§ (By Order.)
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the third time."—[Mr. Whitley.]
§ Mr. KING
I beg to move to leave out the words, "now read the third time," and at the end of the Question to add the words "recommitted to the former Committee."
I wish, in the first place, to make my attitude on this Bill quite clear. I approve entirely of its main principle. I think in various provisions it might well be improved, but its main principle is, to my mind, a novel and extremely good one. It is to upset entirely the trust, which was created only 150 years ago and has not been in operation one hundred years, and to do that at the same time that it takes away a considerable amount of money from a richly endowed rural parish, which is endowed with ancient Endowments far beyond its modern requirements, and transfers a considerable sum to the needs of our ancient University of Oxford. That is an entirely novel principle, a principle which, I venture to say, has never found a place before in a private Bill. It was because of this that when I saw this Bill I blocked it on the Second Reading, and I believe it is entirely due to my initiation that we had a debate at all upon the Second Reading. The Bill was not opposed to the point of a Division on the Second Reading. When the Bill went to the Unopposed Bill Committee I sent a memorandum of my point of view to the Chairman of the Committee, who, very courteously, considered very fully the point of view I raised and laid it before the Committee and made certain inquiries. When the Bill came back unamended from that Committee I was ready, although I thought my point had not been fairly met or fully discussed, to see the Bill pass without further discussion, and when it was blocked on the Motion for Third Reading I appealed to art hon. Friend of mine to allow it to go through. I therefore, ought to explain why, in spite of that, I still think it my duty to discuss the Bill upon this occasion. I do so because it seems to me that if it is to be on the floor of the House again it ought to be discussed from the 630 point of view of one who desires that everything should be done for the students of the university first and foremost. This is a University Bill, promoted by the University of Oxford. It is a Bill which affects in certain ways the only remaining hall of the university. If discussion is to be raised upon it, let it be raised upon the educational interests and proposals. That is what I propose to do in moving the Amendment.
§ Mr. SPEAKER
The hon. Member would not be entitled to discuss the Bill upon that. The only thing the hon. Member would be entitled to do would be to give reasons why the Bill should be recommitted instead of going forward in the usual way.
§ Mr. SPEAKER
That the hon. Member can say when the Bill is recommitted. He must now give reasons showing that the Committee have not dealt properly with the Bill, and therefore it must be recommitted.
§ Mr. KING
I will briefly give reasons for that. I move that the Bill be recommitted because, in the first place, it is an unopposed Bill, and therefore could not be fully discussed in regard to all the interests it affects before the Unopposed Bill Committee. If we recommit the Bill and follow that up with an Instruction that the Bill be amended in certain particulars, the proposals which I have to put forward later will come up for review. I suppose it is quite in order to observe, in the first place, that the Unopposed Bill Committee did not realise that this Bill by a private Act of Parliament proposes to alter what was set up by a public Act of Parliament. That point was not raised on the Unopposed Bill Committee, but it is an extremely important one. If it becomes the practice to introduce private Bills—
§ Mr. SPEAKER
That does not seem to be relevant to the hon. Member's Motion. The hon. Member is really wishing to discuss the Third Reading, and at the same time is anxious to reserve himself for a second speech on the Third Reading.
§ The CHAIRMAN of WAYS and MEANS
As I am the culprit, or shall I say the victim of the hon. Member's attack, for I was Chairman of the Unopposed Bill Committee which dealt with this Bill, perhaps I ought to say that I do not propose to commit a breach of order by going into the merits of the question. All I can do is to say to the hon. Member for North Somerset (Mr. King) that of the many Bills that came before the Unopposed Bill Committee this Session, I do not remember a single one which had more care given to it than this Bill. We had the benefit of the memorandum from the hon. Member himself, embodying all the points of objection that he raised to the Bill, and every one of them was most carefully examined.
§ Mr. MORRELL
On a point of Order, Sir. Your ruling was that one cannot discuss the merits of a Bill on the Motion to recommit. May I remind you that about a year or two years ago I moved to recommit the Bill of the Corporation of London in connection with the St. Paul's Bridge scheme. You will recollect that upon that occasion the discussion certainly covered all the merits of the Bill and a good deal more besides. It was an extremely wide discussion, occupying the whole night, and then we went to a Division, arid finally the Bill was recommitted. It is certainly within my recollection that not only did I in my opening speech in moving the recommittal discuss the whole scheme, but every other speaker took the same course.
§ Mr. SPEAKER
If that is so, I am afraid it was a breach of order. I have not had time to refer to that case, but I expect the discussion was taken upon an Instruction, and, therefore, it would, of course, be in order. I will not be sure, but my recollection is that it was so. It. may also have been a Motion to refer the Bill to some other Committee, not to the same Committee.
§ Mr. MORRELL
My recollection is very clear that the Motion was to recommit to the former Committee. There was an Instruction upon the Paper, but the discussion and the Division took place upon my Motion that the Bill be recommitted to the former Committee, and after that the Instruction was moved.
§ Mr. DENMAN
I hope the few remarks. I wish to make are in order. The point I wish to bring before the House is that the Committee did not examine one aspect of the case to which I ventured to draw attention on a previous occasion when the Bill was before the House. I readily acquiesce in the suggestion that very great care was devoted to this Bill by the Unopposed Bill Committee. Indeed, I was the only Member of the House not on the Committee who was present and who heard what took place. The one point which ought to be considered, which was not considered, and, because it was not considered I support the Motion to recommit, was whether this re-allocation of ancient funds is really in the best interests of religion and learning, to which those funds were originally devoted. I am afraid the point I want to make is almost diametrically opposed to the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for North Somerset (Mr. King). I understand his objection has been that you ought not to take away money from the parish in order to endow other objects, such as a college at Oxford. I want to suggest that, so far from that being the case, to leave Gatcombe Parish with £350 is really very extravagant, and has not yet been justified in debate. The population we are told is about 183.
§ Mr. SPEAKER
The hon. Member is now discussing the merits of the Bill. He is really anxious to discuss it on Third Reading, and he should reserve his speech until we get to the Third Reading.
§ Mr. DENMAN
That certainly is not my wish. My desire is that. the Committee should examine afresh the point whether the money is allocated in the best possible way. I am quite willing to defer my argument till the Instruction. I certainly want to vote on the question now.
§ Mr. JOHN WARD
If this Motion is disposed of, shall we then be able to discuss. the merits of the Bill?
§ Sir W. ANSON
I think the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Denman) is mistaken in supposing that the matter which he suggests is appropriate for consideration by the Committee had not been considered by the Committee. I gave evidence for a considerable time, and a Fellow of King's College was also present and gave evidence at some 633 length, and the greater part of my evidence was devoted to showing that this money was properly applied and could be applied to no better purpose than the financing of religion and learning.
§ Question put, "That the words 'now read the third time' stand part of the Question."
