Mr. EDGAR JONES
I take it that the term "parishioner" is the same in England as in Wales as regards the Church of England, When you come to Nonconformist congregations we are in greater confusion still as to what constitutes a "parishioner," and as to who are to be included or excluded. Several large congregations do not regard children under fifteen as belonging to the congregation. On the question as to who should vote whether a minister should or should not be nominated for a municipal body, are you going to start at the age of eighteen? For that reason I think the Clause does not make sense.
Sir G. BARING
Is the hon. Member entitled on the Second Reading of the Clause to go into minute criticism of the Clause?
§ Mr. EDGAR JONES
I was endeavouring to make out a case against the whole Clause. I am giving my reasons why I shall be obliged to vote against it. I think the term "person in holy orders" has a legal meaning, but when the Clause says refer to the parish "in which he is employed," that has nothing to do with the matter. Suppose a minister is employed in his own garden, or keeps a post office, that would be sufficient to disqualify him under this ill-drafted Clause. Then take the term "burgess roll." I wish to know what the burgess roll of a parish is. I suppose it is a Scotch term." [An HON. MEMBER: "It is not a Scotch phrase."]
§ Mr. EDGAR JONES
I did not understand that it did not apply to Scotland. I object to the Clause also because it puts on the town clerk certain duties in regard to the election. It is a most ridiculous thing. If you are going to spend the money of the ratepayers deciding whether a particular clergyman has the consent of his congregation to become a candidate, you will have the trade unions sending in a memorial that the expenses should be paid of conducting the trade union elections to decide who will be their candidate at the next General Election. The other provision, allowing a mayor or a town clerk to interfere in the affairs of a Nonconformist congregation, is the most absurd proposal I have ever seen. As a Nonconformist, I repudiate the suggestion that any municipal authority shall interfere in matters that have relation to the minister appointed by a congregation, and for those reasons I object to this Clause as being ill-drafted, meaningless, and perverse.
§ Mr. RAFFAN
I am bound to oppose this Clause, because I am not at all desirous that in a Bill of this kind Nonconformists should steal any advantage over the other side, and I do not think that can be the intention of my hon. Friend. What is behind this whole demand? If it had not been for the Education Act of 1902 you would never have heard of this, and neither clergymen nor Nonconformist ministers 2034 would have sought to take part in the ordinary work of municipal government to any considerable extent.
§ Mr. RAFFAN
I cannot put my point without explaining that in my view clergymen and Nonconformist ministers would be nominated to these bodies mainly because they desired to sit on educational committees.
§ Sir F. BANBURY
The question before the House is not whether ministers or clergymen should be nominated to sit on these bodies, but whether before they are nominated their congregation should by vote approve of their being so nominated, and therefore the question which we are discussing, whether it is advisable that they should be nominated, is not in order at the present moment.
§ Mr. RAFFAN
I was not putting any question as to whether it was advisable that they should be nominated, but I submit that I am entitled to put that in my view the main object which persons have in view in nominating ministers of religion of any denomination would be the desire that they should have an opportunity to serve upon educational committees.
§ Sir F. BANBURY
That is exactly the point which I asked your ruling on, that it is out of order, because the only question before the House is whether or not the congregation should decide whether ministers should or should not sit upon these bodies.
§ Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER
The point of the Clause as I understand it is whether clergymen or ministers who submit themselves to re-election, should get the approval of their parishioners. I do not wish to rule very strictly, but I would put it to the hon. Member that if he is not absolutely out of order, he is very nearly out of order.
§ Mr. RAFFAN
I desire to respect your ruling, but I think that the House will see that the point is strictly relevant, because the hon. Member for Pontefract desires in the case of clergymen of the Church of England, not to take a vote of the congregation, but a vote of the whole of the persons in the parish. The point I wish to put is that the education controversy very frequently turns upon purely denominational considerations, and if 2035 this Clause passes into law what would probably happen would be that if the Church of England clergyman desires the consent of his parishioners to stand for election with a view to protecting the schools of his Church as he conceives it, the Nonconformist parishioners might say "we will not allow this clergyman to become a candidate and we will prevent his election to the council by voting as a solid body to prevent him becoming a candidate." I think that that might very conceivably arise under the Clause, and my hon. Friends agree that the Clause might have that effect. I submit that that is not treating fairly the different positions of the Church people and the Nonconformist minister, because the Nonconformist minister has only to secure the approval of his own people, those who sympathise with him and take his view upon education, whereas the clergyman of the Church of England has to go before a body, a large number of whom may be opposed to his views, before he is able to secure even the opportunity of appearing as a candidate. I submit that in a Bill of this character it is not wise that we should seek to impose a disability upon the Church of England in this way. What we desire is the equality between the Church of England and Nonconformist bodies. I now take the case of a Nonconformist minister. My hon. Friend desires by this Clause that a minister should secure the approval of his congregation. What is likely to happen when this meeting is held to secure the approval of the congregation? Is not it very likely that after the congregation has given its approval, some enthusiastic member will propose that a committee be immediately formed for the purpose of assisting the reverend gentleman's candidature, and if that is to happen, as I believe it would largely happen under this Clause, "would we not find that we were involved in all the sectarian squabbles which it is our desire to avoid at municipal elections? I oppose this Clause, because, while I am desirous that clergymen of the Church of England and Nonconformist ministers should have the opportunity of serving upon public bodies, I think that they should take their stand as candidates on the ground of citizenship and not as clergymen or ministers, and that would be utterly impossible if you set up the machinery of this Clause under which in the case of clergymen of 2036 the Church of England you require to appeal to the representatives of the whole parish, while the Nonconformist minister requires to appeal only to his congregation.
What is the position of a curate under this Clause? In the history of education in London no more self-sacrificing work has been done under the London County Council than the work done for education by the Rev. Stewart Headlam. If he had under this Clause to secure the approval of those who belonged to his own religious communion, who would be overwhelmingly opposed to his political views, London would have been deprived of his inestimable services.
§ Mr. RAFFAN
It is perfectly true that he is now very much advanced in years and has no charge of a congregation, but when he was at the school board he was in charge of one, and my whole point is that at that time, when he had an opportunity of doing this valuable work in London, if it had been necessary for him first of all to secure the approval of the religious community to which he belonged, we might have lost the benefit of much of the valuable work which he did. For all these reasons, if my hon. Friend goes into the Lobby, as I dare say he will, for he appears to attach considerable importance to this Clause, much as I sympathise with him, I shall with regret feel compelled to vote against him.
Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT
I desire to offer the strongest opposition to this proposed Amendment. It seems to me that it would be the means of giving statutory effect to a tyrannical power which is often exercised under present circumstances without statutory effect. It is in the power of the employer to interfere with the politics of the employed person. We know that very frequently employers have placed an embargo upon their employés standing for election on any public bodies. That has been the cause of grave scandal and of grave complaint. I am referring only to the action of employers in putting their veto upon employés standing for public bodies, but we know that their power extends very much beyond that, and extends even to its exercise in regard! to the votes of their employés. Clergymen and ministers stand in relation to their congregation very much as employed persons stand in relation to their employers. 2037 In ordinary circumstances, where the employer has no statutory power to interfere, he has his remedy if he thinks his servant devotes too much time to public authorities; he can get rid of him, and exercise his veto in that way. In the Free Churches the congregations have also the same power. They can exercise a real and effective veto upon their ministers standing for public bodies if they desire to do so, and no minister of a Free Church can stand to be elected on a public body unless his congregation are with him and are agreeable. Therefore I think, so far as clergyman and ministers are concerned, the Amendment is quite unnecessary. One must agree that the relation between the clergyman and the congregation is very different from that of the minister and Free Church congregation. The congregation are not able to get rid of the clergyman, however much they dislike his action, however much they may think that he is neglecting his duty by giving up his time to public affairs. He is there as a fixture; he is imposed upon them; and, therefore, I can conceive that the Conservative Member who put this Amendment on the Paper has some good reason for imposing this restriction upon clergymen; but I cannot conceive of any reason, in the nature of the circumstances, why this restriction should be extended to ministers of the Free Churches, who, in effect, must have the consent of the congregation. For these reasons I desire to offer the strongest possible opposition to the Amendment.
§ Mr. BOOTH
I rise to make an appeal to the House. When I moved this Amendment I said I desired to be brief, and I was very brief indeed. I appealed to hon. Members to follow my example, yet this Clause has led to a very animated and, I think, very able Debate. I am a little astonished that one or two of my hon. Friends should have made an appeal to me to stop the discussion—this is a very long Clause, and I made a very brief speech—but I take the first opportunity to appeal to the House to come to a decision, 2038 in spite of the fact that it is the most important Amendment down on the Paper, and is so regarded by those who are a little doubtful as to the real value of this Bill. If the Clause is carried, then, after the Second Reading, I shall be prepared to accept the deletion of Sub-sections (2) and (3) referred to by the hon. Member for Merthyr, the hon. Member for Glasgow, and other hon. Gentlemen. They have thoroughly convinced me that these two Sub-sections are not such as I can support. I would point out that this shows the value of Debate in this House. My hon. Friends have brought forward reasons the force of which I, at any rate, who am open to conviction, fully recognise. Those reasons have very great force, indeed, and after the Second Reading of the Clause I shall be prepared to accept Amendments deleting Sub-sections (2) and (3).
§ Mr. WEDGWOOD
I do not think the omission of Sub-sections (2) and (3) will make much of an improvement in this Amendment, which I regret should have been brought forward on the Liberal Benches and supported by the hon. Member for Stoke. The whole gist of this Clause is thoroughly illiberal, because it puts an obstruction in the way of a man fulfilling his duty as a citizen. Whether he be a clergyman of the Church of England or a minister of one of the Free Churches, why he should not have as much right to represent the views of citizens on local authorities, I cannot conceive. It is always possible to invent or imagine hundreds of opportunist reasons for opposing changes. One can imagine all sorts of dangers, such as the influence of clergymen on educational work and things of that sort. But Liberalism is based on something more than opportunism—
§ Lord ROBERT CECIL
I would like to know, on a point of Order, whether the hon. Member is in order in discussing the Bill on this Amendment?
§ Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER
The hon. Member is not in order in discussing the principle of the Bill at all.
§ Mr. WEDGWOOD
I am not discussing the principle of the Bill at all, I am simply discussing the question whether it is right that the clergyman or minister should have the approval of members of the church or of the congregation as to whether he is to be allowed to stand for election to the town council.
