I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War, whether he will obtain a Return from the leading railway companies and tram way companies paying dividends, and the great carriers in the country, as to how much of the forage they purchase is Home grown, Foreign, or Colonial?

I am afraid that my Department has no special means of obtaining this information from the railway companies.

gave notice that on that day week he should move for a Return on the subject.

Might I suggest that the hon. Member himself might privately obtain the information he wants?

said, that no doubt he could obtain a certain amount of information himself, but he wished for a public Return in the interests of the British farmer.

I beg to ask the Financial Secretary to the War Office what are the contract prices for meat and forage supplied to the London garrison?

I would refer the hon. Member, and also the hon. Member for St. Patrick's Division, who has a somewhat similar question on the Paper, to the joint Report of the Directors of Army and Navy Contracts, which was presented to Parliament in 1888, for the reasons why it is undesirable to publish contract prices. Acting on that Report, it is not the practice to disclose prices.

May I ask without notice whether, when the Secretary of State for War, in his answer to the question put by the hon. Member for Preston the day before yesterday, mentioned the fact of contractors mixing frozen or refrigerated meat with home-killed meat, he referred to home produce killed at home or to imported beasts slaughtered in England?

I was not present when my right hon. Friend gave the answer referred to. I hope he will be in the House presently, and perhaps the hon. and gallant Gentleman will then put the question to the Secretary of State for War.

I wish to ask the Secretary of State for War whether in his answer to the question of my hon. Friend the Member for Preston the day before yesterday, when he mentioned the fact that contractors mixed foreign meat with home-killed meat, he meant home produce, killed at home, or merely imported meat slaughtered at home?

I was not then prepared, nor am I now prepared, to answer that question.

I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will give a list of the names of the Justices of the Peace who have been appointed during the last three years, and a statement of the number of times each of them has attended Quarter or Petty Sessions, exclusive of the day they attended to qualify; and, how many, having been nominated, have not yet qualified?

The names and dates of qualification of the Justices of the Peace appointed during the last three years were given in a Return granted to my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland in August last. To obtain the information as to the number of times each magistrate has attended Quarter or Petty Sessions, application would have to be made to the Clerk of the Peace and Clerks of each Petty Sessional Division, who could only furnish it presumably by going through the record of their Courts sitting by sitting. As there are about 700 magistrates in the country, the labour would be very considerable, and in the opinion of the Chancellor the value of the information would hardly justify putting this amount of work on the Clerks of the Peace and Clerks of Petty Sessional Divisions.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware that the workers in flax mills find the respirators they have been recently required to use quite unbearable, consequent on their impeding respiration and becoming dirty and offensive, so that they wear them round their necks instead of over their mouths; whether the proper ventilation of the mills, by exhaust fans and otherwise, does not make the use of such respirators unnecessary; and, whether he will cause inquiry to be made as to the relative advantages and disadvantages of ventilators and respirators?

In reply to my hon. Friend's question, I have to say that the respirators used in flax mills are light and simple, and can easily be washed. Cases have occurred of operatives failing to wear the respirators, as required by the Rules, but steps have been taken to secure that this is done. Good ventilation is most desirable; but it does not, in the opinion of the Inspectors, dispense in all processes with the need for respirators. The matter was made the subject of full inquiry before the rules for flax and linen factories were established. Any suggestions for their improvement from practical men will receive careful consideration.

I beg to ask the First Commissioner of Works if he is aware of the fact that the grand staircase and State rooms in Kensington Palace (the birthplace of Her Majesty the Queen) are in a most dilapidated condition; whether he will have them restored, as far as practicable, to their original state, replacing therein the furniture, pictures, and other works of art pertaining to the Royal House; and whether he will then give the public free access to this interesting palace?

With the exception of the north wing, which forms no part of the State rooms, the structure of Kensington Palace is in sound condition. But the internal decoration of the grand staircases and State rooms has for many years been left unrepaired, as there seemed no object in spending money on it, unless the rooms were to be used for some definite purpose. I doubt whether restoration for the purpose proposed would be worth the considerable expenditure that it would entail. Owing to the danger from fire it would be extremely undesirable to place any valuable collection of pictures and other works of art in the palace.

asked whether the right hon. Gentleman would obtain an estimate of the probable cost of the restoration.

said that he would inquire as to the advisability of doing so.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade, whether, in consequence of the number of fatal accidents that have recently taken place in Belfast and elsewhere from explosions of oil lamps, he will consent to the re-appointment of the Select Committee on Petroleum, which reported to the House on the 24th of April 1894; and, if he will initiate such legislation, at the earliest possible date, as may prevent the sale of unsafe lamps and low-standard oil?

I have consulted my right hon. Friend who presided over the Select Committee on Petroleum last Session, and although I am unable to give a definite assurance at present, I hope it may be found possible to reappoint the Committee after Whitsuntide, with a view mainly to considering the question of dangers arising from explosions of oil lamps.

I beg to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education whether he can state the number of schools in England, and the number of schools in Scotland, the drawing in which was reported by the Science and Art Department as "fair," the number reported as "good," and the number reported as "excellent," for each of the following years: 16th May 1891 to 15th May 1892; 16th May 1892 to 15th May 1893; 16th May 1893 to 15th May 1894; and 16th May 1894 down to date.

I am sorry that I am unable to give the hon. member the figures he asks for. It would be a great labour to obtain them for the particular dates he mentions. I shall be glad to give him the figures from August to August in the years mentioned if they will be of service to him.

On behalf of the hon. Member for Cambridge University (Sir JOHN GORST), I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, why the presentation to Parliament of the Report of the Factory Inspectors for 1892–3–4 has been delayed; and whether it is possible to make it accessible to Members before the Committee on the Factory Bill is closed?

The Report was presented to Parliament yesterday. It will, I hope, be issued in a few days. The delay of some weeks in the publication is due to the printers, but it has to be remembered that the Report is a long one, and that a large number of plans and diagrams had to be reproduced for publication. Arrangements have been made to obtain some proof copies for the use of members of the Standing Committee on Trade.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether he can now state what steps have been taken, to carry out the promise made to the House by the late First Lord of the Admiralty, that a clause should be inserted in the Naval Discipline Act enabling officers of the Royal Marines to sit on Naval Courts Martial when members of that corps are being tried.

My hon. Friend's question correctly suggests that this subject can only be dealt with by legislation. It will be considered when a Bill to amend the Naval Discipline Act becomes necessary. There is no prospect of adding such a Bill to the legislative programme of the Government during the present Session.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, whether his attention has been called to a statement in The Johannesburg Times of 1st February, to the effect that a field-cornet of the name of Bodenstein had forcibly expelled certain British subjects from the town of Krugersdorp on the ground that they were Asiatics; whether the persons expelled were British subjects and Natives of India; and whether the law of the Boer Republic permits the expulsion of British subjects from Boer territory on no other ground than that of their nationality; and, if so, whether the Sikh soldiers and policemen now being enlisted under the authority of the Crown for Service in South Africa are liable to be subjected to a similar indignity in case they cross the Boer frontier?

We have not yet received the Report of the High Commissioner on the statement in question, which was referred to him a few weeks ago. The legal position of British Indian subjects in the Transvaal being open to doubt, the question was lately referred to arbitration, and we have only just received the Report of the arbitrator. As regards the Sikh soldiers in Nyassaland, referred to by the hon. Gentleman, I do not think it probable that any question will arise in regard to them, as the frontier of the South African Republic is at least 500 miles from the place where they will be stationed.

asked whether there was any precedent for making distinctions of this kind between British subjects in accordance with the colour of their skins?

asked for notice of the question.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India—(1) whether he will state what amount of breech-loading rifles, and what amount of ammunition have from time to time been given by the Government of India to successive Mihtars of Chitral; what amount to Umra Khan; and what amount Umra Khan was allowed by the Government of India to purchase in India; with what object the rifles and ammunition were given; and whether they have been used against our troops during the recent fighting in Chitral; (2) whether the statement made by Captain Younghusband at a meeting of the Geographical Society, as reported in The Times of the 25th March last, to the effect that—

"Nizam-ul-Mulk started from Gilghit with the support of Colonel Durand, and with that was able to turn out Sher Afzul,"

is correct; if so, what offence had Sher Afzul given the Government of India at that time so as to justify our Agent in supporting against him another pretender to the Mihtarship of Chitral; whether Colonel Durand acted in this matter under the orders of the Government of India, and whether such action was consistent with the policy of recognising the de facto ruler of Chitral; (3) whether at the forcing of the Malakand Pass about 500 Swat tribesmen were killed, and about 1,500 wounded; whether the Swat tribes live in independent territory; whether the Government of India have any right, by treaty or prescription, to march troops through that territory; and, whether on this occasion the Swat tribes had agreed to troops being marched through their territory; and if not, for what offence the losses above referred to were inflicted on them?

My hon. Friend has put to me fifteen separate questions dealing with the policy and details of the recent Chitral relief expedition. In due course Papers relating to that expedition will be laid upon the Table of the House; but in the meantime it is impossible to give by means of question and answer a history of the circumstances connected with these operations.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether it is within his recollection that a pledge was given by him to the House on 15th August last that, if the hon. Member for Flintshire would withdraw his Motion for an inquiry into the condition of the people of India, the right hon. Gentleman would undertake, on the part of the Government, that, at the very commencement of the present Session, they would propose the appointment of a Select Committee which would inquire into the financial expenditure of the Indian revenues, both in England and in India, and also a pledge that it would be open to any Member of the House, when the Motion for the appointment of the Committee was made, to submit any Amendment he thought necessary in regard to the terms of the reference to be made to such Committee; and whether, with a view to implement these pledges, Her Majesty's Government will give an opportunity to Members of this House to discuss the terms of the reference to the Royal Commission which has been appointed as a substitute for the Select Committee originally offered to the House by the Government on 15th August last?

It is quite true that in August last I did promise an inquiry into the expenditure of the Indian revenues, both in England and in India, and, as I intimated then, I thought that such an inquiry should be conducted through the instrumentality of a Parliamentary Committee. I also stated—but I gave no pledge—that, of course any hon. Member could move an Amendment upon any Motion made in this House. But in the Debate upon the Address this Session the whole question was discussed again, and I then explained to the House the objection that had been raised to the constitution of a Parliamentary Committee to deal with this subject—namely, that such a Committee would be confined to Members of Parliament, and that other gentlemen who were specially qualified to deal with the question, who were in fact experts, would be excluded. Another objection taken was that, in the not improbable contingency of an early Dissolution of Parliament, a Parliamentary Committee would come to an end, and its labours would be rendered futile. Therefore I stated that it was desirable to conduct the inquiry by Royal Commission, and I gathered that the view which I then took was endorsed by the general sense of the House. My colleagues and myself, therefore, came to the conclusion that a Royal Commission would be the best mode of inquiry, and yesterday the names appeared in the newspapers of those gentlemen whom Her Majesty has been pleased to approve of as constituting that Commission. I have endeavoured to constitute the Commission as fairly and impartially as possible, and every section of opinion interested in Indian finance is represented upon it. It is not in harmony with the usual practice of this House to discuss the terms of the reference to a Royal Commission.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether any further news has been received by Her Majesty's Government of the French expedition under Captain Toutée in the Niger Territory; whether he is aware that it was openly stated in the French Geographical Society that Captain Toutée was charged with a mission to the basin of the Niger; arid whether Her Majesty's Government has obtained from the French Government a distinct disavowal that this is not a military expedition?

I have no alteration to make in the terms of the answer which was given last week, nor can I at present add to it.

Is the hon. Member aware that the statement as to Captain Toutée's being charged with a mission came from an officer of the headquarter staff?

I do not think that affects the answer which I have given, namely, that I have no alteration to make in the answer which I gave last week.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, whether it is the fact that the joint note relating to reforms for the Armenian provinces was presented by the British, Russian, and French Ambassadors to the Porte on Saturday; and when it will be possible to make public a statement as to the nature of the reforms specified?

The Ambassadors of Great Britain, France, and Russia at Constantinople have presented proposals for reforms in the Government of the provinces of Turkey inhabited by Armenians, but I cannot yet say when I shall be able to state the terms of them?

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he will be able to state the names of the proposed Welsh Commissioners under the Established Church (Wales) Bill?

The names of the proposed Commissioners are the Right Hon. Sir Algernon West, late chairman of the Board of Inland Revenue; the Hon. William Napier Bruce, an assistant Charity Commissioner; and Colonel Hugh Roberts Hughes, of Ystrad, Denbigh.

Are these paid Commissioners?

Sir Algernon West will be the only unpaid Commissioner.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he has any objection to extend to Ireland the provisions of the Light Railways Bill with such modifications as the present system of local government in that country may render necessary?

It would be necessary to alter so very largely the machinery of the Bill to make it fit with the present system of local government in Ireland that I fear the suggestion of the hon. Member, even apart from other aspects of the subject, is impracticable. In any case I should have to consult the Irish Government upon the subject.

I beg to ask the First Commissioner of Works whether a contract has been entered into by Her Majesty's Government for the erection of a statue to Oliver Cromwell; when was the authority of Parliament obtained for the proposed expenditure; what is the amount of the contract entered into, and what will be the entire estimated expense; and will the cost of the erection be derived from Irish as well as English taxes; if so, have any steps been taken to obtain the views of Members from Ireland upon the subject?

A contract has not yet been entered into for a statue of Oliver Cromwell. An opportunity will be given, in the discussion of the estimate for the Houses of Parliament buildings, for any hon. Members to express their views on the subject. The House will be asked to vote £500 on account towards the cost of a statue, and further particulars as to the proposal will then be announced.

May I ask whether this statue is for the Houses of Parliament, or is it to be sent to Ireland?

The question of site has not yet been determined.

Will the contract be entered into before the discussion takes place in the House?

No, Sir; I think not.

Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether tenders will be invited from Ireland?

I beg to ask the First Commissioner of Works under what Statute large payments are made annually by Parliament for the erection, repair, maintenance, heating, &c., of the County Court houses in England and Scotland; and whether, seeing that the entire similar expenditure for County Court houses in Ireland is charged to the local cess, levied upon the occupiers of houses and lands, steps will be taken to assimilate the law in this respect between the two countries?

The Statutes are quoted on the face of the Parliamentary Estimates for Miscellaneous Legal Buildings, Great Britain, Class I, Vote 5, Page 19. The latter part of the question it is beyond my province to deal with.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether the Militia battalions now armed with the Lee-Metford rifle use black powder for their musketry course this year; whether the battalions of the Line similarly continue to use black powder; and whether it is intended to use up the large quantity of black powder in stock in the case of either the Militia or Line battalions before using in their musketry course the powder (cordite) for which their rifles are sighted?