§ The House divided: Ayes, 178; Noes, 42.635
|Division No. 235.]||AYES.||[8.38 p.m.|
|Acland, Francis Dyke||Hayden, John Patrick||Pryce-Jones, Colonel E.|
|Adamson, William||Hazleton, Richard||Radford, George Heynes|
|Anson, Rt. Hon. Sir William R.||Helme, Sir Norval Watson||Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel|
|Arnold, Sydney||Henderson, Arthur (Durham)||Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields)|
|Baird, John Lawrence||Henderson, Major H. (Berks, Abingdon)||Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)|
|Baker, Harold T. (Accrington)||Hewart, Gordan||Reddy, Michael|
|Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.)||Jones, Leif Stratton (Notts, Rushcliffe)||Redmond, John E. (Waterford)|
|Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)||Jones, William (Carnarvonshrire)||Redmond, William (Clare, E.)|
|Barran, Rowland Hurst (Leeds, N.)||Jones, William S. Glyn- (Stepney)||Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)|
|Beauchamp, Sir Edward||Kelly, Edward||Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)|
|Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)||Kennedy, Vincent Paul||Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)|
|Benn, W. W. (T. Hamlets, St. George)||Kilbride, Denis||Robertson, Sir G. S. (Bradford)|
|Bentham, George Jackson||Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)||Robertson, John M. (Tyneside)|
|Boland, John Pius||Larmor, Sir J.||Robinson, Sidney|
|Bowerman, Charles W.||Law, Rt. Hon. A. Bonar (Bootle)||Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)|
|Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North)||Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, West)||Roe, Sir Thomas|
|Brady, Patrick Joseph||Lewis, Rt. Hon. John Herbert||Rutherford, W. (Liverpool, W. Derby)|
|Brunner, John F. L.||Lyndon, Thomas||Salter, Arthur Clavell|
|Bryce, J. Annan||Lyell, Charles||Samuel, Rt. Hon H. L. (Cleveland)|
|Buckmaster, Stanley O.||Lynch, Arthur Alfred||Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)|
|Burke, E. Haviland-||McGhee, Richard||Sandys, G. J.|
|Burt. Rt. Hon. Thomas||MacNeill, J. G. Swift (Donegal, South)||Scanlan, Thomas|
|Carr-Gomm. H. W.||MacVeagh, Jeremiah||Schwann, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles E.|
|Cawley, Harold T. (Lancs., Heywood)||M'Callum, Sir John M.||Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)|
|Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. A. (Worc'r.,E.)||M'Laren, Hon. F.W.S. (Lincs., Spalding)||Sheehy, David|
|Chapple, Dr. William Allen||Malcolm, Ian||Shortt, Edward|
|Clancy, John Joseph||Markham, Sir Arthur Basil||Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)|
|Clough, William||Marks, Sir George Croydon||Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)|
|Clynes, John R.||Marshall, Arthur Harold||Snowden, Philip|
|Collins, Godfrey P. (Greenock)||Mason, James F. (Windsor)||Soames, Arthur Wellesley|
|Cotton, William Francis||Meagher, Michael||Spear, Sir John Ward|
|Cowan, W. H.||Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)||Spicer, RI. Hon. Sir Albert|
|Craik, Sir Henry||Meehan, Patrick J. (Queen's Co., Leix)||Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)|
|Crumley, Patrick||Molloy, Michael||Sutherland, John E.|
|Cullinan, John||Mooney, John J.||Sutton, John E.|
|Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.)||Morrell, Philip||Talbot, Lord Edmund|
|Dawes, James Arthur Denniss, E. R. B.||Morton, Alpheus Cleophas||Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)|
|Devlin, Joseph||Muldoon, John||Taylor, Thomas (Bolton)|
|Donelan, Captain A.||Munro, Robert||Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)|
|Doris, William||Murray, Captain Hon. Arthur C.||Trevelyan, Charles Philips|
|Duffy, William J.||Needham, Christopher T.||Tullibardine, Marquess of|
|Duke, Henry Edward||Newton, Harry Kottingham||Verney, Sir Harry|
|Duncan, J. Hastings (Yorks, Otley)||Nicholson, Sir Charles N. (Doncaster)||Waring, Walter|
|Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)||Nolan, Joseph||Webb, H.|
|Esmonde. Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)||Norton, Captain Cecil W.||White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)|
|Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M.||O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)||White, Sir Luke (Yorks, E.R.)|
|Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles||O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)||White, Patrick (Meath, North)|
|Ffrench, Peter||O'Connor. T. P. (Liverpool)||Whitley, Rt. Hon. J. H.|
|Flavin, Michael Joseph||O'Doherty, Philip||Williams, John (Glamorgan)|
|Fletcher, John Samuel||O'Donnell. Thomas||Williams, Penry (Middlesbrough)|
|Gilmour, Captain John||O'Dowd, John||Wilson, Hon. G. G. (Hull, W.)|
|Gladstone. W. G. C.||O'Malley, William||Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. W. (Worcs., N.)|
|Glanville, H. J.||O'Neill, Dr. Charles (Armagh, S.)||Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)|
|Greig, Colonel James William||Parker, James (Halifax)||Wood, Rt Hon. T. McKinnon (Glasgow)|
|Guest, Hon. Frederick E. (Dorset, E.)||Parry, Thomas H.||Yate, Col. Charles Edward|
|Gulland, John William||Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)||Young, William (Perthshire, East)|
|Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)||Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)||Yoxall, Sir James Henry|
|Hackett, John||Phillips, John (Longford, S.)|
|Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds)||Pointer, Joseph||TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr.Maclean and Lord Hugh Cecil.|
|Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)||Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.|
|Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour)||Dalziel, Rt. Hon. Sir J. H. (Kirkcaldy)||Hodge, John|
|Barnes, George N.||Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)||Hogge, James Myles|
|Barton, William||Elverston, Sir Harold||Horne, Charles Silvester (Ipswich)|
|Bethell, Sir John Henry||Gill, Alfred Henry||Hughes, Spencer Leigh|
|Booth, Frederick Handel||Goldstone, Frank||Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)|
|Brace, William||Greenwood, Granville G. (Peterborough)||Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)|
|Byles, Sir William Pollard||Henderson. J. M. (Aberdeen, W.)||Joyce, Michael|
|Condon, Thomas Joseph||Higham. John Sharp||Kellaway, Frederick George|
|Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.||Hinds, John||Leach, Charles|
|MacPherson, James Ian||Raffan, Peter Wilson||Whyte, Alexander F.|
|O'Grady, James||Rowlands, James||Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthen)|
|O'Shaughnessy, P. J.||Thomas, J. H.||Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)|
|O'Sullivan, Timothy||Thorne, William (West Ham)|
|Priestley, Sir W. E. B. (Bradford, E.)||Walsh. Stephen (Lancs., Ince)||TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. King and Mr. Denman.|
|Pringle, William M. R.||Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)|
§ Question again proposed, "That the Bill be now read the third time."
§ Mr. SPEAKER
Perhaps I may be allowed to make an explanation with reference to the conversation which took place between the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Morrell) and myself a few moments ago. I have now had an opportunity of referring to the case he cited, and I find that on that occasion he did not move for the recommittal of the Bill, but moved that the Bill be recommitted to the former Committee in relation to a proposed bridge between Black-friars and Southwark Bridges. He thereby stated precisely the point upon which he desired the Committee to reconsider the Bill, and therefore, any discussion which took place on that matter was clearly in order.
