§ If the Welsh Commissioners find that any person who at the passing of this Act 2002 holds any lay office in the Church in Wales by freehold tenure or by any tenure which, in the opinion of the Commissioners, is equal to freehold tenure, is deprived of any emoluments by the operation of this Act, they may pay to that person out of moneys in their hands in pursuance of this 2003 Act, such sum by way of compensation, either by means of a single payment or of the purchase of a life annuity, as they may, with the consent of the Treasury, determine:
§ Provided that the compensation paid under this Section shall be paid out of or charged on the property vested in the Welsh Commissioners under this Act, other than burial grounds and the property to be transferred to the representative body, in such manner that the burden thereof may be distributed amongst the University of Wales and the several county councils in proportion to the value of the property transferred to them, respectively.
§ Mr. BRIDGEMAN
I beg to move, after the word "Wales to leave out the words" by freehold tenure or by any tenure which, in the opinion of the Commissioners is."
The Amendment is one which would extend to a certain number of non-ecclesiastical people compensation similar to that given under the Irish Church Act. I confess, so far as I am concerned, I do not feel so keenly the failure of the Government to meet, in the matter of compensation, those who occupy lay offices or who are patrons of livings as I do their failure last Friday to meet the case of the curates. To my mind, the performance of spiritual functions such as curates perform and the difficulty they will be in to find other employment makes their case a very much stronger one even than the case of patrons or laymen. The Amendment in reference to patrons, which we have been recently discussing, seem to me to have less to be said for it than the Amendment which I now move. At the same time I feel they have a case because, where there are what I may call good patrons, I think they will give the compensation they get towards the purposes of the Church and towards objects for which help is so very much needed if this Bill ever becomes law. At the same time the people for whom I plead are men who, if this Bill passes, will be thrown out of employment through no fault of their own, and who will very likely be unable to find any other occupation by which they can earn what they are earning now, and they have this additional complaint, that a great many of them belong to a very poor class and to the ranks of those who will find it rather difficult to get other employment. Under the Irish Act they are amply provided for, 2004 while in this Bill I can hardly say they are provided for at all. Perhaps I may explain that my Amendment proposes to leave out the qualifications which only gives a gratuity at the pleasure of the Welsh Commissioners to people who had employment equivalent to a freehold in the eyes of the Commissioners. I want to leave out freehold qualifications and to give compensation to all people thrown out of employment by this Bill in the same way that such people received compensation under the Irish Act.
Under the Irish Act, I believe, that 8,000 claims were made for compensation by such people as sextons or clerks who had not freehold offices, church-cleaners, bell-ringers, organists, assistant registrars, and their clerks, diocesan surveyors, and others whom I need not enumerate. The number of gratuities awarded was, I think, to laymen 565; the number of annuities awarded to laymen was 3,245, of the annual total amount of £40,154; while the gratuities given amounted to another £40,000 in a lump sum. Now, this Bill differs from the Irish Church Act very widely in this particular Clause. Under the Irish Church Act anyone had a claim to compensation and a right to an annuity who occupied a freehold office. Under this Act it is provided that the Welsh Commissioners may give him a gratuity if they think fit. I have an Amendment, later on to alter the word "may" to "shall," and I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman is going to accept it or not. There is another still more striking difference in the Irish Act, and it is that a large number of persons who have no freehold offices at all were compensated under the Act under Clause 17. I am afraid I shall have to trouble the Committee by reading Clause 17 of the Irish Act, which is as follows:—
"The Commissioners shall pay to any person holding an appointment in or connected with any church or chapel and not entitled to compensation under the preceding Section, and who has held such office for two years before the 1st of January, 1871, and is holding it on the said day, such sum by way of gratuity not exceeding one year's salary as they think fit; and when the said Commissioners shall find that any such person is or may be deprived of any income derived from any property or fund vested in the said Commissioners under this Act they may pay to any such persons such further sum by way of compensation 2005 either by a single payment or by a life annuity as they shall with the consent of the Treasury determine."
I think hon. Members opposite ought to follow this question because they represent a certain number of people who will be disturbed under this Bill if it is carried into law. It will be seen that this Bill differs very widely from the Irish Church Act in the kind of compensation it gives to people who will be thrown out of employment. On the question of the curates we had a good many arguments from the right hon. Gentleman opposite to defend the extremely mean position I was sorry to see him have to defend on behalf of the Government on Friday last. He contended that it was very unlikely that many curates would be thrown out of employment. I do not know whether he is going to make that contention with regard to the people referred to in this Amendment, but if he is going to deprive the Church in Wales of more than half her Endowments, it will necessitate a total reconsideration of the position of the Church, and where possible the performances of services of this kind voluntarily rather than as paid services. I will not say that that would not be a good thing for the Church; it may be; but if those services are performed voluntarily it does throw out of employment those who performed those services before for perhaps a small but, at any rate, some remuneration. I think there is no doubt whatever that if this Bill is passed a saving in this direction will have to be effected and a considerable number of people will be thrown out of employment.
Then there is the case of the diocesan surveyors. I do not know whether under this Bill the Dilapidations Act of 1871 is supposed to be repealed or not, and perhaps the Home Secretary will tell me whether that is so as far as Wales is concerned. This is one of the questions which has not been considered, but if it is repealed then the diocesan surveyors will lose their employment, and, if it is not, nobody can say that they have a freehold appointment. At the same time they seem to me to be just as much deserving of compensation as anybody else who will be thrown out of employment by this Bill. Even if the Dilapidations Act is not repealed by this Bill there is certainly one person who will be a loser by this Bill, and that is the gentleman who holds the position of diocesan surveyor for the diocese of St. Asaph's, because about twelve parishes in that diocese are in 2006 England, and they would be put into an English diocese, and this gentleman will lose his position as diocesan surveyor over these particular parishes.
§ Mr. BRIDGEMAN
It would be very awkward to have two diocesan surveyors for the same diocese, but at any rate the appointment will rest with the other diocese. Another argument the right hon. Gentleman used with regard to the curates was that in spite of this Bill their security would be as good after he had taken away more than half of the money belonging to the Church in Wales as it was before. That is a perfectly ludicrous argument which I should not be in order in dealing with now. I am afraid none of us will have much chance of addressing ourselves to that particular point under the guillotine. I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman now whether he considers the security of these people for whom I am contending is just as good as it was before he took away more than half of the funds of the Church in Wales. The right hon. Gentleman dwelt on Friday last at considerable length on the difference between a moral and legal right, and when the hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Goulding) raised the case of the curates, the right hon. Gentleman asked what legal right have they got, and the hon. Member for Worcester replied that they had only got a moral right. The right hon. Gentleman tried to draw a distinction between the two.
§ Mr. McKENNA
The hon. Member for Worcester made some observations from which I gathered that he claimed that the curates had a legal right, and I asked him what legal right, and I did not refer to the matter again.
