Skip to main content

Commons Chamber

Volume 180: debated on Tuesday 10 February 1925

House of Commons

Tuesday, February 10, 1925

The House—after the Adjournment on 19th December, 1924, for the Christmas Recess—met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEABER in the Chair.

Members Sworn

The following Members took and subscribed the Oath:

Sir Gerald Strickland, Count della Catina, G.C.M.G., County of Lancaster (Lancaster Division).

William George Arthur Ormsby-Gore, esquire, commonly called the Honourable William George Arthur Ormsby-Gore, County of Stafford (Stafford Division).

Major-General Sir John Humphrey Davidson, K.C.M.G., C.B., D.S.O., County of Hants (Fareham Division).

Roderick Roy Wilson, esquire, County of Stafford (Lichfield Division).

John Bromley, esquire, Borough of Barrow-in-Furness.

Sir William Alexander, K.B.E., C.B., C.M.G., D.S.O., Burgh of Glasgow, (Central Division).

Private Business

County of London Electric Supply Company Bill [ Lords ],

London Electricity Supply (No. 1) Bill [ Lords ],

London Electricity Supply (No. 2) Bill [ Lords ],

North Metropolitan Electric Power Supply Company Bill [ Lords ],

To be read a Second time upon Thursday.

Buckhaven and Methil Burgh Order Confirmation Bill,

Read the Third time, and passed.

Westlothian (Bathgate District) Water Order Confirmation Bill,

Consideration deferred till Tuesday next.

Dumfries and Maxwelltown Bridge Order Confirmation Bill,

Read a Second time; and ordered to be considered To-morrow.

Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table a Report from the Counsel to Mr. Speaker, That, in accordance with Standing Order 79, he had conferred with the Counsel to the Chairman of Committees of the House of Lords, for the purpose of determining in which House of Parliament the respective Private Bills should be first considered, and they had determined that the Bills contained in the following list should originate in the House of Lords, namely:

Aire and Calder Navigation.

Bedfordshire, Cambridgeshire, and Huntingdonshire Electricity.

Bexhill Corporation.

Blackpool Improvement.

Boothferry Bridge.

French Protestant Episcopal Church of the Savoy.

Great Yarmouth Haven Bridge.

Horley District Gas Company (Electricity Supply).

Hoylake and West Kirby Urban District Council.

Ipswich Corporation.

Kingston upon Hull Corporation.

Leek Urban District Council Water.

Lloyd's.

London and North Eastern Railway (General Powers).

London and North Eastern Railway

(Nottingham and Retford Railway).

London, Midland, and Scottish Railway.

Mansfield Corporation.

Mid-Glamorgan Water Board.

Newbury Corporation.

Newquay Water.

Nottingham Corporation.

Oldham Corporation.

Pontypridd and Rhondda Joint Water Board.

Poole Harbour.

Rochdale Corporation.

Royal Exchange Assurance.

St. Mary's Church, Birmingham, and General Hospital.

St. Mildred's Churchyard.

Scarborough Corporation.

South Wales Electrical Power Distribution Company.

Southern Railway.

Stock Conversion and Investment Trust, Limited.

Surrey County Council.

Uckfield Gas and Electricity

Wallasey Corporation.

West Ham Corporation.

Oral Answers to Questions

Questions

Loss of Hulk "Marlborough."

asked the President of the Board of Trade if he has now completed the close investigation into the circumstances attending the loss of the hulk, late H.M.S. "Marlborough"; and, if so, whether he will state the result and what further action he proposes to take?

The Board of Trade have collected such information as is available relating to the circumstances attending the loss of the "Marlborough," and have decided to order a formal investigation.

Trade and Commerce

Census of Production

asked the President of the Board of Trade when the Report of the Census of Production is likely to be ready; and whether it is his intention to publish the full results of the Census of Production taken in 1912?

I regret that I am not in a position to give an approximate date for the issue of the Report on the Census of Production. I hope that some preliminary figures for individual trades may begin to be available about the end of the present year. Much will depend upon the promptitude with which manufacturers and others furnish their returns and the amount of correspondence that will be involved in connection with incomplete or otherwise defective returns. It is proposed to include in the Report comparative statistics for 1912 whenever possible.

Certainly I will. Will my hon. Friend help me in getting over any delays?

Shipbuilding

asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he can state the tonnage of merchant shipping under construction in this country on the 1st January, 1925, on the 30th June, 1924, and on the 1st January, 1924, respectively?

The answer contains figures, and perhaps my hon. Friend will have no objection to my circulating it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Does my right hon. Friend propose to take any immediate steps to help the shipbuilding industry in this country out of its present condition?

My hon. Friend asked me for a table of figures. I think I should hare notice of the further question.

May not we expect that the new duty on steel plates will help the shipbuilding industry

Is it not a fact that British-made steel plates are being sold cheaper on the Continent than in this country where they are produced?

It arises out of something which is not relevant.

Following is the answer to the Question on the paper:

According to the returns published by Lloyd's Register of Shipping, the gross tonnages of merchant vessels under construction at shipyards in Great Britain and Ireland on the dates specified, were as follows:

Tons gross.

1st January, 1925

1,296,971

30th June, 1924

1,516,746

1st January, 1924

1,395,181

The following Statement shows the Imports into the United Kingdom of the articles specified registered during the years 1923 and 1924.

Description.

1923.

1924.

Value.

Value.

£

£

Lace and Articles thereof (except embroidery):—

Of Cotton—

Plain net, including all nets made on Net Machines.

3,726

1,217

Curtains, in the piece or not, made oil Curtain Machines.

24,036

29,018

Other sorts of Cotton Lace, etc.

1,542,609

1,885,814

Total of Cotton Lace and Articles thereof

1,570,371

1.916,049

Of Silk—

Hand made

27

575

Machine made

217,005

141,397

Of Silk mixed with other Materials

194,047

209,319

From 1st April, 1923, the particulars include the Imports into Great Britain and Northern Ireland from the Irish Free State. From the same date, the particulars exclude the direct foreign Imports, if any, into the Irish Free State.

The foregoing particulars relate to vessels of 100 tons gross and upwards, the construction of which had actually been commenced.

Lace Imports

asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will supply the completed figures for 1923 and the figures for 1924 of the value of the import trade in plain net, curtains, other sorts of cotton lace, and in silk and mixed lace?

I understand that my hon. Friend desires the particulars of imports and not exports. The answer contains a table of figures and, with the permission of the House, I will have them circulated in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Can the right hon. Gentleman at the same time give the figures of the exported goods manufactured out of these imported goods?

If the hon. Gentleman will put down any question relating to the figures, I will do my best to answer it.

Following is the answer:

British Army

Catterick Camp Extensions

asked the Secretary of State for War the number of building trade operatives, skilled and unskilled, employed at present on the Catterick Camp extensions, and how much longer will they be required; and the total number of bricks used on these extensions up to the present time, and the number likely to be required to complete the job?

The figures are: Operatives, skilled 618, unskilled 297, who will be required for another three years. Bricks required for work already completed or ordered, 9,500,000; additional bricks required, 15,500,000.

In view of the shortage of houses for civilians, is it not possible for the Army to manage with the accommodation which it had before the War rather than use labour and material wanted for ordinary houses?

It would have been quite possible had we not given up accommodation in Southern Ireland for 25,000 men.

Deserters

asked the Secretary of State for War the number of men sentenced to death and executed for desertion while on active service in this country during the late War?

There were no men executed in the United Kingdom for desertion during the late War.

Does my question not ask whether people were sentenced to death in this country for desertion and not whether they were actually executed in this country? Is it not the fact that people who deserted in this country were executed in France for that desertion?

I was not sure what the hon. Gentleman did mean by his question, and my answer is limited to those executed in the United Kingdom. I cannot give him the figures of those executed in France—if there were any—without a great deal of research, and I am not sure, at the moment, that the labour would be justified.

Tank Corps and Royal Artillery

asked the Secretary of State for War whether he has under consideration the amalgamation of the Tank Corps with the Royal Artillery?

The present functions of these two branches are quite distinct, and no amalgamation is contemplated.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is considerable difficulty in both arms in securing adequate range practice; and would not such amalgamation assist considerably?

I do not think amalgamation is necessary for that purpose.

Full Dress Uniform

asked the Secretary of State for War whether he has any information as to the improvement in the number and type of recruits in the Brigade of Guards since the resumption of full dress; and whether he will take into consideration the advisability of extending this resumption to regiments of the line in His Majesty's Regular and Territorial Army, or, alternatively, of supplying them with some form of smart kit for parade and walking out other than service kit?

Recruiting for the Guards has improved during the period in question, but, as regards the last part of I he question, I regret I am not in a position to give undertakings. I can only say that at the present time money is not available.

Cadets (Fees)

asked the Secretary' of State for War whether any decision has yet been come to with regard to the abolition of fees for gentlemen cadets for His Majesty's Army; if he is aware that many young men of promise, including sons of serving officers, are prevented from entering for the officer corps of the Army through lack of means; and if he is aware that in the American and Japanese armies no fees are charged for cadets?

No decision has yet been reached, but in con- sidering the matter all relevant factors will be borne in mind. I am aware of the American and Japanese practice.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this matter has been under consideration for over three years, and when does he expect some decision from the War Office?

Yes, over three years ago a change was made as the result of consideration, and it is that change which is now being reconsidered.

Questions

Plumage Prohibition Act

asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware of the extent during the last few months of the sale for dress trimming of three species of grebe, none of which are admitted under the schedule of birds legally imported under the Plumage Prohibition Act; and whether any seizures or prosecutions have resulted from the illegal import of these species?

I am informed that during the last few months grebe plumage has been offered for sale by some establishments and that as the result of investigations certain plumage of this kind has been seized, and it has also been ascertained that grebe plumage now on sale has been stored in this country from a date earlier than the 1st April, 1922, when the prohibition against importation first came into operation. The total number of seizures of grebe plumage since the 1st April, 1922, is 14.

asked the President of the Board of Trade the approximate numbers and species of birds illegally imported and confiscated by the Customs officials under the Plumage Prohibition Act since the Act came into force?

As the answer includes a long list of various kinds of birds, I will, with the hon. and gallant Member's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

As the list is so long, may I ask whether it is a fact that these regulations are being evaded in a wholesale manner?

I think the fact that the list is long shows that they are not being successfully evaded, because this list shows the cases where seizures have taken place and where evasion has been prevented.

Following is the answer:

I append a list of birds the plumage of which has been confiscated by the Customs authorities under the Plumage (Prohibition) Act, 1921, during the period since the Act came into operation on 1st April, 1922, to 31st December, 1924. I regret that it is impossible to furnish even approximate numbers of the birds represented by the plumage confiscated.

List of birds the plumage of which has been seized on importation during the period 1st April, 1922, to 31st December, 1924:

Abyssinian Roller.

Albatross.

Barbet (two species).

Black Partridge.

Black Swan.

Bird of Paradise.

Blue Bird.

Blue Jay.

Bower Bird.

Canary.

Cassowary.

Chinese Goldfinch.

Chinese Pond Heron.

Chinese Skylark.

Colibri.

Coot.

Condor.

Crested Crane.

Crowned Pigeon of North Guinea.

Eagle.

Egret.

Emu.

Falcated Teal.

Fieldfare.

Finch.

Flamingo.

Formosan Teal.

Frogopan.

Great Billed Parrot.

Great Indian Bustard.

Grebe.

Greenfinch.

Grey Hen.

Hawk.

Hazel Hen.

Heron.

Humming Bird.

Indian Love Bird.

Indian Roller.

Java Sparrow.

Jungle Cock.

Jungle Crow.

Jungle Fowl.

Kea.

Kingfisher.

Koel.

Kohla Green Pigeon.

Lyre Bird.

Macaw.

Nicoba Pigeon.

Owl.

Parrot.

Parson Bird.

Peacock.

Pelican.

Penguin.

Petrean.

Petrel.

Pheasant, Argus.

Pheasant, Blue Eared.

Pheasant, Chinese Silver.

Pheasant, Copper.

Pheasant, Eared.

Pheasant, Green.

Pheasant, Himalayan.

Pheasant, Lady Amherst.

Pheasant, Reeves.

Pleated Kingfisher.

Red Sided Parrot.

Rhea Darwini.

Roller.

Rook.

Seagull.

Sea Swallow.

Skylark.

Sparrow.

Stone Eagle.

Stork.

Sun Bird.

Swan.

Swanison's Buzzard.

Thrush.

"Tick" Bird.

Vulture.

Wax Wing.

Woodpecker (two species).

White Tern.

Note. —In addition to the birds named, a collection consisting of about 42 birds' skins of various kinds was confiscated on importation.

Unemployment

Road Schemes

asked the Minister of Transport the number of persons employed on road schemes assisted by the Minister of Transport for the relief of unemployment in February of last year and at the present time?

I have been asked to reply. The latest figures available are those for the end of December, 1924, and show that on the returns received 17,389 men were employed on Ministry of Transport schemes, as compared with 13,342 in December, 1923. These figures represent the number of men stated by the local authorities to be actually employed on the site of the work at the date of the return and exclude men stood off from the job at that date in connection with arrangements for alternate working or other shift systems. The figures take no account of the employment provided indirectly in the preparation and transport of materials, etc.

Is it not possible to increase those figures, in view of the large amount of unemployment in certain districts, and to put more men on the roads?

I have no doubt that that view will be considered by my right hon. Friend.

Level Crossings

asked the Minister of Transport whether, with a view to doing something for unemployment in the immediate future, he will recommend that work be commenced, wherever possible, in eliminating the dangers of level crossings across the main arterial roads by means of bridges or subways?

As part of the general scheme now in course of execution for improving some of the principal trunk roads in the country, arrangements are being made for the elimination of certain level crossings. In addition to this, I am always prepared. within the limits of the funds at my disposal, to give consideration to applications from highway authorities for financial assistance to any practical proposals of a similar nature on re-ads of importance from the point of view of traffic and through communications.

Could the right hon. Gentleman say, from the point of view of practical work being done, how many level crossings are being dealt with at the present time?

I could do that, no doubt, if my hon. Friend would give me notice of the question.

Coal-Mining Industry

asked the Minister of Labour the number of unemployed persons in the coal-mining industry according to the last available Return and the proportion which those persons form of the whole number of unemployed persons at the same date, and give similar particulars for the months of January and July in the years 1922, 1923, and 1924?

As the reply involves a number of figures, I will, with my hon. Friend's permission, circulate a statement in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the statement:

COAL-MINING INDUSTRY—GREAT BRITAIN.

Date

Numbers of workpeople registered as Unemployed in the Coal-mining Industry.

Proportion which figures in preceding column bear to total number of Unemployed in all Industries.

Per Cent.

31st January, 1922

119,575

6·1

24th July, 1922

101,470

7·0

22nd January, 1923

56,014

3·8

23rd July, 1923

37,649

2·9

28th January, 1921

58,288

4·4

28th July, 1924

86,262

7·9

22nd December, 1924 *

99,144

8·2

* The figures for 26th January, 1925, are in course of preparation and are not, yet available in final form.The figures for 26th January, 1925, are in course of preparation and are not, yet available in final form.

Iron and Steel Industry

asked the Minister of Labour the number of unemployed persons in the iron and steel industry according to the last available Return, and the proportion which those persons form of the whole number of unemployed persons at the same date?

The number of persons registered as unemployed in Great Britain on 22nd December, 1924, at steel melting and iron puddling furnaces, iron and steel rolling mills and forges was 57,119, which represents 4·7 per cent. of the total numbers registered as unemployed in all industries at the same date.

Unemployment Statistics

asked the Minister of Labour if he will give comparative figures for the two previous years when publishing the weekly record of unemployment statistics; and, if possible, the numbers on short time that, are working three days each week or less?

The figures now issued include, the corresponding totals for a week ago and a year ago. I think, on the whole, it would riot be advantageous to add to the size of the table by including also the total for two years ago. Weekly statistics with regard to the numbers on short time are not available.

asked the Minister of Labour how many persons are now registered as unemployed; how many are working consistent short time; and what were the corresponding figures for the nearest corresponding date last year?