§ Mr. MORRELL
I think you will find that on that occasion the Motion was to recommit the Bill in respect of certain Clauses, and the whole of the Amendments to these Clauses were then discussed in this House for some hours. I hold that if you move to recommit the whole Bill, you would be entitled to discuss all in it.
§ Mr. SPEAKER
That is where the hon. Member has fallen into error. If the hon. Member had moved on that occasion a general Motion to recommit the Bill generally, then the discussion would not have been in order.
§ Mr. KING
May I say that when I handed my Motion in at the table, it was in the form of one Motion, namely, to recommit the Bill in respect of these scholarships. The Clerk at the table instructed me to divide the Motion into two —first, that the Bill be recommitted, and, secondly, in connection with the Instruction that stands in my name. It was my intention to raise the question which I wanted to discuss.
§ Mr. SPEAKER
The hon. Member was proposing to put something new into the Bill which is not there now. That must come in the form of an Instruction. The hon. Member for Burnley was not pro- 636 posing to put anything new into the Bill in 1911. As the hon. Member for Somerset (Mr. King) wished to insert something in the Bill which is not there already, of course it was necessary to do it by way of an Instruction. That is why his Motion was divided, and very properly.
§ Mr. BOOTH
I beg to move, as an Amendment, to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this day three months."
I hope the House will reject this Bill with contumely, if only in order to save the reputation, or what is left of it, of some of the advocates of this spoliation of the Church. I can quite understand how those who are in favour of the Welsh Disestablishment Bill might be tempted to vote for this measure, but I would plead with them not to do so, and I would urge that they should act in a more generous way in this controversy with respect to the Rectory of Gatcombe. What does this Bill propose to do? It proposes to rob the Church of God. Hon. Members opposite frequently use that phrase in Debate, but on this occasion the phrase is literally justified. Hon. Members opposite who represent Oxford University support this Bill. I do not challenge the view that they should do the best they can for their constituency until the day arrives when it will be abolished altogether. I do not challenge their motives. I believe that they sincerely desire to protect the revenues of their university, but I wish to point out the awful mistake into which they have been led in trying to do that. The Rectory of Gatcombe, in the Isle of Wight, has a certain income. By all the laws of common sense and business fair play, as well as religion, that income ought to be spent in spiritual administration. The fact that in the past there has been a lamentable state of things whereby there has been a rector in another place seeking to use the income from that living in order to save the university is no reason for this House at this stage identifying itself with this case of spoliation. The income pertains to this rectory and should go for spiritual administration, and I say; that the most suitable thing to be done with it, if the 637 income is too large, would be, as I suggested in an Instruction which it was not in order to move, to give it to some similar institution.
Here is a case where the promoters of the Bill claim that there is £150 per annum of money more than is needed for this individual rectory. What do they do with that? They are perpetrating a most scandalous arrangement which I hope the House will resent. They propose to take it away from the rectory to which it belongs and spend it on St. Edmund Hall, in Oxford University. I have no doubt the proposal will be defended, as it was on the Second Reading, by the merest subterfuge. They are ashamed of this transaction. It will not stand the light of clay, but they cannot hide it away from the gaze of the Almighty, and in order to hide their wickedness from the House they cloak the proposal by the suggestion that the £150 must be spent upon the chaplain of St. Edmund Hall. There must be a chaplain anyhow. Edmund Hall has to comply with the provisions of the Statutes and the conditions of its own trust, and whether this £150 goes there or not, will make not the slightest difference of administration to the students in St. Edmund Hall. But they say, "We will give this £150 to the chaplain so as to release another £150 which can go to this institution. That is very much the same as saying that if we got —150 left to this House, and we decided that it should be used for spirtiual purposes, we therefore decreed that the sum should be given to the chaplain on condition that he gave up £150 to the Kitchen Committee. That would be exactly parallel, and we should then be able to say that these High Church Jesuits—[HON MEMBERS "Oh"]
§ Mr. BOOTH
I will put in qualifying words. I have not the slightest idea of insulting the Church of any hon. Member. I am dealing now with the members of my own Church. I think the word was ill chosen, and I wish to withdraw it. These High Church casuists would be able to say that the £150 was really going to spiritual purposes, because it was actually being paid to the chaplain who conducts the ordinances of prayer, but I must say that any business man, looking at a transaction of that kind, would give it its right name, and say that it was subsidising the 638 Kitchen Committee, instead of saying that it was going to be devoted to a religious, purpose. Hon. Members who have brought in this Bill know very well that if it passes, the £150 will go from the income of the rectory really as a subsidy to St. Edmund Hall. There will be neither more nor less religious administration so far as St. Edmund Hall is concerned whether they get the £150 or not. It would be very different if the £150 were used to supplement the income of those who required it. One of the most distinguished bishops said recently that very often parish clergymen were criticised with regard to their parochial duties, when really all that was the matter with them was that they were hungry. I do not know what hon. Gentlemen who represent the wealthy classes, and who are enjoying, themselves, as we all do, £400 a year, which I have no doubt they receive with an alacrity equal to that of myself, will say to the protest of the kind uttered by that bishop of the Church, that if any clergyman did not serve their parishioners fully, it was solely because they are going short of food. Yet when there is an opportunity to give £150 to help a few of these men to get a little. bread and cheese, then we have these hawks, these birds of prey, swooping down, and demanding the whole £150.
The promoters of the Bill have taken up the position that there is £150 which can be spared properly from the Rectory of Gatcombe. If it cannot be spared, it is robbery of the most disgraceful character. But I am sure that they must have satisfied themselves that £150 can be spared, and therefore, I would appeal to them, before they present the Welsh party with a rod with which to thrash them severely, whether the suggestions which I have put on the Paper are not really more in consonance with the parable which represents our faith. I asked a clergyman friend of mine—I did not wish to take the responsibility on myself—who labours in one of the poor districts of London not very far from this place, to select two or three suitable objects connected with the Church of England, to which this £150 might be applied in some way better than is proposed by the Bill, and he selected three charities with which I think the right hon. Gentleman will not find a single fault, and' which are more deserving of support than St. Edmund Hall or Oxford University. He suggested that one-third should go to the Queen Victoria Clergy Fund. Surely no-objection can be taken to this. Then, that 639 one-third should go to the Curates Augmentation Fund. I dare say that the right hon. Gentleman would say that that was not quite logical, because we are taking money from a rectory and giving it to curates; but I would appeal to him to brush aside these technicalities, and extend his sympathy a little beyond that. After all, many of these curates are men advancing a little in years, men with families, and I should have thought that no one could question the application of one-third of this amount to the Curates' Augmentation Fund. I am sure that members of the Labour party would suggest that I have made a mistake, and that the whole £150 should go to the Curates' Augmentation Fund, and I candidly admit that I do not think I have a good answer to that if it were thrust upon me. Then another one-third should go to the Home Mission of the Church of England. The name of that shows its character and I need not dwell upon it.