§ Mr. WEDGWOOD
I am not surprised that the hon. Member for Stoke should not wish his illiberal attitude exposed.
|Division No. 106.]||AYES.||[2.50 p.m.|
|Booth, Frederick Handel||Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea)||Wadsworth, J.|
|Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich)||Kyffin-Taylor, G.||Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)|
|Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.||Martin, J.||Watt, Henry A.|
|Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)||Pringle, Wm. M. R.||Young, Samuel (Cavan, E.)|
|Dalziel, Sir James H. (Kirkcaldy)||Rees, Sir J. D.|
|Glanville, H. J.||Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)||TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Sir|
|Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire. N. E.)||Sutherland, J. E.||Godfrey Baring and Mr. J. Ward.|
|Hughes, S. L.|
|Addison, Dr. Christopher||Gill, A. H.||Munro-Ferguson, Rt. Hon. R. C.|
|Agg-Gardner, James Tynte||Gladstone, W. G. C.||Needham, Christopher T.|
|Alden, Percy||Goldstone, Frank||Nolan, Joseph|
|Allen, Rt. Hon. Charles P. (Stroud)||Gordon, Hon. John Edward (Brighton)||O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)|
|Ashley, Wilfrid W.||Gretton, John||O'Grady, James|
|Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)||Guest, Major Hon. C. H. C. (Pembroke)||Parker, James Halifax|
|Banbury Sir Frederick George||Guinness, Hon. W. E. (Bury S. Edmunds)||Peel, Hon. William R. W. (Taunton)|
|Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton)||Gulland, John William||Perkins, Walter Frank|
|Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks||Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)||Peto, Basil Edward|
|Beck, Arthur Cecil||Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire)||Pointer, Joseph|
|Benn, W. W. (T. H'mts, St. George)||Harris, Henry Percy||Pollock, Ernest Murray|
|Bentinck, Lord Henry Cavendish||Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)||Raffan, Peter Wilson|
|Black, Arthur W.||Hayden, John Patrick||Rawson, Col. Richard H.|
|Boscawen, Sir Arthur S. T. Griffith-||Henderson, Major H. (Berkshire)||Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)|
|Bridgeman, William Clive||Herbert, Hon. A. (Somerset, S.)||Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)|
|Burn, Colonel C. R.||Higham, John Sharp||Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)|
|Burns, Rt. Hon. John||Hills, John Waller (Durham)||Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)|
|Byles, Sir William Pollard||Hill-Wood, Samuel||Rowlands, James|
|Cameron, Robert||Holmes, Daniel Turner||Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)|
|Campion, W. R.||Illingworth, Percy H.||Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)|
|Carr-Gomm, H. W.||Jardine, Ernest (Somerset, S.)||Smith, H. B. L. (Northampton)|
|Cassel, Felix||Jones, Edgar R. (Merthyr Tydvil)||Soames, Arthur Wellesley|
|Cautley, Henry Strother||Jones, Leif Stratten (Notts, Rushcliffe)||Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)|
|Chancellor, Henry G.||Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)||Stewart, Gershom|
|Clough, William||Jones, W. S. Glyn- (Stepney)||Swift, Rigby|
|Clynes, J. R.||Jowett, F. W.||Talbot, Lord Edmund|
|Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)||King, J. (Somerset, N.)||Terrell, George (Wilts, N. W.)|
|Courthope, George Loyd||Lambert, Richard (Cricklade)||Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)|
|Crooks, William||Lane-Fox, G. R.||Thynne, Lord Alexander|
|Crumley, Patrick||Lawson, Sir W. (Cumh'rld, Cockerm'th)||Webb, H.|
|Cullinan, J.||Leach, Charles||Wedgwood, Josiah C.|
|Dawes, J. A.||Lockwood, Rt. Hon. Lt.-Col. A. R.||White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Teadeston)|
|Denman, Hon. R. D.||Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J.||Whyte, A. F.|
|Denniss, E. R. B.||Macpherson, James Ian||Williamson, Sir A.|
|Doris, W.||McCallum, Sir John M.||Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughten)|
|Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)||Magnus, Sir Philip||Younger, Sir George|
|Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)||Marshall, Arthur Harold|
|Essex, Richard Walter||Meagher, Michael||TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Lord|
|Fell, Arthur||Menzies, Sir Walter||Robert Cecil and Mr. Lansbury.|
|Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey||Munro, R.|
§ Mr. WEDGWOOD
I quite agree the subject has been debated long enough. I should regret if this Clause were added to the Bill which I think is a very good Bill. I hope the Clause will be rejected and let us get on to the five pages of Amendments.
§ Question put, "That the Clause be read a second time."
§ The House divided: Ayes, 20; Noes, 116.
§ cipal corporations. The point is very important in view of the Welsh Disestablishment Bill. I do not claim to be the inventor of this Clause. It was placed upon the Paper by a distinguished Member of the Opposition, the hon. Member for Rutland (Mr. Gretton). The point at issue is that the clergy of the Disestablished Church are to be treated differently 2041 from the clergy of the Established Church. If a subsequent Clause dealing with that matter is out of order, it is all the more necessary that my proposal should be accepted. Assuming that this Bill passes only under the terms of the Parliament Act, it would come into operation at the same time as the Welsh Disestablishment Bill. A consideration of that circumstance will show the necessity for my proposed Clause. You will have an Established Church in England and a Disestablished Church in Wales. In the country with the Disestablished Church you will have a more or less democratic form of government, as you must set up some body to take the place of the State.
§ Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER
The hon. Member is not entitled to argue a concrete proposition under this Bill on the hypothesis of the Welsh Disestablishment Bill becoming law.
§ 3.0 P.M.
§ Mr. BOOTH
The difference in Wales arises from facts which are familiar to the House. In England the adherents of the Established Church are far more in number than the adherents of the Church in Wales, and that alters the whole position. In this case legislation for England does not suit Wales. I do not say that Wales is behind England; in fact, my view leans the other way; but everybody will agree that the two countries are vastly different. In the Welsh-speaking area the Nonconformists are very strong. They have a democratic form of government, and take a very keen interest in civic matters. There are differences in customs, language, poetry, music, and many other things. Consequently a Bill which would suit England in the way of calling the parishioners together would not suit Wales. When the parishioners were consulted there would often be a majority of Nonconformists, and the feeling between Church and Nonconformity in Wales is not, I regret to say, characterised by quite that Christian spirit which we should all desire to promote. This Bill is an experiment, a leap in the dark, and while we may have a right in the British House of Commons to pass this Bill for our own country, what right have we to impose it upon the Principality of Wales?
§ Mr. EDGAR JONES
I beg to second the proposed new Clause. I have no serious objection to the Bill, and for that reason I am willing to strike a bargain with the Noble Lord in charge of it.
§ Lord ROBERT CECIL
The hon. Member is entirely mistaken. This Bill is in charge of the hon. Member for Bow and Bromley. I am merely assisting that hon. Member.
§ Lord ROBERT CECIL
The hon. Member for Bow and Bromley has asked me to say anything that may be necessary on behalf of the promoters while he is away.
§ Mr. EDGAR JONES
That is why I wish to know whether the Noble Lord is prepared to make a bargain. If he accepts the provisions in the Welsh Disestablishment Bill that will put the matter right.
§ Mr. EDGAR JONES
As the Welsh Disestablishment Bill is before the House this measure is very inopportune and premature. Therefore I formally second the proposal to exclude Wales.
§ Mr. GRETTON
The hon. Member opposite (Mr. Booth) claims my support to this Clause because it was down in my name on a previous occasion. As a matter of fact there was some misunderstanding, and it was put down opposite my name without my consent. However, I am disposed to vote with the hon. Member. I am not a supporter of the Bill for any part of the United Kingdom, and I am quite willing that it should not apply to Wales. For that reason I am quite willing to vote with the hon. Gentleman upon this particular Clause, but he must not claim me as having proposed it, because that is not a fact; that arose out of something that occurred on a previous occasion.
Sir G. BARING
The hon. Member for Rutland has told the House that his name was put down to an Amendment without his consent—
§ Lord ROBERT CECIL
I wish to know whether the hon. Member is in order in raising this question. Who put down the hon. Member's name is not the question; but whether this Clause ought or ought not to be passed?
Sir G. BARING
Surely I am entitled to reply to the hon. Gentleman the Member for Rutland whom you, Mr. Chairman, by not interfering, ruled was in order? The hon. Member for Rutland was in order 2043 in making his explanation, and surely I shall be in order in commenting upon that explanation?
§ Mr. GRETTON
May I say that I authorised my name on a previous occasion to the moving of an Amendment in my name, and my hon. Friend made a mistake and put my name to the wrong Amendment.
Sir G. BARING
I did not put it down. We have come to a pretty pass when Amendments in the matter of a Bill of this kind are put down in such a careless way 'by responsible Members of the Opposition. But I rise not in order to occupy the time of the House on this subject, but for the purpose of protesting against what is sought to be done in regard to this new Clause.
Sir G. BARING
The Noble Lord says that he will make some remarks upon this Clause. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Bow and Bromley who is in charge of this Bill, has left the House, and I understand will not take part in this Debate further. I support this new Clause on the principle that every nationality requires separate treatment. I am in favour of England, Scotland, and Ireland, being on principle, treated on separate and distinct lines. I think the circumstances in Wales are specially different to those prevailing in England at the present time. I am not going into the question of Welsh Disestablishment. But it is well-known to the House that in Wales at the present time there is a great deal of political and sectarian feeling. Municipal elections in Wales, as in England, are conducted largely on political lines. Having regard to the excited state of public feeling in Wales on questions which I need not allude to, but which are now before the country, surely it is especially desirable that reverend gentlemen, who should be men of peace, should not engage in these contested municipal elections, where matters may be raised by which great 'heat may be engendered? I hope the House will support the Clause, firstly, on the principle that each separate nationality should be dealt with on separate lines; and, secondly, to prevent reverend gentlemen engaging in contested elections where there cannot help but be very bitter and very undesirable feelings.
§ Lord ROBERT CECIL
Hon. Gentlemen opposite will not, I trust, consider me guilty of discourtesy if I say that I did not hear any argument from the Mover of the Clause, and very little from the Seconder, in favour of it. The only arguments that I heard were that there should never be a Bill which supplies to England and Wales together; that Bills ought to be separately applied to both countries. I do not think that that is an argument seriously meant, and that is very respectful to the House. The second argument was to the effect that there is a great deal of religious feeling in Wales, and therefore it is undesirable that ministers of religion should sit on local councils. I do not at all follow the relevance of that argument. I should have thought that it would have been much better if they did sit, so that if there is a great deal of feeling, their influence may be used to the softening of it. I do not think I shall be guilty of discourtesy if I say that it is quite evident that this is not a seriously meant Amendment, and I therefore do not think I would be discharging my duty to the House by occupying it any longer.