§ Mr. BRIDGEMAN
Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman had better state whether the Gentlemen for whom I am pleading have any moral or legal right at all. If he is going to proceed by legal right, I would like to know what ground he has by way of a legal right for the action he has taken in depriving the Church in Wales of her Endowments, because his own Law Officer, the Solicitor-General, told us we had an absolutely sound and perfectly legal title to the Endowments of the Church. If he is going to sand upon the 2007 legal point, then I say he has no right to take a penny of the money from the Church at all. He based himself, too, on the Irish precedent, very incorrectly as I thought at the time, and I am sorry to say there again there was no time to reply to his arguments. Perhaps I may be allowed to ask him without his casting languishing glances towards the Chair to see if the Chairman will not call me to order, whether he is going to quote the Irish precedent against my Amendment to-night with regard to this legal right? There were a large number of people compensated under the Irish Act, but none of them had any legal right to any compensation at all. If we are to have the Irish precedent quoted when it is in favour of the Government, we ask them to be consistent and quote it on other nights when it may not perhaps tell so much in their faovur. Hon. Gentlemen opposite have made very great use of the Irish precedent, and I should like to know whether they are going to follow it all through. We have already had the Irish precedent quoted on the question of curates who, in my opinion, have no legal status, and only a moral, not a legal right, to compensation. Under the Irish Acts there were large Grants given to Nonconformist ministers in lieu of the regium donum, and they had no sort of legal right to the annuities they got under that Act. I believe there were seven Nonconformist institutions which actually had sums paid down to them to the value of fourteen years' purchase, and who certainly had no legal right whatever to the claim which was put forward on their behalf.
You can therefore find no argument from the Irish precedent on the lines of legal right on which to oppose my Amendment to-night. There is no doubt whatever the compensation given under that Act was given to people who had a moral right and who certainly had no legal right. I claim the same treatment for similar people who are affected by this measure in Wales. There was one other argument advanced by the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster on the Amendment relating to the curates, which I do not know whether he will advance on this Amendment. He said there was no sum out of which any additional compensation could be paid. He told us on Friday night there were only two sets of funds involved in this Bill: those which were retained by the various secular authorities, and those which would 2008 go over to the representative body. One would have thought from his description of the thing that all this money was originally held by the secular authorities and that they were making a grant from it to the Church. He said the compensation of the curates could only be carried out by having recourse to the sum which is to be set apart for the Church, and that any compensation given to them would mean so much less to other people. Is he going to apply that argument to this Amendment to-night? I thought it was a most fatuous argument on Friday, because everyone knows—he knows as well as anybody else—that all he had got to do in order to be able to give compensation to the curates was to take away less from the Church. He knows perfectly well that if my Amendment were agreed to all he would have to do in order to compensate these various officials for whom I plead to-night, would be to take away a little less from the Church. I do say in this particular instance such an argument would even be more absurd than it was on Friday last, for the second part of this very section says:—
"Provided that the compensation paid under this Section shall be paid out of or charged on the property vested in the Welsh Commissioners under this Act,"
other than certain property which is specified. Therefore, it is perfectly clear that either for the purposes of this Amendment or for the Amendment regarding the curates moved on Friday last, it would have been perfectly simple to pay the compensation out of the money vested in the Welsh Commissioners. He cannot know under this section as it is drafted what the total sum required will be. It is therefore perfectly absurd to say there is only a certain sum earmarked for compensation. He can give compensation to anybody who ought to have it if he chooses to give it out of the sum which is being robbed from the Church. I do not want to dwell too long upon this Amendment, although I think it is a very important one, and I am quite certain my hon. Friends on this side of the House agree with the justice of it. I do not know whether they attach the same importance to it as they did to the other Amendments we have had, such as that relating to the curates; but perhaps hon. Gentlemen opposite might realise that this Amendment, if it were admitted, would give compensation to people who, I think, deserve it and would not do that amount 2009 of harm to the Church which some hon. Members opposite seem to wish to do. I can only say I hope the Government will give consideration to this Amendment. I hope they will remember the people who would be benefited by it are poor people. Their work and all the other work which may be temporarily stopped by this Bill will finally be carried on, but it may become necessary to carry it on by voluntary effort, and in that case these people will lose their employment through no fault of their own, but merely in order to fulfil the political necessities of the Government now in power.
§ Mr. McKENNA
The hon. Member was, as I gathered from his speech, far more concerned with the case of the curates than of those people who would be directly affected by this Clause. If I do not follow him into the various points he made with regard to curates, it is not because I do not feel equal to defending the position I took up last Friday, but simply because it would not be relevant to the Motion now before the Committee. I do not think the hon. Gentleman has fully appreciated the Bill as it stands. Let me first remind him what Clause 14, Sub-section (5), says:—
"Where the emoluments of any ecclesiastical office in the Church in Wales do not consist of an interest in any specific property, but consist of a right to receive a fixed annual sum."
And then provision is made for compensation. Then if the hon. Member will refer to Clause 35, the definition Clause, he will see that—
"the expression 'ecclesiastical office' means any bishopric, ecclesiastical dignity, or preferment within (he meaning of the Church Discipline Act, 1840, and includes any lay office in connection therewith, or in connection with any Cathedral corporation."
The hon. Member will find in these two Clauses an answer to many of the points he has raised. Now I will turn to Clause 17 as it stands. We propose in that Clause that the Welsh Commissioners shall have power to compensate any person who holds office by freehold tenure or by any tenure equivalent to freehold tenure. I may say at once I propose later on to accept an Amendment standing in the name of the hon. Member for Leamington (Mr. Pollock) which makes more clear the meaning of the words "any tenure which, in the opinion of the Commissioners, is equal to freehold tenure." It obviously means 2010 equivalent to the ordinary practice of freehold tenure. In the Irish case compensation was given where an office was held by freehold tenure or by any tenure which in the opinion of the Commissioners is equal to freehold tenure, or was held during good behaviour.
§ Mr. McKENNA
I think Section 17 or 18. They are the same words, except that in the Irish case they are limited by the words "good behaviour."
§ Mr. McKENNA
At any rate the Noble Lord has the Section before him. It is either 16 or 17 that I am referring to. We propose to accept the words of the hon. Member for Leamington, and to give compensation in any case in which there is freehold tenure, or in which the tenure is that which, in ordinary practice, is equivalent to freehold tenure, and that will cover all the cases which have been put forward as hard cases. Where a servant has not got a legal freehold, but in ordinary practice holds his office during his life, we give power to the Commissioners to treat such cases as if they were freehold.
§ Lord ROBERT CECIL
I should like the right hon. Gentleman to look at Section 16, Sub-section (2), of the Irish Act. I think he will find it is not an additional restriction in regard to good behaviour, but that it is an alternative.
§ Mr. McKENNA
I think I stated accurately the Irish case. It was that whenever there was an office held by freehold tenure, compensation was to be given, and it was also to be given where there was a tenure which the Commissioners might think to be equal to freehold, but in that case it was limited to an office held during good behaviour. The Noble Lord knows there are offices which are held during good behaviour which are not freehold offices. We go further than that. We take the ordinary practice. In many cases the appointment of sexton has been understood to be for life, although it is not expressly a freehold tenure. By accepting the words "freehold tenure," it is intended to include those cases which in practice are treated as freehold, although 2011 they are not so in exact legal form. We therefore propose, by Clause 14, Sub-section (5), to give full compensation in every case in which there is an existing interest, although not chargeable upon specific property, but payable out of annual revenue. We also, under this Clause, propose to give compensation in every case where in practice the office is held during life. It must be remembered that the existing incumbent is entitled to receive the full emoluments of his office so long as he remains in his office. Can his servant have any better title than he has, where the appointment is not practically for life and where it is only during the pleasure of the existing incumbent? Surely in that case you cannot give compensation beyond the life of the incumbent himself! The incumbent, during his life, is to continue to receive the full value, or an equivalent, to the existing emolument. I submit to the Committee that there is no class entitled to compensation that has been omitted from this Bill as it stands. I therefore regret I am unable to accept the Amendment of the hon. Gentleman.