Except as regards Line battalions at home, the answer to each of the three parts of the question is affirmative. There is in stock a large quantity of black powder cartridges; and this is, practically, the only way of using them. An allowance for different strength is easily made with respect to the sighting.

Will the right hon. Gentleman let me have that answer to read? I have not heard a word of it.

I do not think that was my fault.

Can the right hon. Gentleman say how long these black powder cartridges will last?

I cannot answer that question.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade, with reference to the North British Railway Bill now before the House, whether he is aware that, in opposing the Kirkcaldy and District Railway Bill, the representatives of the North British Company entered into an agreement to complete the lines for which authority was being sought by the Kirkcaldy and District Railway Company; whether he is aware that the present Bill asks relief from this undertaking; and whether the Board of Trade propose to offer any objection to this portion of the Bill?

The General Manager of the North British Railway informs me that in 1891 counsel for the company made a statement to a Committee of this House to the effect that the company would complete the lines, and he points out that there is nothing in the Bill which is inconsistent with this pledge, although the company may not be in a position fully to carry it out at present. The Bill is, in fact, promoted to help the Company towards carrying it into effect. This is a matter which may properly be dealt with by the Committee, and I reserve to myself the right to again consider it when the Bill comes back to the House.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether the subordinate public officials on the staff at the Royal Courts of Justice, such as the Robing Room attendants and the like, are mulcted of their pay if away through illness for a week, whilst the higher officials at the Royal Courts of Justice receive their salaries even if away through illness for a year, or even longer; whether some arrangement could be made to prevent the loss to these minor officials of pay through illness not of a protracted character?

This is not a matter in which the Treasury has jurisdiction, but the Lord Chancellor has asked me to say that the rule (laid down by Statutory authority) as to the attendants at the Royal Courts of Justice is, that their absence from illness, without stoppage of pay, shall not exceed 14 days in the year; but in fact, if it is found possible to arrange for the work being carried on without paying for additional assistance, the stoppage of pay is frequently not enforced. There appears to be no Statutory authority on the subject as regards the clerks and other officers of the Supreme Court. There ought, no doubt, to be such authority, and a Bill has been introduced this Session to deal with it; but the Lord Chancellor is informed that there are not in fact such cases as the question suggests. The rule of the Civil Service is, that full pay ceases after six months' absence.

I beg to ask the First Commissioner of Works when he intends to proceed with his Motion for the suspension of Standing Order No. 92, relating to the withdrawal of Strangers during Divisions?

I am unable to say at present when the Motion will be proceeded with, as I have reason to believe that it will be opposed.

May I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman can say what is the nature of the objections made to a proposal which is for the obvious convenience of all parts of the House?

No, Sir; I cannot say.

On behalf of the hon. Member for South-West Ham (Mr. KEIR HARDIE), I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether his attention has been drawn to a forthcoming exhibition in London, called the Empire of India Exhibition; whether he is aware that several Native Indian Princes have received applications to send over Indian workpeople and various Indian treasures to the exhibition, and that these applications bear the imprint of names of various Indian officials (retired or otherwise); and, whether he will take immediate steps to inform the Indian Princes concerned that there is no Governmental connection with this Exhibition?

I am aware that an Indian Exhibition is being prepared, but I have no information regarding applications to Indian Princes, such as are described in the hon. Member's question. It was announced in the Bombay Gazette of the 7th February, 1895, that "the Exhibition was a purely private adventure, the Government of India having decided to take no part in it." I do not propose to take any steps in the matter. I believe that Indian Princes are not likely to be misled as to the facts of the case.

On behalf of Mr. KEIR HARDIE, I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether the men who are engaged as wood-workers in the Royal Carriage Department, Woolwich Arsenal, have a price-list hung up in the various shops to enable them to check their earnings; and, if not, whether he will cause such to be displayed?

No, Sir; such is not our practice; but the information can always be obtained by the men concerned.

asked, whether the exhibition of such a price-list was not required by the spirit of the Resolution of the House in favour of trades union conditions?

said, there had been no undertaking given to exhibit such a list.

asked, whether it was not the practice, in all cases in which there was piece-work, a list should be hung up in the workshops, so that every man might know what he was entitled to?

No, Sir; there is no such practice in the War Department that I am aware of, nor do I know that it is the practice with private employers.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the Government are now trying to enforce this practice on private employers by Clause 38 of the Factories and Workshops Bill?

I must ask for notice of further questions.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the Report of the Departmental Committee on the subject of the Military Contribution from Singapore, Mauritius and Hong Kong has been framed and brought up, and what is the date of such Report; and, whether the decision as to the respective amounts payable and the principle of assessment will shortly be made known?

The Committee on the subject of the Military Contribution from Singapore, Mauritius and Hong Kong reported on the 1st inst. That Report is under the consideration of Her Majesty's Government. The Colonies concerned will be made acquainted with the views of Her Majesty's Government as soon as such views have been matured. I cannot say exactly when this will be.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, whether he is aware that official and non-official members of the Legislative and Executive Councils of Crown Colonies are debarred from the use of the title "Honourable" when on a visit to this country; whether this privilege has been expressly granted to members of the Legislative Councils visiting us from Colonies enjoying responsible government; and, whether the Secretary of State will take steps to abolish this inequality, and place all these members on the same footing?

I informed the hon. Gentleman yesterday that the Queen in 1893 approved of the official use arid recognition of the title "Honourable" in the case of those persons who hold political positions in the self-governing Colonies. When Her Majesty granted this distinction, it was felt that the responsible government Colonies stand on a different plane to the Crown Colonies; and as it was not contemplated to give the honour so extensively as would become necessary if it were conceded in the case of all Colonies alike, great and small, it appeared to Her Majesty's advisers that the simplest line to draw would be between these two classes of Her Majesty's Colonial possessions.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer has said that his original intention was to refer the question to the Committee appointed last Session and reappointed this Session on the Vacation of Seats, but he has agreed to accept the smaller Committee; and the whole question to be determined is this—whether this Committee will be able to furnish the information the House should have before taking further action, or whether we shall have to await the result of the deliberations of the larger Committee All must agree that no Committee, however authoritative, can decide the question. The matter now under consideration must be decided either by the House at large, or, if a legal question should arise, by a Court of Law. Obviously, in no circumstances can it be decided by a Committee of this House. But a Committee may examine precedents, decide as to the pertinence or relevance, and may come to conclusions which may give great assistance to this House in further proceedings. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer will tell us that—the simple question of a fact being referred to this smaller Committee—he will not proceed to move the House further in the matter until the larger Committee on the Vacation of Seats has reported, I do not think there would be any strong objection to the preliminary question being referred to the limited Committee. It is a simple question of fact, which will be examined with great facility and probably with dispatch, and a question of fact about which there may be no dispute may be reported to the House. But my right hon. Friend, as he suggested yesterday, wished to take action immediately on the determinanation of the question of fact, without letting the House consider what might have been brought before the Committee on the Vacation of Seats, and what were the resolutions of that Committee on the matters brought before it. If it be proposed to take action at once we are confronted with a serious difficulty, on which we should take our stand.

I will say at once that I am perfectly willing to await the result of that Committee, but I only hope that its Report will be produced with a certain dispatch.

I am not a Member of that Committee, and I cannot accelerate its proceedings; but the declaration now made relieves me from any further difficulty. I do not care to which Committee this simple matter of fact may be referred, if it is understood, as we now understand, that a constitutional question which must be considered at no distant date by this House, will not be submitted to this House until it has had the advantage of the assistance which may be given it by the deliberations of the Committee. I can only say now, as I did yesterday, that I demur to the positions laid down by the Chancellor of the Exchequer as being exhaustive or accurate. Even to-day he has suggested that this Committee will be appointed to discharge a duty which the Lord Chancellor discharges as a Minister of the Crown when a person who claims to succeed to the Peerage applies for a new Writ of Summons to be issued to him. [The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER: "Not always."] Has there been no case in which, without application, a Writ of Summons has been issued? Such cases may be brought before the Committee, and may illustrate the advantage which may proceed from its investigations. As to the cases brought before the Committee, I will only say that throughout, in every succession to the Peerage, there has been an action of volition of the person who wished to be summoned, and no act of volition is found in the case before us. In my judgment it is a perfectly new question which is not embarrassed by any precedent upon which there is any decision to bind us, with respect to which there are dicta indeed, such as the dictum of Mr. Speaker Manners Sutton quoted yesterday, which was not acted upon, and which is a mere obiter dictum, which had no effect whatever. We are, therefore, in the presence of a question which may have to be illustrated by late experience, by precedents of the past, by action taken in different circumstances by different parties. The question as a whole must be decided, as I believe, as a matter of expediency. I accept the view of my right hon. Friend opposite that it is not to be settled by precedent; it is to be settled as a matter of expediency. If that is once accepted we see what large issues are opened. On the question of expediency we find the two Front Benches agreed, which is pronounced to be a dangerous state of affairs, and we find their concurrence fortified by the admission of the hon. Member for Northampton. All there have apparently come to the same conclusion on the same line of argument. In the circumstances I do not proceed with the Amendment of which I have given notice, and I do not desire to detain the House further.

As the right hon. Gentleman has told us, it is at my suggestion that he moves for a Second Committee to deal with this subject. I will venture to state why I think that the most convenient course, and when the proper time comes I will show that the presumption, against the union of both Front Benches and the Benches opposite below the Gangway is rebutted successfully by considerations which I think will meet with the approval of the House and of the country. I will leave; other questions which will wait until we come to discuss the Writ which will ultimately be moved for to fill the seat for West Edinburgh, and on which there must be a great constitutional Debate, which will probably for ever settle the vexed question raised by my noble Friend Lord Selborne. These large questions will not come up until the Committee now sitting has reported; and I think we may gather from the Chancellor of the Exchequer that it is an understanding that that Committee shall set to work and really finish its business. We have not had a single meeting in the course of the present Session; and I think it is now time we brought our protracted investigation to a close. I hope, without moving any formal Instruction to the Committee, it may be distinctly understood that it will set its shoulder to the wheel, and carry through the work entrusted to it by the House. The question submitted to the new Committee will be a small one, and it will not take long to discuss; but there is an Amendment on the paper which, if carried, will materially increase the labours of the Committee. If we want a rapid Report on this question, we ought not to overload the Committee by asking it also to investigate questions of fact connected with Peerages held by other persons who are or claim to be at present Members of this House. The Home Secretary is Chairman of the Select Committee appointed to deal with the subject, and it would add to his colossal labours and overburdened shoulders, capable as they may be, if the Committee had to pursue a further investigation. For these reasons I hope the House will defer to the suggestion of the Chancellor of the Exchequer and appoint the Committee.

The statement made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer removes the first of the objections I ventured to take to the reference proposed yesterday. It is evident now that, while the new Committee to be appointed will have to deal only with the question of vacating seats, no decision will be asked from this House on the general question until it has before it the decision of the other Committee on the matter of principle. That is the whole point I wished to lay before the House. I quite agree with what has been said as to the inconvenience of overloading the Committee on the Vacation of Seats, and I see no objection to the proposal in its present form and with its present understanding, I now have another Amendment to propose. My object is to extend the inquiry of this Committee, and to make it co-extensive with all cases of heirs to Peerages or reputed heirs to Peerages who may be sitting in this House. There will be no objection to the Committee reporting first on the case of my noble Friend, the Member for West Edinburgh, leaving more complicated matters for a subsequent report. The hon. Baronet, the Member for St. Rollox, is not in England, but I may say I have only used his name to illustrate the point I want to bring forward, and I have not the slightest desire to force him or anybody else to be a Peer against his will. The case of the hon. Baronet is not the only case within our experience. I am told that Mr. Cuninghame Graham, who was a Member of the last Parliament, is reputed heir to a dormant Scotch Peerage, and if the question is to be raised at all, as the evident consequence of the new precedent which the Government are making, we must consider not only the case of my noble Friend, but other cases may, with equal propriety, be brought under the purview of the House. The Chancellor of the Exchequer gave very interesting evidence before the Committee on the Vacating of Seats, and disputed altogether the dictum attributed to Speaker Onslow as to the vacation of seats that the seat was not vacated on the death of the ancestor, but had only been vacated in the practice of Parliament on proof of succession, followed by a Writ of Summons addressed to his successor. The Chancellor of the Exchequer clearly laid it down that up to the present time the universal practice of Parliament had been to wait for the Writ of Summons, and on the only occasion on which Parliament proceeded to act without a Writ of Summons and issued a Writ, without the information that afforded, that Writ had afterwards to be superseded. So that is a precedent we should not be anxious to follow. Now, however, the Chancellor of the Exchequer says a case has been made which justifies a new precedent, and justifies the House in doing what has hitherto been done by the House of Peers. We are going to create a Peer-finding Committee, or, as was done in the Middle Ages, we are going to prick the Peers. That is open to grave objection. If you prick in one case, you must prick in all, and wherever a case of suspicion—for that is it—of Peerdom attaches to any Member of the House you must appoint a Committee to inquire into his case. That is the logical conclusion. I object to the appointment of the Committee altogether. I think the House is taking upon itself a duty not incumbent upon it, which it has never undertaken, and by undertaking which we may be landed in considerable embarrassment. It is proposed to appoint this Committee to find out whether Lord Wolmer has become Lord Selborne. Suppose Lord Wolmer refuses to appear, can you force him to appear? According to you he is a Peer, and you cannot force a Peer to appear before a Committee. But supposing Lord Wolmer, assuming himself to be still a Member of the House of Commons, goes before the Committee, you cannot force him to give the evidence you require, and, if you cannot force him, are you quite certain you can get it in any other way? It does not seem so simple a matter as the Chancellor of the Exchequer imagines, because you are dealing with a reluctant witness. You cannot send him to another place without proof of his succession, and I am doubtful whether you can get proof without his good will; and I am pretty certain you will not get his good will. What is your theory with regard to the case of Lord Wolmer? The theory is he becomes incapable of sitting in this House from the moment you have proof that he has succeeded to a Peerage, and, further, that if that proof is not voluntarily afforded to you, then you are to seek it for yourselves. Then, I point to the case of another hon. Member who is under a similar suspicion of being a Peer, and I call upon you to inquire into his case also. How do you know that my noble Friend has become a Peer? You know it either because attention was called to the fact by the hon. Member for Northampton, or because you say it is a matter of public notoriety. Then I say the case is the same with regard to the hon. Baronet the Member for St. Rollox. I have looked into Debrett's "House of Commons," and I find a long account given of the hon. Member for St. Rollox, and the useful arid important offices he has occupied. The account concludes with these words:—

"He claims the dormant Scotch Earldom of Hyndford and the Barony of Carmichael."