§ Mr. RAFFAN
I do not know that it speaks well that where the vital interests of Wales are concerned only two Members from that country think the matter of sufficient importance to address the House. I do consider that this is a matter on which we ought to have the considered opinion of Welsh Members as a whole. In this matter if we had the considered view of Welsh Members I should be very loth to take up position of opposition. Much as I respect my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydvil, I am sure he will excuse me if on this matter I say there is no evidence that he does represent the considered view of the Welsh nation as a whole. My personal interest in this matter arises from the fact that the Mover of the new Clause says that when he states that the Act shall not stand for Wales, he means Wales and Monmouthshire. I have the honour to be an ex-chairman of the Monmouthshire County Council—
§ Lord ROBERT CECIL
On a point of Order. If the hon. Member intends to make Wales, Wales and Monmouthshire, is it not necessary that he should have given notice of a Definition Clause extending Wales to Monmouthshire? On the general principle that nobody is entitled to move an incomplete Amendment, I venture to ask whether, after that explanation, this Amendment is in order?
§ Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER
Any hon. Member can move an Amendment to the Clause after it has been read a second time.
§ Mr. RAFFAN
It is not my intention to leave out Monmouthshire, but I was only pointing out that as it stands the Clause does not include Monmouthshire. I should very much deprecate at this time the passing of any special legislation for Wales which did not include Monmouthshire. Monmouthshire has been included in all recent legislation, and the county, I think I may say on behalf of those of all political opinions, would be very sorry indeed that Monmouthshire should be severed from Wales in any legislation. With reference to this new Clause, it does appear to me that if this new Act is necessary anywhere it is specially necessary in Wales. For that reason I regret that I cannot share the views of my hon. Friend. As I pointed out on a previous Amendment, in Wales a special interest was, and is, taken in education by both clergymen and ministers of all denominations. Wales was pre-eminently the country of school boards, on which clergymen and ministers took an exceedingly active part. Should this Clause, unfortunately as I think, be passed with the suggested Amendment to include Monmouthshire, the only town that will be affected is the county borough of Newport. In Newport the ministers of religion, who took a very keen interest an education, have been unable to continue that interest in its active form since the passing of the Education Act of 1902. I think that nowhere more than in Wales is it desirable that we should have the opportunity of again enlisting in the cause of education the valuable service which can be rendered by the clergymen and ministers of all denominations. This affects Wales in a much greater degree than England, and for that reason, while I do not of course for a moment suggest that I am in any way speaking for the Welsh Members, yet as a resident in Wales, and one thoroughly conversant with the views of the people of Monmouthshire, I trust when we go to a Division that this Clause will not be added.
§ Mr. MARTIN
I should have thought that the arguments used by my hon. Friend who moved this Amendment 2046 and by my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr (Mr. Edgar Jones) who seconded, that it would have been made perfectly clear to the House that the Amendment should be carried. We have heard since these statements from the Noble Lord who is temporarily in charge of the Bill, that the arguments of these hon. Gentlemen have not convinced him, and it seems to me most important in these circumstances that I should attempt to state the case from a slightly different standpoint from what it has been stated in the hope that hon. Gentlemen opposite, including the Noble Lord, will be induced to vote for this Amendment. One would have thought that when a Representative of a large Welsh constituency stands up in this House and says this Bill would not be acceptable to the Welsh people, in the absence of any contradiction to that statement by other hon. Members, it would be considered ordinarily by Members of the House as a strong argument for adopting the Amendment. I cannot myself claim in any way to have any special knowledge of the affairs in Wales. I should myself be quite prepared to accept a declaration from the hon. Member for Merthyr in that respect. I may say I recently visited Wales for the first time, and I can quite understand the truth of the statement made by the hon. Member for Merthyr after that visit, because from conversations I had with the Welsh people I feel sure that a Bill of this kind would never be accepted by the people in that Principality. I am not going to enter into the question whether it would be acceptable to Monmouthshire or not, because that really is not before the House at the present time. I should be very sorry to put my views in opposition to the hon. Member who desires to have Monmouthshire included, because, as my visit did not include that county, I have no intention of setting up my views against his. That matter will no doubt be very fully debated when we reach the Amendment which the hon. Gentleman says he will accept to add Monmouth, but the real point of this Amendment is that while the Bill is admitted to be a good Bill for England—
§ Question put, "That the Question be now put."
§ The House divided: Ayes, 119; Noes, 44.2047
§ Question put accordingly, "That the Clause be now read a second time."
|Division No. 108.]||AYES.||[3.25 p.m.|
|Addison, Dr. C.||Glanville, H. J.||McCallum, Sir John M.|
|Allen, Rt. Hon. Charles P. (Stroud)||Gretton, John||Martin, J.|
|Beale, Sir William Phipson||Griffith, Ellis J.||Meagher, Michael|
|Benn, W. W. (T. Hamlets, St. George)||Gulland, John W.||Meehan, Francis (Leitrim, N.)|
|Boland, John Pius||Hackett, John||Muldoon, John|
|Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich)||Higham, John Sharp||Munro, R.|
|Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.||Holmes, Daniel Turner||Needham, Christopher|
|Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)||Hughes, Spencer Leigh||Nolan, Joseph|
|Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)||Illingworth, Percy H.||O'Doherty, Philip|
|Crumley, Patrick||Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea)||Palmer, Godfrey|
|Cullinan, J.||Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil)||Pirie, Duncan V.|
|Dalziel, Sir James H. (Kirkcaldy)||Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)||Pringle, William M. R.|
|Delany, William||Joyce, Michael||Reddy, M.|
|Doris, W.||Lundon, T.||Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)|
|Edwards, Clement (Glamorgan, E.)||Lynch, A. A.||Roche, Augustine (Louth)|
|Edwards, John Hugh (Glamorgan)||Macpherson, James Ian||Rowlands, James|
§ The House divided: Ayes, 58; Noes, 114.
|Soames, Arthur Wellesley||Waring, Walter||Williams, P. (Middlesbrough)|
|Summers, James Woolley||Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)|
|Sutherland, J. E.||Watt, Henry A.||TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr.|
|Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)||Webb, H.||Booth and Sir Godfrey Baring.|
|Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)|
|Acland, Francis Dyke||Fell, Arthur||Menzies, Sir Walter|
|Agg-Gardner, James Tynte||Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey||Munro-Ferguson, Rt. Hon. R. C.|
|Alden, Percy||Fiennes, Hon. Eustace Edward||Norton-Griffiths, J. (Wednesbury)|
|Allen, Arthur Acland (Dumbartonshire)||Fletcher, John Samuel (Hampstead)||O'Grady, James|
|Ashley, W. W.||Forster, Henry William||Peel, Hon. W. R. W. (Taunton)|
|Baird, J. L.||Gill, A. H.||Perkins, Walter F.|
|Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)||Gladstone, W. G. C.||Pointer, Joseph|
|Banbury, Sir Frederick George||Goldman, C. S.||Pollock, Ernest Murray|
|Bathurst, Charles (Wilton)||Gordon, Hon. John Edward (Brighton)||Priestley, Sir W. E. B. (Bradford, E.)|
|Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks||Greenwood, Hamar (Sunderland)||Raffan, Peter Wilson|
|Beck, Arthur Cecil||Guest, Major Hon. C. H. C. (Pembroke)||Rawson, Colonel R. H.|
|Bentinck, Lord H. Cavendish-||Guest, Hon. Frederick E. (Dorset, E.)||Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)|
|Black, Arthur W.||Guinness, Hon. W. E. (Bury S. Edmunds)||Rees, Sir J. D.|
|Boscawen, Sir Arthur S. T. Griffith-||Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne)||Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)|
|Brady, P. J.||Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)||Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)|
|Bridgeman, W. Clive||Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire)||Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)|
|Burn, Colonel C. R.||Harris, Henry Percy||Sassoon, Sir Philip|
|Buxton, Noel (Norfolk)||Harrison-Broadley, H. B.||Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)|
|Byles, Sir William Pollard||Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, W.)||Smith, H. B. L. (Northampton)|
|Cameron, Robert||Henderson, Major H. (Berks, Abingdon)||Starkey, John R.|
|Campion, W. R.||Herbert, Hon. A. (Somerset, S.)||Stewart, Gershom|
|Carr-Gomm, H. W.||Hodge, John||Swift, Rigby|
|Cassel, Felix||Houston, Robert Paterson||Talbot, Lord E.|
|Cautley, H. S.||Howard, Hon. Godfrey||Terrell, George (Wilts, N. W.)|
|Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)||Jardine, E. (Somerset, E.)||Thynne, Lord Alexander|
|Chancellor, H. G.||Jones, Leif Stratten (Notts, Rushcliffe)||Touche, George Aspinall|
|Clough, William||Jones, W. S. Glyn- (T. H'mts, Stepney)||Wedgwood, Josiah C.|
|Clynes, John R.||Jowett, F. W.||White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)|
|Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)||King, J.||Whitehouse, John Howard|
|Courthope, George Loyd||Kyffin-Taylor, G.||Whyte, A. F. (Perth)|
|Craik, Sir Henry||Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)||Williamson, Sir A.|
|Crooks, William||Lawson, Sir W. (Cumb'rld, Cockerm'th)||Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)|
|Dawes, J. A.||Leach, Charles||Wood, John (Stalybridge)|
|Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas||Lee, Arthur H.||Yate, Col. C. E.|
|Denniss, E. R. B.||Lewis, John Herbert||Young, Samuel (Cavan, E.)|
|Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)||Lockwood, Rt. Hon. Lt.-Col. A. R.||Younger, Sir George|
|Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)||Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J.|
|Essex, Richard Walter||Mallaby-Deeley, Harry||TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Lord R.|
|Falconer, J.||Marshall, Arthur Harold||Cecil and Mr. Lansbury.|
§ Mr. SPEAKER
The proper course will be for the hon. Member to move the rejection of the Third Reading.
§ Mr. BOOTH
I beg to move, after the figures "1882," to insert the words "and so much of Section 58 of the Municipal Corporations (Ireland) Act, 1840, as disqualifies persons in holy orders or the regular ministers of dissenting congregations from being councillors, aldermen, or municipal commissioners."
This is one of a series of Amendments put down by the hon. Member for Sheffield in order to make the Clause more workable. I regard them only as drafting Amendments, and it is only in that way I have put my name to them. I do not want to press them to a Division, but in order to give the hon. Member in charge of the 2050 Bill an opportunity of explaining I will formally move.