On 26th January, 1925, the number of persons recorded on the registers of Employment Exchanges in Great Britain was 1,240.922, as compared with 1,320,518 on 28th January, 1924, at which date, however, the figure was temporarily inflated by a trade dispute. There are no reliable periodical figures for persons on short time. According to an analysis of approximately one per cent. of a register of 1,232,000 last November, there were then from 200,000 to 250,000 out of this number on short time or suspended from their employment, and probably the proportion is not very different at the present time.

Questions

Horses (Export)

asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he has now inquired into the abuses attending the export of horses for slaughter on the continent; and whether he will take action in the matter?

I have been giving my careful consideration to this matter, and I propose to appoint a Departmental Committee to inquire into the conditions under which the export of horses to the continent is carried on and to advise whether any further restrictions are necessary.

Beet Sugar Industry

asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he will lay Papers, before the Committee stage of the British Sugar (Subsidy) Bill, giving a complete account of the trading -operations of the Kelham and Cantley sugar factories since their inception, with copies of balance sheets, including profit and loss accounts, of each year of working, and capital expenditure and depreciation?

With the hon. Member's permission, I will circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT a statement as to the trading operations of the Kelham and Cantley factories, prepared from information supplied by the companies.

Will that include a full statement of the operations, including a profit and loss account?

I think it will give the hon. Gentleman all the information he wants: at least, it will give him all the information that I have in my hands to give.

In view of the fact that it is proposed to vote money for these companies and similar companies, ought we not to have full particulars of the financial trading operations before public money is voted?

I have already told the hon. Member that he will have all the information that is at my disposal, and I cannot say more.

Following is the statement promised:

Home Grown Sugar, Limited, the owners of the Kelham factory, was registered in 1920 with a share capital of £500,000, of which £250,000 was invested by the Government and £250,000 by public subscription. The factory operated for the first time in 1921. In 1922 the factory was closed through the urgent necessity of reconstructing the company, to which the Government, had made a further advance of £125,000 on mortgage, and to make alterations and extensions to the machinery. The factory came into operation again in 1923 and 1924.

The results of the first manufacturing season (1921) disclosed a net deficiency of £103,509, after charging £8,908 for mortgage interest and £15,564 for depreciation. In 1922, the reconstruction involved the writing down of the share capital by 15s. per £1 share in order to extinguish past losses and to write down the factory to its then value as it was built in a period of inflated prices. In 1923 a net profit of £8,831 was made after charging £19,852 for mortgage interest and £20,872 for depreciation on the revised values. The amount spent in capital expenditure upon the Kelham factory is approximately £555,000.

With regard to the Cantley factory the following information has been furnished by the owners the English Beet Sugar Corporation, Ltd. It was built by the Anglo Netherland Beet Sugar Corporation, Ltd., in 1911, and during its first four years' existence that company incurred a net loss of £254,364, exclusive of depreciation. The company was reconstructed as the English Beet Sugar Corporation, Ltd., but the factory did not resume operations until 1920, since when it has been in operation each season: During the seasons 1920/21, there was a net loss of £145,892 exclusive of depreciation. In the years 1922/23, the period of the remission of the Excise Duty, there was a net profit of £237,374 after charging depreciation. No dividend on shares has ever been paid by the companies owning the Cantley factory; the capital expenditure to 1923 upon the construction and equipment of the factory and on development expenditure represents at least £675,000. The net loss during the whole period was £162,882, after charging interest on debentures and depreciation for two years only. No account is taken in these figures of losses through writing down the assets on reconstruction in 1916 by £212,304 or of the sum of £98,982 received by the first company on foreign guarantees.

It is understood that a complete history of the Home Grown Sugar Industry has been prepared by the British Sugar Beet Society and that copies of this document have already been circulated to Hon. Members for their information.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he contemplates taking any steps to recover, for the benefit of the taxpayer, the whole or any part of the increase in land values brought about by the subsidisation, with public money, of the sugar beet industry in this country?

I would refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave to the hon. Member for Govan (Mr. N. Maclean) on the 16th December.

Is the right hon. Gentleman convinced that the landowners of this country are in greater need of public assistance than the poor masses?

That is a general question, and I am sure I could not enter into it satisfactorily at the present time.

asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury if he will state the world production of sugar in 1912–13, 1913–14, 1919–20, and subsequent years to date; and the total volumes of beet sugar imported into this country from Europe during the same years and during the period from 1st April, 1924, to 31st January, 1925?

As the answer contains a number of figures, I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the answer:

No official figures are available regarding the world production of sugar, but the quantities as estimated by trade authorities are as follows:—

Sugar Year (Commencing 1st October)

Quantities Tons

1912–13

18,187,000

1913–14

18,431,000

1919–20

15,193,000

1920–21

16,736,000

1921–22

17,697,000

1922–23

18,120,000

1923–24

19,699,000

1924–25

22,633,000

Continental countries during the calendar years most nearly approximating to those above was as follows:—

Calendar Year

Unrefined Beet Sugar

Refined Sugar

Tons

Tons

1913

677,100

921,850

1914

242,850

611,100

1920

15,150

3,750

1921

13,700

244,250

1922

200

153,550

1923

20,850

244,950

1924

97,050

506,600

Transport

Southern Railway

asked the Minister of Transport (1) whether railway users who conform to the procedure laid down by the terms of the Railway Act in regard to grievances against the management, charges, and services of the respective railway companies, and who make their complaints in the manner therein laid down and through the authorised channel, can, in the event of their receiving what they consider to be harsh or unfair decisions, state their case to the Ministry of Transport: and, if so, whether he will be prepared to receive a deputation of railway users on the Southern Railway in connection with their complaints of inconvenient services, unpunctuality, the antiquated and unclean condition of the rolling stock, and the vexed question of season tickets;

(2) whether he is aware that numerous deputations of railway users have laid complaints before the management of the Southern Railway drawing attention in particular to inadequate train service, unpunctuality, and discomfort; whether he is aware that the representations made have produced little or no effect: and whether he will be willing, at a future date to be arranged by him, to receive a deputation of dissatisfied railway users in order that his Ministry may bring some future pressure upon the management of the Southern Railway?

The question of railway charges is one for the Railway Rates Tribunal, and questions as to railway services, facilities and conveniences are matters for the Railway and Canal Commission. I am aware that the Southern Railway has recently received numerous representations on these points, and I have discussed the position with the Chairman and General Manager. They have explained to me the difficulties which the amalgamated company has had in reorganising the three constituent companies into one. They have informed me that they have made arrangements to increase both engines and coaching stock and anticipate a material improvement in the services when the first section of the new electrification of the South Eastern area conies into operation, probably in July next. My hon. and gallant Friend will no doubt wish to give the company a reasonable period in which to review the position, but if it appears that any useful purpose would be served I shall of course be prepared later in the Session to receive any deputation which he or other Members of the House desire to bring to me.

Will the right hon. Gentleman take steps to prevent the curtailment of service in the summer months which took place last summer on parts of the South Eastern system?

That is a matter in which I do not think I have any power, but I will certainly bear the suggestion in mind.

London and North Eastern Railway

asked the Minister of Transport whether he has now any, information as to when the London and North Eastern Railway Company intends to commence the electrification of the suburban line northwards from Finsbury Park?

I am informed by the railway company that the question is still under consideration, but that no decision has yet been reached.

Can my right hon. Friend recollect that 18 months ago, when he was previously in office, it was announced, with much publicity in the Press, that, the London and North Eastern Railway Company had decided to electrify this line, and now, 18 months after, they are still considering it?

Yes, but I also recollect that the Labour Government during their nine, months' tenure of office did nothing in the matter.

Does not the right hon. Gentleman remember that in a previous Conservative Government, before the Labour Government came into office, this question was up and was announced in the Press as likely to give a large amount of employment for skilled men out of work, and now the railway company apparently have not decided to do it? Will the right hon. Gentleman press them for an early decision in this matter?

I am pressing them, but unfortunately the position is that I have very little power.

City and South London Railway (Carriage Doors)

asked the Minister of Transport if he is satisfied that the number of attendants and platform staff employed on the City and South London Railway is sufficient to ensure public safety in the Opening and closing of carriage doors if he is aware that the carriage doors are mechanically controlled in such a way as to make it possible for passengers to be caught in and injured by the sliding doors; and if he will take steps to ensure that all carriage do-ors shall he either under the control of passengers or of the railway staff in a position to see that the doorways are clear when the sliding doors are opened or closed?

My officers have had the pneumatically-operated doors referred to under close observation during the three or four years they have been in use on the underground railways, and they are satisfied that safety requirements are fully met. I have, however, brought the points raised by the hon. Member to the notice of the railway company, who state that the use of these doors has been free from accident and has proved in other respects satisfactory, particularly in allowing considerably improved doorway accommodation to he afforded, and thereby reducing congestion when passengers enter and leave the trains. The company state further that the action of the doors is fully safeguarded, and that the staff employed is, in their opinion, quite adequate.

Post Office

Canadian and South African Beam Stations

asked the Postmaster-General whether the sites for the Canadian and South African beam stations have yet been allocated?

Sites for these stations have been selected and terms of purchase agreed. It is hoped that the legal arrangements for the purchase of the various properties concerned will be sufficiently advanced to enable the sites to be placed at the disposal of the contractors before the end of the present month.

Could the right hon. Gentleman say where these two sites specifically are?

Facilities at Brighouse

asked the Postmaster-General if his attention has been drawn to the inadequate, postal service available for the inhabitants of Brighouse, Yorkshire; whether, seeing that the town has a population Of between 20,000 and 30,000, he could arrange that the postal deliveries should be three a day instead of two and that the last collection of letters at the general post office should not be made earlier than 8.30 p.m.; and whether provision could be made of a direct telegraph service to Brighouse, as at present telegrams have to be telephoned from Huddersfield, this causing delay and grave risk of inaccuracy in transmission?

The present postal facilities at Brighouse are similar to those afforded at other towns of equal size and importance, and as the official status of the office has no bearing upon them, I see no reason to alter that status. It would not be practicable to arrange a later hour of posting than at present for the general night mail despatch from Brighouse, and I regret that an additional despatch at a later hour would not be justified. Very few letters are delayed by the exclusion of certain outlying parts from the second of the three daily deliveries. Telegrams have been dealt with at Brighouse by telephone since January, 1923, and the arrangement has not given rise to any substantial complaint. A telegraph circuit to Huddersfield can, however, be provided without much difficulty or expense, and I am making arrangements for telegraph working to be restored as early as possible.

Will the Postmaster-General receive a deputation from the town council?

Perhaps if my hon. Friend will confer with me first, we can then discuss that specific point.

Imperial Penny Postage

asked the Postmaster-General whether he is able to make any further statement with regard to the possibility of introducing this year Imperial penny postage?

Is it not a fact that the Dominion of New Zealand, which is the first unit under the British Crown to go back to the Imperial penny postage, is quite satisfied with the result?

Savings Bank Deposits (Interest)

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the total amount on deposit in the Post Office Savings Bank for Great Britain and Northern Ireland on 31st October, 1923, and the percentage of interest paid on these deposits; and will he increase the percentage of interest on these deposits so that it will more nearly approximate to the interest paid on national savings certificates, seeing that these savings are mostly made by the poorer class of the people?

The amount on deposit on the 31st October, 1923, was approximately £260,000,000 which had risen by the 31st December, 1924, to £280,000,000. The rate of interest is 2½ per cent. per annum. I am not prepared to adopt the suggestion made in the last part of the question for reasons which the hon. Member will find very clearly set out in paragraph 11 of the Report of the Committee on War Loans for the Small Investor (Command Paper 8179 of 1916).

Does not the Chancellor of the Exchequer think that a very great injustice is being done to the poor depositor in this country by his only having 2½ per cent. interest?

Is the hon. Gentleman prepared to consider the desirability of reducing the interest upon war loans to the same figure?

Questions

British Empire Exhibition

asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department if he is now in a position to say whether it is intended to arrange that teachers and school children from all parts of the country may visit the British Empire Exhibition in 1925; and, if so, is it intended to announce at an early date that grant will be paid for absence from school, that cheap travelling facilities, and the provision of suitable and reasonable accommodation in London will he provided, so that immediately after the re-opening day they may be ready to take full advantage of such arrangements?

The Department of Overseas Trade is in close consultation with the Board of Education on the subject of the hon. Member's question. I am informed that the Board have under consideration the continuance of the arrangements set out by them in Circular 1327 of the 19th March, 1924, relating to visits of school children to the British Empire Exhibition, a copy of which I am sending to the hon. Member. There is every reason to hope that a satisfactory decision will be come to, in which case accommodation for parties will be provided, as during last year, in the Children's Camp Hostel, Park Royal, Willesden, whih is within easy reach of the Exhibition, at an inclusive figure of 4s. 6d. for children and 5s. 6d. for teachers per diem, as against 5s. and 6s. respectively last year. The Department of Overseas Trade is in communication with the Railway Clearing House in regard to cheap travelling facilities with a view to arranging similar concessions to those provided last year.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware of the importance of a decision being arrived at, so that advantage may be taken of it before the Exhibition has passed away?

I am in complete agreement with what my hen. Friend says, and we will take all steps possible to come to a decision, as we are in entire sympathy with his views in this matter.

Royal Navy (Marriage Allowance)

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty if he can make any statement on the subject of marriage allowance in the Royal Navy?

I regret that I am still not in a position to make any statement.

East Africa (Native Affairs)

asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he will consider the advisability of combining in one Committee the subjects referred at present to the Southborough and Islington Committees dealing with native affairs in East Africa, since it is impossible to divorce the cognate problems of native labour and native lands?

My right hon. Friend has decided to await the publication of the Report of the Commission which has recently visited East Africa before coming to any conclusion regarding the future composition or terms of reference of the two Committees referred to in the question. It is hoped that the Report of the East Africa Commission will be available in about a month's time, and in the meanwhile Lord Southborough's Committee will remain adjourned.

May we take it from that answer that there is no truth in the suggestion that the services of Lord Southborough's Committee axe no longer required, and that the Committee will continue?

That cannot be taken from the answer. Obviously it depends on the reception given to the report.

There is no question, I presume, of the Southborough Committee's services being dispensed with on that report, on the evidence they have already given?

Russia (Diplomatic Representatives)

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs how many British subjects are at present attached to the British Embassy in Moscow or other cities and towns in Russia and how many Russians occupying similar positions are at present domiciled in Great Britain?

The answer to the first part of the question is: Moscow, 10; Leningrad, 2; Vladivostock, 3. The corresponding numbers of Soviet citizens are believed to be 22 in London and none elsewhere.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the diplomatic privileges enjoyed by the Russian Embassy in this country are similar or in excess of those granted by the Russian Government to British representatives in that country; and whether the diplomatic privileges in either case exceed those granted to the diplomatic representatives of other Powers?

The privileges enjoyed by the Soviet Union diplomatic mission in this country are similar to those granted by the Soviet Union Government to the British diplomatic representative at Moscow. The answer to the second part of the question is in the negative.

asked the Prime Minister whether he contemplates appointing, at an early date, an ambassador to the Russian Government?

I have nothing to add to the concluding words of the statement which I made on this subject on the 15th December last.

Is the right hon. Gentleman in a position to state whether any other countries have ambassadors in Moscow or in Leningrad

Ottoman Loans

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what is the position of the Ottoman Four Per Cent. Loan of 1891, and the Ottoman Three-and-a-Half Per Cent. Loan of 1804, secured on the Egyptian tribute, also the position of the guaranteed loan of 1855?

The position created by the contentions of the Egyptian Government in respect of these loans continues to form the subject of careful consideration by His Majesty's Government, who hope within a reasonable period to be n, a position to make a definite statement en the subject.

Is there any allowance in the new Turkish Budget for 1925-26 for this amount.?

I must ask for notice of any cross-examination on the Turkish Budget. I thought I had got free of Budgets.

Egypt

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can make any statement as to recent developments in Egypt?