In turning to "Dod" I find the same remark. Therefore it is a matter of public notoriety that the hon. Gentleman claims this Peerage. It is a matter of common knowledge that the contents of these publications are revised by those to whom they refer. I venture to assume that that has been done in the case of the hon. Baronet, and that it is, at all events, with his sanction that he is represented in this work of reference as claiming this dormant Scotch Peerage. Under these circumstances, on what ground do you deny to him the inquiry you are prepared to force on my noble Friend? They are both reputed heirs to Peerages, and have hitherto neglected, one to claim his Peerage and the other his Writ of Summons. If they were anxious to become Peers, both Gentlemen could have taken the usual course, and, after necessary inquiry had been made, it would have been a matter of absolute certainty whether they were Peers of the Realm or not. The same difficulty arises in both cases—namely, that of the Peer himself being unwilling to take the necessary steps to have the Writ of Summons issued. There are some who consider it necessary to purge the House of Commons of the presence of a Peer—why a Peer may be a Peer unawares! I say that if we are bound to clear ourselves of the presence of a Peer, we are bound, when public attention is called to the facts that I have laid before the House, to deal with all such cases on exactly the same principle. There are certain distinctions that may be drawn between the two cases, but I do not think they are distinctions which affect in the slightest degree the principle. The first distinction is this—that in the one case, that of my noble Friend, there is no doubt as to the succession. My noble Friend, when appealed to by you, Sir, admitted that he was a Peer of the Realm, although he drew the distinction that he was not a Lord of Parliament. As to the hon. Gentleman the Member for St. Rollox, I am afraid you cannot interrogate him. But no doubt we may assume so much in his absence—that his claim is not proved, that it is a doubtful claim, and that probably it would be disputed. But that does not affect the case. My point is not that he is a Peer, but that he may be a Peer, and that it is your business to find out whether he is or is not a Peer. You have no right to assume in the case of my noble Friend, although he has felt himself bound to answer the question which you, Sir, have put to him, that he is a Peer any more than that the hon. Gentleman the Member for St. Rollox is a Peer. But then it may be said that proof in the one case is much more difficult than in the other. I admit that. But what is the position? This House of Commons is called upon to erect itself into a Court of Justice for the purpose of deciding this important legal question. But is it tolerable that we are to refuse to take into consideration one case because it is a difficult one, and that we are to take into consideration another case because it is easy? No Court of Justice could sit for a day if it transacted its business upon a principle of that kind. The second distinction is, that the Peerage which is in question in the case of the hon. Member for St. Rollox is a Scotch Peerage. I mentioned yesterday, on incorrect information which I had received, that it was an English Peerage. I find that that is a mistake. It is a Scotch Peerage, and I believe that no English Peerage is attached to it. But that makes the case all the stronger, and that makes it all the more urgent; and, let me add, it makes the position of the hon. Baronet the Member for St. Rollox more critical. The case of my hon. Friend the Member for West Edinburgh is, that he can sit and vote in this House without incurring any statutory penalties. The only question for this House to decide is, whether he shall or shall not sit. If the House decide that he can sit the matter could not be tried in a Court of Law. But it is quite different in the case of the hon. Member for St. Rollox. Under the Act of Union, if he be proved to be a Scotch Peer he cannot sit in this House, and he cannot vote in this House without suffering the possibility of penalties. In the case of a Scotch Peer it has always been held by this House that the House does not require to wait for a Writ of Summons. In the case of an English Peerage it is necessary that there should be a Writ of Summons or alternative proof before the House can act. But in the case of a Scotch Peer the moment succession is proved all the obligations of the Peerage are entailed, together with the disability of sitting in this House. Therefore, if there be any distinction to be made at all, it is in favour of the urgency of the case which I am now bringing before the House. For the reasons I have already given, the House will see that I am opposed to the appointment of the Committee to make this investigation, and if a Division be taken I shall certainly vote against the appointment of the Committee at all. But, if it is to be appointed, I hope the House will admit the claim I make that this other case shall be submitted to it. If the House do not admit it now, as sure as fate similar cases will be admitted hereafter. There will be other cases brought forward from time to time, and we shall be involved in investigations of an extremely complicated and delicate character, with which we have no business at all. In my opinion the House will only be doing common justice if, having to deal with two cases, both of which are before us at the same time, we mete out to the constituency of West Edinburgh precisely the same justice and no more that we mete out to the constituency of St. Rollox. I should like to go one step farther. I have recognised from the first that against the main contention of my noble Friend there is the strongest possible feeling on the part of the majority of this House on both sides, and I think I am right in saying that the reason for it was admirably stated by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition when he said that no man should be allowed to occupy this kind of intermediate position, in which it would be a sort of conundrum whether he was or was not a peer, and in which it should be left to him to determine whether he was to sit in this House as long as he liked, and then to give up his seat here in order to go to the House of Lords. I am bound to say that I, for my part, agree in that view, and I share the feeling which, I believe, is common to the majority of the House; but I do beg the House not to allow the question which I am raising now to be prejudiced by their opinion on the main issue. That is a totally different thing. We have to decide two separate questions. In the first place, what is the practice and the law of Parliament? Because there is no statutory law with regard to these cases. With regard to the propositions which I am going to lay down, I shall have the high support for two of them of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The first point is that it has been the practice and the law of Parliament to insist upon evidence before proceeding to declare a seat vacant. The second point is that the only evidence which we have hitherto accepted as sufficient has been the issue of the writ of summons in the case of an English Peerage. Then I take the third point, with which I am not certain that the Chancellor of the Exchequer agrees, although he gave a doubtful answer before the Committee on the subject, and declared it to be a debate-able question which he would rather was decided by the Committee. My point is—and I think that it has been proved by recent experience—that until some evidence has been before us that a person who is the heir to a Peerage he may sit and vote in this House. The position of the Chancellor of the Exchequer was that such was the case.

No.

My memory does not serve me exactly who it was that made the statement, but it was laid down before the Committee that such a gentleman was in the position of being a Member of the House of Commons, but was disqualified from voting. For that I see no reason whatever, whether he is a member or he is not. That is to say, either his seat is vacated at the very moment of the death of his ancestor, or else, if it is not vacated until the Writ of Summons on evidence of succession has been given, he is not only a Member of the House of Commons, but he is a Member with all the powers, and he is entitled to sit and vote. I believe that that is proved by our recent experience. I refer to the case which brought about the appointment of the Committee—that of Lord Coleridge. What is Lord Coleridge's position? His father had died, but the Writ of Summons had not been issued, and there was likely to be some delay which it was thought might be a wrong to the constituents. Thereupon Lord Coleridge applied for the Chiltern Hundreds, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer gave him the Chiltern Hundreds. To that I think the House can see no possible objection. Even if Lord Coleridge was a Peer, I imagine that there is no rule whatever why the Chiltern Hundreds should not be given to a Peer or any other subject of Her Majesty. Therefore the Chancellor of the Exchequer was perfectly right in granting him the Chiltern Hundreds. But the new writ for the purpose of filling the vacancy in the representation was moved for in this House on the ground that "the Hon. B. Coleridge"—not "Lord Coleridge"—had accepted the Chiltern Hundreds. Is it not the direct inference from that that the "Hon. B. Coleridge" was a Member of this House until he accepted the Chiltern Hundreds? He so remained, it may be said, for only a short time after the death of his father; but if he so remained for a day or a week after the death of his father, why should he not have so remained a Member of this House for a month or a year? Therefore I say that our practice has been to permit a Member of this House who has succeeded to a Peerage to remain a Member until proof is given of the succession, and to allow him to sit and vote as such. I will take another case, which is a very striking, one, although it is not one involving the position of a Member of the House of Commons. That is the case of Lord Iddesleigh. Lord Iddesleigh, on the death of his father, of course succeeded to the Peerage, but he definitely and avowedly refused to make a claim to the Writ of Summons, and did not, in fact, make it for six years afterwards, in order that he might retain his position, a high office in the Inland Revenue Department, which cannot be held by a Peer. Surely the fact that he was allowed to do that without opposition, without any question being raised, is, at all events inferentially, an argument in favour of the position taken up by my noble Friend, that a man may be a peer of the realm, and yet, by not applying for the necessary writ, may avoid the disability which now attaches to the position of a Lord of Parliament. I say that my noble Friend's position is that of a man who, at the present moment, is entitled to sit and vote in this House until adequate proof has been given of his having succeeded to the Peerage. But then there would arise the question whether it is expedient in the interests of the House of Commons, and having regard to other great political interests, that people should be allowed to have this sort of double option; whether they should be allowed to sit and vote in this House, and yet, at any moment, upon their own mere volition, be permitted to leave it, and to take their seat in another place. I have said that in my humble judgment there is a proposition to which the House will not be willing to give its assent. But do not let our feeling on that point prejudice our judgment on a question of fact. Let us first decide whether a Member is is in this position or not. If we decide that he is in this position, then let us deal with it. My own feeling has always been that it is a real hardship in many cases that a man should be forced against his will to take up a Peerage which he has done nothing whatever to obtain. I confess it seems to me a self-evident proposition, and I could give, if it were worth while, many illustrations of that hardship. I dare say there are many people here who know perfectly well that a title is not always an advantage. In the case of a poor man, for instance, it is a distinct disadvantage. If the heir to a Peerage becomes, owing to circumstances, a man of no fortune, there probably may be many cases in which such a person would gladly be relieved of the obligation to take up a Peerage descended to him from his ancestors. I cannot see myself what harm can accrue either to the House of Lords, or to the country, or to the general political situation, if such a man wore given an option, once for all, and were allowed to say whether or not he would take up his hereditary title, with all its obligations, or whether he would be content to return to the ranks of the commoners. That would be a common-sense conclusion of the matter, and I only want to guard myself, in pressing upon the House the extension of the reference to the Committee which I now urge, against being supposed to be a supporter of the proposition that a man can, as it were sit in two places at once, or at all events, that he can of his own option choose which of the two dignified offices he will fulfil. That, I think, is a totally separate question, and nobody who votes either for my Amendment, or against this Committee altogether, can be held to be in the slightest degree committing himself or pledging himself upon the larger question of whether it is desirable that this hybrid kind of Peerage should be allowed to exist. I move the Amendment of which I have given notice.

seconded the Amendment.

I have the misfortune, whatever I do, never to be able to please the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham. When the late Chief Justice Coleridge died and his eldest son was the successor to his Peerage, there arose the difficulty to which the right hon. Gentleman has referred. The delay between the death of the Chief Justice and the Writ of Summons to his son having been found inconvenient, I granted, at his request, the Chiltern Hundreds. For that I was most severely censured in this House by the right hon. Gentleman, who attributed to me and the Government to which I belong the most sinister motives for that conduct. He then said I was wrong in doing that because the seat was already vacant, for a seat was always vacant instantly upon the death of the Peer. The right hon. Gentleman's censure upon me, and the origin of this Committee, was because he had made up his mind—he always does make up his mind upon every question—and upon this, without investigation, without a Committee, he pronounced ex cathedrâ upon this subject; and this is what he said—this was the ground of his condemnation of my conduct—

"I think the House will see that in all these cases there is one consistent logical plain rule— namely, that the seat in the House of Commons becomes vacant on the death of the predecessor."

I only wish to say that the evidence given by the right hon. Gentleman himself and others to the Committee has changed my opinion.

Then the prisoner at the bar stands acquitted by his accuser. This Committee was appointed to indict me and my conduct in that case as unconstitutional. The seriousness of the charges makes me all the more glad that I should be acquitted of them, because the head and front of my offending was this—

"That this Government, which is committed to mending or ending the House of Peers, have really hit upon a means of granting the Peers a new and exceptional privilege, the privilege of exhausting all the delights of the House of Commons, and then in their old ago retiring to the House of Lords."

That is the charge of which, I am happy to say, I am now acquitted. The right hon. Gentleman went on—

"What has been suggested to me is that, after all, this may be an invidious way of ending the House of Peers, because every successor to a peerage who has enterprise, energy, and ambition—"

he must have been anticipating the action of Lord Selborne and his friends—

"will probably choose the House of Commons during his period of juvenility and will only seek the House of Lords when he reaches the stage of decrepitude."

These were the base and sinister motives—first, to injure the House of Commons and then to swamp the House of Lords with used-up Commoners—that I was supposed to have contemplated when I gave the Chiltern Hundreds to the present Lord Coleridge. I am happy to say that the right hon. Gentleman has acquitted me, and he thinks upon my own evidence. But I took very good care not to give any evidence upon this point before the Committee. As I am on my own defence now against the right hon. Gentleman, as I was on June 28th 1894, permit me to clear myself of having given a different opinion on that occasion from that which I have offered to this House now. One reason why I gave no opinion is because at that time—as I continue to he now—I was more or less responsible to this House for advice in this matter, and therefore I thought it more prudent to reserve my opinion till after the question has been investigated by the Committee, though I confess I never regarded the matter as one on which there could be any serious doubt. But I said on that occasion:—

"The question of the intermediate condition of the man who is supposed to be a peer and is not proved to be a peer is a very intricate question. It might well exercise the ingenuity of the schoolmen, I think. I do not know what to call him. Is he a ghost? It is certain, if that view is taken, that he cannot sit and vote in the House of Commons. It is equally certain that he cannot sit and vote in the House of Lords, and during that interval he is a dummy peer, because he has no power in either capacity. That is a possible view of his situation. Or there is another view of his situation that may be taken. The House of Commons caterpillar, before he becomes a fully-fledged butterfly, may pass through the pupa or larva stage. He may spin for himself a cocoon of silk and ultimately reach that condition where he will neither toil nor spin. That is a view which may be taken of his intermediate condition. Those are deep political and natural mysteries which I do not myself pretend to fathom. I must allow myself to be considered as an Agnostic on that subject, and to leave it as a question of philosophic doubt what is this intermediate condition in which this unproved peer is in regard to his political status."