If hon. Members in charge of the Bill could only see their way to dissociate themselves from this deplorable transaction and devote the surplus money to these causes, they will carry a message of joy to hundreds of hard-working clergy, who will feel that their work has been appreciated. But for the House to pass a Bill like this seems to me beyond comprehension. I would make a final appeal to Churchmen opposite. Why they have chosen this particular time to bring the matter forward I cannot make out. I believe that their adviser must really be in league with the Welsh Nonconformists, and that they were advised to bring this forward solely in order to provide an argument for the Welsh Disestablishment Bill. There can be no justification whatever, in view of what they have said, for dipping their hands into the till of the Church of England for the benefit of the university. The university is a great institution, but how many men who are now blessed with the world's goods in abundance have received great benefit at that university? I feel sure that it could have no difficulty whatever in obtaining the sum of 2150, but the poor curates, who are, as the bishop tells us, without sufficient nourishment, are looking to this House to-night. They are looking to right. hon. Gentleman opposite who usually speak for the Church of England to have some little charity or kindly feeling for those who are labouring 640 week in and week out for our common Church, and I say that we cannot at this time of day, even at the request of the right hon. Gentleman or a distinguished university, take from this rectory in the Isle of Wight £150 to give to the rich University of Oxford.
§ Mr. JOHN WARD
I beg to second the Motion. After all, if it was decided—I would not suggest that it is right—that this money should be taken away from the rectory at all, I think that it would be much better, unless there were some general squaring up of discrepancies of this description relating to the income of the Church in certain poor districts, as a general measure, to have left the subject as it was before. But if it must of necessity be forced upon us to take this £150 from the Gatcombe Rectory, I would suggest that in Oxford itself there are institutions to which the money might be devoted and which are much more deserving than the proposals made in the Bill. My Friends and I have no connection with the university, and yet we have made ourselves to some extent responsible for the beginning of a university that the working people should have something to do with —that is, Ruskin College, Oxford. It is hoplessly in debt and difficulties, and we are just on the point of trying to do the best we can to put it on something like a permanent basis. When one pauses to consider that most of this property was left to the Church, not so much for the purpose of preaching to the poor as of assisting the poor materially out of their difficulties and the poverty-stricken condition in which they find themselves, and that that was considered by many of these donors as really the work of the Church, and seeing that it was really to assist the poor, then, if this £150 per annum must be permanently alienated from the Gatcombe Rectory, I should have certainly thought that if it must go to Oxford in some shape or form it should be used for the poor. It would have been infinitely better if this money had been transferred to Ruskin College, which is a purely working-class educational institution, and more in keeping and in greater harmony with the original intentions of the donor. While the arguments of my hon. Friend were received with a certain amount of flippancy, I am bound to say that there is after all a very considerable and serious argument and principle underlying the suggestions that he made. I do not think 641 you should deal with these matters piecemeal, but if you do deal with a case like this, where it is admitted that the revenue for certain purposes is no longer required, then, apart from any other consideration, I suggest there are other parishes attached to the Church which require and would benefit immensely more from the transfer of a portion of this sum.
I have no wish, nor do I suppose anyone here has, to offer any opposition whatever to the University of Oxford, and I have no desire to injure it in any way. In fact, I would do everything I could to assist any educational institution, but that is not the point involved here. You are really taking this money away from a certain purpose for which it was intended and giving it for a purpose for which it was never intended and to an institution that does not require the assistance, while there are hundreds of small parishes which are so poor that this assistance would be of the greatest possible value, or even the assistance of a £5 note or a £10 note, in the organisation of the church. Had this Bill been introduced as a public Bill and properly discussed, I imagine it would have been almost impossible to have passed it on its merits. If it had been properly discussed in one of the Standing Committees it would have been almost impossible to have got a measure like this through. But the private Bill procedure is so peculiar that if you only take the trouble to put a private Bill down on the Paper often enough and attend day in and day out and give it its lease for the following day, if someone happens to object, you can almost surely get it passed, anti it will slip through after a few months of strict vigilance, or want of vigilance, on the part of those opposed to it. Then it. goes to a Committee and has to be dissected by powerful interest, either for or against. In this case no such criticism was passed upon it, I understand it went before an Unopposed Bill Committee, who just looked through it to see, I suppose, that the ordinary rules of procedure were complied with.
§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN of WAYS and MEANS (Mr. Maclean)
I do not think I ought to let my hon. Friend labour under that misapprehension as to the functions of an Unopposed Bill Committee. I did not sit on this Bill but I have sat on others. and I do know, from what the Chairman of Ways and Means has told me, that this Bill received most careful consideration when it came before that Committee.
§ Mr. J. WARD
I am not imputing that the Committee, so far as they had information on the subject, did not take into account the position, but if there is no one to put the opposite side before them they cannot manufacture reasons for objecting to any of these Clauses unless some one has a locus standi to appear before the Committee and state a case. So I think we may take it for granted that this Bill on its merits could never hope to pass as a public measure and is going to be smuggled through, because I do not suppose there is any possible chance of defeating it now. [An HON. MEMBER: "Yes there is."] I shall vote against it, but the Bill will, I dare say, become law, and we shall have done something not to assist the church, not to assist even the institution to which it is to be devoted, because it does not require it, while there are hundreds of poor parishes to which the money would be of the greatest use. I most strongly protest against the Bill, and if my hon. Friend the Member for Pontefract (Mr. Booth) goes to a Division I shall unquestionably support him in the Lobby.
§ Lord HUGH CECIL
I do not at all complain of the speeches to which we have just listened. I am very glad that the hon. Member for Pontefract (Mr. Booth) is so enthusiastic a son of the Church of England and so zealous to watch even the slightest injury done to her interests. I do not complain either of the serious speech of the hon. Member who has just spoken and to which 1 listened with great interest. With many of the general propositions he advanced I should find myself able to agree. I think both hon. Members proceed under a misconception. They have not considered, although it is very distinctly set out in the Preamble, how the Endowment originated. It originated in a benefaction which nowadays would be thought undesirable. The benefactor left some money not directly to St. Edmund Hall, but in order to purchase the advowson of a living in order that the trust for the living should afterwards be bestowed on the principal of St. Edmund Hall. I do not think that is at all a desirable proceeding. I apprehend it would not now be a legal way of proceeding, but it was done. The effect, of course, was to deprive Gatcombe altogether of the services of a resident. rector, and leave them to be content with the services of a curate paid a curate's stipend.
§ Lord HUGH CECIL
I have no means of telling what the practice was, but he was not resident, and everyone knows in the life of a parish how serious a handicap that is to parochial church work. Therefore, though it may be said now to be an indefensible way of proceeding, in the day that the benefaction was made St Edmund Hall was a distinctly ecclesiastical institution in a sense that it is not and cannot be to-day.