§ Lord ROBERT CECIL
I do not think as a matter of drafting the Amendments are necessary, and I hope therefore the hon. Member will not press them, especially as he has not given any reason for them except to state that he regards them as drafting Amendments.
I will appeal to the hon. Member, at any rate, so far as the extension of this Bill to Ireland is concerned, not to press the Amendment. Surely he does not pretend for a moment that is merely a drafting Amendment. He knows perfectly well there is strong opposition, at any rate on the part of certain sections in Ireland, to any extension of this Bill to Ireland. I made clear last Friday that we would be no party to any Bill which further extended the clerical influence of any Church in the municipal affairs of Ireland. The hon. Member a 2051 moment ago was in the same Lobby with myself striving to exclude Wales from the benefits or disadvantages of the Bill, and I do not think it would be consistent if he now moved to include Ireland, when at any rate certain sections of Ireland do not desire it.
§ Mr. RAFFAN
I certainly should not vote for including Ireland if the majority of the representatives from Ireland expressed a wish to be excluded, but I was extremely surprised to hear this objection come from the hon. and gallant Member in view of the general position he adopts, because I understand his contention was that we should have common legislation for both countries and that it was quite unnecessary to discriminate between Great Britain and Ireland.
That does not refer to bad legislation. If legislation is bad, one naturally does not want to extend it more than one can help.
§ Mr. RAFFAN
The argument from that quarter of the House is that any legislation passed by this House ought to be common legislation, and, if it is to be common, it must, good or bad, apply to both countries. I think this is a matter which ought to be decided by a majority of the representatives from Ireland, and I am sorry to see there are so few Members of the Nationalist party present. I see two of them here, and I hope they will enlighten us as to what is the view of the majority of the representatives from Ireland.
§ Mr. WATT
I desire to associate myself with the views just expressed by my hon. Friend. I do not agree that this is a drafting Amendment. It is a very important addition to the Section. I venture to think if it is an advantage in England and Wales and Monmouth that it should be open to clergymen to enter municipal bodies, the same thing should apply to Ireland.
§ Mr. BOOTH
My remarks did not refer to the first part of the Amendment, and I did not name it because I thought it might lead to considerable controversy. I was dealing with the other portions. Failing any disclaimer from the other benches. I think the hon. Member for East Down (Captain Craig) is entitled to speak for Ireland, and, if the hon. Member thinks he is expressing the opinions of the absentees—
Not at all. I am sorry none of the Nationalist Members are here to speak for themselves. I only said those I represent deprecate the extension of this Clause to Ireland.
§ Mr. BOOTH
It is a matter so well known that it does not need a great deal of debate. The latter part of this Amendment and the two following Amendments are drafting Amendments put down by the hon. Member for Sheffield, who is an expert draftsman, and they do not originate on this side of the House at all. If my hon. Friends are inclined to divide on the first part of the Amendment I think I shall have to carry it to a Division for this reason. While it is true I voted with the hon. Member earlier in the afternoon, in the last Division he voted against me, and insisted that the Act should apply to Wales.
You are entirely wrong. I have just explained that I voted in the same Lobby with the hon. Member against the Act applying to Wales.
§ Question, "That the Amendment be by leave withdrawn," put, and negatived.
§ Mr. CLYNES
I have no right to speak for the Irish Members, but there is a view which this Amendment expresses which is very much broader than a distinctly narrow Irish one. The whole Bill is one professing to remove certain disqualifications, and why should we, in the case of Ireland, refuse the Irish priests in the Irish village, privileges which are to be conceded to the parson in this country? If we remove the disqualification in one country it should be removed in the other. In some parts of Ireland, from the very nature of things, the Irish priest is a man particularly fitted to take part in the civic and municipal life of the place in which he lives. It is impossible for priests in Ireland to be on any municipal body in large lumbers, and therefore they will not be in a position to exercise anything in the 2053 nature of religious influence, or to use their office for the purpose of religious persecution. Their record is so good in regard to charitable services in connection with Irish life, that the assumption ought to be, that if we give them an opportunity they would render equally good civic service in connection with the management of local municipal affairs. I strongly object to leaving this limitation in the case of Ireland, and trust that the Amendment will be pressed to a Division.
§ Mr. MARTIN
It appears to me that the conduct of the promoters of this Bill all through has been very strange. It has been demonstrated to my satisfaction, at least, that the Bill is quite inapplicable to Wales. Yet the supporters of the measure went into the Lobby in an endeavour to force it on that Principality. We have now a proposal to apply it to Ireland, and the promoters of the Bill, although appealed to, have really expressed no opinion on that point. They seem to be treating this as a wrecking Amendment. Surely Ireland is just as much entitled to the benefits of this Bill as Wales. In addition to that we have an entirely different provision in regard to Ireland to that which obtains in the case of Wales. We have no suggestion at all on behalf of Ireland that there are circumstances which make the Bill inapplicable. The hon. Member for East Down (Captain Craig) drew attention to the fact that he only represents a small minority of the people of Ireland, and therefore his statement cannot carry much weight with the House as far as Ireland is concerned, The hon. Member for Bow and Bromley for a period delegated the conduct of this Bill to the Noble Lord the Member for Hitchin, but I see that the hon. Member is back again in his place, and I hope he will give the House the reasons why Ireland should not benefit by this Bill. I think we are entitled to ask an explanation from the hon. Member, seeing that the Nationalist Members present, although pressed, have absolutely refused to express their views on
|Division No. 109.]||AYES.||[3.55 p.m.|
|Acland, Francis Dyke||Benn, W. W. (T. H'mts, St. George)||Cautley, Henry Strother|
|Addison, Dr. Christopher||Bentinck, Lord Henry Cavendish||Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)|
|Adkins, Sir W. Ryland D.||Black, Arthur W.||Cecil, Lord R. (Herts, Hitchin)|
|Agg-Gardner, James Tynte||Boscawen, Sir Arthur S. T. Griffith-||Chancellor, H. G.|
|Allen, Arthur Acland (Dumbartonshire)||Bridgeman, William Clive||Clough, William|
|Baird, J. L.||Burn, Col. C. R.||Clynes, J. R.|
|Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.)||Burns, Rt. Hon. John||Coates, Major Sir Edward Feetham|
|Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton)||Cameron, Robert||Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)|
|Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks||Campion, W. R.||Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.|
|Beauchamp, Sir Edward||Carr-Gomm, H. W.||Courthope, George Loyd|
|Beck, Arthur Cecil||Cassel, Felix||Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)|
§ the point. So far as they are concerned we are entitled to take it that there are no circumstances differentiating Ireland in any way from the rest of the United Kingdom, and there is no reason why the clergyman or priest in Ireland should not be allowed to take part in the public life of his country. Unless the hon. Member for Bow and Bromley can advance strong arguments in favour of the omission of Ireland from the Bill, I suggest that the common sense of the House should induce hon. Members to go into the Lobby and to secure for Ireland benefits which are to be granted to England and Wales.
§ Mr. LANSBURY
I voted against the exclusion of Wales because the Act which this Bill is to amend applies to England and Wales, and, therefore, it is desirable that the amended Bill should also apply to the two countries. But that Act of Parliament does not apply to Ireland, and that is the reason why I propose to vote against this Amendment, which appears to me to be an attempt by a side wind to do something for Ireland which ought only to be done in a Bill specifically drawn for the purpose. I am quite certain whatever I may say will not satisfy the hon. Member. Any proposition, apparently, is good enough to kill time this afternoon. I am very sorry for that, but, for my part, I am not going to assist in that function any more than I can possibly help.
§ Mr. KING
As there is some divergence of opinion and it seems rather difficult for the House to come to a conclusion, I venture to offer a suggestion by way of compromise which, I believe, the House will readily accept. I propose to add at the end of the Amendment these words "Except so far as it relates to the counties, of Down, Derry, Armagh, and Antrim."
§ Question put, "That the Question be now put."
§ The House divided: Ayes, 122; Noes, 49.
|Craik, Sir Henry||Houston, Robert Paterson||Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)|
|Crawshay-Williams, Eliot||Howard, Hon. Geoffrey||Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)|
|Crooks, William||Illingworth, Percy H.||Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)|
|Dairymple, Viscount||Jardine, E. (Somerset, E.)||Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)|
|Dawes, James A.||Jones, Leif Stratten (Notts, Rushcliffe)||Roch, Walter F.|
|Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas||Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)||Sassoon, Sir Philip|
|Denniss, E. R. B.||Jowett, F. W.||Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)|
|Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)||Joynson-Hicks, William||Smith, H. B. L. (Northampton)|
|Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)||King, J. (Somerset, N.)||Spear, Sir John Ward|
|Essex, Richard Walter||Kyffin-Taylor, G.||Stewart, Gershom|
|Fletcher, John Samuel (Hampstead)||Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)||Swift, Rigby|
|Forster, Henry William||Lardner, James Carrige Rushe||Talbot, Lord E.|
|Gill, A. H.||Lawson, Sir W. (Cumb'rld, Cockerm'th)||Terrell, G. (Wilts, N.W.)|
|Gladstone, W. G. C.||Leach, Charles||Thynne, Lord Alexander|
|Goldman, C. S.||Lewis, John Herbert||Touche, George Alexander|
|Gordon, Hon. John Edward (Brighton)||Lockwood, Rt. Hon. Lt.-Col. A. R.||Warde, Colonel C. E. (Kent, Mid)|
|Goulding, Edward Alfred||Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J.||Wardle, George J.|
|Griffith, Ellis J.||Mallaby-Deeley, Harry||Wedgwood, Josiah C.|
|Guest, Major Hon. C. H. C. (Pembroke)||Marshall, Arthur Harold||White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)|
|Guest, Hon. Frederick E. (Dorset, E.)||Munro-Ferguson, Rt. Hon. R. C.||Whitehouse, John Howard|
|Guinness, Hon. W. E. (Bury S. Edmunds)||Norton-Griffiths, J. (Wednesbury)||Whyte, A. F. (Perth)|
|Gulland, John Wiliam||O'Grady, James||Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset, W.)|
|Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne)||Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)||Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)|
|Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)||Perkins, Walter Frank||Wood, John (Stalybridge)|
|Hardie, J. Keir||Pointer, Joseph||Yate, Col. C. E.|
|Harris, Henry Percy||Pollock, Ernest Murray||Young, Samuel (Cavan, East)|
|Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, W.)||Radford, George Heynes||Younger, Sir George|
|Henderson, Major H. (Berks)||Rawson, Colonel Richard H.|
|Herbert, Hon. A. (Somerset, S.)||Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)||TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr.|
|Hills, John Waller||Rees, Sir J. D.||Lansbury and Mr. J. Ward.|
|Allen, Rt. Hon. Charles P. (Stroud)||Gretton, John||Priestley, Sir W. E. B. (Bradford, E.)|
|Ashley, W. W.||Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire)||Pringle, William M. R.|
|Atherley-Jones, Llewellyn A.||Harrison-Broadley, H. B.||Raffan, Peter Wilson|
|Banbury, Sir Frederick George||Higham, John Sharp||Rowlands, James|
|Baring, Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple)||Hughes, S. L.||Soames, Arthur Wellesley|
|Beale, Sir William Phipson||Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea)||Summers, James Woolley|
|Booth, Frederick Handel||Jones, Edgar R. (Merthyr Tydvil)||Sutherland, J. E.|
|Brocklehurst, W. B.||Joyce, Michael||Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)|
|Byles, Sir William Pollard||Lee, Arthur Hamilton||Waring, Walter|
|Dalziel, Sir James H. (Kircaldy)||Low, Sir F. (Norwich)||Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)|
|Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)||Lynch, A. A.||Watt, Henry A.|
|Edwards, Clement (Glamorgan, E.)||Macpherson, James||Williams, Penry (Middlesbrough)|
|Falconer, James||McCallum, Sir John M.||Williamson, Sir Archibald|
|Fell, Arthur||Menzies, Sir Walter|
|Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey||Morgan, George Hay|
|Fiennes, Eustace Edward||Munro, Robert||TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr.|
|Glanville, H. J.||Needham, Christopher T.||Martin and Mr. Herbert Craig.|
|Greenwood, Hamar (Sunderland)||Palmer, Godfrey Mark|
§ Question put accordingly, "That those words be there inserted."