There is nothing that I can usefully add to the statement I made in the House before the Adjournment in December, except that the discussions with the Egyptian Government arising out of the recent crisis are proceeding satisfactorily. As a result of these negotiations, an expert committee is very shortly to meet in Egypt under the neutral presidency of Mr. J. J. Canter Cremers for the purpose of examining and proposing the basis on which irrigation can be carried on in the Sudan with full consideration of the interests of Egypt and without detriment to her natural and historic rights. The other members of the Committee are one representative nominated by the Egyptian Government, and one by the Sudanese Government. The chairman, whose name I have given, is a distinguished Dutch engineer.

British Passports

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the regulations connected with registration in France for British and other foreign nationals after a stay of 14 days has been brought to his notice; and whether he can see his way to make friendly representations to the French Government with regard to certain of these conditions as far as British nationals are concerned?

Representations have already been addressed to the French Government in this matter. It has been ascertained that British passports will be accepted as sufficient proof of identity for the purpose of the new regulations.

Blackmail

asked the Attorney-General whether he is aware of the recent increase in blackmailing crimes to which attention has been drawn by several of His Majesty's judges; whether he is aware that only a comparatively small proportion of blackmailers are brought to justice and punished, by reason of the unwillingness of the victim to prosecute; and if he will consider the desirability of introducing such a change in the law as would enable the name and address of the prosecutor in cases of the kind to be withheld from publication?

I have been asked to reply. I agree with what my immediate predecessor said in this House on the subject in reply to a question put to him on the 2nd July last, and I do not think any legislation is necessary.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the reply given by his predecessor was merely a pious expression of opinion that he had no doubt the Press, if the judges were to make a request, would not publish names; and does he really think that the object of getting these people to prosecute will be obtained by a mere pious expression of opinion of that kind?

I trust the piety of my predecessor will be continued by myself. I can only say I have considered the judges' suggestion, and if people will come forward to prosecute, and judges will give adequate sentences, this crime will soon cease.

The question is, will the identity of the person coming forward be withheld from publication? Otherwise, people are prevented from coming forward, and it results in lamentable miscarriage of justice through persons not being prosecuted.

I think in many cases the Press have withheld names. If they decline to do it, and publish the names, then we shall have to consider the desirability of legislation.

Will the right hon. Gentleman consult the stipendiary magistrates, and ask them for their views?

Moneylenders' Circulars

asked the Home Secretary whether his attention has been called to the recent increase of circulars from moneylenders through the post; and whether he will introduce the necessary legislation to prohibit the issue through the post of circulars of this kind?

I am aware of the great nuisance of these circulars, but I am not certain how far one could stop it by legislation.

Is my right hon. Friend aware not only of the nuisance, but of the untold misery caused to all classes of His Majesty's subjects who have got into the grip of moneylenders, and does ho consider it is a proper thing that the Post Office should be used as a means of advertising this business'

I agree entirely as to the misery, but what I have said is that I am not satisfied how it is possible to stop it by legislation. We cannot prevent moneylenders using the post, but if my hon. Friend has got any suggestions, I shall be most happy to consider them.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that these moneylenders make use of the halfpenny postage, and the envelopes are open?

The Postmaster-General cannot read every halfpenny communication.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the growth of moneylending among very poor people, who are not safeguarded in any way by the law, that these moneylenders exploit them for very small sums; and will he consider the setting up of a Committee to explore the whole question of moneylending among very poor people?

If the hon. Gentleman will give me any information of any cases, I am quite willing to consider the points he has raised, and the points raised by my hon. Friend, and if necessary, if I get prima facie evidence of the possibility of dealing with if, I shall be quite willing to set up a Committee.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware I have already met the Secretary for Scotland, and I am prepared any day to give evidence. The Secretary for Scotland months ago met me on the subject, and I will ask the right hon. Gentleman to consult with his colleague?

I am afraid the right hon. Gentleman referred to was in the previous Government.

If my hon. Friend will meet me, I shall be delighted to meet him.

Hours of Labour (Washington Convention)

asked the Minister of Labour whether he proposes to introduce legislation to give effect to the Washington Convention on hours of labour?

I fear I am not yet in a position to make a statement on this matter.

Estimates Committee

asked the Prime Minister whether it is intended to set up again the Estimates Committee; and, if so, whether he will consider the advisability of setting it up before Mr. Speaker is moved out of the Chair on the Estimates, and also of carrying into effect the recommendations made by the Select Committee on National Expenditure, as contained in their ninth Report, of Session 1918?

His Majesty's Government propose to ask the House to reappoint the Estimates Committee. There is no reason why it should not be set up before Mr. Speaker is moved out of the Chair on the Estimates, and this was, in fact, done both in 1923 and in 1924. As regards the last part of the question, the powers and terms of reference of the Committee would be the same as in recent years.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that those Members who have served longest on this Committee and its predecessor are very strongly of opinion that the recommendations which were made in the Report to which I have drawn attention in this question should be carried into effect? It is rendering their work exceedingly difficult—in certain respects very difficult —that the policy of appointing an officer parallel to—especially as—[HON. MEMBERS: '"Speech, speech! "]

As in the case with a great many recommendations, some have been carried into effect and some have not. There is, however, a strong feeling in the opposite direction to that expressed by the hon. Gentleman, and I think the best course is to do as I have said in the answer to the question.

Ex-Service Men (Civil Service)

asked the Prime Minister if he is now in a position to state what action is to be taken in the matter of temporary ex-service civil servants who are desirous of becoming established civil servants?

I am sending my hon. Friend a copy of a Memorandum setting out the action to be taken in connection with, or as supplementary to, the recommendations contained in the Third Report of the Southborough Committee, which has been accepted by the Association of Ex-service Civil Servants as an agreed final settlement of the claims of ex-service men now temporarily employed to permanent situations in the, Civil Service.

Could not the right hon. Gentleman give a definite day for a discussion of this question?

The circumstances have completely changed. My hon. and gallant Friend will realise that discussion does not necessarily tend to agreement, and I think, perhaps, he might be persuaded to agree with me that agreement does not necessarily tend to abate discussion.

Has not a promise already been made to the Federation of Civil Servants that a day would be set apart for discussion?

No; I think my hon. Friend refers to the promise that was given before anything was done to have a decision as to the ex-service men in the Civil Service. In my view that dispenses with the need for discussion. If the hon. Gentleman has anything else in his mind perhaps he will be good enough to let me know.

Old Age Pensions

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is prepared to take the necessary steps to revise the old age pension regulations so that the actual income received by old age pensioners may be taken into account when estimating their income, and not a hypothetical sum calculated at the rate of 10 per cent. return on part of their savings?

The provisions to which the hon. Member draws attention are statutory and, therefore, cannot be altered by regulation. The method of calculating means from invested capital or other property not personally used or enjoyed, was adopted after careful consideration as recently as 1910, and on what is at present before me I am not prepared to initiate legislation in the direction suggested by the hon. Member. I would point out that the 10 per cent. basis to which the hon. Member refers is only adopted when the capital exceeds £400, and then only with regard to the excess, and that under the Old Age Pensions Act passed in the last Parliament a deduction not exceeding £39 a year is made from such part of a person's means as is not derived from earnings.

Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that many of these old age pensioners are suffering a real grievance at the present time, and will he reconsider the matter at an early date?

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the old age pensioners are suffering from the way the calculation of the percentage is made? If a man buys a share for £1 and it goes up to 22s. and pays 7 per cent,. he is charged the whole 10 per cent. on his 22s., and is the right hon. Gentleman aware that that is a very grave injustice?

That is far too complicated a matter for an unwritten question. Perhaps the hon. Member will put it down?

Barbed-Wire Fences

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view of the increasing unemployment of farm hands in grazing areas, due to the erection of barbed-wire fences and the consequent decrease in the number of hands required for fencing and ditching, he will consider the advisability of levying a duty on barbed wire?

I am informed by the Ministry of Agriculture that there is no reason to believe that the adoption of barbed-wire fences in some parts of the country has had any appreciable effect upon the number of agricultural workers employed. With regard to the last part of the question, I must not anticipate the opening of the Budget.

Is it, not a fact that hedge-trimming has become almost a lost art, and that barbed-wire fencing is largely imported from abroad?

Pensions (Increase) Acts

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is prepared to consider some amendment to the Pensions (Increase) Act, 1920, with a view to alleviating the condition of certain classes of State pensioners

Considerable concessions were made to pensioners by the Act of last year, cud I fear that the Government cannot undertake to introduce legislation to enlarge the scope of the Pensions (Increase) Acts.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that considerable dissatisfaction was expressed by the Conservative party, amongst others, at the proposals of the previous Government, and will he undertake to reconsider them in as generous a spirit as they were criticised?

National Expenditure

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he is prepared to issue a memorandum at an early date showing the probable expenditure during 1924 and 1925 under the various heads of the Consolidated Fund Services?

The Financial Statement laid before the House by the Chancellor of the Exchequer when opening the Budget always includes a statement of expenditure in the past year under the main heads of the Consolidated Fund Services, and also an estimate of the probable expenditure in the year to which the Budget relates. This estimate for 1924–25 will be found in House of Commons Paper 60 of 1924, page 13. I cannot anticipate the Budget statement by giving estimates for 1925–26, The actual issues from the Exchequer are published weekly in the "London Gazette" and, for each completed financial year, are given in the annual Finance Accounts.

Conversion Loan

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what are the final figures in regard to the last Conversion Loan?

Of the £134,600,000 per cent. Exchequer Bonds, 1925, outstanding, £82,015,000 were converted into £57,720,000 4½ per cent. Conversion Loan and £24,295,000 4½ per cent. Treasury Bonds. These figures are still subject to slight adjustment, but may be taken as practically final. The balance of about £52,500,000 Exchequer Bonds has been paid off mainly as the result of the successful issue of £3½per cent. Conversion Loan, and the rest out of the New Sinking Fund. The total saving in annual interest resulting from these operations is approximately £2,125,000.

Germany (Taxation)

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether Section 1, General Provision (236 and 244), Annex II. of the Treaty of Versailles, which states that the German scheme of taxation is fully as heavy proportionately as that of any of Power represented on the Commission, is being carried out?

The Report of the Dawes Committee states that the experts, in drawing up their plan which is now in operation, did their utmost to apply the principle of commensurate taxation in accordance with the Treaty provisions re- ferred to in the question. I would refer my hon. Friend to Command Paper 2105, pages 20 and 46, where the relevant passages in the Dawes Report will be found.

Reparations and Inter-Allied Debts

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he can give any report of the results of his conversations with French or other Ministers as to the allocation of reparations and the funding of the debts owing to us?

As regards the allocation of reparations, I would refer the right hon. Member to the Protocol signed on 14th January, the text of which has now been presented to Parliament, and as regards War Debts to the Note to the French Minister of Finance, which was published yesterday.

Scotland

Small Holders (Evictions)

( by Private Notice ) asked the Secretary for Scotland whether he is aware that there are small holders in Scotland likely to be evicted at Whit Sunday next by landlords who have recently purchased their holdings unless legislation is promptly introduced to prevent it, whether his attention has been drawn to the Report of the Scottish Land Court for the year 1923, especially to their remarks upon the state of the law in connection with these cases, which they describe as unsatisfactory; and whether the prospect which they contemplate of remedial legislation is likely to be fulfilled by the present Government?

I am aware that a certain number of cases occur in which small holders have to leave their holdings owing to resumption being granted for personal occupation by the owners or other purposes, but I do not know whether there are any cases of recent purchase in which the existing holders will be dispossessed at Whit Sunday next. I am aware of the terms of the Land Court's Report for the year 1923. As I stated in my reply to the hon. and gallant Baronet on the 16th of December, there does not appear to me to be necessity for amending the existing law, and, as at present advised, I am not prepared to give any undertaking to introduce legislation on this subject.

Does not the necessity arise from the admitted fact that these people are going to be evicted?

I have not sufficient information before me to justify introducing legislation at the present time.

Rent Dispute

Is it the intention of the Secretary for Scotland to make any statement this week on the important Rent Commission lie has set up to deal with the situation in Scotland, and can the Government state when that Commission intend to open proceedings?

The Commission, as the hon. Member knows, has been set up and will, as far as I know, meet very shortly.

In view of the anxiety over this matter in Scotland, would the right hon. Gentleman take an early opportunity to say definitely when the Commission are going to meet and start operations?

They have already met, and it is in the hands of the Commission themselves to decide when they start.

May I ask the Secretary for Scotland what steps he is going to take to stop the factors of Clydebank from taking the doors off the houses, from taking out the windows of the houses—this is not abroad but in Scotland where they are cutting off the water and cutting off the gas—[ Laughter ]—the gas which I refer to is illuminating gas. I am sorry that the House at the very beginning of this Session, which I expected would be a very serious Session as far as the welfare of the British Empire is concerned, when I am drawing the attention of the House to conditions which are absolutely appalling I am received by the House——

It is all very well for you people opposite, who are well fed and well clad, to receive my remarks in this way, but I shall defend my people. Hon. Members opposite are the people responsible for taking the doors off the houses——

I must remind the hon. Gentleman that when I am standing he must not remain standing.

Then will you give me a chance, Mr. Speaker, when you sit down? I will not be put down by anybody, not even the Labour party. This is a class war; it is going to begin, and we are demonstrating to every class of Great Britain——

If the hon. Member observes the Rules of the House, I will see that he gets an equal opportunity with any other hon. Member. I rose to invite the hon. Member to reduce his observations to the form of a question to the Minister. This is only Question Time, not speech-making time.

I have already put my question, and I ask the Minister to reply now. Is that in order?

As far as I understand the somewhat lengthy question put by my hon. Friend, all the matters to which he refers are questions for legal decision and they do not come within my province.

Is it not a fact that an agreement has been come to that there will be no more evictions in the West of Scotland while the Commission is sitting.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that when we met him in Edinburgh, an assurance was given to us that no evictions would take place while the Commission was sitting

No, sir. It is true I did meet the hon. Member and others, but I gave no undertaking such as he has referred to, and I made it quite clear that I was not in a position to give such an undertaking. I know of no such arrangement having been made.

As the Secretary for Scotland has stated that this is a legal question, over which he has no jurisdiction, can the Lord Advocate answer the question which has been put by my hon. Friend?

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that every member of the deputation which met him came away with one impression, which was, that while the Commission was sitting there would be no further evictions of people from their homes, and in view of that conviction being held by every member of the deputation, will the Secretary for Scotland see that the house owners are approached again with a view to carrying out what was implied in conversation?

I took particular care to make it quite clear that it was not within my power to enforce any such request, and I have repeatedly said that I trusted inquiries during the sittings of the Commission might be conducted in circumstances free from anything that might disturb the proper procedure both on the part of the Tenants' Association and other parties.

Is it not a fact that when we met the right hon. Gentleman in Edinburgh I put it to him that if extra police were not brought into Clydebank there would be no evictions, and that the local authority of Clydebank was not asking for extra police, and I held the right hon. Gentleman responsible for the extra police, because that is his province. Therefore I ask, in the interests of common humanity, in the interests of that man who came home from the infirmary to find that his house——

Questions

Indian Hedjaz Pilgrimage

( by Private Notice ) asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what is the most recent information regarding the position of affairs in the Hedjaz; whether the Wahabi troops still surround Jeddah, or whether that port is now in their hands?

I have been asked to reply to this question. The latest information received by His Majesty's Government indicates little change in the situation since the date (18th December) of my reply to a question of the hon. and gallant Member for the St. Albans Division of Hertfordshire. The Wahabi forces recently attacked certain places in the immediate neighbourhood of Jeddah, but that port is still in the hands of the Hashimite authorities.

I have just received a telegram from His Majesty's Consular Agent at Jeddah, who reported that the bombardment of the town by the Wahabi forces was resumed on 6th February. There were no casualties among British residents.

Is the right hon. Gentleman keeping in mind the very important bearing which this matter has upon the Indian Hedjaz pilgrimage, which is shortly to commence? It is absolutely necessary that the British Government should know what the position is going to be in Jeddah and the Hedjaz before that pilgrimage does take place.

It. is not for us to interfere, but the British Government and the Indian Government are always most anxious to secure free and easy passage to pilgrims on a pilgrimage. I am afraid that the state of affairs this year is such as would render a pilgrimage very dangerous.

May I ask whether it is the intention of the British Government to recommend to the India_ Government that the pilgrimage should not go forward?