§ Lord HUGH CECIL
The date of the will is 1763. The result is that the Endowment of Gatcombe Rectory was divided between two objects, both Church objects, but one academic and the other parochial. The main charge of the Endowment was made for the academic and the slighter charge for the parochial object. Nowadays that is all changed. I will not deal with the educational aspects of the case. I am not very competent to do so. [An HON. MEMBER "Hear, hear!"] Perhaps the hon. Member thinks I am not competent to deal with educational questions at all. That is not what I meant. I meant that my hon. Friend (Sir. W. Anson) is much more familiar with those points. This educational change having to be carried out, the question arose how are you to deal with St. Edmund Hall, which has now become an ordinary educational institution, in respect of this ancient benefaction? The solution propounded by the Bill is, on the whole, more beneficial to the parish and less beneficial to the hall than the existing arrangement. It respects, and I do not see how you can possibly avoid respecting, the wishes of the donor. You cannot very well treat his wishes with contempt. What it really does is to make the academic object the slighter and the parochial object the main charge on the endowment. That is a benefit to the people of Gatcombe, and I justify giving that advantage to the people of Gatcombe by the argument to which we have listened this evening—that it is not a desirable thing in general to transfer a parochial endowment to any other object. I think it is a reasonable modification of the scheme, and so far as it is a reasonable modification the parish as a whole gains by the reassignment and the hall loses. Therefore, the criticisms which have been made to night are founded upon a misconception. 644 The endowment is not changed at all so far as its general purpose goes. It still goes to Church objects, but as between the two Church objects there is a certain readjustment which on the whole is favourable to the parish and unfavourable to the hall. I hope, therefore, that this Motion will not be pressed, and that we shall be permitted to get the Third Reading.
§ Mr. KING
I am sure the House is to be congratulated upon having another Debate on this Bill. Though small in itself, the measure embodies a great principle. We have on this occasion the great privilege and advantage of the presence of the Noble Lord the Member for Oxford University (Lord H. Cecil). On the 12th June, when this Bill was first discussed, the Noble Lord had on the Paper a Motion for the rejection of the Welsh Disestablishment Bill, but although he was present in the Lobby one minute before the Debate began—I saw him—and came back to the Lobby somehow or other after the discussion had concluded, he did not venture for one moment within this Chamber.
§ Lord HUGH CECIL rose—
§ Mr. SPEAKER
When the hon. Member makes a charge against the Noble Lord the least he can do is to allow the Noble Lord to intervene.
§ Lord HUGH CECIL
The circumstances-were these. I told six or seven of my Friends that the matter was going to be raised in Debate, but I had an engagement the breaking of which would have caused inconvenience to other people; therefore, to my great regret, I was absent. I came back at the earliest possible moment, just after the Debate ended. It is not true to suggest that I was absent from the Debate on purpose.
§ Mr. KING
I accept the Noble Lord's. explanation. I am sorry I misunderstood his absence. I may observe, however, that the Motion had been on the Paper for several days, and if the Noble Lord had had any real respect for his duties to his constituents he might have' made arrangements by which they would have had the advantage of his presence at the Debate. I gladly support, though for totally different reasons from those which have been given, the Motion for the rejection of the Bill. The hon. 645 Member for Pontefract took a line which I cannot entirely endorse. He abused this Bill as a disendowing measure which really robs a parish of its old ecclesiastical endowments. When I see a, parish with an ancient ecclesiastical endowment amounting to —2 10s. per head of its population, I say that that parish is too richly endowed, and I want to take some of its money for educational purposes. Therefore I welcome the principle of this Bill that we can take £150 from a richly endowed parish and give it to educational objects. If the House rejects this Bill its object will be attained all the same. The real effect of this Bill will not be to add a single penny to the emoluments of St. Edmund Hall. St. Edmund Hall, owing to an arrangement made before the Bill was introduced between the Hall, Queen's College, and Oxford University is to receive £150 a year from the university until this Bill is passed. Therefore the University of Oxford introduces this Bill in order to take £150 from a rural parish to save itself having to pay that sum over to the hall. Hence, it is quite obvious that if we throw out this Bill the cause of university education at St Edmund Hall will not be one penny the worse off.
I must briefly enlighten the House upon a subject with which obviously the Noble Lord was unable to deal; I mean the real history of the Bill. I will make the story, which is a rather long one, as short as possible, but I must make it quite clear. The history of this Bill dates from the time of the last University Commission, which was appointed in 1877. I have here the Act of 1877 which set up this University Commission and stated the lines on which it ought to go. In Section 22 it is provided that the Commissioners might make Statutes for the colleges and halls, and might unite colleges and halls together. Under that Statute there was actually, in 1882, a Statute made for the almost complete union of St. Edmund Hall and Queen's College. I have the Statute here, and I can give it to the House, but I wish to give only four provisions of that Statute which, let me observe, was in accordance with a public Act of Parliament, laid on the Table of the House, became law, and was operative until last year when another Statute was made. Observe that the other Statute made last year needs the ratification of a private Act of Parliament! The Statute which was made in 646 1882, which I hold in my hand, was made under the powers of a public Bill. We are, therefore, now trying to pass a measure which will do away with a Statute based upon a public Bill. I have not raised that point, but it is a very strong point indeed against the promoters.
I throw out this challenge: Will they explain why they dare not come forward with a public Bill to do away with the provisions made by a public Bill? They know perfectly well such a Bill would never have obtained the assent of their own side of the House. I am quite confident myself that this principle of upsetting of a public provision by a private Act is a wrong one, and one which this House ought to watch with the greatest care and caution. I am now going to refer to four provisions only in the Statute of 1882. First of all, that Statute was only to come into full effect on the voidance of the office of principal of St. Edmund Hall, provided, firstly, that the Rectory of Gatcombe was to be separated from the principalship of the hall. Therefore that object of giving to the people of Gatcombe whole-time clergyman was already attained so long ago as 1882, as soon as there should be a new principal made. This Statute that we are proposing by this Bill is no good whatever to the people of Gatcombe. It takes away £150 which this first Statute would not have taken away. By Clause 4 it is quite obvious that Gatcombe Rectory was to be severed from the principalship of St. Edmund Hall, but no money was to be taken away from the parish. I would call attention to Clause 7 also, according to which—and which is a totally different point, but one to which I attach great importance—students at St. Edmund Hall were to get, under this new Statute, the full benefit of tuition in the college. Those who know universities know that halls are, as a rule, a secondary or an inferior kind of educational institution. This Statute provided that as soon as it came into full force at the death or resignation of the principal the students of the hall were immediately to get the full tuition benefits of the college. That is not attained under the present Bill. In fact, they are to be provided for as to their tuition by a totally new fund that will not be upon the same basis.
The third point I wish to raise—and this is one which I have embodied in the Instruction which I was unfortunately unable to raise—is stated in Clause 16, which is that as soon as this Statute came into 647 full operation Queen's College was to have the old buildings of the hall, and therefore was to have certain properties which did not belong to them, but they were to establish no less than twenty-four exhibitions of £25 a year each--amounting to £600 a year—for poor students. Under this Statute and the Bill they are only establishing twelve. Therefore the poor students under this new Bill are to get off only half as well as they did under the old one. I, myself, regret very greatly that, owing first of all to my giving way on the Second Reading, and again under the rules of order, I have not been able to raise this question; but I most unhesitatingly say that the poor students come off much worse under this Statute and this Bill than under the older Statute. Had the present Bill, which we are now discussing, never been introduced there would have been twice as many scholarships. That is a point which I am quite sure the Noble Lord can in no way 'understand and is incompetent to discuss from an educational point of view, for he looks at the matter from an ecclesiastical point of view. I have no doubt that the right hon. Gentleman the senior Member for the University will refer to this matter. I know the answer that will be made; but in my opinion you cannot get way from this fact: that under your present proposals you are endowing only half as many poor students as you would under the Act of 1877, and the scheme which started in 1888.