§ Lord ROBERT CECIL
I confess I cannot quite follow the right hon. Gentleman's view of the Irish Act. He seems to have misapprehended what really is provided in that Act. Section 16, Sub-section (2), provides that every office of freehold tenure or office held during good behaviour, without any legal right to it, shall be equal to freehold tenure—a much more fortunate phrase than that adopted in the present Bill. But, then, they are given an absolute right to an annuity equal to their emoluments. That is the result of Section 16, but there is no such provision in this Clause. They are merely given any compensation which the Welsh Commissioners may think right. Then you come to Section 17 of the Irish Act, and that provides for all other offices, and it gives to such other offices with less secure tenure the same compensation as was given to those offices which have a more secure tenure. The Section says:—
"The Commissioners shall pay to any person holding an appointment…and not entitled to compensation under the preceding Section, and who has held such office for two years before the first day of January, 1871,…such sum by way of gratuity not exceeding one years salary as they may think fit."
2012 They give at any rate one year's salary, however imperfect may be the tenure of office. I think the right hon. Gentleman will admit that the Irish Act is far more generous than the present Bill. Then, in addition to that, I may refer to Section (45), which sets out a number of officials who are to get very complete compensation indeed. That was the way the Irish Act dealt with them. As a matter of fact, the Irish Act was extraordinarily generous—I will not say extraordinarily, but very properly generous to every individual, and entirely different in spirit from the present Bill. The strongest instance was the enormous compensation—or rather the full compensation—given to the Nonconformist ministers who were in receipt of the Regium donum. They were not, so far as I can see, strictly affected in the slightest degree by the Disendowment of the Irish Church. It was felt impossible, I suppose, to continue the annual State Grant to Nonconformist ministers then made by annual Acts of Parliament in the form of the Regium donum after the Disendowment of the Irish Church.
What was done? Every Nonconformist minister who then received this annual Grant was treated as having a life estate in that annual Grant. He had not the slightest legal claim to it at all, for it was an annual Grant made by this House, and might have been discontinued at any time. Not only was he so treated, but his successor was treated as having an interest which was to be compensated. Not only that, but in those places where the minister was about to receive this annual Regium donum, he was treated as having a right to compensation, and was given compensation under the Irish Act. They were men who had a most indirect claim, but who received this compensation not out of any funds to which they had any claim beforehand, but which were at the disposal of the Government, and which they used to secure that no individual should be treated with hardship or injustice by a political action of this kind. No one who has looked at the provisions of the Irish Act will venture to assert that the provisions in this Bill are in any way comparable with the method by which interests were dealt with under that Act. The right hon. Gentleman referred to Clause 14, Sub-section (5), as if that had any real bearing on the matter whatever. He said it was a kind of additional compensation to people with less than a freehold interest. I cannot think that that is the considered opinion of the right hon. Gentle- 2013 man. It is plain that that only deals with people who have a freehold interest, exactly the same as all the other Clauses of this Bill do. I think it is perfectly clear that this Bill sets out with this theory. That only people with freehold interests, or whose interests are equal to freehold, are to be compensated. The right hon. Gentleman now says he means by that to include all people who ordinarily would hold their office for life; but he never told us that on Clause 14, where exactly the same words were used, and when we were discussing a precisely similar Amendment to leave out exactly the same words, under the impression that an office which was equal to a freehold tenure, or an office which for some technical reason was not actually freehold but still was nearly a freehold, was going to be disregarded. The idea that men who ordinarily hold office for life are to be included seems to me to be an afterthought in view of the vote of last Friday.
§ Mr. McKENNA
Nothing of the kind. I never had any other reason in my mind such as the Noble Lord suggests. What can "equal to freehold" mean except an office which in ordinary practice is treated as an office for life?
§ Lord ROBERT CECIL
I cannot pretend to look at the right hon. Gentleman's mind. If he says he meant that, I am bound to accept his assurance. It is an unfortunate thing he did not make the disclosure on Friday.
§ Lord ROBERT CECIL
I do not know it makes any difference now, but I think it would have made some difference then.
§ Lord ROBERT CECIL
I think it would have made some difference if we had been told that where a curate was reasonably likely to hold his office for life he was to be compensated. I am glad that we have not had a repetition of the grotesque argument put forward by the Chancellor of the Duchy on Friday last. We are not told now that there is no fund out of which compensation can come unless it is to be taken from the representative body. That argument, which did very well when the guillotine was threatening to fall immediately, was too absurd to put forward at the beginning of the discussion. The broad question is: Are you going to deal 2014 generously with these people? They are very poor people indeed. They are not people as rich even as curates. They are people with very poor, and even paltry, interests. It would mean a few hundred pounds at the very outside. If you put in the same scale of compensation that was in the Irish Act, you will, at any rate, meet the kind of case we are making to the Committee now. If you do not, it can only be from pure official obstinacy, because, having once said you will not, therefore you will not. That is a motive for the decision of Ministers which is much commoner than some people seem to imagine. If it is not mere official obstinacy, it is because you desire, for some reason which I cannot imagine, to carry out this exceedingly painful and distasteful change in Wales, not in the way which will cause the least friction, not in the way which will cause the least resentment, but in a way which will enable you to say you have trampled upon your enemies and put your heel upon their necks. There can be no other reason for the refusal of this claim. It is justified by the only precedent you ever cite—the Irish case—it is clearly just in itself, and it will cost a trifling sum of money. The whole machinery is provided for you in this very Clause, and, if you refuse it, it can only be from one of the two motives I have tried to indicate to the Committee.
§ Mr. EDGAR JONES
I am rather alarmed at what the Home Secretary has said, for very opposite reasons to those the Noble Lord has advanced, and I think some of us are entitled to ask the representatives of the Government what exactly is meant by the adoption of this new Amendment by the Home Secretary. I think they are opening a door which is going to lead to practices very similar to those which took place in Ireland, and which will destroy this Bill from cover to cover so far as we in Wales are concerned. If the new phrase, "anything which is equivalent in practice" to a freehold tenure is going to be interpreted by the Commissioners as broadly as the Noble Lord suggested—
§ Mr. E. JONES
If it is going to be interpreted as broadly as the Noble Lord intimated in his remarks, then the whole of the property is gone for at least thirty or forty years, and the probability is that 2015 the county councils will have to draw upon some resources—where they are going to get them nobody knows—in order to pay all this compensation, which will exceed all the profits they will get from the yield of the tithe and the glebe. I ask because I am simply going by what happened in the Irish case. I ask whether the charwoman who cleans the church would come in under this? As a rule a charwoman remains more or less for her life, and I understand that in the Irish case the charwoman got compensation. If we begin with charwomen and then everyone else who has anything to do with the church and has been accustomed to get a few shillings a month or a few pounds a year for it—and it has always been understood that once a person started in that particular office he went on for life—I think the Government have walked, with their eyes open, into a pit that is going to sink the whole of the finance of this Bill for national purposes for at least some generations. I would call the attention of the Government to the character of the Clause and the manner in which it is worded: "If the Welsh Commissioners find that any person who at the passing of this Act holds" such an office. If, therefore, the Church were disposed, as I understand was done in some cases in Ireland, to appoint two women where there is one now, and to appoint extra bell-ringers and others during the two years that we assume we shall be waiting for this Bill to get through the House of Lords, and if they give them some remuneration for these first two years so that they will be holding the office at the passing of the Act, where will the finance of the Bill be?