Well, Sir, I adhered strictly to that and resisted every attempt to compel me to offer an opinion upon that subject; I gave no opinion, and, therefore, the converter of the right hon. Gentleman must have been somebody else than myself. I confess that the situation is just the reverse. I cannot say I was converted because I offered no opinion; but I do hold the opinion which the right hon. Gentleman expressed to this House when he said that the seat really is vacated upon the death of the predecessor. That is the only true view of the case. But, then, this House must obtain evidence that the person sitting in this House is the true successor of the man who has died. That is a very simple proposition. One of the real reasons why I was not prepared to give an opinion then was because I found it was a matter which, in the opinion of some people, required investigation. Whether right or wrong, that is the conclusion I have arrived at on this matter. It is quite true that in the report of that evidence I am reported to have made the distinction between, a Peer of the realm and a Peer of Parliament. If I used that expression I used it inaccurately, and I should have said, "a Peer entitled to sit and vote in the House of Lords." That would make the true distinction. But, as I said, I did not undertake to give any opinion upon that subject, because, in point of fact, I had not made up my mind what was the accurate view of the situation. With reference to the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman, we have two things before us. We have, first, the case of a Member of the House of Commons who has declared to us that he is a Peer of the Realm. That is the fact we have to deal with. He is the successor of a nobleman, who, up to the time of his death, was a Member of the House of Lords—which was, of course a fact well known to everybody. The right hon. Gentleman says he knows, or thinks he knows, there is in this House a claimant to a dormant Peerage. Well, anybody may be a claimant to a dormant peerage. The 670 Members might be claimants to dormant Peerages. There are a great many persons who interest themselves, some with success and some with want of success, as claimants to dormant Peerages. But they are not in the situation of the present Earl of Selborne. We are supposed to have in this House a claimant to a dormant Peerage. I do not know exactly the date of this dormant Peerage, but I believe it was some two centuries ago. [Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: "1817."] Well that is very nearly two centuries ago. [Laughter.] I thought the date given was 1717. At all events, it is some time ago. I know it was before I was born, therefore, I am sure it was a long time ago. But the claimant to a peerage is not a Peer. The whole difference is that the Earl of Selborne is a Peer, and states himself so to be a Peer. There is hardly anybody in the House, I think, who does not remember the admirable satirical sketch by Mr. Disraeli in "Sybil," of the visit of Sir Vavasour Firebrace to the famous Mr. Hatton, who was a manufacturer of dormant Peerages, or, rather, manufactured Peers out of dormant Peerages. It is described there how Sir Vavasour Firebrace, not being content with being a Baronet, goes to this gentleman in a back chamber in the Temple. He had a Persian cat on the table, and he would make anybody a Peer who paid the requisite price. The writer says he had made more Peers than the Sovereign by a process—I do not think it is stated in the book, but I have heard it surmised, that for a consideration he manufactured the documents, that time was given for the moss to grow on the tombstone, and so the pedigree was established. That is a process which takes a long time and is very expensive. The famous Mr. Hatton tells Sir Vavasour Firebrace that if he spends £30,000 he thinks he can make him something like premier Earl of this country. To pretend a similarity between the present case and that of a claimant to a dormant Peerage is to bring the whole thing into even more ridicule than attaches to it already. I must say I was never able to treat this claim on the part of Lord Selborne and his friends really as a serious claim until the noble Earl actually appeared in his place. I thought it was a farce, and I think so still. I hope that, whenever the House of Commons has to determine this question it will be determined by an overwhelming majority that a man who is a Peer is not capable of sitting in the House of Commons. That is a very plain and simple issue. I believe it is Parliamentary law and always has been Parliamentary law in this country. The only question now is to ascertain whether the man is a Peer. We undertake to ascertain the facts, and the facts are very simple. In the case of Lord Selborne it will be the production of the Patent, the register of his birth and the marriage of his parents, and that practically establishes the fact that he is the person to whom the Patent refers. That is all. But if you are going to refer to the Committee to inquire whether a man who is a claimant to a dormant Peerage is or is not a Peer, you send to them a thing that no Committee of this House can determine. It is only in the Committee of Privileges of the House of Lords that a man who is the claimant to a dormant Peerage can establish his right to be a Peer, and therefore you are referring to this Committee a thing which the Committee could not ascertain. It might take years, as it has done in some famous cases where there was the most elaborate and expensive investigation. We are not to be guided by the gossip of the Lobby or the legends of "Debrett," but must have something like substantial grounds on which to go, and surely with such admissions as we have had from Lord Selborne himself to compare his case with that of a claimant to a dormant Peerage is incongruous and absurd. That being so, if the House of Commons does not intend to treat the whole thing as a farce, as they might do perhaps, and if they mean to deal with this matter seriously, let us, at all events, confine the investigation to that which can be investigated—that is, the question whether the man is now a Peer or not. Do not let us raise these by-issues about investigating claims to dormant Peerages which no Committee of the House of Commons can undertake. For these reasons I could not agree to the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman.

said, there was absolutely no similarity between the case of the hon. Member for Glasgow and the case of Lord Selborne. A precedent as regarded a claimant to a dormant Peerage, was afforded by the case of General Burleigh. In that case a Writ for the re-election of a Member in the place of General Burleigh had been moved for and granted. But subsequently it was pointed out that General Burleigh was merely a claimant to a Peerage, and that 160 years' investigation of title would be necessary in order to enable him to establish before a Committee of Privileges whether or not he was entitled to succeed to a Peerage. Thereupon the then Speaker of the House of Commons stated that they were accustomed to act on notoriously known facts, and, said he:—

"When the Writ was moved I regarded it as a notoriously known fact that General Burleigh had succeeded to a Peerage. Now it appears that he is merely a claimant to a Peerage, therefore, in that case, the Writ must be cancelled, and General Burleigh must continue to act as a Member of the House of Commons."

The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer would no doubt remember that, until the Registration Acts were passed, it was the practice for an inquisition to be held and upon the return to that inquisition, without any application by the heir, the Crown sent to him his Writ of Summons. The Registration Acts had thrown upon the heir the duty of sending in his own evidence. Now Lord Selborne, having deliberately chosen to prevent the due execution of these formalities altogether, and having refused to give the information, the Crown was unable, without certainly further inquiry, which he believed to be within the prerogative of the Crown to exercise, to send the Writ of Summons. What was the position of the House of Commons? The position of the House of Commons was this—that they were thereupon compelled to do that which Lord Selborne contumaciously declined to do, and they were obliged to find the simple evidence, aye or no, whether he was or was not a Peer of Parliament. It had been argued that there was a distinction between a Peer of the realm and a Lord of Parliament. There was no such distinction historically or constitutionally. Prior to the Acts of Union between England and Scotland and England and Ireland there was no such phrase known as Lord of Parliament, but inasmuch as they had certain elective Lords on the Scotch Peerage, and certain Lords of the Scotch Peerage who were not elective, therefore a Peer of the realm of Scotland who was sent to represent the Peers of Scotland in England was described as a Lord of Parliament. And so, in the same way, a Peer of Ireland who was sent to represent the Peers of Ireland was rightly described as a Lord of Parliament. But there was no Lord of Parliament in England. A Peer of the realm of England was a Lord of Parliament, and there was no distinction, between a Lord of Parliament in England and a Peer of the realm; therefore, he ventured to say that the distinction which was sought to be established was a distinction which was absolutely non-existent. If they looked through the most ancient treatises with regard to the description of Peers, and with regard to precedents, it would be found there was no reference whatever to a Lord of Parliament until the Acts of Union between the two countries, and he could not help thinking that that practically concluded this question. He understood the right hon. Gentleman to say that Lord Iddesleigh was incapacitated from sitting and voting in the House of Peers by reason of his holding an office under Government.

No; it is the other way about. Lord Iddesleigh would have been incapacitated from holding the office he did if he had taken up his position as a Member of the Upper House.

That is practically the same thing in substance. He ventured to say that there was no authority, statutory or otherwise, which the right hon. Gentleman was able to quote to show that the office which Lord Iddesleigh held in the Civil Service in the smallest degree interfered with his position and functions as a Peer. The statute of Anne, indeed, imposed various disqualifications and disabilities, but they were confined to the House of Commons, and did not extend to the House of Peers. The vital issue in the case was this—he maintained that, so soon as the late Lord Selborne died, so soon did the present Lord Selborne become a Peer of the Realm, and therefore a Lord of Parliament, because, he contended, no distinction existed between the two cases; that thereupon, inasmuch as the machinery ascertaining whether he had become a Peer of the realm or not, had not been placed at the disposal of the House of Commons by Lord Selborne, it was the plain duty of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to move for a Committee particularly directed to that object—namely, to ascertain whether or not he had succeeded to the Earldom of Selborne. If the noble Lord wished to be a Member of the House of Commons, the proper course was to bring in a Bill disqualifying and degrading him from the position of a Peer. There was a precedent for such a course in the case of the Earl of Bedford. Following that precedent, the Bill might recite, mutatis mutandis, that inasmuch as Lord Solborne is desirous of remaining an elected representative of the people to serve in the House of Commons, be it enacted that henceforth he and his heirs for ever shall cease to enjoy the honour of being Peers of the United Kingdom.

said, the noble Lord (Lord Selborne) now sitting below the Bar, and those who were acting with him in this matter, believed they had a case which was capable of being submitted with seriousness and respect to the House of Commons; but at the same time they realised that a better opportunity for discussing the main aspects of the case would occur when a Motion was made, not improbably later on, for the issue of a new writ. The last speaker informed the House that the distinction between a Peerage of the Realm and a Lordship of Parliament was a distinction in the Peerage for which there was no authority in precedent, in tradition, or in law. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, who in his evidence before the Committee last year clearly admitted the existence of such a distinction, now endeavoured to qualify the unmistakeable words he, then used when, referring to Speaker Onslow's dictum, he said, "He may be a Peer of the realm, but he is certainly not a Peer of Parliament."

That is exactly the phrase I took the trouble to look up this morning, and I observe it is so reported. All I can say is, the words are entirely inconsistent with any view I held or expressed to the Committee. What I intended to say was a "Peer entitled to sit and vote in the House of Lords." I never intended to say a Peer of the realm is not also a Peer of Parliament. I believe he is.

would confront the right hon. Gentleman with an opinion, the value of which he would himself recognise. More than 70 years ago there was a special Committee of the House of Lords appointed to discuss and report upon the "Dignity of the Peerage," and that Committee, having sat for 9 or 10 years, presented a report in four great tomes. In that Report the distinction between a Peerage of the realm and a Lordship of Parliament was most clearly admitted and laid down; and with reference to the notion that this distinction only existed in consequence of the Acts of Union, first with Scotland and afterwards with Ireland, the Lords' Report said—

"But such a distinction previously existed in the case of minors and of women claiming' to lie Peeresses in their own right."

And these were the words which he commended to the attention of the House—

"And with respect also to such persons who, being Peers of the realm by right, might not think fit to qualify themselves to sit and vote as Lords of Parliament."

The right hon. Gentleman would at once admit, then, that there was very considerable authority for the constitutional view which his noble Friend, and those associated with him, took. He heard with surprise the Chancellor of the Exchequer say that he was doubtful whether the attitude of his noble Friend, and those associated with him in this matter, ought not to be regarded as a farce and not intended seriously. In reply to that he would like to say that it was mainly upon the evidence given by the Chancellor of the Exchequer himself before the Committee upstairs that they realised the strength of their case, and that they had a legal and constitutional right to bring it before the Bar of the House of Commons. And if the personal opinion or ipse dixit of anyone was of value, he might mention what his noble Friend (Lord Selborne) had given him authority to say—namely, that having on many occasions discussed this matter with his late father, than whom, it would be admitted, there was no higher legal and constitutional authority, nor one less likely to take a revolutionary view of the constitution of either this or the other House of Parliament, he never received anything but encouragement from the late Lord Selborne in the step he proposed to take, and the possibility of taking it he more than once discussed with the late Lord Selborne. It was only fair to mention that, with a view of relieving his noble Friend from the charge of having acted in a spirit of unbecoming levity in this matter. A point had been made of the anomaly of the supposed position—namely, that a Peer should have the option of choosing in which House he would serve. He declined to admit that they had ever taken up that position. But when the Leader of the Opposition yesterday was descanting upon the inexpediency and outrage of such a proceeding, he thought that the right hon. Gentleman must have forgotten that there had been actual cases in which hon. Members in that House had exercised precisely such an option. Only two years ago there was in that House an hon. Member (Mr. J. W. Plunkett) who was the heir to an Irish Peerage. In 1889 he succeeded his father and became Lord Dunsany, but being an Irish Peer he did not cease to sit in that House, and remained in it until 1892. In that year he found that he could be elected by his fellow Peers a Representative Peer for Ireland, and accordingly he took up his Peerage, and did not stand again for a seat in the House of Commons. Therefore, Lord Dunsany exercised precisely that option which his right hon. Friend had so derided. He did not propose to go further into the matter now, as he recognised that this was not the right occasion for arguing the larger issues of the question. In conclusion, he merely desired to say on behalf of his noble Friend and himself, that they had raised this question, which they believed to be a serious constitutional one, in a spirit of becoming deference to the dignity and feelings of the House of Commons, and that their desire was that a solution of it should be arrived at on fair, constitutional grounds.

said, he rose to surest that the discussion need not be prolonged. What was the position when it began? It was that the noble Lord (Lord Wolmer) desired to raise a great point of constitutional law in that House. That point had been raised, and now by the agreement of everybody it was to be discussed by the Committee which was already sitting upstairs. Important as might be the decision of that Committee, the question was so large that it was sure to be re-discussed on the floor of the House. That being the state of things, he thought the object of the noble Lord, which was to have this question fairly considered and tried, would be accomplished. The noble Lord did not desire, he understood, to take his stand upon the technical question whether there was evidence that he had succeeded to the Peerage of Selborne. If that were so, why should they refer the question of the noble Lord's static to a special Committee? It was a most unusual course.

said, that they could not accept a man's own statement that he was a Peer as conclusive evidence. The man might be mistaken. Therefore, whatever confidence they had in Lord Selborne himself, his own mere statement as to his status was not evidence upon which the House of Commons could Act.

said, that of course they would not accept the statements of the noble Lord as conclusive in regard to the question of status, but that question could easily be settled in the ordinary way elsewhere. Why then appoint a special Committee to settle it? He should view with regret any course that would establish a new precedent for cases of this kind. It would be far better to leave the question of status to the Committee on Privileges of the other House. The right hon. Member for West Birmingham proposed to enlarge the scope of the inquiry entrusted to the small Committee for which the Chancellor of the Exchequer asked. Such an enlargement was unnecessary, for machinery was already provided for testing the validity of the return of a Member who was alleged to be a Scotch Peer. The validity of the return could be challenged in the Scotch Courts. The inquiry, if enlarged in the way proposed by the right hon. Member for West Birmingham, might be most protracted and might involve very great expenditure.