One more point which also shows the real inwardness of this Bill, and the spirit behind it. It is this: that in future the repairs to the buildings and the hall are to come out of the emoluments of the hall, that is to say, that the funds which are provided by the students of St. Edmund Hall are to do all the repairs to the hall and to pay the insurance. Under the old Statute of 1882, that was all to be done by Queen's College. This rich Queen's College, which has an endowment of £50,000, is making an arrangement under this Bill to get out of half the exhibitions which it ought to give poor men, and it is driving a very hard bargain, and although it owns these buildings of St. Edmund Hall, it is not even going to repair or insure them. A more contemptible bargain put forward as a great educational advance I have not seen.
There are aspects of this Bill which are very difficult to withstand. The proposal 648 that it is going to take money away from a very rich parish and give to the university which wants all the money that it can get is one of which I entirely approve. But let me again point out that if we throw out this Bill, St. Edmund Hall will not be worse off: it will be better off. Poor students will not be worse off: they will be better off; because they will have twice as many exhibitions as before. The one party that will be worse off will be the university itself, because it has to pay £150 to the head of St. Edmund Hall. It is costing, no doubt, many hundreds of pounds to promote a Bill to get that £150 for itself, not for poor students, but for its common chest. It is promoting this Bill to get out of an obligation that it owes, or rather to get money to pay an obligation which is incumbent upon it from the parish of Gatcombe. I will not say any more. I have said enough. I feel strongly enough about this matter. I feel that a matter like this ought to have had full and fair discussion.
I am very glad to see the Deputy-Chairman in his place. Possibly he may reply on the discussion. He has been extremely pleasant and courteous to me in this connection. He accepted from me a short memorandum which he laid before the Unopposed Bill Committee on the point raised. Let me observe that there was present at the meeting of that Committee a right hon. Gentleman representing the University, and also a representative of the Queen's College, who gave evidence in support of the Bill. I was never invited to that Committee at all. I did not know that I had the privilege of attending, or I certainly would have been there. Even if I had been there I could not have given first-hand evidence as to the feeling in the university. I could not have spoken as to the poor students. I could only have pointed to the Statute and the various Acts of Parliament which are affected. I could not have given sworn evidence or first-hand evidence in the way the promoters of this BM' were allowed to put their evidence. It was not the fault of the Deputy-Chairman. It was the fault of the procedure. I do most earnestly affirm that if hon. Members go really into this question, as I have taken the trouble to go into it, they will see there is not a shadow of ground for any real bargain under the provisions of this Bill, and the House would do well to throw it out this Session, and to let it 649 come up again next Session. Therefore, sorry as I am to oppose a Bill containing the principle of disendowment, I shall certainly go into the Lobby against the Third Reading of this Bill.
§ Mr. MORRELL
I am rather surprised that the right hon. Gentleman the senior Member for the University of Oxford (Sir William Anson) did not rise to reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Somerset, who has just sat down, but my object in rising is to deal with the position taken up by the Noble Lord the Member for Oxford University (Lord Hugh Cecil). Anyone who listened to the Noble Lord must have observed a certain embarrassment in his defence of this Bill. He defended it as far as I could see on the ground that it was not a disendowment Bill, and he said that the benefactor made his benefaction in a very undesirable way. He left to the University of Oxford £1,000, in such a way as to involve certain disendowment for Gatcombe. If the Noble Lord took the trouble to read this Bill, he would see he was extremely unjust to the benefactor who created the endowment. The bene factor never suggested that the living of St. Edmund Hall, half a day's journey away from the Isle of Wight, should be endowed out of it. He had in his mind that the university should apply for advowsment in Oxford or near Oxford, and that the principal of this hall should hold the living with the headship of the hall, which is not a very burdensome matter. It is an extremely small hall for services on Sundays. There is a living five miles away from Oxford held in the same way, and obviously the benefactor must have had something of that sort in his mind. At any rate what I put to the House is that under the benefaction as it stood, there was not necessarily any measure of disendowment whatever. The whole of the income from the revenue could have been expended for the benefit of the inhabitants of Gatcombe.
What are we now asked to do? We are asked to review a. trust created, and, surely, we are entitled to ask, as my hon. Friend the Member for Somerset did ask: Is this the best way of spending the money from this revenue? Are we entitled to take this £150 away from Gatcombe and spend it upon the principal of St. Edmund Hall? What I would point out to the Noble Lord is that they are entitled in Oxford University to deal with this money in another way altogether. They might have said, "The present practice is unfair to the 650 parishoners, and therefore let us use the revenue for something else, and let the principal of St. Edmund Hall go on with his administration as before. "I suggest to the Noble Lord that obviously in taking £150 a year away from this revenue and giving it to St. Edmund Hall you are doing an act of disendowment. I approve of the disendowment; I think it is an excellent thing to do; I was very glad the Noble Lord did not take the point taken by the senior Member for Oxford University when the Bill was last before the House, a point which was disposed of by the hon. Member for Somerset. A chaplain must be maintained under the Statutes of the university in St. Edmund Hall whether he gets this £150 a year out of this revenue or not. I am a supporter of this Bill. I believe it is on the whole a good proposal, but I do want the House to see what are the principles involved in it.
This, after all, is not the only college or hall in Oxford University. The Members for Oxford University represent twenty of them. Supposing every year we had a new Bill suggesting we should take part of some other revenues in order to endow the chaplain of another living or hall with £200 a year, you would then get twenty times £200 a year; and you might have Cambridge University coming in in the same way. And not only are there university chaplains, but there are Army chaplains to be maintained under Statutory obligations. Supposing this House were, in effect, to say "let us take some of the rich endowments of the bishoprics and spend the money upon Army chaplains, and thus save the taxpayers of this country." What would be the result? Then again, there is the President of the Local Government Board who has chaplains to the workhouses. Why should not he take spare money from the Church of England to pay these workhouse chaplains and spare the ratepayers' pocket. It is quite obvious that you are here taking £150 a yea for the benefit of the University of Oxford. I am not surprised that the Noble Lord should do what he can for Oxford University, but I do not think he behaved quite frankly in stating to the House as he did that this involves no measure of disendowment. I should think there was never a clearer case of disendowment than this Bill, and though I heartily support it, I think the House should be very careful in seeing how far it is ready to go with hon. Members opposite in these matters.