§ Lord ROBERT CECIL
Even then they will only get such compensation as the Welsh Commissioners think right.
§ Mr. E. JONES
I quite agree, but I am assuming that the Commissioners will be similar in their creed and as friendly to the Church as were the Commissioners under the Irish Act, and I am assuming that the Commissioners will take what hon. Gentlemen opposite will call a very broad and generous view of these things and will interpret the phrase in a manner in which hon. Members opposite are interpreting it to-night. It is possible for the Commissioners to take such a view, it is possible for officers to be created in the two years which are to elapse between the first going of this Bill to the House of Lords and its passage into law, and it is possible, 2016 under the new phrase the Home Secretary is going to accept, for almost any person who receives any kind of money to receive compensation. All I have to say is if that is so hon. Members opposite have been very successful in their Amendments, and in their opposition to this Bill. We started out with the idea that has been advocated in Wales very actively for forty years that national funds and endowments—I know hon. Members do not agree with the phrase but it has been generally accepted in Wales—should be secured for national purposes. If this interpretation that I lay down is going to work out in practice, very little National Endowment will there be for national purposes in my lifetime or the lifetime of anyone else in Wales so that hon. Members opposite, by their methods and by the concessions of the Government, have succeeded by various side winds, under the guise of compensation, in getting back, at least for several generations, for the Church practically every penny that this Bill at the commencement proposed to take from them. I really think it is due to some of us here who do not quite understand what is the full import of this Clause, that some further explanation and reassurance should be obtained from the Government before we go to a division.
§ Sir ALFRED CRIPPS
The speech which we have just heard shows how extremely important the Amendment is with which we are dealing. The hon. Member lays down this proposition, not that in a Bill of this kind the first consideration is what is just and right, but that the first consideration is the amount of money, which he calls national money, which can be put into the pockets of Welshmen for certain local purposes. We have heard that view enunciated more than once. The question here is whether it is just and right that certain people who are holding offices which, if this Bill had not passed, they would continue to hold for their life, should have fair compensation or not. That is the question. We say it is a matter of justice and right that they should have it. What is the answer of the hon. Member? He does not say it is just and right.
§ Sir A. CRIPPS
What the hon. Member says is, do not do what is just and right if it takes anything out of the Welshman's pocket. Let me take his own illustration, the charwoman. Is he going to say on behalf of the Welsh Members that because 2017 she is a humble and poor official she is not to be entitled to be fairly treated under the terms of the Bill?
§ Sir A. CRIPPS
Then she will not get compensation, because the whole basis of compensation—I am assuming that the Welsh Commissioners will act properly—is in respect of loss consequent on the passing of this Bill, and therefore if anyone gets alternative employment on their old terms they are not entitled to compensation at all. But the truth is, and the hon. Member has shown it on this question of compensation, that some Members on the other side of the House have approached this Bill in a wholly wrong spirit. They have approached it from the point of view of what plunder they can get. There is a much greater consideration than that, and that is acting justly and fairly when you are dealing with vested interests in a case of this kind. That is a most important principle. I wish to make two observations in answer to the Home Secretary. Sub-section (5) of Clause 14 has nothing to do with the subject matter of this Amendment of any sort or kind. It astonishes me to hear the Home Secretary, who ought to have an intimate knowledge of this Bill, quoting a Clause which has no reference whatever to the subject matter under discussion. Sub-section (5) of Clause 14 deals with an interest which is undoubtedly a freehold interest, but which is not an interest in the specific property. In other words, it is a man getting an income in the ordinary sense of the term of so much a year which is not charged on the specific property, and he says in that case he is to be compensated on the income he is receiving, although it is not charged upon the specific property. What on earth has that to do with the question of the existing Amendment? It is absolutely outside this question altogether from top to bottom.
The other observation I want to make is this: No one who has read the Irish Act can be other than cognisant of the fact that the whole measure and basis of compensation there is entirely different from what it is in relation to the proposed Bill. In an Amendment of which I gave notice to this Clause there are set out in substance the Irish terms as regards compensation dealing with the same subject matter as we are dealing with in this Clause. Every official, whether he has a freehold office or not, which is never the 2018 test in cases of this kind, is practically assured that he is to have an annuity equal to the amount of the income which he is obtaining at the present time. [An HON. MEMBER: "Charwoman."] Why is not a charwoman as much entitled as the richest man in this country? This Bill in every respect penalises the poor man. I have pointed it out several times. I should have thought that hon. Members opposite did not desire to emphasise a point of that kind.
All that this Amendment does is to give in Wales what was given in Ireland under the Irish Act, namely, to put it in the power of the Welsh Commissioners to give what they consider a suitable sum as regards all those poorer officials—charwomen, if you like—who, in fact, will suffer owing to the changes introduced by this Bill. The point of substance which I think is important is this: I do not know of any Bill of this kind—and I have looked all round for precedents—where there has been such a meagre, penurious, and inadequate method of compensation as is suggested in this Bill. The important point is that in future a Bill of this kind, which treats persons unfairly and unjustly, may be used as a precedent, because undoubtedly no one can deny that, apart from the legal or technical matter whether persons are curates or charwomen, if for public purposes they are deprived of the income which but for the Bill they would continue to enjoy, they are entitled to a full measure of compensation. The reason for that is perfectly clear. It is that, in carrying out any great matter of public importance, it is not right to put a special burden and penalty on particular individuals. That is the principle that underlies all these questions of compensation. If I may refer to a phrase used more than once by Mr. Gladstone, on the Irish Bill—because it is applicable to the question we are now discussing—I would point out that he said a beneficent revolution ought to be carried out in a liberal and generous spirit. I think everyone would agree to a proposition of that kind, and yet here what is said to be a benevolent revolution is being carried out in a mean, petty, penurious, and cheese-pairing spirit, which you cannot find in any other Bill dealing with individual interests that has ever been adopted in this House. Why do you compensate the individual freeholder on a wider basis? It is because, as Mr. Gladstone said, that the basis of compensation ought to have 2019 reference to the expectation of the persons you are depriving of income under the Bill. That, of course, is the proper principle as regards compensation.