We are, of course, conveying to the Indian Government all the information we have, and it obviously points to the fact that it would be unwise in the extreme to have a pilgrimage to Mecca under the present disturbed conditions.

Safeguarding of Industries

( by Private Notice ) asked the Prime Minister what arrangement he proposes to make in order to give the House an opportunity to discuss the policy regarding safeguarding of industries outlined in the recently published White Paper?

I only want to ask, in support of the question which has been put by the right hon. Gentleman, whether, if the Prime Minister can see his way, as undoubtedly he will, to give a date for the discussion, it will be under conditions which will give full latitude for a discussion of the whole of the proposals of the Government?

I would welcome a discussion on the proposals of His Majesty's Government for the safeguarding of industries, in order to allay the misconceptions which have apparently arisen on this matter, and an occasion will be arranged through the usual channels.

Is the President, of the Board of Trade appointing any Committee in the meantime?

Well, I think if we can have the Debate early, which I should prefer, that matter will not arise.

How many industries have applied to be heard before committees?

Business of the House

Has the Prime Minister any statement to make about the business for the rest of the week?

To-day, as announced before we separated, the first Order is the Church of Scotland (Property and Endowments) Bill. If that should get through in good time, we propose. to proceed with the British Sugar (Subsidy) Bill. Should there be only a short time at the conclusion, then we should take the Importation of Pedigree Animals Bill.

To-morrow we shall take Supplementary Estimates, and at 8.15 there will be a, Private Member's Motion.

On Thursday and Friday there will be further consideration of Supplementary Estimates

New Member Sworn

Thomas Johnston, esquire, Burgh of Dundee.

Borough of Walsall Election

Mr. SPEAKER informed the House that he had received the following letter:

"Byelanes,'

Gorway,

Walsall.

2nd January, 1925.

My dear Mr. SPEAKER,

I send you herewith copy of the letter which I have received from the Secretary to the General Post Office, with copy of my reply thereto.

Immediately I received the letter from the Secretary to the General Post Office I took legal advice as to my position, and I am informed that, although the contracts referred to were entered into prior to my adoption as a candidate and were trivial in amount, the fact that I held them at the date of the General Election made me incapable of being elected a Member of Parliament.

Under these circumstances I desire to express to you, Sir, and to the Members of the House, my sincere apology for taking part in the proceedings of the House, whilst at the same time assuring you that in so doing I acted in absolute good faith.

I am,

Dear Mr. Speaker,

Your obedient servant,

WM. PRESTON.

The Rt. Hon.

J. H. WHITLEY, Esq., M.P.,

Speaker,

House of Commons."

New Writ

Motion made, and Question proposed,

"That Mr. Speaker do issue his warrant to the Clerk of the Crown to make out a New Writ for the electing of a Member to serve in this present Parliament for the Borough of Walsall, in the room of William Preston, who, having held a contract entered into for the public service at the time of his election for the said borough, was incapable of being elected for the same."— [ Commander Eyres Monsell .]

I have no desire to delay the issue of this Writ, but I wish to ask one or two questions, which, perhaps, it would be best to address to you, Sir, if I may, in connection with the letter and the circumstances. The first question I wish to ask is, what would have been the effect if the letter had been published before the time had expired in which an election petit on could have been lodged? The second is, is there any precedent, since the case of Wilkes, by which, when a Member is returned who is incapable of being elected, the seat is given to the candidate who stands second on the poll? The third question is, what protection is there for a constituency from being put to the trouble of a double election by candidates coming forward who, at the time when they are nominated, are not qualified to sit in this House?

Those are conundrums with which I cannot deal. In any case, they are, I think, more suitable to be addressed to a lawyer than to me. All that I have to do is to see that the law as it affects this House is observed. The gentleman concerned has taken the proper course in addressing this letter to me, and the House, I presume, will act on the Motion that is now before it.

Question put, and agreed to.

Ordered,

"That Mr. Speaker do issue his warrant to the Clerk of the Crown to make out a New Writ for the electing of a Member to serve in this present Parliament for the Borough of Walsall, in the room of William Preston, who, having held a contract entered into for the public service at the time of his election for the said borough, was incapable of being elected for the same."

Notices of Motion:

Disabled Ex-Service Men (Employment)

I beg to give notice that, on this day week, I shall call attention to the employment of disabled ex-service men, and move a Resolution.

Juvenile Unemployment

I beg to give notice that, on this day fortnight, I shall call attention to the question of juvenile unemployment, and move a Resolution.

Married Women (Nationality)

I beg to give notice that to-morrow week I shall call attention to the status of British women who may marry aliens, and move a Resolution.

Aliens

I beg to give notice that to-morrow I shall call attention to the question of the entry of aliens into this country, and move a Resolution.

Housing (Attitude of Organised Labour)

I beg to give notice that, on this day week, I shall call attention to the attitude of organised Labour towards the housing problem, and move a Resolution.

British Labour Delegation (Visit to Russia)

I beg to give notice that, on this day fortnight, I shall call attention to the activities and utterances in Russia of the British delegation which attended the All-Russian Labour Conference at Moscow, and move a Resolution.

Trade Unions (Political Levies)

I beg to give notice that To-morrow week I shall draw attention to the position of trade unions, more particularly in regard to the political levies, and move a Resolution.

Rural Housing, Scotland

I beg to give notice that To-morrow I shall call attention to the condition of housing in the rural districts of Scotland, and move a Resolution.

Pensions Administration, Wales

I beg to give notice that To-morrow week I shall call attention to the administration of pensions in Wales, and move a Resolution.

Agriculture

I beg to give notice that, on this day fortnight, I shall call attention to the state of agriculture, and move a Resolution.

Beer (Price)

I beg to give notice that, on this day fortnight, I shall call attention to the price of beer, and move a Resolution.

Ballot for Bills

Ordered,

"That no Bills, other than Government Bills, be introduced in anticipation of the ballot, and that all Members who desire to ballot for Bills do hand in their names at the Table during the sitting of the House this day or To-morrow, and that a copy of the Notice of such Bill be handed in at the latest during the sitting of the House on Thursday."

Ordered,

"That the ballot for the precedence of the said Bills be taken on Thursday, at a convenient time and place, to be appointed by Mr. Speaker, and that the presentation of Bills on Friday be taken at the commencement of Public Business."—[ The Prime Minister .]

In pursuance of the Order just made by the House, I appoint Twelve o'Clock as the time, and Committee Room No. 10 as the place, where the Ballot will be taken.

Message from the Lords

Consolidation Bills,—That they communicate that they have come to the following Resolution, namely: "That it is desirable that all Consolidation Bills in the present Session be referred to a Joint Committee of both Houses of Parliament."

Orders of the Day

Church of Scotland (Property and Endowments) Bill

Order for Second Reading read.

4.0 P.M.

I want to raise a point of procedure which I think involves a very grave constitutional issue. The Bill which is before the House is, so far as I can road the Articles of the Treaty of Union with Scotland, a violation of that Treaty, and, if this House proceeds with the consideration of the Bill to-day, it means that the Treaty of Union, as it is understood in Scotland and as it was passed both by the old Scottish Parliament and by the English Parliament in 1706, will cease to exist. If that be the real position, then I submit that a very grave constitutional issue will arise. I am fortified in my views regarding the situation by a reading of the Acts of Parliament which were passed in the Scottish House of Parliament, and also in the House of Parliament here, in 1706, and I submit that you, Sir, as the custodian of the privileges of this House and the judge of Bills which come before this House in so far as they affect the liberty of the people outside, must give a ruling upon this question before this Bill proceeds further.

I want to draw your attention to the Act of Union itself. The Act of Union in this Parliament and in the Parliament of Scotland followed an Act which was passed some time previously, and the brief title of which is the Act of Security. This Act of Security was so strong in the minds of the people of Scotland that they declined entirely to enter into the consideration of any union of Parliaments in England unless this Act of Security were incorporated in any Treaty of Union that might ho passed. I have in my hand the English Act as it was passed in this Parliament, and appended to it and incorporated as a portion of it there appears the Act of Security itself. It states definitely that many points of view both religious and political, would do well to consider, before proceeding further with this Bill, what is the constitutional point of view. If we are going to scrap this Treaty which at present stands as the union between Scotland and England, and if we break the Treaty in this respect, then it will be open to the Scottish people to say that the Treaty of Union has been revoked, and it will be left to them to set up their own Parliament once again. I do not know whether that would please Members of this House or not. It might, but it would be a benefit to Scotland, however much it might be a loss to this House. I submit, when we have been criticising nations abroad for tearing up Treaties and calling them scraps of paper, that this Parliament ought to stand by Treaties that we made and which Members, coming into this House and taking the oath they do take, pledge themselves to maintain. I therefore ask what your ruling is upon this constitutional point.

I do not intend to cover in the slightest degree the ground which has been touched upon by my hon. Friend the Member for Govan (Mr. Maclean), but I hold in my hand a volume published by the most eminent ecclesiastical lawyer in Scotland, the present Lord Sands, whose opinion would be taken in any Church Assembly in the land. This volume is entitled, "Handbook of Scottish Church Defence," and was prepared at the request of the Church Interests Committee, of the Church of Scotland. After describing how the Treaty of Union was secured, and how

"the Commissioners shall not treat of or concerning any alteration of the worship, discipline, and government of the Church of this Kingdom as now by law established,"

Lord Sands, on page 202, goes on to say:

"If Parliament pass an Act disestablishing the Church or in any other way contravening the Treaty of Union the people of Scotland will have no alternative but to submit, or else to have recourse to open rebellion."

No provision was put into the Treaty of Union in 1707 whereby the Scottish nation would have an appeal against any interference by the Imperial Parliament in the affairs of the Church of Scotland, and it is the deliberate opinion of Lord Sands, as given on page 203, of this book, that in view of such considerations,

"the Act of Security was intended by the Scottish people to withdraw the Scottish Church from the purview and control of the new Imperial Parliament."

The Act and the Treaty deprives the Parliament Which the Treaty created of all moral right to disestablish the Church without either

"substantial unanimity, or else a distinct reference back to the people of Scotland, who only assented to that Treaty on the condition that Parliament should not interfere with the Church.''

There are clauses in the Treaty of Union dealing with customs, trade, and so on, which specifically say that any alteration shall be made by the Imperial Parliament, and the only subject that is taken from the purview of this House by this solemn Treaty, entered into between the people of Scotland and the people of England and enshrined in an Act of Parliament passed by this House, is the Government of the affairs of the Church of Scotland. I submit therefore that this Bill is a direct and open infringement of that solemn Treaty come to between the two countries.

The contentions of the two hon. Members may well be put forward in the course of the Debate on the merits of the Bill. I, myself, have no opinion, of course, as to whether this is a good Bill or otherwise. As I understand, the point is put to me that this House is disabled from proceeding with this Bill because of what has been quoted. I cannot uphold that contention, because this House has in past times frequently changed other Acts by Bills of a similar character. It would be a serious thing to hold that this Parliament was not supreme. Certainly I do not uphold the contention that I have any right to stop the proceedings on this Bill. It is for the House to say, when it comes to a Division, whether arguments such as we have just now listened to are sufficient to cause them to refuse the Bill.

Once this Bill proceeds to the discussion of the House it takes the matter at once out of the provisions of the Treaty of Union. This House is then discussing the Bill as Bill, and takes a vote, not upon the constitutional question but upon the merits of the Bill. That, I submit, is a breach of the Treaty of Union, and I am backed up in that by the opinion of the lawyers who have just been quoted by my hon. Friend and by many other equally capable lawyers in Scotland. Further, I wish to put this to you, Sir, that this House has not hitherto interfered with the Act of Security in altering the government or discipline of the Church. It has adjudicated upon a dispute within the Church itself, but it has not, by any Bill which has been brought before the House, sought to interfere with the fundamental and essential duties of that Church as a church. I am not dealing with the question of this or any particular church. It is the constitutional point that I am arguing. Once the House is allowed to enter into a discussion of the merits of the Bill, the Treaty of Union, in my opinion and in the opinion of others, is violated, and the Division that takes place is not upon whether or not the Bill ought or ought not to be in this House, but whether its Clauses are such as recommend themselves to the opinions of the Members who are taking part in the Debate. I submit. that this is a matter that must be decided by you or your advisers, whether or not the introduction of the Bill is a violation of the Treaty of Union. If they say it is not, you can go ahead 'with the discussion, but meantime you, Sir, are looked upon by the people throughout the country as the protector of their rights and liberties, as honoured Speakers before you have been. It is recorded in history that they have refused to be led astray by things which should not have taken place. They have stood firm for the people, and I appeal to you, in the name of the people of Scotland, to see to it that the Treaty of Union is not violated by the Bill which has just been brought before the House.

I can give no other decision than that which I have already indicated—that the power of Parliament is supreme. The hon. Member may be right or wrong. It is for the House to decide that matter.

May I ask your ruling, Sir, in this matter? If a Treaty is entered into between two countries which were not previously amalgamated, governing all their circumstances and their powers connected with the Church and other matters, is that Treaty to be overriden by any decision that we may come to without consultation with the people concerned? This House consists mainly of representatives of constituencies which are not Scottish. Is Scotland to be left out because they will be beaten here on a division?

That is a contention which is quite proper to the Debate, but it is not a point on which I can decide.

Would it not be possible to suspend consideration of the Bill until these legal points have actually been decided?

The Bill is not yet before us. The Second Beading has not been moved. That question can be dealt with later on.

As these specific legal points cannot properly be decided by yourself, cannot we have legal opinion obtained and for that purpose move the Adjournment until it is obtained?

Might not the Government themselves, I do not say withdraw the Bill altogether, but adjourn the discussion? I make an appeal to them to adjourn the discussion. What has to be borne in mind first of all is that had that Act of Security not been accepted by the English Parliament, there would have been no union between the two Parliaments. Now you are violating the Treaty of Union and we shall contend that that smashes the Treaty of Union and we will go back to Scotland advocating a Parliament for Scotland.

It is for that reason that one of the hon. Member's colleagues has given notice to move that the Bill be not now read a Second time.

Are we to understand, Sir, from your statement that this Parliament is supreme, that if this Parliament decided, for instance, to change the religion of the Church of Scotland, it would be looked upon as something quite in Order? Is there to be no sense of honour to observe scraps of paper?

I have said what is the power of this House. I have not presumed to say what is the duty of this House. The two things are quite separate. The Debate must now proceed

A new point. You say this is within the power of this House. May I draw your attention to the Act of Union itself, which says that it is not within the powers of this House? It deliberately excludes from the consideration of the British Parliament questions affecting the Church of Scotland. That is a point in the Act of Security, and I again submit that it is not within the power of this House to discuss it. The Treaty of Union removes that part of the Scottish question entirely from the purview of this House of Parliament.

I think I have already given it twice. What Parliament has done it can undo.

The hon. Member is not in a position to argue with me. I have listened very patiently and fully to his points of Order, and I have given my answers. He may well argue that it is wrong for the House to pass the Bill, but he is not entitled to challenge my decision on the point he has so fully put before me.

The hon. Member has put the same point now three times. Is it a fresh point?

I think it is. I shall leave it to your judgment to say whether it is or is not. You say this House has a perfect right to go on with the Bill. I am submitting that the House has no right to consider it unless a similar House in Scotland also considers the Act of Security again. I submit again that a Debate upon the Bill is a Debate upon the merits of the Bill, and not upon the constitutional point that I have raised, and any Division that takes place will be on the merits of the Bill and not on the constitutional point.

It cannot be rejected by a gang of Englishmen who do not know anything about the Act of Security.

I would move the Adjournment of the House, in order that these matters may be considered, if that is in order.