There is a point which has hardly been considered at all in this discussion, and that is the question of the rights of the electors of the country. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer had persevered with the Motion which he, perhaps somewhat hastily, made yesterday I should have been happy to support him. I am sorry that he found it necessary, in consequence of remonstrances that were made in one quarter of the House to depart from that proposal. I do not say this in order to cast any blame upon him; but it does seem to me that when the noble Lord (Lord Selborne) got up and told us what was a matter of common notoriety—namely, that he was a Peer of the Realm as successor to his lather—it does seen to me that that was sufficient evidence upon which this House could have acted, and that it might forthwith have ordered I the issue of a Writ. My right hon. Friend near me and the right hon. Gentleman opposite have thought differently, and as a result we have this Motion for the appointment of a Special Committee. I do not wish to oppose that Motion, but I suggest that it is really unnecessary. I do not believe that a more preposterous claim was ever made by anyone in this country than the claim of Lord Selborne to be allowed to sit in this House after succeeding to a Peerage of the Realm. My hon. Friend near me (Mr. Curzon) has stated that he has a very strong belief that that claim is well founded on constitutional grounds, and that he bases that belief upon the evidence given before the Committee which was appointed last year by the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer. If that is so it is very strange that a Bill should have been introduced in the present Session which bears upon its back the names of my two hon. Friends (Mr. Curzon and Mr. Brodrick) and Lord Wolmer, and the Preamble of which says—

,"Whereas it is expedint to remove certain disqualifications attaching to persons succeeding to a Peerage, and to make provision for enabling them to serve as Members of Parliament in the House of Commons."

Then the enacting clause of this Bill says—

"From and after the passing of this Act any person succeeding to a Peerage shall not thereby be disqualified from being elected to serve after any election, if he shall so think fit, or from serving or continuing to serve, if he shall so think tit, for any county or borough of the United Kingdom in the House of Commons."

If there be any reality, which I deny, in this wonderful constitutional claim, why did my hon. Friend introduce such a Bill as that? I agree in what has been already said that the whole tiling is a farce. I object altogether to depriving the electors of West Edinburgh, or any other constituency of the rights which they possess of representation in the House of Commons, while such a claim is considered. It is proposed to refer this question to the Committee upstairs, of which the Home Secretary is Chairman. That Committee transacts its business in so leisurely a fashion that it has not even met since last year, and it may be many weeks before it meets again. When it does meet it might think it necessary, if this question were referred to it, to call evidence on one side and the other, with the result that many weeks would be taken up, and during the whole of that time West Edinburgh would not be represented. I do hope, therefore, that when this small Committee, of which the right hon. Gentleman has moved the appointment, has reported, he will act upon the opinions which he has expressed, and will support a Motion for the immediate issue of a Writ for the election of a Member for West Edinburgh.

said, that the appointment of this Committee might in itself be a comparatively small matter, but he feared that it would establish a precedent which would lead to much inconvenience. He did not dispute the competency of that House to inquire into anything it chose, but when dealing with matters in which the other House was specially concerned, when dealing with what might be called the mysterious status of the Peerage, it was desirable that they should leave the question in the hands of the Peers and avoid coming into conflict with them. The facts as to the Selborne Peerage he admitted might be easily disposed of, but the next case that arose might be complicated, and a Committee of that House was not the proper body to inquire into the question whether a person had become a Peer or not. There was, in his opinion, no reason why this question should be referred to a Committee. The safest course in the present case was to wait, as the House had always waited, for the Writ of Summons, even if the issue of that Writ be delayed. And for his part he saw no harm whatever in the presence of a Peer in that House provided that he had been elected by a constituency. And in reply to the right hon. Gentleman's (Sir M. Hicks-Beach) remarks of the hardship to a constituency he might remind the House that not many years since the House was in conflict with a constituency which elected Mr. Bradlaugh over and over again. He objected to this Reference to a Committee, and he thought it would be better to leave the matter to the tribunal which had always acted hitherto.

said, he would like to point out to the Chancellor of the Exchequer the danger and difficulty in which the House might find itself involved if it should take the course suggested. It was a matter of common knowledge that Lord Wolmer was now a Peer, but it was equally true that other claims might be set up which were not so clear. In the case of the Berkeley Peerage, there was a man who called himself Lord Dursley and heir to the Earldom of Berkeley. The case turned upon the question of whether the entry in the register of marriages was a forgery or not. It was proved to be a forgery, and this man did not secure the Earldom. Suppose the claimant in such a case as that, being a member of the House of Commons, came before the Committee, and the Committee came to the conclusion that the claim to the Peerage was a good one, that man would be prevented from sitting in the House of Commons because he was an Earl, though the Committee of Privileges of the House of Lords might find, on investigation, that he was not. That would place the House of Commons in a ridiculous position. He trusted the House would consider that point before it went to a Vote.

said, that the point of the speech of the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down was that the House would incur a grave liability by undertaking the investigation of questions with regard to the succession to Peerages. So far he agreed with his hon. Friend. This very case of Viscount Dursley was exactly the kind of case that would arise. A Member would only have to stand up in his place and say that he was a Peer and his seat would be vacated. Thus, any number of seats might be vacated. He wished to answer a question addressed to him personally by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Bristol. The right hon. Gentleman asked why those who supported the position taken up by Lord Wolmer introduced a Bill if they believed they had a constitutional right to sit in the House of Commons. Their Bill was introduced before the Committee of last Session was appointed. That Committee was very deliberate in its labours, and therefore the Bill was introduced again this Session for the purpose of raising a discussion on the question. They had no desire to test the matter as it was proposed to test it. The final Court of Appeal must in this case be the House itself, and to that Court of Appeal they were quite ready to submit their appeal in due course. But it was desirable that judgment should be given on a full knowledge of the facts, and it was proposed that the duty of ascertaining the facts should be carried out by a Committee.

said, that this Motion had been brought about by a number of gentlemen whom he would call "Peerikins" instead of Peers. The notion seemed to be that the country would not be able to geton if they were not Members of the House of Commons. He was not at all sorry that the discussion had arisen, for anything that did away with the fetishism, as regarded the wisdom of Peers, was to him very desirable. He had always admired the argumentative ability of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham; but when he heard his speech he could not help thinking that it was utter nonsense, if he would excuse him for saving so. He came to the conclusion that a gentleman with so acute a mind must be perfectly aware that he was talking nonsense. However, it was a gentleman who was one of the right hon. Gentleman's Whips who had caused this Motion to be made, and he supposed the right hon. Gentleman felt bound in honour to support him though it was contrary to common-sense. The right hon. Gentleman said it would be useless to have a Committee, because the Committee could not call the Earl of Selborne before them; and that being so that it would be impossible to prove that he was the son of his father. The right hon. Gentleman knew perfectly well that the Committee could get the marriage certificate of the Earl's late respected father. They could get his own birth certificate, and, if necessary, there were the family Bible and the family butler. But the right hon. Gentleman was even more astounding when he told the House that the two cases of the Earl of Selborne and his hon. Friend the Member for the St Rollox Division of Glasgow were on all fours, that both were under the suspicion of a Peerage. But the Earl of Selborne was not under the suspicion of a Peerage. Was there any Member in the House who doubted for a moment that he was the Earl of Selborne? He had stated it himself! It seemed to him somewhat hard on the part of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham to throw doubt on a question of this kind. He differed from the Earl of Selborne in politics, but he believed he was an honourable man, and would be one of the very last men to vamp up some pretence of being a Peer. What was the case of the hon. Member for the St. Rollox Division? The right hon. Gentleman told the House that the hon. Gentleman was under suspicion of a Peerage, because he was referred to in "Debrett," and because "Debrett" said he had a claim. They all knew how absurd these genealogies were, but the right hon. Gentleman told the House that they were to be accepted as authorities because they had been submitted to the Peers, who had given them their imprimatur. The Speaker had himself asked the Earl of Selborne the question: "Are you a Peer of the Realm or not?" and he admitted that he was. It was impossible to ask that question of the hon. Member for the St. Rollox Division, because he did not happen to be in England. If the right hon. Gentleman wished to have the matter settled he ought at least to wait until the hon. Member returned to the House, when the same question might be put to him. Otherwise the House might be placed in a ridiculous position, for the hon. Member might return and tell them that he never in his life dreamt of making any claim. He had had the pleasure of knowing a great many Scotchmen, and he had very seldom found himself long with a Scotchman without his confiding to him that he was a dormant Marquess. It was the same thing with hon. Members opposite from Ireland, for they had often confided to him in secrecy that they were dormant Monarchs; and only a little while ago he received a letter, apparently a circular letter, from some person in London who said that if he would send him ten guineas he would prove him a member of the Royal Family. He made this confession to the House that he could be proved to be a member of the Royal Family. Had he a right, then, to sit in the House of Commons? The fact was, that the whole thing, from beginning to end, was absurd. He congratulated the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Bristol for the very sound and excellent speech he had made. For his part he would have been glad if the Writ had simply been moved It did seem absurd that they were to have a separate Committee in order simply to look into facts they all knew perfectly well. They all knew perfectly well that the Earl of Selborne was the Earl of Selborne, and, as he himself said, a Peer of the Realm. The Chancellor of the Exchequer told them that the existing Committee had met this Session to elect a Chairman, and they had done nothing more. There appeared to be the gestation of an elephant, and there was no indication when it would cease. If they were to wait for the Report of that Committee perhaps the Home Secretary could tell them when it might be expected. If it were a mere question of a week, and some right hon. Gentlemen were anxious to wait for it, let the House by all means wait; but if there were to be a delay of months, while fresh evidence was taken and long discussions were held, and West Edinburgh were left without a Member, as they knew well what would be the decision of the House by a large majority, the sooner the Writ was moved for the better.

said, it seemed to him that the effect of these two Committees sitting would be that the House would be deprived of a Member for the rest of the Session. The hon. Member for Manchester looked upon that as a blessing, and the view was intelligible, because the vote belonged to the Opposition, who would lose it. There was really no question at all; everybody knew what the facts were. It seemed to him it was useless to appoint a Committee to inquire into the facts, which the Registrar General could state in five minutes. As to the question whether the vacation of a seat in this House depended upon the arrival of a Writ of Summons from the other House, the Chancellor of the Exchequer might cause it to be delayed. He recognised the hardship of the position of the two Gentlemen on the front Opposition Bench, who had a laudable ambition to arrive in time at the Leadership of this House, and if they wished to put off the taint of the Peerage there was an easy way in which they could do it. All that each had to do was to introduce a Bill of Attainder, to attaint his own blood and that of all his descendants, and that would make it impossible for him to sit in the House of Peers. That would meet the case, and there would be no opposition to the Bills.

I gather from indications in different quarters of the House that I should not have a majority for this Amendment. Therefore, I beg leave to withdraw it.

said: Tellers for the Ayes, Mr. Thomas Ellis and Mr. McArthur; tellers for the Noes—

Mr. Chamberlain and Dr. Tanner. [Great laughter.]

said he proposed by his two Amendments taken together to provide for the continuance of ecclesiastical corporations till the representative body desired that they should be terminated. He supposed he would receive the stereotyped answer that the clause was copied from the Irish Church Bill. That was the answer they had hitherto received when any question had arisen as to displacing or taking away the privileges of the Church. But as it was never used in favour of the Church, they fairly expected some more logical reason for adopting it in this case. In the first place, the privilege of being a corporation, sole or aggregate, was one that did no harm to any one who did not possess it, and it was a matter of convenience (perhaps considerably so) to those who did. Some hon. Members might not be familiar with the legal incidents of a corporation sole, and if he might be allowed, he would read a short passage from a work of great authority with which those who studied and practised the law were familiar. In Blackstone's "Commentaries,'' Vol. 1, page 448, dealing with ecclesiastical corporations, it was said:—

"The necessity, or, at least, use, of this institution will be very apparent if we consider the case of a parson of a church. At the original endowment of parish churches, the freehold of the church, the churchyard, the parsonage house, the glebe, and the tithes of the parish were vested in the then parson by the bounty of the donor as a temporal recompense to him for his spiritual care of the inhabitants, and with intent that the same emoluments should ever afterwards continue as a recompense for the same care. But how was this to be effected? The freehold was vested in the parson; and if we suppose it vested in his natural capacity, on his death it might descend to his heir, and would be liable to his debts and incumbrances; or, at best, the heir might be compellable, at some trouble and expense, to convey these rights to the succeeding incumbent."

Then Blackstone went on to say on the subject:—

"The law, therefore, has wisely ordained that the parson quatenus parson shall never die any more than the sovereign by making him and his successors a Corporation. By which means all the original rights of the parsonage are preserved entire to the successor, for the present incumbent and his predecessor who lived seven centuries ago are in law one and the same person, and what was given to the one was given to the other also."

He ventured to say that if the continued existence of these Corporations did no harm, they ought not to be summarily put an end to. It might, perhaps, be said that if the whole of the Church property was to be taken away, there would be no good in continuing these Corporations, because there would be no Church property for them to hold. But it was quite possible that the Bill might be so amended as to leave to particular parishes property given to them specifically, but whatever became of the Church property now in existence, fresh property might be given to particular parishes which the old Corporations would most conveniently hold.

said hon. Members were entitled to point out what would be the effect of the dissolution of these Corporations.

said, that what he was about to point out was that property might remain which it would be impolitic to take away from particular parishes, and that therefore the Corporations ought to be allowed to remain for the purpose of ownership.

said, that that was exactly what he complained of. They were not discussing the question of private benefactions which might be given subsequently to the Church, but whether these Corporations should be dissolved.

The hon. and learned Member is clearly out of order in discussing the subject of private benefactions upon this clause.

said, that the property in the parish churches could not be omitted from consideration, and it was evident that it was the intention of the Government that they should continue to be used for the purposes of the Church as at present. He maintained that on this ground alone there was great convenience in permitting the Church Corporations to continue to exist if the Church so desired. If the Church was not to be treated as a wrong-doer, why should they deprive the clergy of the Church of their ancient right of succession. He begged to move the first Amendment which stood upon the Paper in his name, that was to say, to leave out the words "on the date of" in order to insert "notwithstanding."

said, that on the part of the Government he certainly could not assent to the Amendment which had just been moved by the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite (Mr. Tomlinson). The language of the clause was almost identical with that of the Irish Church Act. The hon. and learned Gentleman had suggested that the dissolution of these Church Corporations in some way or other might deprive the Church, not of property, but of a convenient mode of managing its property. The Bill had amply provided for that, because whatever property would remain in the Church would rest in the Representative Body, which would have exactly the same powers of holding property as the present Corporations did except that they would hold it upon certain specific terms—namely, for the purposes of the Church.

said, that this Amendment involved a matter of great importance. He did not think that it was desirable that they should follow implicitly, not to say servilely, the language of the Irish Church Act. Indeed, the experience which they had had of the Irish Church Act justified the hon. and learned Member in moving this Amendment. The right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary (Mr. Asquith) appeared to think that all objections were met when he said that the clause was almost identical in language with a similar clause in the Irish Church Act. He very much doubted whether the Representative Body could hold the Church property in the same way in which it was held by the existing Corporations.