Let me give two or three illustrations of what I mean by the niggardliness and injustice of the present Bill. Under the Irish Act, for instance, compensation was given to the clerks in the office of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners in Ireland. They had no legal right or claim, but as the effect of the Bill was to deprive them of the livelihood they were then enjoying, and as they were damnified by the passing of the Act, it was held that those men, who were comparatively poor men, ought to be entitled to compensation. Then there was the compensation as regards the Regium Donum and Maynooth College. There was considerable opposition to that proposal at the time of the passing of the Act. Mr. Gladstone said firmly, and he held to it throughout, "I will be no party to depriving people of money to which they would have been entitled if this Act had not passed. They ought to have fair compensation in regard to the worse position in which they will be placed." There are many other instances where compensation has been given. There was the compensation given under the Crofters Act of 1886. There was no legal right but compensation was given. Then, in the case of the stallholders in Hungerford market, compensation was given. I do not believe that any Act can be found based on the narrow lines we have here that no one is to be compensated unless his office is either freehold or equivalent in position. That is why I feel very strongly as regards the Amendment proposed by the hon. Member. It goes by no means sufficiently far in the direction of fair and generous treatment, but it is an improvement as regards the terms in the Bill itself. I ask everyone on the opposite side who believes in fair treatment, irrespective of policy, whether there is a legal right or not, to support this Amendment, and not to be led away by the doctrine of the hon. Member opposite, that it is better to plunder than to give fair and just treatment to people who have offices at the present moment.
Sir A. MONO
The hon. and learned Member (Sir A. Cripps) has made one of those eloquent speeches to which we have become accustomed. He shows great warmth when asking for fair 2020 and just compensation. I believe he has recently been engaged in a large case—[Interruption]. I do not think I am disrespectful to the hon. and learned Member. I only think that I am entitled to say—[HON. MEMBERS: "Order."] I think he will agree with me that those whom he addresses do not always agree with him as to what he considers fair and just treatment. If when you ask just and generous treatment and do not get it, and if you then say that it is petty and mean to refuse it, there is really no object in discussing the matter. That is the basis--on which the hon. and learned Member said, with a great show of indignation, that my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydvil (Mr. Edgar Jones) was-anxious for nothing except plunder. The hon. and learned Member would not like if I said that he had no other object except to retain plunder from the people of Wales, which is our side of the case. I do not see in the least that his line of argument is likely to carry any weight at all-It is easy. of course, to make appeals to generosity at other people's expense. It is easy to appear generous by giving away other people's money. If we were to compensate in the way proposed, it would not cost us anything at all. It is absurd, therefore, to put the argument on that basis. It seems to me that the hon. and learned Member laid down some general principles with which I am to a considerable extent in agreement. I protest against the general doctrine laid down in regard to vested interests. This doctrine of compensation for all kinds of interests has done more to stop reforms being carried in this country than any other doctrine. We know that hon. Members opposite always consider that private interests ought to stand before public rights. We are told in this case that it does not matter whether there is a legal right. If there is anything in that contention, it really does not matter whether there is a freehold tenure or not, because you are just as well off if you are to be treated in the same way as those who have a freehold tenure. Was ever such an argument addressed to a Legislative Assembly? It is a most ridiculous argument when you come to analyse it. It is mysteriously argued that a person who has no tenure has the same right as a person who has a freehold tenure.
§ Sir A. CRIPPS
I made no such statement. I said he was entitled to compensation. I never said he was entitled to> the same compensation.
§ Sir A. MOND
I am glad we are getting the compensation down a little—[Hon. MEMBERS: "No "]—and that we are having some reduction of the enormous claims put forward. Extraordinary use has been made of the Irish Bill in these Debates. Do hon. Members bear in mind that the Irish Bill was an agreed Bill? [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Certainly it was. The Noble Lord contradicts me. Does he deny that the Irish Bill was the result of long negotiations between Mr. Gladstone and Mr. Disraeli before it passed through the House of Lords, and that Mr. Gladstone protested vehemently and did his best to get the claims reduced? The Noble Lord cannot deny, what is a well-known fact, that to get the Bill passed through the House of Lords Mr. Gladstone had to make these concessions which he never would have made under present conditions. Do you think that we fought for the Parliament Act for nothing? Do hon. Members seriously imagine that, having won a victory, we are now going to walk under the Caudine forks? I cannot understand the curious condition of mind of hon. Members who have such an idea. Certainly we are not going to be forced into that position which we need not occupy, and for which there is no reason. It must be plain to anyone who gives five minutes' consideration to the whole question that hon. Members opposite are always asking for concessions and always abusing us for not giving concessions. They never offer any kind of concessions as far as they are concerned. An hon. Member laughs. He has been in the House much longer than I and has much more experience and knows as well as I do that Governments are not in the habit of continually making concessions when there is no ground for them. It is a simple fact which we all know. Hon. Members opposite naturally do the best they can, but they cannot expect us to walk into their parlour. I do not share the gloomy views expressed by the hon. Member for Merthyr as to the financial ruin which this Clause will involve, because I am certain the churches will be carried on as usual, and I am sure that their charwomen, bell-ringers, and sextons, and the good people in these petitions to-day will 2022 calmly continue in them until they receive the old age pension, for which they have the Liberal Government to thank. Therefore, the amount of compensation which will be given under this Clause and the explanation of the Home Secretary will not affect seriously the finances of the Bill. But I have thought it right to say a few words of protest against the speech just delivered. It is not fair or just to represent us on this side as being hostile or petty or mean. We have a difficult and serious duty to perform. Hon. Members opposite have a difficult duty to perform also. The very point which the hon. and learned Member refers to, the question what is fair and just, is a difficult point to determine. The mere allegation that anything is unfair or unjust is no determination thereof. I do not wish to accuse hon. Members opposite of anything wrong, but I do think that it is time to make an end of mere abusive epithets and to return to arguments.
§ Mr. ALFRED LYTTELTON
We have heard a remarkable speech from a representative of Welsh Nonconformity. The only principle which it distinctly represented is that the Radical party have passed the Parliament Act, and that he intends, and those who sit around him intend, to get all the plunder they can as the result of the Parliament Act, consistently with their safety at Welsh elections. He opened his speech by denouncing my hon. and learned Friend for having used emphatic language with regard to justice for poor people under this Bill, and having said that the hon. and learned Member begged the whole question by using that language, he then proceeded to say, after he had forgotten how he had begun his speech, that he in a very large degree agreed with the principles which were laid down by my hon. and learned Friend. How can he beg the question by using such language, when he has laid down principles with which the hon. Member agreed? What were those principles? Perhaps the hon. Member, as representing Welsh Nonconformity, will have to go down to Flintshire, and I presume that he will answer honestly any questions asked by hecklers there, and that he will, at any rate, attempt to disclose what is really the fact under this Bill. If he is asked, "Why do the Government which you support compensate life interests of incumbents and not compensate those interests which, according to the Home Secretary, 2023 are equivalent in expectation to life interests?" What will he say? He will be afraid to admit that his only reason is that one interest is held by poor people and the other by comparatively wealthy people.
§ Sir A. MOND
I should say nothing of the kind. One is a freehold tenure and the other is another form of tenure.