I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

We have listened to a considerable discussion upon the very interesting topic as to whether the Treaty of I neon is violated by introducing a Measure of this kind. I have yet to learn, and it will be for hon. Members during this Debate to convince me, that there is any foundation for such an assertion. I am no lawyer. I look at this problem from a practical point of view, and if I understand anything of the need which impelled the Scottish people at that time to endeavour to safeguard the position of their Church it was for a practical purpose, and so far as I am able to judge there is nothing in this Measure which will in any way violate or impinge upon the full security of that Church, for the intention and purport of the Measure is to increase and to widen the control of the Church Assembly. It may be well at the outset that I should trace some of those events which have led up to the introduction of the Measure. In 1843 the great Disruption of the Scottish Churches took place, and out of that controversy there arose what was known as the Free Church of Scotland. These differences arose, I understand, over the question of the rights of the Civil Courts to interfere in the internal affairs of the Church and to control it in matters of administration and discipline. Those differences, acute and difficult at that period, led many ministers of the Church and members of their congregations to leave the Established Church and to form a separate body, and in 1847 there was another body, the United' Presbyterian Church, formed in a similar manner. As I understand it, those members contended that there should be no connection between Church and State.

Following upon these events, there came a period when the leaders of the Free Church and the United Presbyterian Church conceived that it would be not only to their advantage, but to the moral advancement of the people for whose service they were responsible that union should take place between those two bodies. Out of these negotiations, in 1900 there came the United Free Church of Scotland. It is true that there was a portion of the Free Church who refused to come into that union. That was followed, as everyone is aware, by a period of considerable difficulty as to the allocation of the respective funds of these Churches. But it was settled, and settled, I understand, by this House in 1905. Besides settling the immediate dispute between these two bodies, there was introduced into that Measure, at the request of the Established Church of Scotland, a Clause which gave greater freedom to that Church in respect of its formularies. Immediately that became a fact, there began negotiations between the Established Church of Scotland and the United Free Church. Fifteen years have passed since first the General Assemblies of those two bodies passed a resolution.

Whatever hon. Members may think on this subject., and it is clear that there are differences of opinion——

Whatever hon. Members may think, I venture to say that these Churches were wise in taking these steps, and that they were impelled to do so from a recognition of the fact that they were not serving to the fullest advantage the people of Scotland. It is common knowledge to anyone who goes through Scotland that, owing to the fact that there have been three separate Churches existing in Scotland, you have had unnecessary competition between these Churches, and that in many parts of Scotland we have seen springing up in a district three or four churches which those concerned have not been able to support properly. On the other hand, through the change of time and circumstance, we have seen and do see large and important centres of our country, growing in population, which are not served as everyone would desire that they should be. It is because of the recognition of these plain and patent factors, not only on the part of the Church, but also by the great mass of the population of my countrymen—a recognition—that there was necessity for such steps—that these negotiations took place.

Two things appeared to be necessary if progress was to be made. The first- was that the inherent right of the Church to order all matters bearing on reorganisation should be recognised. That was secured by the Act passed in this House in 1921. If hon. Members contend that there is anything in this Bill in the nature of a breaking of the Treaty of Union, surely that is a point which should have been raised on the occasion when the Act of 1921 was passing through Parliament. if the consideration of these matters by this House has any material bearing upon the point as to any breaking of the Treaty, it has already been materially violated. The Act of 1921, by the adoption of articles recognised by that Act, gave to the Church everything which was desirable, and makes it a Church which is both national and free.

Will the right hon. Gentleman point out where the Act of 1921 violates the Act of Security in any of its Clauses?

I was pointing out that if the hon. Member is basing his argument on the fact that this House has already considered and taken a share in dealing with the Treaty of Union—

My point is that that was the time on which he should have raised the issue. In the second place, it was clear that if further steps for the union of the Churches in Scotland were to be achieved, the endowments and properties of the Church should be under its control, and used to the greatest religious advantage of the people of Scotland. It was to meet this second part that the present Bill was introduced. It was introduced in accordance with a promise given by the Government that was responsible for the Act of 1921, which Act cleared the ground for the first stage.

This Bill is the outcome, in the main, of a Departmental Inquiry appointed by the Scottish Office and presided over by Lord Haldane. Arising out of the recommendations of that inquiry, Lord Novar, who was then Secretary for Scotland, introduced the Bill into the other House on the 15th January of last year. Owing to the change of circumstances in the political situation, that measure was adopted by the late Government, the Labour Government, and was supported by Lord Haldane, who, however, made certain modifications, which he outlined in a White Paper, when speaking on the subject in the House of Lords. Following upon that stage, there came negotiations in Scotland between the churches and the heritors upon the various points raised in the White Paper. It was largely owing to the care and the good work and helpful attitude of the then Lord Advocate, Mr. Macmillan, that great progress was made, and that upon the 23rd May general agreement was reached between the Church and the heritors.

This Bill passed the House of Lords under the auspices of the late Government, and it, was introduced into this House on 17th July of last year by my right hon. Friend the Member for West Fife (Mr. Adamson), who was then Secretary for Scotland. It now becomes my fortune, the Bill having received its First Reading, to implement the promise by moving the Second Reading—a promise made not by one Government nor by one party but by successive Governments by the Coalition Government, composed- of men of parties, the Labour Government, and two Unionist Administrations, recognising, as I think we must fully recognise, that there is a demand, an insistent and, as time has proved, an increasing demand for a Measure such as this. The House will realise, therefore, that this Measure, through its various stages, has been tested not only by debate but by public opinion in Scotland. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"]

There will be in Committee ample opportunity for the consideration of Amendments, and particularly the details of the Bill, and I trust that, beyond doubt, we shall secure to-day a Second Reading, and that we shall at an early date open the way for a union which is desired by both churches and, as I believe, by the vast majority of the Scottish people.

I will now deal with some of the provisions of the Bill. Hon. Members who come from Scotland are well aware that the questions of stipends and teinds is one of great complexity. It is often said that there are few people, even among those who are working in connection with these problems at first hand, who really understand them in their fullest detail. I cannot pretend to a closer knowledge than that held by many of my colleagues, but I shall not be far wrong if I say that in the United Kingdom the fruits of the land have been subject to tithe, which in Scotland we call teinds, and that the teind owners are subject to the payment of stipends.

In times past, these stipends have been paid in grain, but through the course of time there has been a departure from the old custom under which the minister could go into a field and, as soon as the grain was in stook, make his claim for sheaves. The value of grain is variable, and if there is one thing more than another which it is desirable should be done, it is that at the present time we should standardize these payments so that those who pay and those who receive may have some knowledge and some certainty of what they may be called upon either to pay or to receive. It seems to me a thoroughly unsound principle which says that if there. a great world harvest in other parts of the world that that should materially affect and lower the payment which the Minister may receive, or, -on the other hand, that any great event, such as the late War, may so inflate the payments which are made that very great demands are made upon the heritors. The Bill, therefore, provides for the standardisation of stipends on the basis of the average values for the various kinds of grain over 50 years, from 1873 to 1922. Where the standard value of stipend payable by any heritor exceeds £2, the Bill provides that it shall form a permanent and real burden upon the land. In the previous Measure introduced by Lord Novar—at any rate, it was in the Report, and I believe it was also in the Measure—it was provided that the payment should be based upon the price of consols.

I understand that the Secretary for Scotland has just stated that this Bill is intended to impose a permanent burden on the land. If that be so, I would suggest that this is a money Bill imposing a charge upon the country, and that therefore it would require a Financial Resolution preceding its introduction.

This is not a Bill which requires a Financial Resolution before its introduction. If it were, I should have drawn attention to that fact before now. I will look at the Clauses, and see if they may require such a Resolution at any further stage.

I do not think that there is anything material in that point. There is no charge on the Consolidated Fund, as I understand. The only question is that instead of the method of payment being based on the price of Consols it has been arranged between the Church and the heritors, to the satisfaction of both, that it should be settled by imposing this permanent burden as I have said. Then you come to the smaller heritors. those in whose case the amount is less than £2. The Bill provides for the redemption of the stipend by the heritor, and he is given his choice of methods. Under the Haldane Report it is proposed that there should be 25 years' purchase. In the Novar Bill it was brought down to 22 and under this Bill it is 18. I only mention those points because I wish the House to realise that the interests of the smaller heritors, who were not really an organised body, have nevertheless been very carefully and sympathetically considered, and I believe that as a result it will be found that this arrangement will work very easily for them.

Under this Bill such a situation as the Cathcart situation cannot arise.

Will this Bill make provision that instead of the Church taking measures, such as those which brought about the Cathcart case, such as putting an advertisement in an obscure paper in holiday week, every one will have personal notice of what change will he required?

This Bill will abolish all these things. Instead of these various forms there will be fixed payments by the heritors at the disposal of Ole Church. Provision is made for the setting up and appointment of a body of trustees. As hon. Members are aware, the churches, manses and glebes are subjects which the heritors have been called upon from time to time, and at indefinite periods, to maintain and repair. Under the Bill full control will be given to the Church. The heritors on the other hand are relieved of the liability to repair the buildings or erect new buildings, except in so far as they must be handed over in proper form.

That will be, as hon. Members will see, provided for in the Bill, end provision is made for the appointment of Scottish Ecclesiastical Commissioners, who are required to make arrangements for these very purposes and to carry out these arrangements. I anticipate that under these proposals there will be a great advance in the useful work of the Church. I am more than hopeful, because of the fact that this Bill is the outcome of long negotiation between the Church and the heritors, that it will operate, in its working under the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, with speed and without friction. On the other hand, I am satisfied, as a private individual, and as a member of the Established Church myself, that this possibility of union holds out a prospect for the Scottish people of infinitely better Christian service in my country, and that it will dispel many of those unfortunate disputes which have marred so much of our Church history in the past, and if I may, I will quote the words of Dr. Norman Macleod, who, speaking in the year 1870, said:

"We should endeavour to build up a Church national but not sectarian, most tolerant but not indifferent, a Church with liberty but not licence, endowed but not covetous, and which because national should extend her sympathy, her charity and if need be her protection to the other churches and to every man who by word and deed tries to advance the good of our beloved country."

Is this the point at which we could have a Motion for the Adjournment of the Debate, in order to get the constitutional point raised now, apart from the question of the Second Reading of the Bill?

I beg to move, to leave cut the word "now" and at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this day six months."

I should have wished that my first address to this House had been made on a subject less intricate and less controversial. I have witnessed the kindness and courtesy which are extended to those Members who are addressing the House for the first time, and I trust that I shall take no undue advantage of the liberty and indulgence that are given and although the subject is seemingly sectarian, I trust that I may speak without any sectional bias or bitterness, but entirely in accordance with those great democratic principles which have swept me into this House and have given me a seat on these Labour benches.

In my view the Title of this Bill is a misnomer. These teinds, properties and endowments are spoken of as the property of the Church of Scotland, but this afternoon we are dealing with national property, national taxation and State endowments. I do not think that the position will be questioned in regard to some of the endowments at least, and in regard to some of the properties that are referred to here. Take the Exchequer Grants. We have a sum of £17,040, under the Acts of 1810 and 1824, devoted to the payment and augmentation of stipends in some needy districts, particularly in the Highlands of Scotland. It is referred to in the 18th Clause, and in the 7th Schedule you have a list of these payments. Now, that money is taken direct under the Teinds Act, 1810, and the Teinds Act, 1924, out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom. That is continued, save only that there is power given for redemption by the payment to the trustees of the church of a capital sum, or sums, that may be agreed on between the trustees and the Treasury. These evidently are national funds. But it is answered to us, by those who represent the Church of Scotland, that these are in lieu of Bishops' teinds and rents that were given partly in Roman Catholic and partly in episcopal times for the support of bishoprics. To that I have two answers. My first is that I fail to see what title in any case the Presbyterian Church of Scotland can have over funds that are said to have been given to erect bishoprics and to support episcopacy in Scotland and my second is that the Church of Scotland were good enough to promise to make full inquiry and to issue a memorandum on this point, and they were obliged in the end to confess that in the legislation of 1810 and 1824, which authorised these Exchequer Grants, there is no reference whatever to these bishops' teinds or rents in any shape or form. I repeat that these are national funds chargeable on, and payable by, the consolidated fund of the United Kingdom.

5.0 P.M.

I come next to the other properties which, I think, all will admit, have a similar character as public properties. I refer to burgh grants and burgh churches. You will find reference to these in the 21st Clause of the Bill, and you will find a list of burgh churches in the Ninth Schedule of the Bill. There are 44 of these churches in all, and there is provision made for the redemption of these grants from burghs and from the common good of burghs. I take the case of Glasgow, with which I am most familiar. During the year which closed in May last there was a net cost to the Burgh of Glasgow, to the Corporation, to the common good of that city, of £3,638 9s. 9d. Here, again, we are having it said that this is in lieu of rents and revenues that were given before and after, and particularly after, Reformation times for specific purposes in connection with the propagation of the Church and the Gospel in those boroughs. I would reply to that by quoting the words of Sir Tames Marwick, who was Town Clerk of the City of Glasgow for a long time, and who had elaborate inquiry made, with full opportunity given to the representatives of the Church of Scotland to state their case. He announced this conclusion on 12th June, 1882:

I come to a third phase of these public properties or this public taxation. By an Act of 1572 it was laid upon the heritors in the various parishes to erect and maintain the fabric of church buildings. Since the Peterhead Judgment of 1802, and still further since the Valuation Act of 1854, assessment has fallen increasingly on the real as distinguished from the valued rent; that is to say, it does not fall on the rent as valued in the time of Cromwell, but on the real rent and on the feuars in large numbers. As a matter of fact, according to the most recent Return, a Return made in 1907, we find that for the ten years preceding 1905 there was raised altogether by these assessments for the maintenance of church fabrics £435,058, and of that sum £190,058 was raised by assessment on the real rent. This, of course, means that men of all denominations and creeds are brought in to subscribe to these churches. Lord Haldane in his report puts it in a very euphemistic way. He says that in certain cases this system has been the cause of considerable friction. That is an exceedingly mild statement. The system has been a continuous cause of friction and of oppression in Scotland. I take 1914. In Kirkintilloch a levy of £7,396 was called for on the part of the feuars of all creeds. May I remind my hon. friends below the Gangway that the Liberal Association of Kirkintilloch refused to pay a levy of £16 and was haled before the Small Debt Court. I do not mention that in order to put my hon. friends below the Gangway in any invidious light, because I thoroughly approved of the action of that Association. and I hope that hon. Members below the Gangway will be actuated by the same principles when we go into the Division Lobby later to-day.