Certainly not.

said, that this was his own view of the matter. He could not understand what principle was involved in the policy which the right hon. Gentleman was now endeavouring to carry out. He hoped that the matter would be further considered, as a great many Members on the Opposition side of the House deemed this policy of dissolving the Church Corporations as an unnecessary interference with the status of the Church.

said, that he thought that that was a favourable opportunity for him to repeat the question which he had put to the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary (Mr. Asquith) early in the afternoon, and he hoped that the right hon. Gentleman would now be able to give him an answer to it. He wished to know what would be the condition of affairs as regarded marriage after this Bill became law. Speaking on the Irish Church Bill, Sir Roundell Palmer said that by the marriage law of Ireland a clergyman of the Church of Ireland could not perform the marriage ceremony unless the banns had been published or a licence granted, the whole law on this matter proceeding on a footing which would be put an end to if the clause in question came into operation. On that occasion the Attorney General replied that it was intended to bring in a separate measure on this subject.

I do not see; that that has anything to do with the clause.

I understand that my hon. Friend is referring to the observations made by Sir Roundell Palmer, in the Committee of the House of Commons, on a clause in the Irish Bill precisely identical to the clause of the present Bill.

The fact that an irrelevant discussion was permitted in the Committee on the Irish Church Bill is no reason why it should be permitted now.

I think it is quite irrelevant.

Is it not competent for me to argue that inconvenience would arise should this sub-section become law?

So long as the hon. Member confines himself to the clause he will be in order. I was merely pointing out to him that the point he raised with regard to the Irish Marriage Law does not seem to me to apply to this particular Amendment.

hoped he would have some information on the subject. He did not think the Government was alive to the great importance of the change which they had inaugurated. After the experience they had had in the case of the Irish Church Bill they ought to be quite sure that the continuity of the Corporations was maintained; there was not only the question, of property, there was the question of the performance of duties which at one stage or another must be discussed.

said the Amendment raised a very important question, namely, whether the Church Corporations should remain notwithstanding the Disestablishment of the Church. He could understand the Government thinking it necessary to dissolve these Corporations if the alternative were that the Corporations were to remain for all times and to interfere with the proper working of the new Church Body But that was not the purport of the Amendment. Ample libey was left to the Church in the future to dissolve these Corporations where they thought it necessary, and it was an unnecessary hampering of the ordinary arrangements of the Church that these Corporations should be suddenly and by a stroke of the pen dissolved. Why should they not wait and see how the new Church Body worked; and if it was found by the authorities of the Church that it was desirable that these Corporations should be dissolved he would not then be opposed to that course.

said the Home Secretary, instead of replying to the reasonable arguments addressed to him, thought it sufficient to say that such and such a clause was in the Irish Act. They had a right to ask what was the connection between Disestablishment and Disendowment and the dissolution of these Corporations. He failed to see any connection whatever. He was not sure that there were not Nonconformist and Roman Catholic Corporations; and they ought to have an assurance that no such Corporations existed in the case of other religious communities in Wales before they were asked to do away with the privilege now enjoyed by the Church. After all it was merely the privilege of being able to hand property down from time to time without having to pay the cost of conveyance from one trustee to another. The dissolution of the Corporations would prejudice the Church in Wales. It would create the presumption that the Disestablished Church would not be allowed to create Corporations; and the right hon. Gentleman had provided no means in the Bill for the creation of such Corporations. Then the right hon. Gentleman said that the property of the Church had been assigned to particular purposes under the Bill. But it was quite possible that when the House reached the clause assigning it they might choose to assign some of it to those parochial and cathedral purposes to which it was devoted at the present time. If they did, why should the Corporations not continue? Again, every encouragement should be given to pious donors to make contributions to the Disestablished Church. But there were a good many benefactors who would not be inclined to contribute to a Church in which there were no Corporations.

said the hon. Member who had just spoken had paid very little attention to what he had said. Otherwise he would not have accused him of relying simply on the precedent of the Irish Church Act, because he endeavoured to explain what was the meaning of the proposal in the Bill. The hon. Gentleman did not appear himself to be very familiar with the law. Every parson in Wales was a Corporation, and the great bulk of the Corporations dealt with were not bodies like the Cathedral Chapters, but the ordinary parish clergymen in Wales. These clergymen were under the Bill to cease to hold the endowments which they at present possessed, and therefore the sole reason for the continuance of the Corporations disappeared. The hon. Gentleman surmised that other religious bodies possessed Corporations. He should be extremely surprised if any instance of the kind could be produced.

pointed out that by Clause 5 private benefactions given since 1703 were retained, and were to be handed over to the Commissioners and a representative body, but by Clause 15 the representative body need not come into existence. It only "may" come into existence. But even if it came into existence, then almost for certain it would not come into existence for some time after the date of Disestablishment. Unless, therefore, these corporations were maintained, who, he asked, was to hold private benefactions between the date of Disestablishment and the formation of a representative body; or if the representative body was not formed at all, who was to keep the benefactions for all time? If the Amendment was adopted, those corporations would continue, and the benefactions could be handed over by the Commissioners to the existing corporations.

said, that the whole property of the Church was transferred to the Commissioners from the moment of Disestablishment. There was, therefore, no lacuna, and the Commissioners would hold the property until a representative body was constituted. So long as any existing interest remained, the property attached to that interest must go on being paid to the holder of the benefice; the interest which the representative body had in the property was rather reversionary than a present benefit. In that state of facts, where it was so much to the interest of the Church to constitute a representative body to succeed to this property he thought that they need not entertain the idea that the Church would neglect the precaution.

said he was not dealing with an existing interest, but with private benefactions since 1703. But an interval might occur between the date of Disestablishment and the formation of the representative body. Did the right hon. Gentleman intend that the Commissioners were to withhold this money for the use of the Church during any interval between Disestablishment and the formation of a representative body?

said, the Commissioners would have the money in their hands, and they would keep it in their hands until the Church constituted a Trust for its acceptance.

hoped that his hon. Friend would go to a Division, because they could not rest satisfied with the explanation of the Home Secretary. There might be a lacuna between Disestablishment and the formation of a representative body, and there might be great delay in the formation of the latter. Why add insult to injury by dissolving corporations? It was quite an unnecessary severity. The maintenance of these corporations was necessary—first, because they were the relic of an old Church, and second, because there was a very good reason for saying that their maintenance was essential for the administration of the property of the Church during the interregnum which must ensue.

put this case to the Home Secretary. In the interregnum which might or must ensue between the Disestablishment and the formation of a, representative body, a lay donor was desirous to endow a parish with money of his own. In the olden times he would have endowed it in the name of the rector of the parish; but if this Bill was passed, during the most important time of the Disestablished and Disendowed Church, the rector of the parish and the parish itself would be absolutely unable to hold property which was left to him or to it during the interregnum. In the case of the Irish Church there were many instances where donors disliked leaving their money for the parish in which they were interested in the hands of a representative body, because they did not feel perfectly certain that that body might not join the particular parish with another. In. that case could a parish hold property safely?

did not think that the point raised presented any serious difficulty. If there should be a lacuna in point of time between the date of Disestablishment and the constitution of a representative body, it would be open to any donor who wished to benefit a particular parish or district to create a Trust, and vest the benefactions in trustees until the date when a representative body should be constituted and the Trust handed over to them. That was the machinery which other religious communities adopted.

said, it was important in dealing with the Amendment to bear in mind that the question of the future use or the future ownership of the cathedrals was not involved in the clause then under discussion. It would be quite open to hon. Members after the clause was carried to raise the whole question on subsequent clauses. The sole question the Committee had now to consider was whether, having already resolved that the Ecclesiastical Corporations in Wales should be disestablished, the cathedral bodies should be exempted from the scope of the Bill. He thought they should not. It was quite possible for a cathedral to be carried on by its Dean and Chapter and other officers without their being constituted a corporation. There were cathedrals already so carried on. The legal instrument of a corporation, therefore, was not essential to the management of a cathedral as at present; and he saw no reason whatever, if the Church in Wales was disestablished, why a privilege or distinctive feature should be continued to the cathedrals which was not shared by the other religious communities. Moreover, the retention by the cathedrals of their corporate capacity could be, for no practical purpose, of advantage to the Church. Under those circumstances he could not assent to the Amendment.

said, he entirely agreed that it was not necessary then to raise the question whether the property in the cathedrals should in future be vested in the Commissioners, as the Bill proposed, or in the Church itself. That point might be dealt with subsequently. Of course, if it was eventually decided by the Committee that the property in the cathedrals should remain with the Church, then the arguments for the Amendment of his hon. Friend would be much stronger than ever. There was a point to which he thought the Home Secretary had not given sufficient attention. The cathedrals had always been vested in the Dean and Chapter. They had had a separate ecclesiastical existence. They had been in a different position to that of any other ecclesiastical corporation within the Church—more independent of the Diocesan—and it was a position which could not fairly be called one of privilege, as regarded other religious bodies. If, then, the cathedrals were to be held by the Church, it was a matter of considerable importance whether they should be vested in the Chapter as a separate corporation or in the Church at large. To continue the existence of Cathedral Chapters as separate Corporations would be a continuance of the most ancient tradition of the Church. He thought it was a matter which the right hon. Gentleman might fairly concede. Other religious bodies in Wales or England had Corporations within them of a similar character to that which these Chapters would assume if the amendment of his hon. friend were carried. He did not pretend to say that it was a matter to which he attached vital importance, and he did not think the right hon. Gentleman attached vital importance to it either. It only referred to four places in the whole of Wales, where there were four very ancient institutions round which a great deal of ecclesiastical sentiment lingered, and that sentiment would be gratified if the right hon. Gentleman would make this concession.

said, the right hon. Gentleman treated the cathedrals in an exceptional manner, and if he had been logical he would have given them over to the Welsh Commissioners to deal with. He had given the whole use of the Cathedrals to the Church, and the Bill promised a certain sum of money to keep them in repair, therefore no fault could be found with his hon. friend's desire to make the treatment of a Cathedral Corporation exceptional. The actual every-day work of the Cathedrals must be carried on by some subordinate authority or other. That subordinate authority would probably not consent to a simple individual having the power. Therefore it was reasonable to suppose that the devolution of the authority of the representative body would be to a body of men differing, except in status, in no way from the existing Cathedral Chapter.

Probably.

asked why they should not preserve not only the Cathedrals, but the great bodies which had control over them.

said, there was some slight misunderstanding on the part of the noble Lord, who had been arguing as if they were going to do away with Deans and Chapters. They contended that the Deans and Chapters should continue after the passing of the Bill to occupy a similar position to that now occupied by the Dean and Chapter of Truro, or the Provost and Chapter of the Roman Catholic See of Westminster. It was not intended to interfere with these officers, or their rights or dignities, or their power to order the Cathedral Services, it was only intended that they should cease to exist as Corporations. Sentiment was an element which had to be considered, but there was not much sentiment about the legal meaning of a Corporation. It was, in fact, a legal matter. There was no service more orderly than that of the Cathedral Church of Truro, where the body was voluntary, and was not a Corporation.

said, the speech of the hon. Gentleman was not consistent with the argument advanced by the Home Secretary, whose objection to the Amendment was, that if it were carried, one of the existing privileges of the Church, which distinguished it from Nonconformist bodies, would be left to them, and that therefore complete religious equality would not be attained. The hon. Gentleman said there was no sentiment connected with a Corporation neither did the power of a Corporation give any substantial privilege to the Church.

said, that he had pointed out that it had a legal meaning.

asked, if the argument touched neither sentime nor practice, what did it touch? If nnoentiment attached to Corporations, why on earth did the Government object to the amendment?

said the right honourable Gentleman, in his somewhat microscopical dialectics, professed to have discovered a difference between his honourable Friend and himself. He entirely subscribed to what his honourable Friend had said, and could see no inconsistency in doing so. A chapter had a certain status which enabled it to hold property by perpetual succession, and that was a legal status which might be described as a privilege peculiar to these Corporations. On the other hand, his honourable Friend was perfectly right in saying that it did not confer any privilege on the Chapter in the larger sense of the term privilege, meaning something of advantage to an institution in carrying on its work. The Church parted with nothing that gave it any substantial assistance in carrying on its work when these Chapters ceased to be incorporated.

said, he rose to support the Amendment. He believed there were several colleges in Wales, some for the training of ministers and others for educational purposes, and he should be surprised to be told that none of these were incorporated. And if they were incorporated why was it more invidious that cathedrals should be incorporated than that these institutions should be? They denied that this was an offensive privilege because they believed it was enjoyed by others.

said, there were only three colleges in Wales which were incorporated, all of a lay character, and by the charters in connection with which the study of theology was expressly excluded. There was another incorporated college of a theological character, namely, Lampeter College, which was in point of fact, purely a Church of England college. None of the colleges for the training of Nonconformist ministers were incorporated at all.

said, that surely the statement of the lion. Member gave force to the contention of those who supported this Amendment. They had it from the hon. Member that Lampeter College, being a college of the Church of England in Wales, was incorporated. If that were so why not allow these cathedrals to be incorporated?

asked whether Lampeter College would come within the interpretation applying to Ecclesiastical Corporations?

said that Lampeter College was incorporated by Royal Charter in 1828. The Ecclesiastical Commissioners then transferred to the college the lands that were vested in them in connection with the Cathedral of St. David's. His impression was that Lampeter College did not come within the Bill, as it came within the definition of a private benefaction, and was not an ecclesiastical corporation.

But surely, Mr. Chairman, private benefactions are confined to benefactions of private individuals, whilst Lampeter College was endowed from funds belonging to one of the Chapters?

I think the hon. Member is not in order in the line he is taking.

said, he only wished to refer to the point which had been put by the hon. and learned Member for Plymouth, who had asked whether under this term "ecclesiastical corporation" Lampeter College would be included.

said, Lampeter College was not an ecclesiastical corporation at all, and if the property of the college were, under the third clause of this Bill, vested in the Welsh Commissioners it would be transferred to them only subject to existing interests. As it was a Corporation it lived for ever, and as the Welsh Commissioners would only obtain a reversionary interest subject to all existing interests their interest would be absolutely inappreciable The college would not, therefore, be affected in the least degree.

remarked, that it was satisfactory to find that at any rate there was one institution connected with the Church of England in Wales which the Goverment did not intend to sacrifice. He thought, however, it was unfortunate that the Government, having made up their minds that they must preserve the use of the cathedrals in Wales for the Church, which was now in possession of them, should not have yielded the shadow as well as the substance, and should not have reserved the cathedrals to the corporations, in whose possession they now were. Surely they might have gone as far as this in deference to the sentiment which, he conceived, was just as legitimate when it existed in members of the Church of England as the corresponding sentiment when it existed in the breast of persons who did not belong, but were actively opposed to that Church.