§ Mr. LYTTELTON
Will he disagree with the Home Secretary that he is perfectly willing, as the Irish Act did, to pay compensation to those who had interests equivalent in practice to freehold interests? Will he say to the poor people of Flintshire, "I disagree with my own Leader or with the right hon. Gentleman who is in charge of this Bill, and I will not give a shilling to those who have interests equivalent in practice to freehold interests"?
§ Mr. LYTTELTON
Then what was the purpose of the quarter of an hour of incoherent speech of the hon. Gentleman? I ask him the plain question, does he agree with the Home Secretary or does he not?
§ Sir A. MOND
Certainly, I agree with the Home Secretary, and I said so in my speech, incoherent as it may have been.
§ Mr. LYTTELTON
If, in point of fact, the hon. Gentleman does agree that these poor people should receive compensation, those of them who have interests practically equivalent to freehold interests, then what is the meaning of his speech?
§ Sir A. MOND
I am very sorry that the right hon. Gentleman cannot understand the object of my speech. If I were allowed to make it again I could explain it.
§ Mr. LYTTELTON
We have it every way. The hon. Gentleman is going to take credit, I suppose, among the more violent of his party, for having denounced all these proposals, and he has not the courage to get up to say that he denies to these poor people in Wales the right to receive compensation under the principles that have been defined by the Home Secretary. The hon. Gentleman gives the case entirely away. I say it is impossible for any honest and courageous man, facing a popular audience—and with these 2024 precedents of the Irish Act before him, with the generous treatment that was accorded to Nonconformist ministers and to the Roman Catholics in Maynooth, and with the fact, as it is admitted now, that all these poor people received compensation, at any rate, to some considerable extent in Ireland—to say that nothing has happened between 1869 and now which has altered those precedents, and which has disentitled the Welsh from receiving that which the Irish obtained. What possible reason, what earthly reason, has been given for the mixture of incoherent statements we have just heard from the hon. Gentleman? What possible reason can be given for departing from the principle laid down by a man like Mr. Gladstone, whom the hon. Gentleman always professes to honour, and who gave that compensation? Have circumstances altered? Are the Welsh people richer than the Irish, or not? There is not a single test that can be applied to this case which differentiates it from the Irish case. I am most reluctant to come to the conclusion that there is simply a desire on the part of the hon. Member, and some of the more malignant of his associates, not to give what is fair, but to take in the form of plunder what in their heart and conscience they know to be unjust.
§ Mr. BOOTH
I am not at all sure that the speech of the right hon. Gentleman has been much of a contribution to the discussion of this Amendment. It consisted simply of a stale joke, and of an attempt to mislead the Committee. It is altogether beside the question for the right hon. and learned Gentleman to make a speech in which he assumes that he has got a monopoly of right feelings of indignation, with more than the average ability to express them. Surely, the only hypothesis upon which his speech could have any pertinence to this discussion is that after the Disestablishment of the Church in Wales, charwomen, bellringers, and sextons are going to be dismissed from office. Hon. Gentlemen opposite go round the country in order to divert attention from Tariff Reform and food taxes. [HON. MEMBERS: "Education."] They imply that such intolerant feeling has been so much aroused in these discussions, that the Church dignitaries will begin to vent their spleen upon those unfortunate people. It cannot be established that there is any desire on this side that those people should be dismissed on short notice, and where in that case is the foundation 2025 for the speech of the hon. and learned Gentleman?
§ Mr. HAROLD SMITH
I think the hon. Member has missed the point which is not that they are going to be dismissed, but who is going to pay them if they remain. [HON. MEMBERS: "Church people."]
§ Mr. BOOTH
I cannot imagine services of the Church, which I attend, going on in any parish, and that the church would decline to pay the charwoman; I feel that it is a most undignified suggestion that Church people will go round cap in hand to pay their charwoman. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for St. George's suggested this Clause might be wielded very vigorously by a heckler in a Welsh constituency, but what would be thought if a humble individual like myself passed the janitor at one of the hon. Gentleman's meetings, if he ever has any, and asked him whether he could defend the charwoman getting a few shillings, and the Bishop of St. David's £4,000 per year?
§ Mr. BOOTH
I quite understand that it does seem rather incongruous to name those two great dignitaries of the Church in the same breath. I would ask the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for South Bucks whether they really think Members come here with the solo object of trying to take away some lawful claim of some humble members of the Church. The speech of the hon. and learned Gentleman was really in support of this Clause, and it was to that part of his speech that the hon. Member for Swansea Boroughs (Sir A. Mond) directed attention when he said the hon. and learned Gentleman carried many of us on this side with him. The bulk of the hon. and learned Gentleman's speech was in support of the Clause, and it was only incidentally that he referred to the Amendment. I would submit that surely that is all we can fairly be asked to do. I say quite frankly as one who differs from his leaders more than anybody opposite does, at any rate, in the House—
§ Mr. BOOTH
As one who does not hesitate to differ from his own leaders. I say quite candidly that if I could see in this Clause any injustice to a class of humble individuals, I would unhesitatingly go into the Lobby against it. But wild statements that we are a set of vultures looking for plunder, and while right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite are defending the vested interests of the washerwoman are beside the mark. Would the hon. and learned Member for South Bucks (Sir A. Cripps) in applying his general argument in favour of compensation for the vested interests of the liquor trade, give compensation to the "chucker-out" and the potboy?
§ Mr. BOOTH
I mentioned those merely by way of illustration, because the hon. and learned Gentleman gets as eloquent on that subject as on the other. If hon. Gentlemen opposite will in moderate language prove to us who occasionally show a gleam of independence that they have a case, we will go into the Lobby with them. But mere vague, general, fierce denunciation—like that of the Scotsman, who I am told goes into a field and swears at large—carries no weight whatever on this side of the House.
§ Mr. GOULDING
rose in his place, and claimed to move "That the Question be now put," but the Chairman withheld his assent, and declined then to put that Question.
§ Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 291; Noes, 179.2031
|Division No. 521.]||AYES.||10.30 p.m.|
|Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour)||Duncan, J. Hastings (Yorks, Otley)||Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)|
|Acland, Francis Dyke||Edwards, Clement (Glamorgan, E.)||Lardner, James Carrige Rushe|
|Adamson, William||Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)||Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, West)|
|Addison, Dr. Christopher||Edwards, John Hugh (Glamorgan, Mid)||Lawson, Sir W. (Cumb'rld, Cockerm'th)|
|Adkins, Sir W. Ryland D.||Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)||Levy, Sir Maurice|
|Agnew, Sir George William||Essex, Sir Richard Walter||Lewis, John Herbert|
|Ainsworth, John Stirling||Esslemont, George Birnie||Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas|
|Aldan, Percy||Falconer, J.||Low, Sir Frederick (Norwich)|
|Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbarton)||Farrell, James Patrick||Lundon, Thomas|
|Allen, Rt. Hon. Charles P. (Stroud)||Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson||Lyell, Charles Henry|
|Arnold, Sydney||Firench, Peter||Lynch, A. A.|
|Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.)||Field, William||McGhee, Richard|
|Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)||Fitzgibbon, John||Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J.|
|Baring, Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple)||Flavin, Michael Joseph||MacNeill, J. G. Swift (Donegal, South)|
|Barlow, Sir John Emmott (Somerset)||George, Rt. Hon. David Lloyd||Macpherson, James Ian|
|Barnes, G. N.||Glihooly, James||MacVeagh, Jeremiah|
|Barran, Rowland Hurst (Leeds, N.)||Gill, A. H.||M'Callum, Sir John M.|
|Barton, W.||Ginnell, L.||McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald|
|Beale, Sir William Phipson||Gladstone, W. G. C.||M'Laren, Hon. F.W.S. (Lincs.,Spalding)|
|Beck, Arthur Cecil||Glanville, Harold James||Manfield, Harry|
|Benn, W. W. (T. Hamlets, St. Geo.)||Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford||Markham, Sir Arthur Basil|
|Bentham, George Jackson||Goldstone, Frank||Marks, Sir George Croydon|
|Bethell, Sir J. H.||Greenwood, Granville G. (Peterborough)||Marshall, Arthur Harold|
|Black, Arthur W.||Greenwood, Hamar (Sunderland)||Martin, Joseph|
|Boland, John Plus||Greig, Colonel J. W.||Meagher, Michael|
|Booth, Frederick Handed||Griffith, Ellis J.||Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)|
|Bowerman, C. W.||Guest, Major Hon. C. H. C. (Pembroke)||Middlebrook, William|
|Boyle, D. (Mayo, North)||Guest, Hon. Frederick E. (Dorset, E.)||Millar, James Duncan|
|Brace, William||Guiney, Patrick||Molloy, M.|
|Brady, P. J.||Gulland, John William||Molteno, Percy Alport|
|Brocklehurst, W. B.||Hacktt, J.||Mond, Sir Alfred Moritz|
|Brunner, John F. L.||Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)||Money, L. G. Chiozza|
|Bryce, J. Annan||Harcourt. Robert V. (Montrose)||Morgan, George Hay|
|Buckmaster, Stanley O.||Hardie, J. Keir||Morrell, Philip|
|Burke, E. Haviland-||Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire)||Morison, Hector|
|Burns, Rt. Hon. John||Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)||Morton, Alpheus Cleophas|
|Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas||Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)||Muldoon, John|
|Buxton, Noel (Norfolk)||Hayden, John Patrick||Munro, R.|
|Buxton, Rt. Hon. Sydney C. (Poplar)||Hayward, Evan||Murray, Captain Hon. A. C.|
|Byles, Sir William Pollard||Hazieton, Richard||Nannetti, Jossph P.|
|Carr-Gomm, H. W.||Healy, Timothy Michael (Cork, N.E.)||Needham, Christopher T.|
|Cawley, H. T. (Lancs, Heywood)||Helme, Sir Norval Watson||Neilson, Francis|
|Clancy, John Joseph||Hemmerde, Edward George||Nicholson, Sir C. N. (Doncaster)|
|Clough, William||Henderson, Arthur (Durham)||Nolan, Joseph|
|Clynes, John R.||Henry, Sir Charles||Norman, Sir Henry|
|Collins, G. P. (Greenock)||Herbert, General Sir Ivor (Mon., S.)||Norton, Captain Cecil W.|
|Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)||Higham, John Sharp||Nuttall, Harry|
|Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J.||Hinds, John||O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)|
|Condon, Thomas Joseph||Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.||O'Connor. John (Kildare, N.)|
|Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.||Hodge, John||O'Connor, T. p. (Liverpool)|
|Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)||Hogge, James Myles||O'Doherty, Philip|
|Crawshay-Willlams, Eliot||Holmes, Daniel Turner||O'Donnell, Thomas|
|Crean, Eugene||Holt, Richard Durning||O'Dowd, John|
|Crumley, Patrick||Howard, Hon. Geoffrey||O'Kelly, Edward P. (Wicklow, W.)|
|Cullinan, J.||Hudson, Walter||O'Keliy, James (Roscommon, N.)|
|Dalziel, Rt. Hon. Sir J. H. (Kirkcaldy)||Illingworth, Percy H.||O'Malley, William|
|Davies, David (Montgomery Co.)||Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus||O'Neill, Dr. Charles (Armagh, S.)|
|Davies, E. William (Eifion)||Jardine, Sir J. (Roxburgh)||O'Shaughnessy, P. J.|
|Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)||John, Edward Thomas||O'Shee, James John|
|Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.)||Jones, Rt.Hon. Sir D.Brynmor (Sw'nsea)||O'Sullivan, Timothy|
|Dawes, James Arthur||Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil)||Outhwaite, R. L.|
|De Forest, Baron||Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)||Palmer, Godfrey Mark|
|Delany, William||Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)||Parker, James (Halifax)|
|Denman, Hon. R. D.||Jones, Leif Stratten (Rushcliffe)||Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)|
|Devlin, Joseph||Jones, W. S. Glyn- (T. H'mts, Stepney)||Pease, Rt. Hon. Joseph A. (Rotherham)|
|Dickinson, W. H.||Joyce, Michael||Phillips, John (Longford, S.)|
|Dillon, John||Keating, Matthew||Pointer, Joseph|
|Donelan, Captain A.||Kellaway, Frederick George||Pollard, Sir George H.|
|Doris, W.||Kilbride, Denis||Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.|
|Duffy, William J.||King, J.||Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)|
|Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)||Lambert, Rt. Hon. G. (Devon,s.Molton)||Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk, E.)|
|Priestley, Sir Arthur (Grantham)||Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland)||Walters, Sir John Tudor|
|Priestley, Sir W. E. B. (Bradford, E.)||Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)||Walton, Sir Joseph|
|Primrose, Hon. Neil James||Scanian, Thomas||Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)|
|Pringle William M. R.||Schwann, Rt. Hon. Sir C. E.||Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)|
|Radford, G. H.||Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)||Wardle, George J.|
|Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields)||Seely, Col. Rt. Hon. J. E. B.||Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay|
|Reddy, M.||Sheehy, David||Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)|
|Redmond, John E. (Waterford)||Sherwell, Arthur James||Watt, Henry A.|
|Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)||Shortt, Edward||Wedgwood, Josiah C.|
|Rendall, Athelstan||Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John Allsebrook||White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)|