|Division No.110.]||AYES.||[4.2 p.m.|
|Acland, Francis Dyke||Davies, Timothy (Lincs, Louth)||Jones, Leif Stratten (Notts, Rushcliffe)|
|Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbartonshire)||Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas||Joyce, Michael|
|Allen, Rt. Hon. Charles P. (Stroud)||Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)||King, Joseph (Somerset, North)|
|Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)||Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)||Lambert, Rt. Hon. G. (Devon, S. Molton)|
|Beale, Sir William Phipson||Edwards, John Hugh (Glamorgan, Mid.)||Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)|
|Beauchamp, Sir Edward||Falconer, James||Lardner, James Carrige Rushe|
|Beck, Arthur Cecil||Fiennes, Hon. Eustace Edward||Lawson, Sir W. (Cumb'rld, Cockerm'th)|
|Benn, W. W. (Tower Hamlets, St. Geo.)||Gill, A. H.||Leach, Charles|
|Brady, Patrick Joseph||Glanville, Harold James||Low, Sir F. (Norwich)|
|Bridgeman, William Clive||Greenwood, Hamar (Sunderland)||Lundon, Thomas|
|Brocklehurst, William B.||Griffith, Ellis J.||Lynch, Arthur Alfred|
|Burns, Rt. Hon. John||Guest, Major Hon. C. H. C. (Pembroke)||Macpherson, James Ian|
|Byles, Sir William Pollard||Guest, Hon. Frederick E. (Dorset, E.)||MacVeagh, Jeremiah|
|Cameron, Robert||Gulland, John William||McCallum, Sir John M.|
|Chancellor, H. G.||Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire)||Marshall, Arthur Harold|
|Chapple, Dr. William Allen||Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, W.)||Martin, Joseph|
|Clough, William||Herbert, Hon. A. (Somerset, S.)||Menzies, Sir Walter|
|Clynes, John R.||Higham, John Sharp||Morgan, George Hay|
|Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)||Hodge, John||Munro, Robert|
|Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.||Holmes, Daniel Turner||Munro-Ferguson, Rt. Hon. R. C.|
|Courthope, George Loyd||Howard, Hon. Geoffrey||Norton, Captain Cecil W.|
|Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)||Hughes, Spencer Leigh||Palmer, Godfrey Mark|
|Crawshay-Williams, Eliot||Illingworth, Percy H.||Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)|
|Crooks, William||Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea)||Pointer, Joseph|
|Dalziel, Sir James H. (Kirkcaldy)||Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil)||Priestley, Sir W. E. B. (Bradford, E.)|
§ The House divided: Ayes, 96; Noes, 77.
|Raffan, Peter Wilson||Summers, James Woolley||White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)|
|Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)||Sutherland, J. E.||Whitehouse, John Howard|
|Roberts, George H. (Norwich)||Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)||Williams, P. (Middlesbrough)|
|Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)||Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)||Williamson, Sir A.|
|Rowlands, James||Waring, Walter||Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)|
|Smith, Albert (Lanes., Clitheroe)||Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)|
|Smith, H. B. L. (Northampton)||Watt, Henry A.||TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr.|
|Soames, Arthur Wellesley||Wedgwood, Josiah C.||Booth and Sir G. Baring.|
|Addison, Dr. Christopher||Goldman, C. S.||Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel|
|Agg-Gardner, James Tynte||Gordon, Hon. John Edward (Brighton)||Rawson, Col. Richard H.|
|Ashley, W. W.||Goulding Edward Alfred||Rees, Sir J. D.|
|Baird, John Lawrence||Gretton, John||Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)|
|Bathurst, Charles (Wilts., Wilton)||Guinness, Hon. W. E. (Bury S. Edmunds)||Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)|
|Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks||Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne)||Roch, Walter F.|
|Bentinck, Lord H. Cavendish-||Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)||Sassoon, Sir Philip|
|Black, Arthur W.||Hardie, J. Keir||Spear, Sir John Ward|
|Boscawen, Sir A. T. Griffith-||Harris, Henry Percy||Stewart, Gershom|
|Burn, Col. C. R.||Harrison-Broadley, H. B.||Swift, Rigby|
|Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, North)||Henderson, Major H. (Abingdon)||Talbot, Lord E.|
|Campion, W. R.||Hills, J. W.||Terrell, G. (Wilts, N. W.)|
|Cassel, Felix||Houston, Robert Paterson||Thynne, Lord A.|
|Cautley, H. S.||Jardine, Ernest (Somerset, East)||Touche, George Alexander|
|Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)||Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)||Warde, Col. C. E. (Kent, Mid)|
|Cecil. Lord R. (Herts, Hitchin)||Jowett, F. W.||Wardle, George J.|
|Coates, Major Sir Edward Feetham||Joynson-Hicks, William||Whyte, Alexander F.|
|Craik, Sir Henry||Kyffin-Taylo1r, G.||Williams. Colonel R. (Dorset, W.)|
|Croft, Henry Page||Lansbury, George||Wolmer, Viscount|
|Dairymple, Viscount||Lee, Arthur H.||Wood, John (Stalybridge)|
|Dawes, James Arthur||Lockwood, Rt. Hon. Lt.-Col. A. R.||Yate, Col. C. E.|
|Denniss, E. R. B.||Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J.||Young, Samuel (Cavan, E.)|
|Essex, Richard Walter||Mallaby-Deeley, Harry||Younger, Sir George|
|Fell, Arthur||Needham, Christopher T.|
|Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey||Pollock, Ernest Murray||TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Captain|
|Fletcher, John Samuel||Pringle, William M. R.||Craig and Sir F. Banbury,|
|Gladstone, W. G. C.||Radford, George Heynes|
§ Amendment made: Leave out the word "is" ["is hereby repealed"] and insert instead thereof the word "are."—[Mr. Booth.]
Sir G. BARING
I rise for the purpose of moving, "That the Debate be now adjourned." After the decision of the House on the last Amendment it is rather important that the promoters of the Bill should have opportunity of reconsidering their position.
§ Mr. J. WARD
I do not wish to move the Amendment of which I gave notice— after the word "repealed," to insert the words "in so far as it relates to regular ministers of dissenting congregations."
§ Lord ROBERT CECIL
May I ask whether this Amendment is in order. The only thing that paragraph (b) of Section 12 2058 of the Act of 1882 does, has reference to ministers of religion. I do not know whether it is in order to move this here. If the hon. Member desires to exclude clergymen of the Church of England, I submit that the proper course would be to move the Amendment later on.
§ Mr. SPEAKER
It is rather a clumsy way of doing it. I think the object of the hon. Member, so far as I understand it, is to make this applicable to regular ministers of dissenting congregations, but not to make it applicable to persons in holy orders. It can be done by this Amendment.
§ Mr. SPEAKER
The Amendment which has just been inserted does qualify persons in holy orders. It removes the disqualification from persons in holy orders, so far as Ireland is concerned. Now the hon. Member proposes to insert words to 2059 exclude persons in holy orders. He must make it clear that the Amendment refers only to persons in England and Wales.
§ Lord ROBERT CECIL
If these words are inserted, I do not think the Clause will read. It does not make sense.
§ Mr. J. WARD
I beg to move, after the word "person," to insert the words "of either sex." Having decided that regular ministers of dissenting congregations are to have their disqualification removed, I may point out that, even within our knowledge, the ministers of some dissenting congregations are females. That is the case in the United States, and I believe in one case in this country. Now that we have the opportunity of removing at least one sex bar we should avail of the opportunity of doing so, and I take it that the two hon. Members in charge of the Bill will be only too delighted to accept the proposition.
§ Mr. MARTIN
I have pleasure in seconding the Amendment, and hope that it will be accepted, because if arguments are put forward against it that will open out the whole terrible question now in front of us of women and Parliament. I hope that the hon. Member for Bow and Bromley will take to heart the Debate which has taken place which shows that he is not in the autocratic position he thought he was. If an hon. Member thinks because he carries the Second Reading of a Bill without discussion—
§ Mr. MARTIN
The Amendment is of such importance that I should be sorry to prejudice its chance of passing by wandering from the point.
§ Mr. LANSBURY
The Amendment is hardly necessary, because women are now allowed to stand as candidates for these municipal bodies, but if this is necessary to make it absolutely certain I have not the least objection.
§ Sir F. BANBURY
My Noble Friend (Lord Robert Cecil) says that women are eligible for seats upon municipal bodies. If so, there is no harm, in putting this 2060 Amendment, in saying that if my Noble Friend assures me that it is useless, and will have no effect one way or the other, I will not pursue the matter.
§ Lord ROBERT CECIL
In my view it will make no difference whatever in the effect of this Bill whether the words are inserted or not, because it is quite clear that a person includes a person of both sexes if there are such persons. There is no doubt whatever that women may sit on municipal corporations.