§ The CHAIRMAN of WAYS and MEANS
I hope the House will shortly be prepared to come to a decision upon this question, because it was discussed in almost the same manner upon Second Reading, and the House will recollect that a few days ago I had to appeal to hon. Members not to take up, unnecessarily, time over private business, because of the serious effect on the public business in the House. I unfortunately have the delicate duty of piloting Bills through the House and securing for them a fair opportunity, and if any hon. Member tried to put himself in my place he would realise some of the difficulties which have to be overcome. Perhaps I may say a few words on the merits of this Bill, because I was the Chairman of the Committee which had to deal with it. My hon. Friend the Member for North Somerset has shown no doubt great industry, but he seems to think, judging from his speech to-night and the one he made earlier, that no Chairman of a Committee can give the attention to the matter which he himself has given to it. I think before he has been in the House much longer he will learn that it is necessary to credit all our fellow Members with attention to the business we are charged with. I made it my business to look into the matter of this Bill largely on the appeal of the hon. Member himself, and at my invitation there was written a long memorandum raising the points which he wished to look into. Every one of those points was examined in detail. I had as a colleague one of the hon. Members for Norwich, who is a Member of the Labour party, and he gave his attention to the matter from the point of view of the poor student. I ask the House at least to give the hon. Member for Norwich and myself the credit that we gave equal care to the subject as would have been given if the hon. Member for North Somerset had been on the Committee. I will not ask the House to nut it any higher than that.
With regard to the two points raised on the merits of the question, one is the question of the poor student anti whether he is dealt with fairly under this Bill. We had evidence, we put many questions, and we examined very carefully the position of the poor student at present and his position after this Bill becomes law, and we were convinced that the position of the poor student, in so far as he is affected by this Bill, is protected, and he will be better off after this Bill has 652 passed. It is quite true that a small number of persons might receive a greater advantage if the policy of the hon. Member for North Somerset were adopted, but, on the other hand, nearly twice as many poor men will get benefits from this endowment under the Bill as it now appears before the House. On these grounds I ask the House to support the decision of the Committee. The other question is what has been called disendowment. The hon. Member for Burnley will forgive me if I do not follow him into that aspect of the question, which was a very interesting one and was raised in an interesting speech by the hon. Member for Bedford on the Second Reading, which I recollect very well. The Committee upstairs do not consider questions of that kind, but I may say that the real parallel with this case, and the best way to understand it, is to remind hon. Members of something which they arc all probably familiar with. When disendowment was created by a pious founder, it was at a time when the headmastership, for example, of a grammar school was usually connected with the living. In modern days all new schemes have separated functions of that kind, and we are glad to see any advance in that direction. This is one more step in the direction of separating secular from purely religious duties, and the Committee thought it was a good plan. The money was not given for the endowment of a particular living, but to the college, and the living was only the means by which the endowment was invested; and, therefore, there is no injustice done to the particular parish when, under the Bill, £150 a year additional is applied for the purpose of education. I think the House may rest satisfied that the Committee did full justice to this Bill, and T, as Chairman, can say that it is a Bill which I think ought to receive the assent of the House.
§ Mr. KELLAWAY
The Chairman of Ways and Means has told us that the Committee did not go into the question of disendowment. So far as this House and this Bill is concerned, the real point of interest is the question of disendowment which this Bill raises. It is not the slightest use for those promoting this Bill to make any pretence about that. This is a matter for the partial disendowment of a parish of the Church of England. I am glad that a precedent is being. set from so distinguished and yet 653 so unexpected a quarter. This is a disendowment measure. The Noble Lord opposite (Lord Hugh Cecil), in the interesting and ingenious speech which he made, pointed out that this trust had become anomalous. Admittedly the trust has become anomalous, but there were many anomalous trusts in connection with the Church in Wales, but the Noble Lord was not prepared to deal with them in this way. Now we are asked to deal with one anomaly which suits the Noble Lord's purpose, but he refuses to deal in the same way with those which do not suit his purpose. Hon. Members opposite and in another place have refused to pass a Bill because they say it only deals with one anomaly which suits our purpose. That is precisely what you are doing with this Bill. You are supporting it because it will benefit your own constituency. We have a right to say that you should not deal with this question piecemeal. If you believe when trusts become anomalous they ought to be brought into accord with modern conditions, then let it be done honestly, as it is being done in connection with the Church in Wales. This is a sensational Bill, having very, far-reaching consequences, and when I first saw the Noble Lord's name behind it, I was inclined to say, what is the Noble Lord doing in that gang? On principle the Noble Lord objects to disendowment, and his view may be summed up in the phrase, "You are robbing the Church and robbing God." I think the Noble Lord has been so overcome by the opportunity of doing some good to his own constituency that he does not object to tearing up trust deeds and depriving the Church of part of its income when the benefit goes to a part of his constituency. Those who take that attitude on a Bill like this ought to be a little more charitable as to the language they use towards those who on grounds of principle advocate the same thing on a larger scale. If it is right for the Noble Lord to do this in regard to his own con-
§ stituency, by what right does he deny the same privilege to the people in Wales?
§ Mr. DENMAN
No one speaks with greater persuasiveness than the right hon. Gentleman who has appealed to us to stop this discussion, and I wish to add my testimony to the thoroughness with which he examined the case which was raised in. debate on the Second Reading. There is one point which has not been raised. The House will remember the facts as stated by the Noble Lord that hitherto all the fee endowment has gone to the principal who has kept a resident curate. What this Bill now does is to alter that, and instead of having a person whom we had reason to think was inadequately paid he must have a rector and pay him £350 a year, and therefore we arc endowing this parish with the sum of £350 a year. We are told that the population of this parish is some 180 persons, man, woman, and child, and I venture to suggest that so large an endowment is very hard to justify when you have regard to the fact that so many curates in the Church of England are very much underpaid. I have taken the trouble to look up the endowments of neighbouring parishes around Gatcombe. Carisbrooke I find has a population of about 4,000 persons, a living of £245 and a residence with 53 acres of glebe, and Arreton has a population of 1,767, a rectory and a living of £220. Why on earth should this House deliberately endow Gatcombe with this figure of £350? That has never been defended, and I frankly do not think that it is defensible. I wish it were possible to recommit the Bill to have this question considered, because it puts us in a difficulty on the Third Reading. My vote certainly depends upon what justification there is for endowing this parish with a population of 180 persons with £350.
§ Question put, "That the Bill be now read the third time."