|Richards, Thomas||Smith, Albert (Lancs, Clitheroe)||White, Sir Luke (York, E.R.)|
|Richardson, Albion (Peckham)||Smith, H. B. L. (Northampton)||White, Patrick (Meath, North)|
|Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)||Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)||Whitehouse, John Howard|
|Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)||Soames, Arthur Wellesley||Whyte, A. F. (Perth)|
|Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)||Spicer, Rt. Hon. Sir Albert||Wiles, Thomas|
|Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)||Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N.W.)||Wilkie, Alexander|
|Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)||Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)||Williams, J. (Glamorgan)|
|Robertson, John M. (Tyneside)||Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)||Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthen)|
|Robinson, Sidney||Tennant, Harold John||Williamson, Sir Archibald|
|Roch. Walter F.||Thomas, J. H.||Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. W. (Worcs., N.)|
|Roche, Augustine (Louth, N.)||Thome, G. R. (Wolverhampton)||Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)|
|Roe, Sir Thomas||Toulmin, Sir George||Wood, Rt. Hon. T. McKinnon (Glas.)|
|Rose, Sir Charles Day||Trevelyan, Charles Philips||Young, Samuel (Cavan, East)|
|Rowlands, James||Verney, Sir Harry||Young, William (Perth, East)|
|Rowntree, Arnold||Wadsworth, J.|
|Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter||Walsh, J. (Cork, South)||TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr.|
|Russell, Rt. Hon. Thomas W.||Walsh, Stephen (Lanes, Ince)||William Jones and Mr. Webb.|
|Agg-Gardner, James Tynte||Eyres-Monsell, B. M.||Lyttelton, Hon. J. C. (Droitwich)|
|Aitken, Sir William Max||Faber, George Denison (Clapham)||MacCaw, Wm. J. MacGeagh|
|Amery, L.C. M. S.||Falle, Bertram Godfray||Mackinder, H. J.|
|Anson, Rt. Hon. Sir William R.||Fell, Arthur||M'Neill, Ronald (Kent, St. Augustine's)|
|Baird, J. L.||Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey||Magnus, Sir Philip|
|Baker, Sir Randolf L. (Dorset, N.)||Finlay, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert||Meysey-Thompson, E. C.|
|Salcarres, Lord||Fitzroy, Hon. Edward A.||Middlemore, John Throgmorton|
|Banbury, Sir Frederick George||Flannery, Sir J. Fortescue||Mills, Hon. Charles Thomas|
|Baring, Maj. Hon. Guy V. (Winchester)||Fleming, Valentino||Moore, William|
|Barlow, Montague (Salford, South)||Forster, Henry William||Morrison-Bell, Capt. E. F. (Ashburton)|
|Barrie, H. T.||Gardner, Ernest||Morrison-Bell, Major A. C. (Honiton)|
|Bathurst, Hon. A. B. (Glouc, E.)||Gastrell, Major W. Houghton||Mount, William Arthur|
|Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton)||Gibbs, George Abraham||Neville, Reginald J. N.|
|Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks||Gordon, John (Londonderry, South)||Newman, John R. P.|
|Beckett, Hon. Gervase||Gordon, Hon. John Edward (Brighton)||Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)|
|Bentinck, Lord H. (Cavendish-)||Greene, W. R.||Nield, Herbert|
|Beresford, Lord C.||Gretton, John||Norton-Griffiths, John|
|Biglaud, Alfred||Guinness, Hon. Rupert (Essex, S.E.)||O'Neill, Hon. A. E. B. (Antrim, Mid)|
|Bird, A.||Guinness, Hon.W.E. (Bury S.Edmunds)||Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend)|
|Blair, Reginald||Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne)||Parkes, Ebenezer|
|Boscawen, Sir Arthur S. T. Griffith-||Hall, Fred (Dulwich)||Perkins, Walter F.|
|Boyle, William (Norfolk, Mid)||Hamersley, Alfred St. George||Peto, Basil Edward|
|Boyton, James||Hamilton, Lord C. J. (Kensington, S.)||Pollock, Ernest Murray|
|Bridgeman, W. Clive||Hardy, Rt. Hon. Laurence||Pryce-Jones, Col. E.|
|Burdett-Coutts, W.||Harris, Henry Percy||Quilter, Sir William Eley C.|
|Burn, Colonel C. R.||Harrison-Broadley, H. B.||Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel|
|Butcher, J. G.||Helmsley, Viscount||Rawson, Col. R. H.|
|Campbell, Capt. Duncan F. (Ayr, N.)||Henderson, Major H. (Berks, Abingdon)||Rees, Sir J. D.|
|Campion, W. R.||Herbert, Hon. A. (Somerset, S.)||Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)|
|Carilie, Sir Edward Hildred||Hewins, William Albert Samuel||Rolleston, Sir John|
|Cassel, Felix||Hickman, Col. T. E.||Royde, Edmund|
|Castlereagh, Viscount||Hill, Sir Clement L.||Rutherford, Watson (L'pool, W. Derby)|
|Cator, John||Hoare, Samuel John Gurney||Salter, Arthur Clavell|
|Cautley, H. S.||Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy||Samuel, Sir Harry (Norwood)|
|Cave, George||Hope, Major J. A. (Midlothian)||Sanders, Robert A.|
|Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)||Home, W. E. (Surrey, Guildford)||Sanderson, Lancelot|
|Cecil, Lord Hugh (Oxford University)||Horner, Andrew Long||Sandys, G. J.|
|Cecil, Lord R. (Herts, Hitchin)||Houston, Robert Paterson||Sassoon, Sir Philip|
|Chaloner, Col. R. G. W.||Hume-Williams, William Ellis||Scott, Leslie (Liverpool, Exchange)|
|Chambers, J.||Hunter, Sir C. R||Scott, Sir S. (Maryiebone, W.)|
|Clive, Captain Percy Archer||Ingleby. Holcombe||Smith Rt. Hon, F. E. (L'p'l, Walton)|
|Coates, Major Sir Edward Feetham||Jardine, Ernest (Somerset, East)||Smith, Harold (Warrington)|
|Cooper, Richard Ashmole||Kebty-Fletcher, J. R.||Spear, Sir John Ward|
|Courthope, G. Loyd||Kerr-Smiley, Peter Kerr||Stanier, Beville|
|Craig, Ernest (Cheshire, Crewe)||Kerry, Earl of||Stanley, Hon. Arthur (Ormskirk)|
|Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet)||Kimber, Sir Henry||Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)|
|Crichton-Stuart, Lord Ninian||Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement||Staveley-Hill, Henry|
|Cripps, Sir Charles Alfred||Lane-Fox, G. R.||Stewart, Gershom|
|Croft, H. P.||Law, Rt. Hon. A. Bonar (Bootle)||Sykes, Alan John (Ches., Knutsford)|
|Dalziel, D. (Brixton)||Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)||Sykes, Mark (Hull, Central)|
|Denniss, E. R. B.||Locker-Lampson, O. (Ramsey)||Talbot, Lord E.|
|Du Cros, Arthur Philip||Lowe, Sir F. W. (Birm., Edgbaston)||Terrell, H. (Gloucester)|
|Duke, Henry Edward||Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. A. (Hanover S.)||Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Down, N.)|
|Tobin, Alfred Aspinall||White, Major G. D. (Lancs., Southport)||Wright. Henry Fitzherbert|
|Touche, George Alexander||Williams, Col. R. (Dorset, W.)||Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George|
|Tryon, Captain George Clement||Willoughby, Major Hon. Claud||Yate, Col. Charles Edward|
|Valentia, Viscount||Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E.R.)||Younger, Sir George|
|Walker, Col. William Hall||Winterton. Earl|
|Watrond, Hon. Lionel||Wolmer, Viscount||TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr.|
|Warde, Col. C. E. (Kent, Mid)||Wood, John (Stalybridge)||Goulding and Mr. Astor.|
|Wheler, Granville C. H.||Worthington-Evans, L.|
Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.
§ The CHAIRMAN then proceeded to put the Question necessary to dispose of the business to be concluded at half-past Ten of the clock at this day's sitting.
§ Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Friday next, 17th January.
§ The Orders for remaining Government business were read, and postponed.
§ Whereupon, Mr. SPEAKER, pursuant to the Order of the House of 14th October, proposed the Question, "That this House do now adjourn."