§ Sir F. BANBURY
Perhaps the Mover of the Amendment would withdraw it, because, if my Noble Friend is correct, the Amendment would have no effect, and therefore it is useless. If, on the other hand, my Noble Friend is not correct, and the hon. Member is not correct, then this new suggestion, this new proposal, is sprung upon the House at a time when it is absolutely impossible for us to discuss it. I trust the hon. Member, therefore, will withdraw the Amendment, for it is evident that it is not quite certain what effect it will have.
§ Sir F. BANBURY
I do not approve of everything hon. Members do on this side of the House, nor have I time to read every Amendment put down.
§ Mr. BOOTH
The hon. Baronet said he had not had time to look into the Acts of Parliament, but this Amendment has been on the Paper for a week in the name of the hon. Member for Yarmouth (Mr. Fell), and neither the hon. Member for Stoke nor myself has moved anything to-day of which the House has not had over a week's notice. I am afraid that this Amendment introduces a very large question. We have no Law Officer here to advise us, but if some hon. and learned Gentleman who is present can give us an assurance in support of the Noble Lord opposite, it might influence this side of the House.
§ Sir J. D. REES
May I ask whether the hon. Member who moved this Amendment has reason to think that there are women in holy orders either as clergymen or ministers? I would like to know his authority for that statement. If it is true, some Amendment should be introduced into the Bill for the purpose of keeping them out of it.
§ Mr. WATT
This Amendment is of considerable importance, because it will permit women who are in holy orders to have the privilege of standing in municipal contests for public bodies. That will not only apply to those who are now in holy orders, but to those who may be in holy orders in the future. The question, therefore, comes before us in a concrete form, and now that the House has this opportunity of considering it in that concrete form, I hope that the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent will insist upon being
|Division No. 111.]||AYES.||[4.30 p.m.|
|Acland, Francis Dyke||Goulding, Edward Alfred||Palmer, Godfrey Mark|
|Addison, Dr. C.||Guest, Hon. Frederick E. (Dorset, E.)||Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)|
|Agg-Gardner, James Tynte||Gulland, John W.||Pointer, Joseph|
|Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbarton)||Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne)||Pringle, William M. R.|
|Atherley-Jones, Llewellyn A.||Hardie, J. Keir||Radford, George Heynes|
|Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.)||Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, W.)||Raffan, Peter Wilson|
|Beale, Sir William Phipson||Herbert, Hon. A. (Somerset, S.)||Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)|
|Beck, Arthur Cecil||Higham, John Sharp||Richardson, Albion (Peckham)|
|Benn, W. W. (Tower Hamlets, St. Geo.)||Hodge, John||Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)|
|Booth, Frederick Handel||Holmes, Daniel Turner||Roberts, George H. (Norwich)|
|Brocklchurst, W. B.||Howard, Hon. Geoffrey||Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)|
|Burn, Col. C. R.||Illingworth, Percy H.||Roch, Walter F.|
|Burns, Rt. Hon. John||Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea)||Rowlands, James|
|Byles, Sir William Pollard||Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil)||Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)|
|Campion, W. R.||Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)||Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)|
|Cecil, Lord R. (Herts, Hitchin)||Jowett, F. W.||Smith, H. B. L. (Northampton)|
|Chancellor, H. G.||Joyce, Michael||Soames, Arthur Wellesley|
|Chapple, Dr. William Allen||King, Joseph (Somerset, North)||Summers, James Woolley|
|Clough, William||Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)||Sutherland, J. E.|
|Clynes, J. R.||Lansbury, George||Swift, Rigby|
|Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)||Lawson, Sir W. (Cumb'rld, Cockerm'th)||Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)|
|Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.||Lewis, John Herbert||Touche, George Alexander|
|Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)||Low, Sir F. (Norwich)||Verney, Sir Harry|
|Crooks, William||Lynch, Arthur Alfred||Wardle, George J.|
|Dairymple, Viscount||MacCaw, W. J. MacGeagh||Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)|
|Dalziel, Sir James H. (Kirkcaldy)||Macpherson, James Ian||Watt, Henry A.|
|Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)||McCallum, Sir John M.||Wedgwood, Josiah C.|
|Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)||Marshall, Arthur Harold||White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)|
|Edwards, John Hugh (Glamorgan, Mid)||Meagher, Michael||Whyte, Alexander F.|
|Falconer, J.||Menzies, Sir Walter||Williams, Penry (Middlesbrough)|
|Fell, Arthur||Munro, Robert||Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)|
|Flavin, Michael Joseph||Munro-Ferguson, Rt. Hon. R. C.||Wolmer, Viscount|
|Fletcher, John Samuel||Needham, Christopher T.|
|Gill, A. H.||Norton, Captain Cecil W.||TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr.|
|Glanville, Harold James||O'Grady, James||J. Ward and Mr. Martin.|
|Allen, Rt. Hon. Charles P. (Stroud)||Cautley, H. S.||Gretton, John|
|Ashley, W. W.||Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)||Guinness, Hon. W. E. (Bury S. Edmunds)|
|Bagot, Lieut.-Colonel J.||Courthope, George Loyd||Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)|
|Baird, J. L.||Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)||Harmsworth, R L. (Caithness-shire)|
|Bathurst, Hon A. B. (Glouc, E.)||Craik, Sir Henry||Harrison-Broadley, H. B.|
|Bathurst, Charles (Wilton)||Cullinan, J.||Harris, Henry Percy|
|Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks||Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)||Henderson, Major H. (Berks)|
|Beauchamp, Sir Edward||Dawes, James Arthur||Hills, J. W.|
|Bentinck, Lord H. Cavendish-||Delany, William||Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.|
|Black, Arthur W.||Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas||Houston, Robert Paterson|
|Boscawen, Sir Arthur S. T. Griffith-||Doris, W.||Jardine, Ernest (Somerset, East)|
|Bridgeman, W. Clive||Fiennes, Hon. Eustace Edward||Joynson-Hicks, William|
|Bull, Sir William James||Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey||Kyffin-Taylor, G.|
|Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred||Gladstone, W. G. C.||Lockwood, Rt. Hon. Lt.-Col. A. R.|
|Cassel, Felix||Goldman, C. S.||Lundon, Thomas|
|Cator, John||Gordon, Hon. John Edward (Brighton)||Mallaby-Deeley, Harry|
§ backed up in his proposal. The hon. Member for Bow and Bromley (Mr. Lansbury) and the Noble Lord the hon. Member for Hitchin are protagonists for the rights of women, and when a proposal of this sort is made I am surprised they do not accept it with open arms. I hope the House will insist on this advantage being given.
§ Question put, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."
§ The House divided: Ayes, 102; Noes, 67.
|Morgan, George Hay||Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)||Yate, Col. C. E.|
|O'Dowd, John||Spear, Sir John Ward||Young, Samuel (Cavan, E.)|
|Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)||Stewart, Gershom||Younger, Sir George|
|Peto, Basil Edward||Terrell, G. (Wilts, N.W.)|
|Priestley, Sir W. E. B. (Bradford, E.)||Thynne, Lord A.|
|Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel||Waring, Walter||TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Sir|
|Rawson, Colonel R. H.||Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset, W.)||F. Banbury and Sir J. D. Rees.|
|Reddy, Michael||Wood, John (Stalybridge)|
§ Mr. LANSBURY
rose and claimed to move, "That the Question 'that the remaining words of the Clause stand part of the Bill' be now put."
§ Question put, "That the Question 'that the remaining words of the Clause stand part of the Bill' be now put."
|Division No. 112.]||AYES.||[4.35 p.m.|
|Acland, Francis Dyke||Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)||Lonsdale, Sir J. Brownlee|
|Addison, Dr. Christopher||Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)||Low, Sir Frederick (Norwich)|
|Agg-Gardner, James Tynte||Fell, Arthur||Lynch, Arthur Alfred|
|Allen, Arthur Acland (Dumbartonshire)||Fiennes, Hon. Eustace Edward||Mallaby-Deeley, Harry|
|Ashley, W. W.||Fletcher, John Samuel (Hampstead)||Marshall, Arthur Harold|
|Baird, J. L.||Gill, Alfred Henry||Munro-Ferguson, Rt. Hon. R. C.|
|Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.)||Gladstone, W. G. C.||Norton, Captain Cecil William|
|Bathurst, Charles (Wilton)||Goldman, C. S.||O'Grady, James|
|Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks||Goldstone, Frank||Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)|
|Beale, Sir William Phipson||Gordon, Hon. John Edward (Brighton)||Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)|
|Beauchamp, Sir Edward||Goulding, Edward Alfred||Peto, Basil Edward|
|Beck, Arthur Cecil||Guest, Hon. Frederick E. (Dorset, E.)||Pointer, Joseph|
|Benn, W. W. (T. H'mts., St. George)||Guinness, Hon. W. E. (Bury S. Edmunds)||Priestley, Sir W. E. B. (Bradford, E.)|
|Bentinck, Lord H. Cavendish-||Gulland, John W.||Radford, G. H.|
|Black, Arthur W.||Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne)||Rawson, Colonel Richard H.|
|Boscawen, Sir Arthur S. T. Griffith-||Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)||Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)|
|Bridgeman, W. Clive||Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)||Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)|
|Brocklehurst, William B.||Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire)||Roberts, George H. (Norwich)|
|Bull, Sir William James||Harris, Henry Percy||Robertson, John M. (Tyneside)|
|Burn, Colonel C. R.||Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)||Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)|
|Burns, Rt. Hon. John||Henderson, Major H. (Berks, Abingdon)||Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitherae)|
|Byles, Sir William Pollard||Herbert, Hon. A. (Somerset, S.)||Smith, H. B. L. (Northampton)|
|Campion, W. R.||Higham, John Sharp||Terrell, G. (Wilts, N. W.)|
|Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred||Hills, J. W.||Thynne, Lord Alexander|
|Cautley, H. S.||Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.||Touche, George Alexander|
|Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)||Hodge, John||Wardle, George J.|
|Cecil, Lord R. (Herts, Hitchin)||Houston, Robert Paterson||Whyte, A. F. (Perth)|
|Chancellor, H. G.||Howard, Hon. Geoffrey||Williams, Col. R. (Dorset, W.)|
|Clough, William||Illingworth, Percy H.||Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)|
|Clynes, J. R.||Jones, Edgar R. (Merthyr Tydvil)||Wolmer, Viscount|
|Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)||Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)||Wood, John (Stalybridge)|
|Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.||Jowett, Frederick William||Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George|
|Craik, Sir Henry||Joynson-Hicks, William||Younger, Sir George|
|Crooks, William||King, J. (Somerset, N.)||Yoxall, Sir James Henry|
|Dairymple, Viscount||Lambert, Richard (Cricklade)|
|Dawes, James Arthur||Lawson, Sir W. (Cumb'rld, Cockerm'th)||TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr.|
|Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas||Lewis, John Herbert||Lansbury and Mr. J. Ward.|
|Allen Rt. Hon. Charles P. (Stroud)||Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey||O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)|
|Atherley-Jones, Llewellyn A.||Flavin, Michael Joseph||O'Doherty, Philip|
|Bagot, Lieut.-Colonel J.||Glanville, H. J.||Palmer, Godfrey Mark|
|Banbury, Sir Frederick George||Gretton, John||Pringle, William M. R.|
|Bathurst, Hon. Allen B. (Glouc., E.)||Harrison-Broadley, H. B.||Raffan, Peter Wilson|
|Bryce, John Annan||Holmes, Daniel Turner||Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel|
|Cassel, Felix||Hughes, Spencer Leigh||Reddy, Michael|
|Cator, John||Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea)||Rees, Sir J. D.|
|Chapple, Dr. William Allen||Joyce, Michael||Richardson, Albion (Peckham)|
|Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)||Kyffin-Taylor, G.||Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)|
|Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)||Lundon, Thomas||Rowlands, James|
|Crumley, Patrick||MacCaw, Wm. J. MacGeagh||Royds, Edmund|
|Cullinan, John||Macpherson, James Ian||Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)|
|Dalziel, Sir James H. (Kirkcaldy)||McCallum, Sir John M.||Soames, Arthur Wellesley|
|Davies, Timothy (Lines., Louth)||Martin, J.||Spear, Sir John Ward|
|Doris, William||Menzies, Sir Walter||Stewart, Gershom|
|Duffy, William J.||Morgan, George Hay||Summers, James Woolley|
|Edwards, John Hugh (Glamorgan, Mid)||Munro, Robert||Sutherland, J. E.|
|Falconer, James||Needham, Christopher T.||Swift, Rigby|
§ Mr. HERBERT CRAIG
On a point of Order. May I inquire whether that will rule out the Amendment of which I have given notice?