§ The House divided: Ayes, 215, Noes, 56.655
|Division No. 236.||AYES.||[9.59 p.m.|
|Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour)||Barnston, Harry||Burns, Rt. Hon. John|
|Acland, Francis Dyke||Barran, Rowland Hurst (Leeds, N.)||Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas|
|Ainsworth, John Stirling||Beauchamp, Sir Edward||Carr-Gomm, H. W.|
|Alden, Percy||Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)||Cave, George|
|Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbartonshire)||Benn, W. W. (T. Hamlets, St. George)||Cawley. Harold T. (Lancs, Heywood)|
|Allen, Rt. Hon. Charles P. (Stroud)||Bentham, George Jackson||Chapple, Dr. William Allen|
|Anson, Rt. Hon. Sir William R.||Boland, John Plus||Clancy, John Joseph|
|Baker, Harold T. (Accrington)||Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North)||Clive, Captain Percy Archer|
|Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.)||Brady, Patrick Joseph||Collins, Godfrey P. (Greenock)|
|Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)||Bridgeman, William dive||Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.|
|Banbury, Sir Frederick George||Brunner, John F. L.||Crumley, Patrick|
|Baring, Major Hon. Guy V. (Winchester)||Bryce, John Annan||Dalrymple, Viscount|
|Barlow, Sir John Emmott (Somerset)||Buckmaster, Stanley O.||Davies, Timothy (Lincs, Louth)|
|Barnes, George N.||Burke, E. Haviland-||Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.)|
|Dawes, J. A.||Larmor, Sir J.||Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)|
|Denniss, E. R. B.||Law, Rt. Hon. A. Bonar (Bootle)||Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)|
|Devlin, Joseph||Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.)||Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)|
|Dillon, John||Lee, Arthur Hamilton||Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)|
|Donelan, Captain A.||Levy, Sir Maurice||Robertson, John M. (Tyneside)|
|Doris, William||Lewis, Rt. Hon. John Herbert||Robinson, Sidney|
|Duffy, William J.||Low, Sir Frederick (Norwich)||Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)|
|Duke. Henry Edward||Lundon, Thomas||Roe, Sir Thomas|
|Duncan, J. Hastings (Yorks, Otley)||Lyell, Charles Henry||Rutherford, Watson (L'pool, W. Derby)|
|Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)||Lynch. A. A.||Salter, Arthur Clavell|
|Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)||McGhee, Richard||Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland)|
|Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)||Maclean, Donald||Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)|
|Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M.||MacNeill, J. G. Swift (Donegal, South)||Sanders, Robert Arthur|
|Fenwick. Rt. Hon. Charles||M'Callum, Sir John M.||Sandys, G. J.|
|Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson||M'Calmont, Major Robert C. A.||Scanlan, Thomas|
|Ffrench, Peter||Manfield, Harry||Schwann, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles E.|
|Field, William||Markham, Sir Arthur Basil||Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)|
|Fitzgibbon, John||Marks, Sir George Croydon||Sheehy, David|
|Flavin, Michael Joseph||Mason, James F. (Windsor)||Silent, Edward|
|Fletcher, John Samuel||Meagher, Michael||Smith, Albert (Lancs, Clitheroe)|
|Furness, Sir Stephen Wilson||Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)||Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)|
|Gilmour, Captain John||Meehan, Patrick J. (Queen's Co., Leix)||Snowden, Philip|
|Gladstone, W. G. C.||Molloy, Michael||Soames, Arthur Wellesley|
|Glanville, Harold James||Mooney, John J.||Spear, Sir John Ward|
|Greig, Colonel James William||Morrell, Philip||Spicer, Rt. Hon. Sir Albert|
|Guest, Major Hon. C. H. C. (Pembroke)||Morrison-Bell, Capt. E. F. (Ashburton)||Stanier, Beville|
|Guest, Hon. Frederick E. (Dorset, E.)||Morison, Hector||Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)|
|Gulland, John William||Morton, Alpheus Cleophas||Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)|
|Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)||Muldoon, John||Sutherland, John E.|
|Hackett, John||Munro, Robert||Swift, Rigby|
|Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)||Murray, Captain Hon. Arthur C.||Sykes, Sir Mark (Hull, Central)|
|Harmswerth, Cecil (Luton, Beds)||Newton, Harry Kottingham||Talbot, Lord Edmund|
|Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)||Nicholson, Sir Charles N. (Doncaster)||Taylor, Thomas (Bolton)|
|Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)||Nolan, Joseph||Tennant, Harold John|
|Hayden, John Patrick||Norman, Sir Henry||Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)|
|Hayward, Evan||Norton, Captain Cecil William||Trevelyan, Charles Philips|
|Hazleton, Richard||Nugent, Sir Walter Richard||Tullibardine, Marquess of|
|Helme, Sir Norval Watson||Hunan. Harry||Verney, Sir Harry|
|Henderson. Major H. (Berks, Abingdon)||O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)||Walters, Sir John Tudor|
|Henderson, Sir A. (St. Geo., Han. Sq.)||O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)||Waring, Walter|
|Henderson, J. M. (Aberdeen, W.)||O'Doherty, Philip||Webb, H.|
|Henry. Sir Charles||O'Dowd, John||Weston, Colonel J. W.|
|Hewart, Gordon||O'Malley, William||White. J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)|
|Hewins, William Albert Samuel||O'Neill, Dr. Charles (Armagh, S.)||White, Sir Luke (Yorks, E.R.)|
|Hickman, Colonel Thomas E.||O'Shaughnessy, P. J.||Whitley, Rt. Hon. J. H.|
|Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)||Parker, James (Halifax)||Williams, Penry (Middlesbrough)|
|Hope, Major J. A. (Midlothian)||Parry, Thomas H.||Willoughby, Major Hon. Claud|
|Hunter, Sir Charles Rodk.||Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)||Wilson, Hon. G. G. (Hull, W.)|
|Illingworth, Percy H.||Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)||Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)|
|Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus||Phillips, John (Longford, S.)||Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. W. (Worcs., N.)|
|Jones, Leif Stratton (Notts, Rushclifle)||Pointer, Joseph||Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)|
|Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)||Pollock, Ernest Murray||Wood, Rt Hon. T. McKinnon (Glasgow)|
|Jones, William S. Glyn- (Stepney)||Pryce-Jones, Colonel E.||Yate, Colonel C. E.|
|Kelly, Edward||Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel||Young, William (Perth, East)|
|Kennedy, Vincent Paul||Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields)||Yoxall, Sir James Henry|
|Kilbride, Denis||Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)|
|Lambert, Rt. Hon. G. (Devon. S. Morton)||Reddy, Michael||TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Lord Hugh Cecil and Sir Henry Craik.|
|Lambert. Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)||Redmond, John E. (Waterford)|
|Lardner, James C. R.||Redmond, William (Clare, E.)|
|Adamson, William||Goldstone, Frank||O'Donnell, Thomas|
|Arnold, Sydney||Hancock, John George||O'Grady, James|
|Baring, Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple)||Henderson, Arthur (Durham)||O'Sullivan, Timothy|
|Barton, William||Higham, John Sharp||Priestley, Sir W. E. R. (Bradford)|
|Booth, Frederick Handel||Hinds, John||Pringle, William M. R.|
|Bowerman, Charles W.||Hodge, John||Radford. George Heynes|
|Brace, William||Hogge, James Myles||Rattan, Peter Wilson|
|Byles, Sir William Pollard||Holmes, Daniel Turner||Rowlands, James|
|Clough, William||Horne, Charles Silvester (Ipswich)||Sutton, John E.|
|Clynes, John R.||Hughes, Spencer Leigh||Taylor, T. C. (Radcliffe)|
|Condon, Thomas Joseph||Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)||Thomas, James Henry|
|Cotton, William Francis||Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)||Thorne, William (West Ham)|
|Cullinan, John||Joyce, Michael||Walsh, Stephen (Lancs., Ince)|
|Dalziel, Rt. Hon. Sir J. H. (Kirkcaldy)||Kellaway, Frederick George||White, Patrick (Meath, N.)|
|Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)||Leach, Charles||Whyte, Alexander F.|
|Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas||Macpherson, James Ian||Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthen)|
|Edwards, John Hugh (Glamorgan, Mid)||MacVeagh, Jeremiah|
|Elverston, Sir Harold||McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald||TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. King and Mr. J. Ward.|
|Essex, Sir Richard Walter||Marshall, Arthur Harold|
|Gill, Alfred Henry||Needham Christopher Thomas|
|Bill read the third time and passed.|