, in supporting the Amendment, said, that probably of all the sentiments aroused by this Bill, the sentiment relating to the cathedrals was among the strongest; and the injury done to the cause of the Church by this matter of the cathedrals would, he ventured to say, never be forgotten by Churchmen in England. The right hon. Gentleman must, therefore, not be surprised if they persisted in pushing this Amendment to a Division. Though he should be anxious to take the right hon. Gentleman at his word, yet considering that he was the author of the Bill containing subsequent clauses relating to these cathedrals, which they regarded as being needlessly wanton and cruel—

Order, order. The hon. Baronet cannot now discuss or describe subsequent clauses in that way.

would not repeat the expression. Though these subsequent clauses had been spoken of by the right hon. Gentleman in conciliatory terms—

I want to point out that the hon. Baronet cannot discuss these clauses at the present time.

said, that notwithstanding the conciliatory expressions of the right hon. Gentleman, it would be necessary, having regard to all the circumstances of the case, to press this Amendment to a Division. The Under Secretary for the Home Department informed the Committee that one essential part of these corporations would remain, namely, the Dean and Chapter, but not in a corporate capacity. That they should remain in their corporate capacity, however, was essential to the due performance, of their duties; if they were shorn of that capacity, it would deprive them of much of their usefulness and efficiency. There were various reasons why they wished to omit cathedrals from the clause. They were anxious to maintain them because they were connected with some of the most sacred and venerable associations which cluster around the Church in Wales.

could not help thinking that the Home Secretary, in the reasons he had given against the Amendment, the sentiment on the part of the Nonconformists of Wales against any vestige of privilege being allowed to exist which had no place in connection with Nonconformist Ecclesiastical Bodies, had done gross injustice to the Nonconformists of Wales. To begin with, it was by no means clear that the Nonconformist bodies had not exactly the same privileges, and the Home Secretary had guarded himself against making the general assertion that no such corporation existed.

I say that, to the best of my knowledge, I should be much surprised if it did exist.

But that is not sufficient ground—"to the best of my knowledge"—for the assertion. The whole argument of the right hon. Gentleman rested upon an assumption which he was not able to prove. He did not believe there was this extreme jealousy on the part of the Nonconformists of Wales against the cathedrals. What an absurdity it was to sweep away these corporate bodies when it was quite possible, after the Church was disestablished, for the new representative body to set them on their legs again. There were many respects in which the Cathedral Corporations differed from corporations sole in the parishes. If there were any portion of the Church in Wales with which the Nonconformists had shown their sympathy, it had been the cathedrals. A large amount of the money spent on the restoration of these cathedrals in the last 10 or 20 years had come from Nonconformists themselves, who regarded the cathedrals, and rightly, as great national monuments. He believed, therefore, the Welsh Members entirely misrepresented the views of the people of Wales in this matter.

appealed to the Home Secretary to reconsider his decision. He should have thought there was no Nonconformist in the House who would refuse the Church this little concession, seeing they were going to take away their Establishment and their money.

Order, order! The hon. Member is now going beyond the limits of his Amendment. The question is solely with regard to the dissolution of those corporations.

said, he would point out, with all respect, that the dissolution of those corporations would mean the loss by the corporations of the funds by which at the present time they were able to carry on their beneficent parochial work. There was, besides, no proposal to put in the place of those corporations any body that would carry on their great and good and useful work. He therefore asked the Committee to omit the words "and ecclesiastical" from the clause.

said, there appeared to be some misconception in the mind of the hon. Gentleman as to the effect of the words he proposed to omit from the clause. One would gather from his observations that they would do away with the parochial system and would meddle with Church property. With regard to Church property, it was dealt with by Clause 3, and did not arise here, and with respect to the parochial system, the clause did not propose to interfere with the present organisation of the Church or with the incumbents of parishes in the administration of their parochial duties. The word "corporation" was used in the clause in what he might call its legal sense. The Committee had just decided to do away with cathedrals as aggregate, corporations, and if the Amendment were carried the incumbents as corporations sole, would be allowed to continue The Home Secretary had stated the reasons which made the Government unwilling to continue the attribute of corporation, in its legal sense, to any part of the Welsh Church, and having rejected it in the case of cathedrals, it could hardly be expected that the Government would retain it in relation to parish churches.

said, that apart from the property confiscated by the Bill there was a considerable amount of property still remaining, which in all fairness and reasonableness ought to be allowed to remain in the hands of persons who now, as corporations sole, administered it for the benefit of the particular parishes to which it was given. There were no ministrations for the poor but the ministrations of the Church, and it was the duty of the opponents of this Bill to persist in opposing provisions which would in great part deprive the poor of those ministrations.

pointed out that the clause provided for one of the very things the promoters of the Bill said they wished to get rid of. The Bill provided for the creation of representative bodies with powers of continuous life—the very thing that was objected to in regard to Cathedral bodies. How did the Home Secretary reconcile these facts? He might cut these Gordian knots in the Division Lobby, but let him reconcile them in Debate. The Home Secretary said he did not wish to interfere with the parochial system of the Church of England. The best way to preserve it would be by legal form. Let Parliament take every atom of property from these corporations, but let them remain as they were—the form by which the future munificence and benefactions of Churchmen might be devoted for the advantage of parishioners. He appealed to the President of the Board of Trade, who was very precise as to the terms he used in such matters, to define what he meant by the word "ecclesiastical." What was the difference in the term as applied to the association of religious men who belonged to the Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, and those who belonged to the Catholic Church according to the Roman use, or the Baptists, Calvinistic Methodists, and others. If he could not differentiate the use of the term, he would appeal to him to accept this Amendment, and remove a word of indefinite value from an Act of Parliament. The Under Secretary at the Home Office desired, above all things, that the existing organisation of the Church should not be interfered with. It would not be interfered with by the preservation of these corporations. If their present status was taken away from them they were suspended, as it were, and an Act of Attainder was passed against them, and Parliament would consider hereafter what punishment or penalties were to be inflicted. Hon. Members opposite did not care two pins about destroying the status of the Church. What they wanted to do was to take her money. Then why not preserve these corporations in their present legal form and promote the desire preferred by the Government not to interfere with the continuous life of the Church?

remarked that, having regard to what the Government had said with regard to the Cathedrals, they could scarcely expect them to accept the omission of these words. So he advised his hon. Friend to be satisfied with the protest he had made.

said, he appreciated the benevolent spirit the hon. Member had exhibited, and he hoped those who represented the Nonconformists of Wales would appreciate the hon. Member's burning zeal for their interests.

said, he distinctly stated that he moved the Amendment in the interest of Roman Catholics, a large number of whom he represented.

said, that unless his recollection deceived him the hon. Member referred several times to the Nonconformists. The hon. Member asked why they did not define the word "Corporation." The Government assumed the House, and those who would have to interpret the Act, would have some knowledge, not only of legal language, but of the ordinary meaning of terms. They, therefore, did not define the words "Cathedral," "Bishop," and "Church," and they believed every lawyer and nearly every layman would understand what was meant by "Corporation." He could not conceive the slightest use of the Amendment. The Bill was one for Disestablishment and Disendowment of the Church of England in Wales and Monmouthshire, and therefore it could not operate upon anything except the Church of England. The hon. Member had not given any instance of any corporation, whether existing for the benefit of Nonconformists or Roman Catholics, which these words could affect, and if there were such corporations the Bill would not affect them. This particular Clause said:

"On the date of Disestablishment every Cathedral and Ecclesiastical Corporation in Wales or Monmouthshire, whether sole or aggregate, shall be dissolved."

He put it to the Committee with some confidence, that there was nothing in the words which could operate upon any corporation, except one belonging to the Church of England in Wales. In their view, therefore, the Amendment was wholly superfluous, and in the interest of drafting and common sense they could not accept it.

said, that if the right hon. Gentleman thought that by speeches such as he had just made he would promote the passing of the Bill, he was greatly mistaken. A more unworthy answer to a very fair speech had never been made. The right hon. Gentleman talked about drafting and common sense. If the right hon. Gentleman would endeavour to bring his great mind down to the level of those who were dealing with the Bill he might have shown there was common sense and drafting involved in the arguments addressed to him. They were dealing with twelve counties immediately to the westward of the English counties. Take the case of an Ecclesiastical college, which had nothing to do with the actual dioceses of Wales, and yet happened to be locally situate in Monmouthshire. It was absurd to say the present words of the Clause would not disestablish the college. Would the right hon. Gentleman accept the words:

"Any Ecclesiastical Corporation connected with the Church in Wales."

There were similar words in Clause 1. On the question of drafting he might point out that in Clause 1 it was said:

"The Church of England, so far as it is established by law in Wales or Monmouthshire (in this Act roferred to as the Church in Wales)."

What was the common argument which was properly used by lawyers and judges when they found in two consecutive sections phrases at variance? It was seen that the Church in Wales was that which was referred to as the Church disestablished, but that was abandoned when Ecclesiastical corporations were dealt with, then it was that the words: "In Wales or Monmouthshire" were used. The consequence was that if there should by chance be an Ecclesiastical corporation which happened to be locally situated across the imaginary boundary, it would be disestablished. The boundary was to be fixed by the Commissioners. This was not an Amendment put forward for the purpose of occupying time, but it was one intended to make the Bill read logically. "An Ecclesiastical corporation in Wales or Monmouthshire" would not be construed as being "An Ecclesiastical corporation of the Church in Wales or Monmouthshire," and he did not think the Solicitor General would controvert that statement. No one could suggest that the Amendments would do any harm, and therefore what possible exception could be taken to them?

said, that nothing could have been further from the intention of the right hon. Gentleman, the Home Secretary (Mr. Asquith), than to have treated this subject in a manner calculated to give offence to hon. Members opposite, and he regretted that the feelings of his hon. and learned Friend opposite (Sir R. Webster) should have apparently-been somewhat ruffled at the right hon. Gentlemen's observations. Had not his honourable and learned Friend made a direct personal appeal to him upon the point in question, he should certainly not have taken any part in the debate upon this Amendment. In answer to the appeal of his hon. and learned Friend, all he could say was that, as regarded the protection to be given to the various other I religious denominations, he was perfectly satisfied with the words as they stood in the Clause, which were amply sufficient to effect that object. They were all agreed in intention on the point, and it certainly did not appear to him that it was necessary that the words in the Clause should be altered in order to carry out that intention. He fully recognised the intention with which the Amendment had been moved, but he could only repeat that he was perfectly with the wording of the Clause as it stood in the Bill.

said, that when lawyers in that House differed as to the meaning of words in a Clause, the other Members of the Committee were bound to decide upon the meaning for themselves. The hon. and learned Gentleman, the Solicitor General, had said that it did not matter whether the words in the Amendment were inserted in the Clause or not. The hon. and learned Gentleman had expressed his opinion that the words were wholly unnecessary to effect the object upon which all parties were agreed, namely, that the various other religious denominations in Wales and Monmouthshire should be protected from the provisions of the Bill, but his hon. and learned Friend (Sir Richard Webster) who, upon a legal question of this kind, was at least as high an authority as the hon. and learned Gentleman, the Solicitor General, had said that the words of the Amendment would make a material difference in the meaning of the clause. The right hon. Gentleman, the Home Secretary, could at once put an end to the discussion by allowing the words of the Amendment to be inserted in the clause.

said, that the contention of the hon. Member who had moved the Amendment was that the words he proposed to insert would have the effect of protecting the Catholics in Wales and Monmouthshire. It was a noticeable fact that the hon. and learned Gentleman (Sir Richard Webster) did not adopt that argument. As far as his information on the subject went, no Catholics in Wales or Monmouthshire imagined for a moment that their interests would be endangered by the provisions of this Bill, and therefore, in his opinion, the Amendment was unnecessary and uncalled for.

said, that the right hon. Gentleman, the Home Secretary, appeared to have forgotten that the Government had given a definition of the words "Cathedral Corporation." In that case, why did they now refuse to define the words "Ecclesiastical Corporation"? The object that the Committee must keep in view was to make this Bill as plain as possible in order that it might be easily intelligible to those who had to construe it. He was certain that a court of law would have much difficulty in explaining the meaning of the words "Ecclesiastical Corporations" unless they were defined in the Bill. It appeared to him that the Government were merely wasting the time of the Committee in refusing to accept this Amendment.

said, he thought that considerable risk would be run by allowing the words of the Clause to remain unamended. The right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary had said that the Clause did not bear the precise meaning that the Government desired should attach to it, and the right hon. Gentleman had now an opportunity of amending the clause so that it should bear the meaning which the Government desired to give it. Seeing that the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary who was himself a lawyer was in doubt as to the meaning of the Clause that meaning could not be quite as clear as the hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor General thought it was. He thought the same definition should be given in the Bill of the meaning of the words in question. Why should not the right hon. Gentleman accept the words? No one on the Ministerial Bench had shown that they could do any harm. They were framed on the words already included in Clause I., and were manifestedly wanted, because "Cathedral Corporation" was already defined. If the right hon. Gentleman wished to get the Bill through in reasonable time, he would do well to accept Amendments against which there was nothing to be said.

said, that in the definition clause "Cathedral Corporation" was denned with admirable precision. Amongst other things it included the Dean and Chapter, which "Ecclesiastical Corporation" did not include. A definition for "Ecclesiastical Corporation" being wanted, he followed the reference of the right hon. Member for Denbighshire to "Wharton Law's Lexicon," and from that he learnt that "Ecclesiastical Corporation" meant Bishops, Deans, Parsons, and Vicars. Did the clause mean then that every Bishop, Parson and Dean was to be dissolved? That was ridiculous. An ecclesiastical corporation might be a corporation having operations over the whole of the United Kingdom, and yet situated in Wales or Monmouthshire. Then the words "of the Church in Wales" were precisely the words which were wanted, because they confined the dissolution to Wales and Monmouthshire.

said, that it had been shown how the Bishop might be dissolved. Was he right or wrong in supposing that the Archbishop of Canterbury was the head of all ecclesiastical corporations in Wales? And if he was, was he to be dissolved too, or was he the only ecclesiastical person who was not to be dissolved? Again, if so, on what grounds?