§ The House divided: Ayes, 108; Noes, 66.
|Talbot, Lord E.||Wedgwood, Josiah C.||Young, Samuel (Cavan, E.)|
|Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)||White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)|
|Waring, Walter||Williams, Penry (Middlesbrough)||TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr.|
|Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)||Yate, Colonel C. E.||Booth and Mr. Watt.|
§ Question put accordingly, "That the remaining words of the Clause stand part of the Bill."
|Division No. 113.]||AYES.||[4.45 p.m.|
|Acland, Francis Dyke||Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)||Needham, Christopher T.|
|Addison, Dr. Christopher||Edwards, John Hugh (Glamorgan, Mid)||Nield, Herbert|
|Agg-Gardner, James Tynte||Falconer, J.||Norton, Captain Cecil W.|
|Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbarton)||Fell, Arthur||O'Grady, James|
|Allen, Rt. Hon. Charles P. (Stroud)||Fiennes, Hon. Eustace Edward||Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)|
|Atherley-Jones, Llewellyn A.||Flavin, Michael Joseph||Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)|
|Bagot, Lieut.-Colonel J.||Fletcher, John Samuel (Hampstead)||Pointer, Joseph|
|Baird, J. L.||Gill, A. H.||Priestley, Sir W. E. B. (Bradford, E.)|
|Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.)||Glanville, H. J.||Rawson, Colonel, R. H.|
|Barlow, Montague (Salford, South)||Goldman, C. S.||Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)|
|Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton)||Goldstone, Frank||Richardson, Albion (Peckham)|
|Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks||Gordon, Hon. John Edward (Brighton)||Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)|
|Beale, Sir William Phipson||Goulding, Edward Alfred||Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)|
|Beauchamp, Sir Edward||Guest, Hon. Frederick E. (Dorset, E.)||Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)|
|Beck, Arthur Cecil||Gulland, John William||Robertson, John M. (Tyneside)|
|Benn, W. W. (T. Hamlets, St. Geo.)||Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne)||Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)|
|Black, Arthur W.||Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)||Rowlands, James|
|Boscawen, Sir Arthur S. T. Griffith-||Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)||Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)|
|Bowerman, C. W.||Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire)||Smith, Albert (Lanes., Clitheroe)|
|Bridgeman, W. Clive||Harris, Henry Percy||Smith H. B. L. (Northampton)|
|Brocklehurst, W. B.||Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)||Soames, Arthur Wellesley|
|Bull, Sir William James||Henderson, Major H. (Abingdon)||Terrell, G. (Wilts, N.W.)|
|Burn, Colonel C. R.||Herbert, Hon. A. (Somerset, S.)||Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)|
|Burns, Rt. Hon. John||Hills, John Waller||Thynne, Lord Alexander|
|Byles, Sir William Pollard||Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.||Touche, George Alexander|
|Campion, W. R.||Hodge, John||Walters, Sir John Tudor|
|Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred||Holmes, Daniel Turner||Wardle, George J.|
|Cator, John||Houston, Robert Paterson||Waring, Walter|
|Cautley, H. S.||Howard, Hon. Geoffrey||Wedgwood, Josiah C.|
|Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)||Illingworth, Percy H.||White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)|
|Cecil, Lord R. (Herts, Hitchin)||Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil)||Whyte, A. F. (Perth)|
|Chancellor, H. G.||Jones, Leif Stratten (Notts., Rushcliffe)||Williams, Col. R. (Dorset, W.)|
|Chapple, Dr. William Allen||Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)||Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)|
|Clough, William||Jowett, Frederick William||Wolmer, Viscount|
|Clynes, John R.||King, J. (Somerset, North)||Wood, John (Stalybridge)|
|Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)||Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)||Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart-|
|Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.||Lawson, Sir W. (Cumb'rld, Cockerm'th)||Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George|
|Courthope, G. Loyd||Lewis, John Herbert||Yate, Col. Charles Edward|
|Craik, Sir Henry||Low, Sir Frederick (Norwich)||Young, Samuel (Cavan, East)|
|Crooks, William||Lynch, A. A.||Younger, Sir George|
|Dairymple, Viscount||Macpherson, James Ian|
|Dawes, James Arthur||M'Kean, John||TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr.|
|Denman, Hon. R. D.||Marshall, Arthur Harold||Lansbury and Mr. J. Ward.|
|Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)||Munro-Ferguson, Rt. Hon. R. C.|
|Ashley, W. W.||Hughes, S. L.||Pringle, William M. R.|
|Banbury, Sir Frederick George||Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea)||Radford, G. H.|
|Bathurst, Hon. A. B. (Glouc, E.)||Joyce, Michael||Raffan, Peter Wilson|
|Bentinck, Lard H. Cavendish-||Joynson-Hicks, William||Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel|
|Bryce, J. Annan||Kyffin-Taylor, G.||Rees, Sir J. D.|
|Cassel, Felix||Lee, Arthur H.||Royds, Edmund|
|Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)||Lonsdale, Sir John Brownlee||Spear, Sir John Ward|
|Crumley, Patrick||Lundon, Thomas||Stewart, Gershom|
|Cullinan, J.||MacCaw, Wm. J. MacGeagh||Summers, James Woolley|
|Dalziel, Sir James H. (Kirkcaldy)||McCallum, Sir John M.||Sutherland, J. E.|
|Doris, W.||Mallaby-Deeley, Harry||Swift, Rigby|
|Duffy, William J.||Martin, Joseph||Talbot, Lord E.|
|Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey||Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)||Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)|
|Gladstone, W. G. C.||Menzies, Sir Walter||Watt, Henry A.|
|Gretton, John||Morgan, George Hay||Williams, Penry (Middlesbrough)|
|Griffith, Ellis J.||Munro, R.||Yoxall, Sir James Henry|
|Guinness, Hon. W. E. (Bury S. Edmunds)||O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)|
|Harrison-Broadley, H. B.||O'Doherty, Philip||TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr.|
|Higham, John Sharp||Palmer, Godfrey Mark||Booth and Mr. Herbert Craig.|
§ Mr. CASSEL
I beg to move, at the end of the Clause, to add the words:
"Provided that no clerk in holy orders having a cure of souls shall become a candi-
§ The House divided: Ayes, 128; Noes, 55.
§ date for election as a councillor of a municipal corporation under the provisions of this Act, unless he shall previously have received a certificate in writing from the 2067 bishop of his diocese that the spiritual interests of his cure would not suffer by his election."
§ While opposed to the principle of clergymen being on these bodies, I move this Amendment to ensure that if they are, then, at any rate in the case of the Church of England, they should obtain the consent of the bishop of the diocese. There are at present several Statutes in which the consent of the bishop of the diocese is necessary. For instance, if an incumbent wishes to reside outside his incumbency he has to obtain the consent of his bishop.
§ Mr. GRETTON
I beg to second the Amendment. I think it is in the interests of all parties that clergymen and ministers should not neglect their spiritual duties for any public work, municipal or otherwise; and this Amendment would, at any rate, provide the means of checking anything of that kind.