I would refer to the case of Cathcart. The Secretary for Scotland will bear out my statement that Cathcart is a district in Glasgow that is in no need of special supplement or subsidy for the building of its churches. It adjoins the constituency of the right hon. Gentleman, and that in itself is a certificate of its resources in this regard. What were the facts? This congregation comes forward and offers £5,000. The total cost of the church is £29,103. Grants are made to the extent of £2,178 from various sources, and the small feuars, to the number of 3,800, are asked to provide a sum of no less than £21,925. It is no wonder that Lord Haldane has said, in regard to this system, that the result of the existing law was that many people belonging to other denominations were called upon to pay. I would point out that the whole machinery of this Bill, not only the sections relating to assessments, but the whole of the financial provisions and machinery, provides that people belonging to other denominations should pay for the Established Church of Scotland, that is to say, for a particular denomination. I would like to repeat the words that were used by Professor Caven in supporting a Resolution in Cathcart. His words are as applicable to the whole system of State establishment and State endowment as they are to the Cathcart case: ownership of the teind impost. I would raise the question here of the competence of any individual in far past days, even if teind had been so originated, to commit for all time the destiny of the land or of any portion of it. Lord Coleridge says:

I must give some evidence as to the national ownership of these teinds which are now to be handed over as private property to a particular Church, and I adduce one or two authorities which I think are most weighty. I adduce, first of all, the authority of Lord Robertson, who delivered judgment in the Preston-kirk case on 3rd February, 1808. His judgment has special weight in this, that he himself had been procurator of the Church of Scotland and had been the advocate of the Church of Scotland in the case of Tongue and other eases to which he refers in giving that judgment. I take it therefore as all the more remarkable that this should be his opinion given in that case: v . Home, 12th January, 1878, gave this deliverance regarding teinds: of Land Owners were before them at the last General Assembly—the very proposals that are now embodied in this Bill —they passed, by a large majority, a resolution that these proposals would create grave practical difficulties and might prove a hindrance to union. That is the last pronouncement of the United Free Church of Scotland in regard to this matter. I should like to call the attention of the House and especially of hon. Members on these benches and on the benches below the Gangway to the reason given in one of the speeches of the Rev. John White, a speech which I believe has been put in the hands of hon. Members. On page 5 this candid reason is given—that they thought it. better not to commute or compound but to leave a tax on the land because they thought there would be less temptation to the imposition of other land taxes if this one were to be upon the land. Those are words from the speech of the Rev. John White. I have not misrepresented—if I have let us hear of it: held. You have that stated in the clearest terms on page 10 of 'the Memorandum, which has been put, into the hand of hon. Members, where we are told that:

This wrong becomes greater when we consider the three great purposes for which these teinds were originally designed. John Knox, in his first book on Discipline, destines them for the three great purposes of the maintenance of the ministry, the education of the "youth-hood," as he puts it, and the support of the poor. As to the first of these, the maintenance of the ministry, I do not think anyone on this side would grudge a generous settlement of life interests, but, for my own part, I state clearly my opinion. I do not only say, as Lord Haldane said in 1890, "The Established Church is no longer needed in Scotland, but has become an anachronism"—I do not use that language—I am against State endowment and State establishment of religion and a subsidy to any form of religious belief, at all times, and in all places, and on any terms. The second great purpose is that of education. In a notable Act of 1696, that is defined as one of the pious purposes, in a broad sense of the term, "to which vacant stipends might be applied." The third of these purposes is the support of the poor, and in John Knox's view, often expressed, that is the paramount purpose of all. In his very first sermon at St. Andrew's, in 1556, he said that

I venture to say that no such settlement of the church question. professing to be a final settlement, taking away all these funds from public purposes, and devoting them entirely to a church, has ever been proposed in any country. In the Irish Church Act, although there was generally admitted to be extravagant compensation, there still remained for public purposes a sum of £6,000,000, and when I was a member of the Royal Commission oil Housing it came to me as an agreeable surprise that money from that disendowment of the Church in Ireland was being used to pay for the erection of cottages for agricultural labourers throughout Ireland. That, I think, is a pious purpose in the broad sense of the term. Then, in the Welsh Act of 1915, there were transferred to the County Councils and to the National University of Wales properties yielding a sum of £157,338 per annum to be devoted to charitable and eleemosynary purposes, both local and general, to higher education, and especially to the needs of poor scholars. Then there was the Disestablishment and Disendowment Act of 1893, that was hacked, I might say in passing, by Lord Haldane, and it provided, out of these very monies with which we are now dealing, for the erection of artisans' dwellings, of cottages for labourers and fisher folk and crofters, for cottage hospitals and for convalescent homes, and the provision of trained nurses for the sick poor. Ah, you say, that would be secularising sacred property. Bishop Thirlwall, in the House of Lords on the 15th June, 1869, used this illustration: He referred to Saint Ambrose, who was said to be guilty of sacrilege because he melted down the sacred vessels of the church at Milan in order to ransom some prisoners from the hands of the Goths, and Bishop Thirlwall said that that was not the least meritorious nor the least holy act of that holy man's life.

Now we are in this position, that we have a final settlement of the Church case proposed here, and not a single penny of it is to be devoted to public purposes, and yet it is designed to bridge over the gulf between the Church and the working people. We are often lectured that we are materialistic, but what could be more materialistic than for a Church to take all these funds, and in every Clause and corner of this Bill scoop them into the treasury of the Church? That is not to win the democracy, but to alienate them. it is to throw down a perpetual challenge to democracy instead of wooing and winning them. And if it is to be a final settlement of the Church case, surely it should command the support of the various Churches in Scotland, but what is the position? The United Free Church gives a distant and, as I have indicated, very qualified support, particularly in regard to the land Clauses. The Free Church of Scotland has issued a solemn protest against the transference of the national church endowments to a newly constituted established Church. The Congregational Union has passed the following resolution:— land, the largest Presbytery in the world, a Presbytery with almost 200 congregations. They were asked to put their imprimatur and their approval on these proposals, and they carried approval only by 86 votes to 81. In the days of the disestablishment and disendowment movement in Scotland, Lord Sands, Lord Balfour of Burleigh, and others insisted that nothing should be done to touch the Church, and especially in the way of disendowment, until there was a clear issue at a General Election. That was taken up in those days, and in 1889 Mr. Gladstone said that the opinion of Scotland had now been "sufficiently and unequivocally declared." In 1888, in this House, there voted for a Resolution for the application of these funds to public purposes 40 Scottish Members as against 20; in 1890, 43 as against 23; and in 1892, 40 against 23; and in the year 1892, when this was the main issue at the Election, 47 supported disendowment and 19 the opposite, while six were undeclared.

I do not suppose it is pretended on the Government Benches that there is a demand for the carrying out of this proposal. It is quite true that for the first time in the history of Scotland there is a purely Conservative majority sitting in this House as from Scotland—a majority of one. The Conservative party had a red letter year and a red letter day, but it was not on this Bill that they were voted into power. It is quite true that time and again Scotland, in a strange way, has shown her love for Conservatism, but we may say of it, in the words of Sir Walter Scott, that Scotland's love for Conservatism." flows like the Solway, but ebbs like its tide." The ebb tide has been seen very clearly at Dundee, where their champion, a brave Wallace, was submerged in the rapidly retreating floods before he had ever reached the poll. "Across the sands of Dee, but never home came he." The opinion of Scotland on questions like this is untouched. It still stands and rings true for civil and religious equality.

I must ask the indulgence of the House to say a few words on the relation—[ Laughter .] If hon. Members do not like a few words, I will make it many words on the relation of this Bill to Union. I have already said that I agree in general with the very clear statement of the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for Scotland. I must say, however, that

I do not agree with his historical account that the insertion of Clause 5 in the Act of 1905 was a step in the direction of union. I agree also with what he said as to the benefits of union so far as these can be carried out with regard to principle, but I would call attention to this very important matter: In this Bill that is now before us there is not a single word linking the Bill to union in any shape or form. Whether union takes place or not, if this Bill is passed, these funds pass to this particular Church. That is quite frankly stated. Mr. Alexander Wallace, W. S., in seconding a deliverance in the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland, said it was "a good bit of business for the Church, union or no union." These were his words: against small minorities are ever the most bitter and most inveterate. But I wish to take exception to one point with regard to Union which appears in the Memorandum. It says:

6.0 P.M.

There was one. point in the account given by the right hon. Gentleman that I would like to supplement. It is true the United Presbyterian Church was formed in 1847, but the members who came out in 1733 and 1752 laid the foundation of a Church that, with ever-extending power, maintained through a dark century an unbroken witness to evangelical truth and spiritual freedom. Then there came, in 1843 the Disruption, in which. 474 men left the Church of Scotland, and five days thereafter signed away emoluments to the extent of £100,000 a year, presenting the sublime spectacle of a Church disestablishing and disendowing itself. Lord Jeffrey said of the Disruption that he was proud of his country: there was not, he said, another country in the world in which it would have taken place. I have sometimes thought that he was a little forgetful in his history, because on St. Bartholomew's Day, 1662, 2,000 of the Clergy of the Church of England, rather than conform, came out, and laid broad and deep the foundations of English Nonconformity. I say that these deeds do not readily die. The proposal to set up Establishment anew Dr. Rainy described as ending the drama of the Disruption with a farce. To some of us it would be ending it with a tragedy. I should like in this connection to quote Principal Cairns, than whom no greater orator, no greater thinker was ever given to the Church in Scotland. He described the Disruption as been paying. I desire to thank the House for the kindness and courtesy extended to me in what has been, I confess, a speech too long on such an occasion. I desire to thank you, Sir, for the latitude which you have given to me. In taking up this subject to-day, under somewhat trying circumstances. I have no choice: I am bound to oppose this Bill in all its stages. I should consider myself to be trampling on my deepest convictions if I gave it my support. I should think myself to have read and thought in vain if I helped to give further power or life to the principle of State establishment and State endowment of religion, which is as disastrous to religion as it is injurious to the Church by law established, and unjust, flagrantly unjust, to all other sections of the community.

I beg to second the Amendment.

I am sure the House will congratulate the hon. Gentleman who has just delivered his maiden speech, so eloquent, so exhaustive in its treatment of the subject, and commanding, as it has done, the respectful attention of such a large House. I will not myself detain the House long, for there are many Members, many Scottish Members, who desire to speak at this stage; and I assume, whether we like it or not, that there will be a stage upstairs where we can deal with the more intricate portions of this Bill. There are many of us here to-day who will vote against the Second Reading of this Bill. who are not by any means opposed to Church union; who believe in the union of the Churches where there are doctrinal differences, or where, if there are doctrinal differences, they are microscopical and such that 99 per cent. of the members do not know anything abut them. There are many on these benches to-day who would do much to see the union of the Churches in Scotland.

But this is not a Church Union Bill. This is Property Division Bill; and this Property Division Bill, which is to be passed, is not what the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for Scotland said; it is to be passed over the heads of the Scottish people. There have been no congregational meetings to discuss it. There have been no heritors' meetings to discuss it. So far as I know no meetings of heritors have been summoned from the parish church pulpits in Scotland to discuss the economics of this Bill. The Assemblies where the Bill has been discussed have been the most undemocratic bodies in Scotland. The right hon. Gentleman will agree with me that these are not popularly elected and do not represent Church opinion at all. The people of this country and the people of Scotland simply do not know what is involved in this Bill. The two-pound men are to be compelled to commute. The money is to be paid over, not necessarily in a single lump sum, but in sums of money spread over a period of years; whereas the large property owners, who alone in Scotland have been consulted—that is to say, those representing the large landowners—are not to be compelled to commute, but may have a land tax put on on account of their property.

The Secretary for Scotland said that public opinion had been consulted. We have no evidence of that. The hon. Member for Motherwell (Mr. Barr) said that the supporters of the Conservative party were in a majority of one. But all the members of the Conservative party from Scotland are not in favour of this Bill. Some of them have given written pledges that they will not support this Bill until it has been referred to the people of Scotland and the people of Scotland have given a clear mind upon it. I consider that the supporters in Scotland of this Bill are in a minority. It surely is the duty of this House, after the evidence that has been given to-day, to take note of that evidence. This House has had the opinion of Lord Sandys, the greatest Church lawyer living. After the very eloquent case that has been built up by the hon. Member for Motherwell, it surely is the duty of this House to hesitate before, by a mass vote of English, Welsh and Irish representatives—and some nondescripts—enforcing upon Scotland a Measure of which no proof has been submitted here that Scotland is in favour of.

I have been through one of those recurrent crises that take place in Scottish burghs, when the parish church issues its demand for a new church, or a new manse, and so forth. I have seen the sheriff's officer with his notices sent to people so poor that they themselves were seeking poor relief. I know that nothing is so destructive of what we may call religious harmony in a community than these perpetual demands on the part of one religious section to secure public or private money from people not of its own persuasion. There are parts of this Bill which I suppose everybody could support. But the main part of the Bill, that public property can be handed over to a minority, that Scotland shall not be consulted, and that the minority of Scottish representatives and representatives of other parts of the country who do not know anything about the Bill shall impose this upon Scotland, seems to me to be an outrage on the large majority of the Scottish people. I have great pleasure indeed in seconding the Amendment so ably proposed by the hon. Member for Motherwell.

My first duty is to join with the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Johnston) who has just sat down in congratulating the hon. Member for Motherwell (Mr. Barr) on his maiden speech. I am sure that I carry all with me when I say that his complete command of the subject, both as to principles and details, his genial and ready eloquence, and his conspicuous sincerity, will always make him a welcome intervener in our Debates. I trust he will not think that I am less sincere in my views, because I shall, unfortunately, have to differ from him in almost every one of the points he has made.

I rise with a very great sense of responsibility. With my colleagues who represent the Scottish Universities I number amongst my constituents all the ministers of all the churches concerned in this Bill. I am bound to think that whatever opinions I utter on this subject, and whichever way I vote, I shall make enemies amongst them. I may say that I see several of my constituents on the other side of the House, and I had somewhat encouraged the hope that the hon. Member for Motherwell might be one of my supporters. I am afraid, however, that I must now give up that hope. 'It is, however, impossible for me to remain silent on a question of this sort, which strikes so much at the very root of the deepest interests of my constituents. There is one thing which strikes one in entering on a subject of this kind, and that is that one gets at once to the centre of a subject which has divided man from man from almost the beginning of time, and which I suppose will go on dividing men, and that is the question of the rela- tion of the State to religion. The subject is as old as the hills. It appears constantly in more or less the same form.

We read of some of the Homeric priests who did not at times see quite eye to eye with the leaders of the Greek armies. There you got the beginning of the fight between the ultra-montanes and the Erastians, and that has gone on developing ever since. As history goes on the analogy becomes closer and closer, and we see the very same thing appearing in nation after nation. We might say with Shakespeare that there is a history in all men's lives (and in the life of all the Churches) which, if observed, a man may prophesy with a clear aim at the main chance of things as yet not come to light. We in Scotland are apt sometimes to flatter ourselves that we have been pioneers in some of the great struggles between the State and religion, and that we have solved them in a way that, in their later experiences, nations may profit by. I observe with interest that the hon. Member for Motherwell quoted the Noble Lord the Assistant Postmaster-General. I am rather surprised that my Noble Friend the Member for Oxford University (Lord H. Cecil) and the Noble Lord the Assistant Postmaster-General, who have a flair for ecclesiastical controversies and problems, have not given us their attendance tonight. We might have had from them something to guide. us and they might have learned something for their own guidance. We have two distinguished compatriots, who now occupy the two most notable and responsible positions in the Anglican Establishment. I think that their early experiences must have impressed upon them how much similarity there is in the movements now threatening the English Church to those that took place 80 or 90 years ago in the Church of Scotland. It is strange to see in the newspapers only this morning an account of a debate in the National Assembly of the Church of England which might almost have formed part of the discussions in the General Assembly of the Church of my own country in the years preceding 1843. These things develop in regular sequence and by regular steps, and other nations have much to learn from our experience. We know that these differences exist and have existed in a very acute form in the history of our own time.

I do not want to keep the House for a long time, but I would like to glance at some of the main objections that have been taken to the course proposed in this Bill. It is not so much this Bill that we are discussing as the question whether we can help forward a movement in which this Bill is one necessary and inevitable step. I am not going to follow my right hon. Friend the Secretary for Scotland or the hon. Member for Motherwell (Mr. Barr) in going into the details of the Bill. I should occupy too much time, and I do not want to trespass in that way. What was the main objection, raised partly by the hon. Member for Govan (Mr. Maclean) in those repeated points of order which he laid before you with a pertinacity which might have been worthy of a better cause, and which were reverted to by the hon. Member for Motherwell? It was that this Bill is a contravention of the Act of 1707. I think the hon. Member for Motherwell agreed with the hon. Member for Govan in that. Is it not strange to see the extraordinary inconsistency that pursues human nature? I consider the Act of 1707 an excellent Act, upon which a great deal of the prosperity of both countries has been built, but I do not consider that Act to be so sacrosanct as to bind all future Parliaments and to prevent any Parliament for all time from interfering with any of its provisions. They want to sweep away altogether the Act of 1707.

And yet they appeal to that Act is one the very letter of which must be observed and of which any infringement would be absolutely treasonable and must be repudiated by Mr. Speaker as beyond the power of the House. We all know that however an Act of Parliament may restrict the successors of that Parliament it can only do so exactly to the extent that those successors choose to admit it, and not one hair's breadth more.

What is the other objection the hon. Member for Motherwell takes? It is that you are taking money which belongs to the State and are placing it without restriction in the hands of a particular set of persons. There is no man more familiar with these religious disputes in Scotland than the hon. Member for Motherwell, but will he dispute this—I hope I may have his attention for a moment—that when the Free Church broke away from the Established Church in 1843 they did so not on the basis of voluntaryism, but because they considered that they constituted the prop-r State Established Church which had been unjustly treated by the State? Is that not so? I am sure the hon. Member will agree with that. Then what becomes of the contention which, he says, is so widespread in his own Church, that any touching of the guilty thing, this lucre from the State, is a crime and a disgrace? He went on to speak of the wrong of handing over those things to a Church which was to be under no control of the law. I was surprised to hear from the hon. Member the assertion of a doctrine which would have come well from the mouth of the most severe Erastian of the old moderate school of the eighteenth century. He knows well those to whom I refer. Even if we were to diminish, as far as he wished to diminish, the proportions of these two great Churches now concerned in this union, would they not constitute a larger proportion attached to the National Church than is the case in any other National Church either south of the Tweed or beyond the boundaries of this kingdom? I am perfectly certain that if the hopes of those who are looking forward to union are even partially ealised, the proportions of the United Church will he larger than the proportions that an Established Church has ever borne to the whole population of any country.