said, that the hon. and learned Member for Waltham-stow had introduced a comic element into the discussion which was hardly appropriate. There could be no doubt, as the hon. and learned Gentle man knew perfectly well, about the meaning of the words in point of law The word "dissolved" applied to "corporation," and the words "sole or aggregate" exhausted the categories of corporations. The hon. and learned Member's criticism was not serious. The only real point was that raised by the hon. and learned Member for the Isle of Wight, who suggested, surmised o conjectured that there might be a possibility of such a thing as an ecclesiastical corporation situated in Wales geographically, but belonging not to the Church in Wales, but to the Church in England No instances of such an ecclesiastical corporation had been cited, but to put an end to the discussion, which seemed to him to be purely academic, he would agree to insert the words "of the Church in Wales," provided, of course, that the words "in Wales or Monmouthshire" were allowed to follow. What hon. Gentlemen opposite contended for was the intention of the clause and the effect f the clause.

said, that he was glad to hear the right hon. Gentleman's concession. If the right hon. Gentleman had been able to be in the House when the Amendment was Moved, and had replied instead of the President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Bryce) the matter could have been settled half an hour earlier.

ruled the Amendment out of order.

said, that if the Home Secretary would look back to the first section he would find that it was unnecessary to have the words "or Monmouthshire" here, as in;hat section the Church in Wales was described as including Monmouthshire.

said, the words which the hon. Member proposed to insert were quite unnecessary and were pure surplusage. They had already defined the subject-matter with which they were dealing as "the Church so far as it is established by law." It was the Church and not the individual corporation that was established by law, and the words of the Amendment as applicable to the corporations had absolutely no meaning. He, therefore, could not accept the Amendment.

protested strongly against this manner of treating serious Amendments. Instead of using any argument the right hon. Gentleman simply gave a stereotyped answer. He had much better say at once that he was going to guillotine the whole of the Amendments and pass the Bill as it stood.

said, the Amendment was based on the fact that there was no definition of the words "established by law." These words had been borrowed entirely from the Irish Act, though the cases of Ireland and Wales were entirely different. The object of the Amendment was to insure that the members of these corporations after the Church was disestablished would have exactly the same privileges as were granted by law to members of other religious communities.

said, this was a matter that should be pressed upon the Government. They wanted this proviso to be inserted, in order to place the Corporations on precisely the same equality with Nonconformist bodies. The Amendment was a very reasonable one.

said, he did not see how this clause would read if the words of his hon. Friend were inserted. He hoped that he would not go to a Division.

said, his object was that those cathedrals and ecclesiastical corporations should be treated in every sense like a Nonconformist body.

hoped his hon. Friend would go to a Division. The Home Secretary had not shown that there would be any danger or difficulty created if those words were inserted.

said, the words would be absolutely inappropriate. How could a corporation be partly dissolved and not dissolved? The words of the hon. Member had no sense whatever, and the Government would not consent to their insertion.

joined in the appeal to the hon. Member not to divide the Committee, believing that it would be unwise to insert these words.

read from the Irish Church Act, and showed that the words complained of were actually part of that statute. In these circumstances he preferred to take his own course, and to divide the Committee.

said, that where matters which were essential were concerned they had shown no want of respect, but this, of course, was a point which it would be absolutely impossible for them to concede. The proposition of the hon. Member was that Bishops of a Disestablished Church, which had ceased to have any connection with the State, and which would stand on precisely the same footing as all the Nonconformist bodies, were still for the term of their natural lives to sit in the House of Lords. By what title could the ministers of any Church in this country which had ceased to be a State Church claim any right to sit in either House of Parliament? He had never heard the doctrine of vested interests carried so far before. The hon. Member thought the presence of the Bishops in the other House was necessary in the interests of the Church; but he had been given to understand by hon. Members opposite that the Church of England and the Church of England in Wales were so indissolubly connected that it was imposssble to make any separation between them; and if that were so, the hon. Member's Amendment amounted to want of confidence in the Archbishops and Bishops of the Church of England, not to mention the temporal Members of the other Assembly, who might be trusted even by hon. Gentlemen opposite to watch over the interests of the Church. He thought the hon. Member might rest satisfied that the interests of the Church would be safe in the other House whatever the effect of this Bill would be, and it would certainly be inconsistent with the principle and object of the Bill to assent to a proposal admitting the Bishops of a Disestablished Church to be members of one of the branches of the Legislature of this country.

described the Amendment as a good one, and also a modest one. They did not ask that all the Bishops of the Church in Wales should have the right to sit in the House of Lords, but they asked the right hon. Gentleman to carry out what he had stated to be a principle of this Bill, namely, that no individual's position should be made worse by the operation of this measure. The Home Secretary asked why should a Bishop of a Disestablished Church sit in the House of Lords when no representative of any Nonconformist body sat there? They might answer why should the rector of any parish continue to enjoy his endowment during his lifetime? All they asked was that the principle of vested interests in the Church should be maintained. This clause commenced by excluding, after Disestablishment, all Bishops from the House of Lords, and it went on to provide that after the passing of the Act any Bishop, Dean, or Archdeacon of the Church in Wales should continue to enjoy his title and precedence as if the Act had not passed. From that it was clear that the Government did not limit vested interests to pecuniary considerations. They included the question of title and precedence, and, having done that, why should they not include the absolute right a Bishop had to sit in the House of Lords? What was the good of title and precedence if not coupled with the power that a seat in the House of Lords gave? Some Members of the House of Commons, as they knew, would like the title and precedence without sitting in the House of Lords; but that feeling was not shared by the Bishops, and they had no right to prejudice the case by deciding that an existing Bishop at the time of the passing of this Act, might not go to the House of Lords if he wished to do so. If the Government adhered to the proposal as it stood in the Bill, they were breaking entirely through the principle they had already laid down, that no individual affected by the Act should be in a worse position than he was before the Act passed. As his hon. Friend had pointed out, it would be a great advantage to the Church during this transition period if the existing bishops should be allowed to go to the House of Lords. By Clause 14, it was clear that the Church in Wales and the Church of England remained, until the Representative Body decided to the contrary, one and the same Church. Even the jurisdiction of the Archbishop was to remain in force in the Church in Wales, unless he gave it up, or unless the Representative body so decided. Was it not right and proper that when the Government had broken up Convocation and destroyed the power of the Church in Wales to send a representative to that body which the rest of the Church enjoyed, that, at all events they should grant to the existing Bishops there right to still go to the House of Lords? The Representative Body, which came into existence by Clause 15, might decide to get rid of the Archbishop's jurisdiction. That Body, however, might not come into existence for some time after the date of Disestablishment. During that period it was most important that the Church should have some advocates with special knowledge in the House of Lords. It was in this transition period that the whole constitution of the Church would be settled, and he urged that the existing Bishops should at least have conferred upon them the right to sit in the House of Lords for the rest of their lives. On the principle of conserving existing interests, and what was useful and good to the Church, this ought to be granted. Why should these Bishops not sit in the House of Lords? He should like to ask the Home Secretary on what principles Bishops sat in the House of Lords at all at present. Very well; if they objected to the bishops in the House of Lords, let them say so, and bring in a Bill. According to the "Constitutions of Clarendon," it would be found that the Bishops were originally sent to the House of Lords, not as spiritual persons, but as tenants in fee to the Crown, and by virtue of the property they held. During the lives of present Bishops the Government did not propose to take away their property; therefore, they did not take away the principal ground on which the Bishops originally were summoned to the House of Lords. Consequently the original reason why they were sent there remained so long as they retained a vested interest in their property. Hon. Members opposite wanted to reform the House of Lords by a system of Life Peerages. But Bishops were practically Life Peers, and yet these were the very people whom the philosophic Radicals opposite wanted to strike out by this clause.

said, that while they all admitted that after Disestablishment future Bishops must be excluded from the House of Lords, yet he contended that the present Bishops should remain there as a question of privilege. Now, the Home Secretary asked by what right were the Bishops to be in the House of Lords? His reply was—By the right of possession. By remaining there they would be of use to the Church in Wales. The Home Secretary very naturally said that the Archbishops and Bishops of the Church of England could look after the interests of the Church in Wales. Of course they would, to the best of their local knowledge; but they could not have the local knowledge necessary for guarding the interests of the Disestablished Church, and that local knowledge would be possessed by the prelates who, he contended, ought to remain there for the rest of their lives at all events. Their presence was peculiarly necessary during the interregnum. In the official and administrative world in which he had moved all his life, he had seen great and sweeping changes, in other countries besides this country of England, and in every case there always had been a saving clause for present incumbents. In the whole of his recollection he could not recall a case in which present incumbents had been so satisfied as the Welsh Bishops would be by the clause he was anxious to see amended. He would say to the Home Secretary as the great woodman—"Woodman, spare these trees at least." The prelates to whom the Amendment applied were very distinguished men. The Bishop of St. Asaph, to mention one out of the four, was one of the lights of the Church and one of the luminaries of the age. He was held in the highest respect and esteem of everyone sitting on the Opposition Benches, and to exclude him from the House of Lords would be a national detriment and a great loss to that Assembly. It was melancholy to reflect that the effects of this clause would be to silence that right reverend prelate's voice in the Parliament of this country.

wished to say a few words in support of the Amendment. The proposal of the Government was not to reduce the number of bishops in the House of Lords by four. Their plan was to turn out of the House of Lords the four Welsh bishops who by virtue of the occupancy of Welsh sees were now Members of that House, and to introduce in their places four new Bishops from among the English Bishops. He would draw attention to the extraordinary drafting of the subsection with which they were dealing. It said—

"After the date of Disestablishment no bishop of the Church in Wales shall be summoned to or be qualified to sit in the House of Lords as such;"

and then came a proviso, which was larger in its area than the sub-section to which it was annexed. That provisoran—

"Provided that every person who is at the passing of this Act a bishop, dean, or archdeacon of the Church in Wales, shall during his life enjoy the same title and precedence as if this Act had not been passed."

That was the clumsiest proviso ever inserted in any Bill.

It was in the Irish Act.

pointed out that the proviso applied to "bishops, deans, and archdeacons," and was attached to words which referred to Bishops only. The proviso provided for the retention of the Bishops' titles and precedence, whilst the clause abolished their dignity altogether. The right hon. Gentleman had said that there was no excuse for having the Bishops in the House of Lords because they would represent anybody But there was a precedent for the course which the supporters of the Amendment proposed. Provision was made some years ago for the addition to the House of Lords of certain Lords of Appeal, who were to hold the position during life of Lords of Parliament, and a Lord of Appeal might now be appointed, and might in a short time, say two years, resign his position as Lord of Appeal, and yet, during the remainder of his life, he would continue to be a Lord of Parliament. This was not a question of reducing the number of Bishops in the House of Lords. He must take the scheme of the Government altogether if he took it at all, and he supposed they would adhere as strongly to the proposal in Sub-section 3 that four new English Bishops should be allowed to sit, as they would to the proposal to exclude the Welsh Bishops. He thought it would be more reasonable that the four Welsh Bishops should continue to be Lords of Parliament until the end of their lives. He did not admit that there was any anomaly in the matter at all. Surely it was absolutely right, by the illustration he had given of the Lords of Appeal, who when they ceased to be Judges remained Lords of Appeal, if by the authority of Parliament the established position of these bishops was put an end to, they should be allowed to remain in the position of Councillors of the nation. The Government might wait until they died before they introduced four new English bishops into the House of Lords. He hoped a Division would be taken on the Amendment.

said, that the proposal of the Amendment would retain a serious inequality in a measure which professed to be based on religious equality. Hon. Members opposite had spoken solely in the interest of the Church. He wished to say a word in the interest of the Welsh people. There were 31 representatives of Wales in that House who supported Liberal measures, and when those measures reached the other House they were very often mutilated or defeated by the four Welsh bishops. Anyone who had observed the Divisions in the Local Government Act in the other House would find that was the case. It would be a great grievance to the Welsh people if these right reverend Gentlemen should continue to sit in the other House and misrepresent the opinions of the Welsh people. It would be good for the bishops and good for the Church if none of the bishops occupied seats in the House of Lords, but it would be an extraordinary anomaly if the Welsh bishops should be retained in that House. He was glad to see that two hon. Members opposite intended to propose the omission of Sub-section 3. He thought it would be felt generally that the excission of that part of the Bill would be a considerable improvement.

said, he had never heard a speech breathing so entirely of the illiberality of Liberalism. The hon. Gentleman desired to get rid of the Welsh bishops from the House of Lords because they did not vote with him, just in the same way as he would get rid of every Member of the House of Commons who voted against him. This question ought not to be fought on such mean arguments, but on arguments of a higher and broader character. Did the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary know that the bishops sat in the House of Lords long before the words "establishment by law" were ever heard of? The term Establishment which the right hon. Gentleman had used as the main groundwork of his argument, only came into use in 1700, and the bishops had sat in the House of Lords as Counsellors for a very much longer time than that. The reason why the bishops were summoned to the House of Lords was because they were barons. In a Bill brought in for other purposes, it was proposed to deal with the manner in which persons should be called to the House of Lords. He was not sure whether it was not beyond the sphere of their business and duty to consider the question how peers should be called to the House of Lords. At all events it was clear that the old constitutional idea was this—once a peer always a peer—and that a man called to the House of Lords should not be removed after having once become a peer. The late Solicitor General had adduced the strongest argument with regard to members of his own profession, arguing that when a Law Lord was called to the House of Lords he remained a Peer of Parliament for the rest of his life. It seemed to be suggested that those who were only life peers were useless members of the House of Lords. In the old days, it was when Bishops were in opposition to the King that they had the greatest power. It was Stephen Langton lead the barons who extorted Magna Charta from King John; and the Bishop of St. Asaph was one of the seven Bishops who were sent to the Tower. He asked the Committee to adhere to the constitutional rule that when a peer was called to Parliament he remained a peer all the days of his life. He asked the Committee to omit this clause and not in any way to prejudge a question on which he differed from some of his friends with regard to the House of Lords. The simple question before them was, whether the most constitutional way of dealing with Bishops who had been called to Parliament was not to leave them Peers of Parliament for the rest of their lives.

said the real reason why the Welsh Bishops were to be excluded from the House of Lords was that they had done their duty there and had stood by the Church. Education schemes prepared by the Charity Commissioners became law if they lay unchallenged on the Table of either House for forty days. The Welsh Bishops had called attention to the fact that some of these schemes, relating to Church Schools supported by Church Funds, deprived those schools of their distinctive character by preventing the use in them of the formularies of the Church. On that ground they had successfully opposed those schemes and secured the modification of them, and that was the chief ground for wishing to get rid of the Welsh Bishops.

said, that, as a rule, on these Committees the Government had a majority. But in this case the Opposition had a majority. How was this?