§ Mr. MARTIN
I am, so far as I can judge from the very brief speeches we have had from the Mover and Seconder, in favour of this Amendment, but before we are called upon to vote upon a question of this kind we ought to know what are the views of the Government. Fortunately, we have now present a distinguished Member of the Government who is particularly well versed in ecclesiastical matters of this kind, and I think we are entitled, if not to complete guidance from the Government, at least to an indication of what are their views. I think that would be welcomed on this side of the House especially, and I do appeal to the hon. Gentleman to tell us what we are to do in this very complicated position.
|Division No. 114.]||AYES.||[4.58 p.m.|
|Acland, Francis Dyke||Burn, Colonel C. R.||Fletcher, John Samuel (Hampstead)|
|Addison, Dr. Christopher||Burns, Rt. Hon. John||Gibbs, G. A.|
|Agg-Gardener, James Tynte||Byles, Sir William Pollard||Gladstone, W. G. C.|
|Alden, Percy||Campion, W. R.||Glanville, H. J.|
|Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbarton)||Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred||Goldman, C. S.|
|Ashley, Wilfrid W.||Cautley, H. S.||Goldstone, Frank|
|Atherley-Jones, Llewellyn A.||Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)||Gordon, Hon. John Edward (Brighton)|
|Baird, J. L.||Chancellor, H. G.||Goulding, Edward Alfred|
|Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.)||Chapple, Dr. W. A.||Griffith, Ellis J.|
|Barlow, Montague (Salford, South)||Clough, William||Gulland, John W.|
|Barran, Sir J. N. (Hawick Burghs)||Clynes, John R.||Hall, E. Marshall (Toxteth, E.)|
|Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton)||Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)||Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)|
|Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks||Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.||Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)|
|Beauchamp, Sir Edward||Courthope, G. Loyd||Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire)|
|Beck, Arthur Cecil||Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)||Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, W.)|
|Benn, W. W. (Tower Hamlets, S. Geo.)||Craik, Sir Henry||Henderson, Major H. (Berks, Abingdon)|
|Black, Arthur W.||Crooks, William||Herbert, Hon. A. (Somerset, S.)|
|Boscawen, Sir Arthur S. T. Griffith-||Dairymple, Viscount||Hills, John Waller|
|Bowerman, C. W.||Dawes, James Arthur||Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.|
|Bridgeman, William Clive||Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)||Hodge, John|
|Brocklehurst, W. B.||Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)||Holmes, Daniel Turner|
|Bryce, J. Annan||Fiennes, Hon. Eustace Edward||Houston, Robert Paterson|
|Bull, Sir William James||Flavin, Michael Joseph||Howard, Hon. Geoffrey|
§ Mr. RAFFAN
I would ask hon. Members to seriously consider before they accept this proviso. I would remind them of the case of the Rev. Stewart Headlam, who occupied a seat on the London County Council. Very early in his career he was refused by the bishop of his diocese the right to carry on the work of a curacy because of his views, and is it likely that had he had to ask the consent of the bishop to his taking up municipal work he would have ever been in a position to do the excellent educational work he has accomplished. I do hope the hon. Member for Bow and Bromley will not accept this proviso.
§ Lord ROBERT CECIL
I hope my hon. Friend will not press the Amendment. It really is not necessary seeing that clergymen have already the right to act on local bodies, and in view of the lateness of the hour I hope a Division will not be insisted on
§ Mr. CASSEL
On the last occasion it was suggested that this was not a bonâ fide Amendment, and I felt bound therefore to bring it forward, but, as I do not wish to prevent the House getting on with the Bill, I ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
§ Question, "That the Amendment be, by leave, withdrawn," put, and negatived.
§ Question put, "That the Question be now put."
§ The House divided: Ayes, 124; Noes, 50.
|Illingworth, Percy H.||Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)||Thynne, Lord Alexander|
|Jones, Leif Stratten (Notts, Rushcliffe)||Pease, Rt. Hon. Joseph A. (Rotherham)||Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)|
|Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)||Painter, Joseph||Wardle, George J.|
|Jowett, Frederick William||Priestley, Sir W. E. B. (Bradford, E.)||Waring, Walter|
|King, J. (Somerset, North)||Radford, George Heynes||Wedgwood, Josiah C.|
|Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)||Raffan, Peter Wilson||Whyte, A. F. (Perth)|
|Lardner, James Carrige Rushe||Rawson, Col. R. H.||Williams, Col. R. (Dorset, W.)|
|Lawson, Sir W. (Cumb'rld, Cuckerm'th)||Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)||Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)|
|Lewis, John Herbert||Richardson, Albion (Peckham)||Wolmer, Viscount|
|Low, Sir Frederick (Norwich)||Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)||Wood, John (Stalybridge)|
|Mallaby-Deeley, Harry||Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)||Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart-|
|Marshall, Arthur Harold||Robertson, John M. (Tyneside)||Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George|
|Martin, J.||Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)||Yate, Colonel C. E.|
|Munro, R.||Rowlands, James||Young, Samuel (Cavan, E.)|
|Munro-Ferguson, Rt. Hon. R. C.||Scott, A. MacCallum (Bridgeton)||Younger, Sir George|
|Nield Herbert||Smith, H. B. L. (Northampton)||Yoxall, Sir James Henry|
|Norton, Captain Cecil W.||Soames, Arthur Wellesley|
|O'Grady, James||Stewart, Gershom||TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr.|
|Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)||Terrell, George (Wilts, N. W.)||Lansbury and Lord Robert Cecil.|
|Allen, Rt. Hon. Charles P. (Stroud)||Guinness, Hon. W. E. (Bury S. Edmunds)||O'Dowd, John|
|Bagot, Lieut.-Colonel J.||Harrison-Broadley, H. B.||Palmer, Godfrey Mark|
|Banbury, Sir Frederick George||Higham, Jahn Sharp||Pringle, William M. R.|
|Bathurst, Hon. A. B. (Glouc, E.)||Hughes, Spencer Leigh||Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel|
|Bentinck, Lord Henry Cavendish-||Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea)||Rees, Sir J. D.|
|Cassel, Felix||Jones, Edgar R. (Merthyr Tydvil)||Royds, Edmund|
|Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)||Joyce, Michael||Spear, Sir John Ward|
|Crumley, Patrick||Kyffin-Taylor, G.||Summers, James Woolley|
|Cullinan, J.||Lundon, Thomas||Sutherland, J. E.|
|Dalziel, Sir James H. (Kirkcaldy)||MacCaw, Wm. J. McGeagh||Swift, Rigby|
|Delany, William||Macpherson, James Ian||Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)|
|Doris, W.||McCallum, Sir John M.||Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)|
|Dully, William J.||M'Kean, John||White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)|
|Edwards, John Hugh (Glamorgan, Mid.)||Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)||Williams, Penry (Middlesbrough)|
|Falconer, James||Menzies, Sir Walter|
|Fell, Arthur||Morgan, George Hay||TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr.|
|Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey||Needham, Christopher T.||Booth and Mr. Watt.|
|Gretton, John||O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)|
§ Question put accordingly, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."
|Division No. 115.]||AYES.||[5.5 p.m.|
|Bryce, J. Annan||Herbert, Hon. A. (Somerset, S.)||Pringle, William M. R.|
|Cassel, Felix||Joyce, Michael||Rees, Sir J. D.|
|Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)||McCallum, Sir John M.||Sutherland. J. E.|
|Cullinan, J.||Mallaby-Deeley, Harry||Watt, Henry A.|
|Duffy, William J.||Martin, Joseph|
|Gladstone, W. G. C.||Nield, Herbert||TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr.|
|Gretton, John||O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)||Booth and Sir F. Banbury.|
|Acland, Francis Dyke||Byles, Sir William Pollard||Fell, Arthur|
|Addison, Dr. C.||Campion, W. R.||Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey|
|Agg-Gardner, James Tynte||Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred||Fiennes, Hon. Eustace Edward|
|Alden, Percy||Cautley, H. S.||Flavin, Michael Joseph|
|Allen, Arthur Acland (Dumbartonshire)||Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)||Fletcher, John Samuel (Hampstead)|
|Allen, Rt. Hon. Charles P. (Stroud)||Chancellor, H. G.||Gibbs, G. A.|
|Ashley, W. W.||Chapple, Dr. William Allen||Glanville, H. J.|
|Atherley-Jones, Llewellyn A.||Clough, William||Goldman, C. S.|
|Bagot, Lieut.-Col. J.||Clynes, J. R.||Goldstone, Frank|
|Baird, J. L.||Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)||Goulding, Edward Alfred|
|Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)||Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.||Griffith, Ellis J.|
|Barlow, Montague (Salford, South)||Courthope, George Loyd||Guinness, Hon. W. E. (Bury S. Edmunds)|
|Barran, Sir J. N. (Hawick)||Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)||Gulland, John William|
|Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks||Craik, Sir Henry||Hall, E. Marshall (Toxteth, E.)|
|Beauchamp, Sir Edward||Crooks, William||Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)|
|Beck, Arthur Cecil||Crumley, Patrick||Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)|
|Benn, W. W. (T. H'mts., St. George)||Dalrymple, Viscount||Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire)|
|Bentinck, Lord H. Cavendish-||Dalziel, Sir James H. (Kirkcaldy)||Harrison-Broadley, H. B.|
|Black, Arthur W.||Dawes, J. A.||Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, W.)|
|Boscawen, Sir Arthur S. T. Griffith-||Delany, William||Henderson, Major Harold (Berkshire)|
|Bowerman, C. W.||Doris, W.||Higham, John Sharp|
|Bridgeman, W. Clive||Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)||Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.|
|Brocklehurst, W. B.||Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)||Hodge, John|
|Bull, Sir William James||Edwards, John Hugh (Glamorgan, Mid.)||Holmes, Daniel Turner|
|Burn, Colonel C. R.||Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)||Houston, Robert Paterson|
|Burns, Rt. Hon. John||Falconer, J.||Howard, Hon. Geoffrey|
§ The House divided: Ayes, 18; Noes, 147.
|Hughes, S. L.||Palmer, Godfrey Mark||Swift, Rigby|
|Illingworth, Percy H.||Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)||Terrell, G. (Wilts, N.W.)|
|Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea)||Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)||Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)|
|Jones, Edgar R. (Merthyr Tydvil)||Philipps, Col. Ivor (Southampton)||Thynne, Lord A.|
|Jones, Leif Stratten (Notts, Rushcliffe)||Pointer, Joseph||Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)|
|Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)||Priestley, Sir W. E. B. (Bradford, E.)||Wardle, George J.|
|King, J. (Somerset, N.)||Radford, George Heynes||Waring, Walter|
|Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)||Raffan, Peter Wilson||Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)|
|Lewis, John Herbert||Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel||Wedgwood, Joseph C.|
|Lockwood, Rt. Hon. Lt.-Col. A. R.||Rawson, Col. R. H.||White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)|
|Low, Sir F. (Norwich)||Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)||Whyte, A. F. (Perth)|
|Lundon, T.||Richardson, Albion (Peckham)||Williams, P. (Middlesbrough)|
|Lynch, A. A.||Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)||Williams, Col. R. (Dorset, W.)|
|MacCaw, Wm. J. MacGeagh||Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)||Wolmer, Viscount|
|Macpherson, James Ian||Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)||Wood, John (Stalybridge)|
|M'Kean, John||Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)||Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart-|
|Marshall, Arthur Harold||Rowlands, James||Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George|
|Menzies, Sir Walter||Royds, Edmund||Yate, Col. C. E.|
|Morgan, George Hay||Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)||Young, Samuel (Cavan, E.)|
|Munro, R.||Smith, H. B. L. (Northampton)||Younger, Sir George|
|Munro-Ferguson, Rt. Hon. R. C.||Soames, Arthur Wellesley||Yoxall, Sir James Henry|
|Needham, Christopher T.||Spear, Sir John Ward|
|Norton, Capt. Cecil W.||Stewart, Gershom||TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr.|
|O'Grady, James||Summers, James Woolley||Lansbury and Lord Robert Cecil.|