I am not going to dwell so much upon those points, for I know there are many in the Church itself who feel some doubts even from the Established Church point of view as to some of the provisions of this Bill. I have written, spoken, and felt in sympathy with the old moderate part of the Church of Scotland. I admire the giants of that party. I admire their breadth of view and their easy intercourse with other Churches, and I would remind the House that those of whom I speak, and I myself, look with some regret upon a future which will break away the Church entirely from that association with the land which has been one of the romances of Scottish history. But am I, because of sympathies of that sort, sympathies perhaps more romantic than practical, to resist the evidence of my own eyes and my own experience as to the movement of which this Bill is a part?

I am old enough to remember in my boyhood the break that was made in Scottish society by the rancours and the dissensions of 1843. My boyhood was spent under them. They broke up families, they shattered much social life, and made sect regard sect with bitter animosity. I saw that feeling gradually die away; but in my middle age I saw its place taken, though not with the same rancour about differences of doctrine, of procedure, and even of ethical habits, by deep political divisions: and in the 'eighties, as we know, the fight for disestablishment was carried to its furthest point. The hon. Member for Motherwell (Rev. J. Barr) revived again that question of disestablishment. Will the hon. Member agree with me that that question of disestablishment, which sprang up in the early 'eighties, which developed under the leadership of Dr. Rainy, and which was pressed forward until the Election of 1892, as he recalled—has now absolutely died out, and that in all recent elections, over a period of 25 years, it has been absolutely mute, that it has decided not one single election, and that it has passed away as the mists pass away before the rays of the morning sun. What have I seen following the decay of that establishment? I have seen a growing desire for union, I have seen a gradual coalescing of men's minds and men's hearts, and an anxiety to realise that union which will enable them to do their work better. I see that the leaders of this movement are the leading men, well fitted to take the place of the giants of old in Scottish history.

They are ardent in the work and confident as to what they will achieve by it, and this applies not to one church only but to both churches. I have had many remonstrances from various quarters, and I have frequently appealed to some of my correspondents connected with the church for whom I have great respect, and I have asked them to show me evidence of any large support either by public opinion or in the General Assembly or through the Press by public meetings for the views they put forward. As regards this aspect of the matter I have, in some communications, raised a note of warning, but I am not going to try to stop this Bill because I have these doubts which are fast fading away. It was Richard III who said:

I would like in the first place to congratulate the hon. Member for Motherwell (Mr. Barr) upon the excellent speech which he has made on this Bill. I do not think there are very many men in this country who know this Bill -better than the hon. Member for Motherwell; in fact, the hon. Member knows it so well that he is aware of the points which he ought to avoid, and consequently we have not had the whole statement from the hon. Member which he would give if he were writing an impartial history of the Scottish Church. I believe that already a case has been made out for this Bill. I believe that every Scotsman agrees that this Bill will he conducive to the good of the Scottish people.

This Measure has already been subjected to the closest scrutiny. It was dealt with in another place under the guidance of Lord Haldane, a very great Scotsman, and one who knows something about Scottish Church history, and he is not a man likely to introduce a Bill against the interests of the Scottish people. A little later we had the Bill brought forward by Lord Novar, and the other place thought its great territorial interests in Scotland and the interests of the heritors of Scotland would be looked after by his Lordship, and that Bill introduced on the 15th January last year was unanimously accepted by the other House. I am sure the dissenting churches are not likely to disagree from anything which Lord Novar might say or do, because in his younger days he was a champion of disendowment and disestablishment.

The Bill has been through the fortifying process of deep criticism between the Church and the heritors, and we are seeking to-night the Second Reading of the Bill introduced by the Secretary for Scotland on the 18th December last year, which is now the result of debate and compromise on both sides, and the result of the labours of men both in the Church and of laymen who are an honour to the country and a great strength and stay to the Church. I do not want to be thought to be casting any reflection on the settlement which has been arrived at when say that there are many in Scotland to-day who are against some of the Clauses contained in this Bill, and they think that the Bill gives too much away. But even if that be true the Church of Scotland was on the right path of duty when it refused to do anything that would endanger the safe and the smooth passage of this Bill which is calculated to do so much good to the spiritual life of Scotland as a whole.

Listening to what has been said by those who are not so well acquainted with the merits of the case, one would be led to believe that the Church of Scotland is out for confiscation, that she was wanting to take possession of something, and that she was asking this House to give her something that she is not already in possession of. All that we are asking in the Church of Scotland is that we may be able to hold out our hand to our great sister Church, from whom we have been estranged, and who, along with us, is desirous of smoothing the path to union, so that the great Presbyterian Church of Scotland may go forward assisting our people in all their spiritual work. I think it may be taken that this Bill is quite sound in regard to its proposals. If this Church is to be saved from the pecuniary embarrassment that would overtake it if she were prevented from obtaining her rightful inheritance, this Bill is necessary.

The Seconder of the rejection of this Measure said there would riot be a majority of Scottish Members in favour of this Bill. I am not, a prophet and I am not even a good arithmetician, but I know there is a majority of Scottish Members in favour of this Bill. It may be true that there are Conservative Members who will vote against this Measure, but it is equally true there are good Labour Members who will vote in favour of it. So that the one balances the other easily, and I am certain that when we look at the division lists no one will be able to say that this was a Bill forced upon us by the Sassenach, because there is a Scottish majority in favour of this Measure. I am not going to discuss the Clauses of the Bill. That has already been done and it will be done again, but I would like to take up a little higher ground than that. The hon. Member for Motherwell has already told us he must oppose it because that has been his lifelong work. As a matter of fact, I hope when this Bill gets its Second Beading by an overwhelming majority that, the friendship between my hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell and myself will remain unimpaired.

I am trying, however, to take a little higher ground, and I say it is not the mere financial arrangements of the Bill which the hon. Member for Motherwell is objecting to, because those arrangements are nothing to him. His objection stands on the high ground of principle and the ground of religious equality. I know that he wishes Christianity to succeed in Scotland, and I believe that those are his real sentiments regarding this Bill. It is not so much the financial arrangement as the fact that there should be introduced such a Bill at all. He takes exception, as some other of my hon. Friends do, to a Bill like this being brought before this House at all. I am not a lawyer, but I think I am stating the case correctly when I say that objection was taken to there being a Bill at all, or to the Kirk of Scotland being still allowed to call herself the National Church. As has been stated, the ground was taken that Church and State should be entirely separate, and that we should be on the purely voluntary principle. It is only by a stretch of imagination that those objections could be considered rele- vant at all. The Bill, as I have already said, is not seeking to do any new thing. All that it is asking is permission to remove barriers which were raised 80 years ago, and which have now neither meaning nor use. It is not asking the nation through this House to give one single penny; it is only asking that the Church of Scotland may be put in the position of being able to hold out the hand of friendship to the great sister Church. I want hon. Members to recollect this, that it is only for the purpose of giving sanction to Scottish Presbyterianism being sure of the sustenance and spiritual shelter that every Church ought to secure if it is to be any power in the land at all.

It is because of these considerations that I am not examining the Bill in any detail. That will be done, I am certain, in Committee, and any points that may emerge which can be successfully dealt with in Committee will, I am sure, be dealt with then. I believe, however, that this Bill has been so clearly drawn and so generously conceived that it will have less difficulty in Committee than most Bills that go from this House. I am thinking to-night of the effect that this Bill will have on the Christian life of the Scottish people. It will remove differences; it will remove all semblance of bitterness; it will unite and strengthen the spiritual forces of the Church and will in due time prevent the overlapping that often exists at the present moment; it will enable the Church to do more effective work in our great centres of industry, and enable her to carry the means of grace to centres where it is greatly needed. I know of no higher form of service that anyone or any Church can render to the State than to enable one to say freely of me to suggest for a moment that hon. Members in this House and people Outside the House differ from me in the desire for religion in Scotland. As I have said, we are not asking the Exchequer to bear one single penny. I wish hon. Members to note that fact, although, supposing it did entail a considerable amount of money, I, for one, would gladly spend the money, because I know of no higher service that either the Church or the State can give than to enable the means of grace to be carried to the people of the country. Every one of us recognises that, and it will be remembered that our own Bums, having depicted an old Presbyterian holding family religion with his family in his own house, said:

Another thing that I would like the House to remember is that while in 1560 the Presbyterian form of Church government became the form in Scotland, it was only in 1567 that it became the Established Church; and this was not something that was thrust upon the Scottish people by the State, but was a demand of the people that the Presbyterian form of Church government should be ratified by the State. In sunshine and in storm, amid persecution that probably no Church has ever undergone, at any rate in modern or mediaeval times, she still held true to her tradition. She resisted her own kings when they tried to evade their coronation oaths, and, amid all the persecution and hostility of sycophants and royal favourites, she emerged a Presbyterian Church in the Revolution of 1688, with her Presbyterian form of government still unimpaired. Perhaps it is in the soil; perhaps it is in the blood; but democratic freedom has always made a strong appeal to all of us. The Church of Scotland, whether it was Catholic or whatever it might be, has always accepted that. Even the old Columbian Church would not bow the neck to Rome when she was asked to alter her form of Church government, and it was only after some ages that that came about at all. It is true that she was very often curbed in her desires for spiritual freedom; but it is essential to the whole argument that in every secession—and I wish hon. Members to note this, because it is one of the points that has not been elucidated—in every Church secession, whether in the case of the old Hillmen, or the Cameronians, or the -United Societies, or the original secession under the Erskines, or when they were split up into Burgher and anti-Burgher, or, later, into Auld Lichts and New Lichts—they never for a moment suggested that they should be freed from State control or disestablished. It was always the other way about they were demanding more spiritual freedom. They were not wanting to get rid of the Kirk of Scotland government, but were wanting, as they thought, to improve on the form of government that existed then.

Right down to 1843—and I agree with the hon. Member for Motherwell, that it was one of the greatest spectacles the world ever saw—men were leaving their homes knowing not where they were going, and I know that much bitterness existed for many years after that. I know something about it, for my own maternal great-grandfather went out at, the disruption, and there is no saying what I might not have done myself had I been alive then. But they were fighting for something different then—they were fighting to get rid of a tyranny that was im- posed upon the Church. It must not be imagined that men like Norman McLeod and the others who were in the Establishment were any less keen to get rid of the disability than our brothers of the great Free Church, as it then was, but they believed in adopting constitutional means. They wanted to make sure that when patronage should be abolished it would be done constitutionally. Even then Chalmers, Guthrie, Candlish, Cunningham, Begg and the others never even hinted that there should be disestablishment or disendowment. Their assertions were to the contrary. They fought for that, and it was to preserve that, when it was seen to be incompatible——

I do not wish to interrupt my hon. Friend, but both Dr. Candlish and Dr. Guthrie latterly very strongly supported disestablishment and disendowment.

I am talking about the great secession of 1843.

7.0 P.M.

There was no word about it then. They became, I will not use the word contaminated, but they began to mix with the United Presbyterians, and then the trouble began. Then the decision was made by many of them that there should be no State Church and that every Church should be on the voluntary principle. I was going to say when interrupted that in the interval those changes took place. but I think it is true, as has already been hinted at, that it was in the last quarter of the last century that the cry for disestablishment and disendowment was at its height. As has also already been stated to-day, that great cry has died down to the merest whisper. No one hears a word about disestablishment or disendowment now in Scotland among those who were supposed to be in favour of the voluntary principle. The Free Church was stated to be against this Bill. That is perfectly true, but for quite different reasons from those my hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell mentioned. It is not the same reason at all. The Free Church is against this Bill because she is afraid she will not be able now to be either established or to obtain funds from the teinds which she would like to get for her work in parishes in the North and North-west and the Hebrides of Scotland. That is why the Free Church is against it, but she is not against the idea of the principle of establishment at all.

The opposition comes from two main sources. The first comes—I hope I am not going to say anything here which will hurt in the slightest the feelings of any hon. Members—from a very narrow conception of Christianity, and the second from those who wish to dissociate themselves altogether from religion or from the State. The first is very often narrow and intolerant, and probably that was as much as anything else that determined me, because, as I have already said, there is not even a decimal point of difference between us on the point. I remember when I was a boy it existed. Even then I was against the intolerance displayed at the disruption—the remembering of old sores and the difficulties that they had to encounter. They were not able to allow their Christian principle's to overcome the rancour they displayed against the members of the Establishment. Now I am not going to deal any further with the first point. I merely content myself with stating the fact that that class of people exists, and, while one cannot altogether endorse their attitude, one can readily understand and to some extent sympathise with it.

The second is widely different, and I trust that we are a long way from the time when the State will even think of severing the links between the Church and ourselves. I trust that we shall still hold fast to the truth once delivered to the State that "righteousness exalteth a nation": that the greatest thing in the world is the teaching of Christ himself, and that it is to our highest individual good and also to our highest national good still to keep that connection between Church and State which exists to-day in the National Church of Scotland. I know that there are some who honestly believe that Christianity would flourish if she were dissociated from the State altogether. I take a different view. It is quite true that many Churches, or at least some Churches, do get on very well and do very good work without endowment, but they do not do any better work than the Church that is endowed, and we take no second place in our efforts for the spiritual welfare of the people.

I want my hon. Friend to remember this, that in all ages it has been shown that it is not an easy thing to get the people of any country to take enthusiastically to any religion. My hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell was the honorary secretary to the Home Mission for Scotland. Why was there a home mission? Why is there a home mission now? Why have we our great foreign missions? Why is it we have in every Church almost, even if not endowed, the realisation that, human nature being what it is, it is our duty to send our servants out into the highways and byways and compel people to come in? We may not like to say a thing like that, but it is true of all religions, and it is no less true of our own that our people have to be gone to. It is perfectly true that a great many are withdrawn from the forces of Christianity itself, but, taking the people in the mass, it is also true that they are not too forward in coming into the fold of any religions institution at, all. I want the hon. Member further to remember this, that there are 1,432 parish churches which, excluding Exchequer Churches, Parliamentary parish and burgh parish Churches, are divided up into 884 which are called qucad omnia and 548 quoad sacra who are as self-supporting as any United Free or any other Churches in the country to-day. They have to provide their means themselves. Here is a proof that the State is not doing work for nothing. Even so far back as 1832, when Chapels of Ease were being built, Grants. in-Aid were asked, and those Churches to-day exist on endowments arranged by the machinery of the Church and by the private offerings of members and adherents.

I am certain that whatever Church comes into existence the first thing the leaders of it will do will be to try to have the funds at their disposal, and I do not agree that when State endowment lapses money provided by private benevolence for pious uses will in the course of a century go the same way, and the Churches will become Free Churches themselves. We must always have the means of providing grace to every individual in the parish, and that is our point —to establish the Church of Scotland first.

Whatever may be said about the great number of people outside our Churches—1 do not doubt that—I know there are a great many having no connection with the Churches at all who do not let it be thought for a moment that they are against religion in any shape or form. I know in many districts, and I am sure my hon. Friend knows also, that though these people have no Church connection themselves the first thing they see to is that their children shall be provided with religious instruction in our Sabbath schools in Scotland.

I want also to say this, that the kirk of Scotland is the freest kirk in the world. Look at her constitution. The members of her leadership are appointed by popular vote. I was myself. I leave it there. I was only a working miner at the time, and I met there territorial magnates, and we met in company with a ploughman or two, and I am bound to say that in appointing representatives to our presbytery it was not always the territorial magnate who was appointed. For the matter of that, the position is open to the ploughman and the miner, and the same thing obtains in our Church courts. They are also appointed to Synods and the General Assembly itself. Of what other Church can it be said that a tradesman, a railwayman, or a miner can hold the highest office that either King or State can confer on a working man? That is the proof that we are a Free Church, and that is why I ask you to give us a Second Reading to this Bill. We ask it because we believe it will be for the good of the country as a whole. We, ask it because we are already a democratic body, and we are asking it so that the obstacles may he removed, that we may join hands with our brethren in the other Churches. We are wanting this because we desire that there should be no interference with Church government. We may be degenerate descendants of the Knoxes, the Melvilles, the Buchanans, the Johnstons, and others who asserted spiritual independence, but we hold that the Church of Christ should still hold sway in the land, and that our Lord and Master should still he King in His own House. We are not departing from that, although we still remain in the establishment. I think if ever there was a man in this world who could be described as Perfervidum ingenium Scotorum , that should be applied to Robert Burns. He lashed the Church when he thought she needed castigation, but he was a staunch and loyal member of the Church, and at the merest hint of any interference with her rights and privileges he was flung into a very frenzy. I remember one verse in his great song:

I think the House may well be proud, as Scotland will also be proud, that the speech we have just heard could come from the quarter that it did. I want to correct a reference which has been made as to the proportion of the members of the different Churches of Scotland. The Church of Scotland claims a majority of the inhabitants of Scotland as being connected with her. I will give the figures. The communicants number 756,167. These must be the figures for 1923, and they show an increase of 6,087 over the previous year. The membership is also given of the United Free Church, which combines the Old Free Church with the United Presbyterian Church. They include more than communicants, but will take them as they appeared. They are given as 534,210. That is to say, the Church of Scotland has very nearly 50 per cent, more communicants than the United Free Church. Reference has been made to Kirkintilloch, as to the assessment made on the poor, wretched, hard-up people. When a heritor gave over land to build houses, the land so given took a proportionate share of the heritor's burden for the upkeep of churches and manses A feuar may not belong to the Church, and he has a grievance; he thinks he is being asked to do something he ought not to do. It is against the traditions of this House to criticise a maiden speech. But the speech of the hon. Member for Motherwell (Mr. Barr) was the speech, word for word, which was being made when I left Scotland 35 years ago—exactly the same disestablishment speech, nothing new and nothing fresh. He never sees the wood for the trees," and does not present, as one would expect a man in his position to present, a fair or full statement of anything in connection with it.

Forty years ago there was a Dr. Oliver of Glasgow. He came to Peterhead, and made a similar speech to that of the hon. Member opposite about Kirkintilloch. I was called a "Cold-blooded monster" for saying: "Is it not a curious thing that Mr. James Campbell, who was then Member for the Glasgow and Aberdeen Universities, has brought in a Bill to relieve the fears of those who objected to doing this thing. It has been opposed by the disestablishers right through, and they will not allow it to pass, simply because from their point of view the removal of every disability that attaches to the Established Church is a grievance? "It is the same position now. I was a member of a Free Church School. The Disruption was something to be proud of—that men should take their lives in their hands, and go out into the wilderness to found a church and a school in every parish, equip missionaries and educate teachers. It was one of the finest things that ever-happened. Bat they regarded the other fellow as one who would not go to heaven. That went on down to 1870, when three things changed the situation, and gave us the atmosphere that we have now. I refer first to the Education Act of 1870. The Free Church school and the Established Church school were merged into one large school, and that for the first time broke down the Church sectional spirit. Another thing was the abolition of patronage in the appointment of ministers. The Free Church went out in 1843 because of patronage, but they never tried to Let the law altered. In 1874, when a Bill was before this House, the Free Church sent a petition practically saying the same thing they are saying now—that if you give this relief to the Church of Scotland, you are giving them.

something you ought not to give them. At any rate, patronage was abolished, and the Church of Scotland made up something to the patrons because they had ceased to have patronage. I remember the collections that ran year by year.

A third thing that changed the attitude in Scotland was that a man rose who was one of the ecclesiastical geniuses of the last century. I refer to Dr. Charteris, whose nephew is now member for Dumfries. The Church of Scotland was backward in organisation, in women's work, in young men's work—backward in every way. He took it in hand, and reorganised it, so that it became the best organised of any Church in the country. He built a hospital in Edinburgh, the only one built by a Church since the Reformation, so that they might train their women. He revolutionised the work of the Church in such a way that when it came to the time of the Union of the U.P. and the Free Church and when they had trouble with the Free Church, no one gave them more sympathy than the Church of Scotland. Every assistance was offered in bringing in a Bill to give back to the United Free Church the property which the then Free Church was nut allowed to hold. That stopped the cry that because property had a Parliamentary title, it was public property, because the United Free Church holds its property now on a Parliamentary title granted by this House. That brought us dawn to 15 years ago. We have a new atmosphere. I spoke to-day to one of the leading members not of my party, and one of the most distinguished Members in the House. I said, "What are you going to do about the Bill"? He said, "I am greatly moved. I am traditionally a Disestablisher, but Dr. Whyte, of Edinburgh, has made me look round, and see that the Union of the Churches of Scotland would be the best for the Presbyterian Church." That is the position now.

Fifteen years ago the leading members of both Churches unofficially met, and came to a unanimous resolution that union was desirable. Then the United Free Church section met, and passed two resolutions. The first was that, before they considered the question of union, the Church of Scotland must have complete control over her own doctrines and her own Church governments absolutely clear of the State. The second point was that they must hold their property also clear of any State control of any kind. The Bill of 1921 did the first part. We were so anxious for union that we went out of our way to get the Bill of 1921. Then we come to the question of endowment. Immediately after 1921 a Bill was brought in to do the very thing that is now being done. In 1921 prices were very high, and many people thought they ought to get a better price. An interim General Assembly of the Church of Scotland was held, called a Commission, and at that Commission all the recalcitrants turned up and voted against Mr. Munro's Bill, with the result that Mr. Munro said: "This is not an agreed question." That is the reason why the parsons are getting from 15 to 20 per cent. less in this Bill than in Munro's Bill. A Committee was appointed to go into the question. On that Committee no parish church minister was appointed. I think there was only one man, who, I believe, is a member of the Established Church, but he takes no share or lot in connection with the church management. The Committee made certain recommendations, and those recommendations of the Haldane Committee have been denounced by the hon. Member far Motherwell as all that is unholy. (Mr. Barr) Lord Haldane's Committee made a fair and dispassionate inquiry into the circumstances, and their Report is the basis of this Bill. The hon. Member for Motherwell misled the House as to the attitude of the United Free Church upon this Bill. The first recommendation of the Committee was that the teinds should be capitalised, and that, instead of leaving the burden on the land, we should take the revenue, arrive at a fixed sum, and put it into stocks instead of in land. The hon. Member for Motherwell misled the House on this point [ Interruption .]

You one-eyed men never can see beyond your noses. I am trying to deal with an argument as to how it came about that you put the burden upon the land instead of in stocks. It was because the landlords could not find the money to commute. By a vote of three to one the General Assembly of the Free Church approved this Bill.

On a point of Order. The records of the United Free Church show that upon this particular point of land values, by a large majority they resolved that it would create grave practical difficulties, and might prove a hindrance to union.

This must not become a debate. If the hon. Member for Spring-burn (Mr. Hardie) will wait, he may get his chance.

A statement has been made by the hon. Member for Streatham (Sir W. Mitchell) to the effect that the hon. Member for Motherwell must know that he was not telling the truth. I want the hon. Member for Streatham to understand that he should withdraw that.

I think it is a very common form of argument on both sides. We have come here to disagree in opinion. If we were all agreed, we might as well stay away.

The United Free Church favoured having funds rather than having land. I agree with them. I would rather have funds than land, but if I cannot get funds, I would have the land. Does it fulfil the demand of the United Free Church that you should get complete control of your funds in such a way that the State can never have anything more to do with it? I am fortified in giving my opinion by quoting from a circular which has been received by every Member of the House from the Disestablishment Council for Scotland. They say of this Bill that "if the Bill passes into law, the whole of the property and endowments of the Church of Scotland become for all time the private property of that Church, to be administered and enjoyed free from State control or inspection." Therefore, the Bill fulfils the condition asked for by the United Free Church. When I was in Scotland the other day, I asked how the United Free Church stood in support of this Measure, and I was told that every leader, every man of spiritual power in the United Church, every convener of every committee, supported the Bill.

I will deal with that point. The position that the hon. Member for Motherwell occupied in the United Free Church was practically the position of secretary to a Bishop. What would you think of the secretary to a Bishop if his Bishop decided upon a particular thing and the secretary argued something else?

He had not any charge in the Church. He occupied a position like that of a civil servant—a paid man. Every leader of the United Free Church— [ Interruption .]

I would like to follow the argument of the hon. Member. Will he please address me?

I am sorry, Mr. Speaker. When we begin discussing religous questions in Scotland, we occasionally get out of order. In the Church of Scotland General Assembly, this Bill was accepted nem con . I was there, and know of what I am talking. The men who object to it do so because they want to get more. This Bill is good from the heritors' point of view. In the War, fiars prices went up and up; the ministers got more and more stipend, and the heritors got no more rents. This Bill takes an average of 50 years, and fixes a definite sum. Suppose a young man is appointed to a parish. It will be two years before he can touch money. I have been an elder of the Church since 1886, and I say confidently that we all want union. There are difficulties to be dealt with in the Church, and they can best be dealt with by a united Church. I hope and pray that I may not cease to be a Member of this House before a union Bill comes up to provide for one united Church in Scotland.

Every British boy at some time or other fancies himself saying three words in this place. I have been looking forward to saying those three words, "Mr. Speaker, Sir," in this House for about 30 years, and now when the time has come I have about as much courage as a dormouse. I never at any time in my fairest dreams, or in my wildest nightmare, expected that I should Make my maiden speech upon the question of church establishment. There have been so many things in life that have attracted me and have seemed to absorb my attention that this is about the last thing that I should have anticipated speaking about for the first time in this House. I cannot imagine how it came about that the late Government should have been cajoled into fathering this orphan of the storm. It may have been that they wanted to put down a premium for insurance against being called some of the names that they had been called previously by the church people. Or it may be that they were awed by the profundity of the erudition of their Lord Chancellor. At any rate, I can imagine no Bill being brought before this House which contains in its essence so much that is absolutely and unreservedly antagonistic to the whole outlook of the Members of the party that sits on this side of the House.

This Bill is going to perpetuate and make eternal what we regard as an injustice. I do not want to use violent or passionate language on a subject of this kind. There are as many points of view on a question of this kind as there are thinking minds, and I have no more right to claim absolute truth for my point of view than any other hon. Member has for claiming it for his point of view. It is well that both points of view should be freely and openly presented. I am an unrepentant voluntarist, both as a politician and as a churchman. I can find no authority whatsoever, either in the text-books of religion or in my experience of churches, established and dis-established, for the proposition that my hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Brown) has laid down, that people should be compelled to go into the Christian church. The Christian church, or any branch of the Christian church, that takes the first step to compel people to become members of it, or to compel people to pretend to agree with its tenets has of its own free will declared itself to be unworthy of the name of a Christian church.

But the experience of churches that have been disestablished is altogether opposed to the proposition which my friend has advanced. What a tremendous convulsion there was in this country over the disestablishment of the Irish Church. What terrible things were done in that little interregnum between the notice of disestablishment and the final disestablishment—the creation of all kinds of official positions, and the sudden calling to the Ministry of people who had no preparation for it, the absurd criticisms that were made, not because of evil-mindedness, but because of fear on the part of people who held the Established Church in Ireland dear to their hearts and who believed that disestablishment would mean the end of the usefulness of that Church. There was not one man opposed to disestablishment of the Church in Ireland who did not live to express the view that the best thing that had happened to the Established Church in Ireland was its disestablishment, and there was hardly one who did not live to express the view that the Established Episcopal Church in Ireland had become more spiritually vitalised by its transition from the State, when it was disestablished than it had ever been before.

Consider the outcry in Canada when they disestablished the Church. I do no mean any sordid thing at all. I mean the genuinely expressed fear of people, who loved the Church and believed in its mission, lest the cutting of the connection between State and Church and the disendowment and taking away of the financial resources on which they were relying should lead to the complete collapse of the institution, and thereby destroy the message that it had to give. What has happened? Why, there is not a member of any Church in Canada to-day but is prepared to say that the whole movement, the whole religious movement has gained. I differentiate religious movements from ecclesiastical movements. Sometimes a complete ecclesiastical triumph means not the life but the death of spirituality, but, differentiating in this way, every on,. of them is prepared to admit, and does admit most freely—even those who opposed disestablishment — that the spirituality of every denomination has increased and that the generosity of the members has increased enormously. The same thing is true in the United States, and the same thing has happened among ourselves.

It is perfectly true—I am not going to make any claim that cannot be substantiated—that the Seceders and the 1843 men were establishmentarians. Certainly they were. The idea of disestablishment, voluntaryism, did not come until some years afterwards. But it is also true to say that most of the leaders became voluntaryists before many years passed. Look at the movement in Scotland. Here you had 400 ministers coming out with their elders, not coming out to give up a few pounds here and there, but coming out ready to give up everything, to face loss of prestige as ministers of the Gospel—a terrible thing for a minister to face—to face being turned out of their manses in which their families had been horn and bred, turned away from their glebes and from their churches to face actual starvation. What could have been a more appalling prospect for those people than that? And yet the people of Scotland, in the first year of the establishment of the Free Church, contributed voluntarily more than the total income—voluntary and compulsory—of the Established Church. It has been the same with every movement. Whenever you have a movement which has any spiritual dynamic in it, it is clear that one does not need to worry about the material and the financial things. What is wrong with the Church is perhaps that it is a little bit too much concerned with the financial things.

Let me get to this Bill. This Bill is brought forward by men who are absolutely sincere. I have the privilege of being personally acquainted with them. For a great many years I have had to be associated with them. I have laboured with them in Church matters in connection with the Glasgow Town Council for 13 or 14 years. They are absolutely sincere, but that does not mean to say that they are necessarily right. They bring forward this Bill in the belief that it is a preliminary to a union between the Church of Scotland and the United Free Church. We all want union. It is a funny thing to ask Episcopalians to help us in matters of this kind. If you have two Churches which are one in doctrine, one in system of government, and one in tradition and hope, it is most absurd that there should not be union. It is ridiculous that they should be rivals to each other and dissipating their resources by putting down separate churches in little villages where one church could carry on the work. But this Bill is brought forward for the purpose of acting as e preliminary to union. It is not conditional upon union. Whatever benefit the Church of Scotland is going to gain by this Bill is not going to be contingent upon union.

But do not let us forget this, that no Bill passed by this House of Commons can bring union. Union without unity is mechanism without life and unity has yet to come. There have been committees in Scotland supposed to be negotiating for union, but there has been only one meeting in four years. The question has never been put before any congregation that I know of. The question has never been discussed at any Presbytery that I am aware of. It has never been discussed in any synod that I am aware of. The only step that has been taken towards union is a pious declaration by each of the General Assemblies showing a desire for union, but by no means getting to grips with the necessary mechanism. I think that this Bill is going to be the greatest possible obstacle to union. I believe that the history of the Church in Scotland did not stop in 1843. I believe that the spirit which was represented by the 1843 men, which was represented by the men who stood out against the Archbishop of York when he claimed ascendancy, by the men who stood out against the whole of England when the Archbishop of Canterbury claimed ascendancy, and by the men who, while they were Catholics, were anti-clericals, and were ready to go to the full limit of incurring excommunication rather than accept dictation from the Pope; is represented differently to-day. It is represented not by an objection to any Church getting money from the people, but by the objection to belonging to any Church which is going to draw its resources from people who do not agree with its fundamental teaching.

What right have I as a Churchman to enter the house of God to worship in my own way when I know that it is being maintained and supported for my benefit, for the propagation of those things in which I believe, by money compulsorily extracted from people who regard my views as blasphemous? What have I to say to my minister who is to give me the benefit of his services, to advise me and help me, and to look after me, if that man is to be supported compulsorily by people of the Roman Catholic communion? How can I say that I am rearing a temple to the honour of the Lord when the stone and mortar of it are supplied by Jewish people? I am not covetous; I do not mind letting the Church in Scotland continue to draw these teinds. Let them continue with their heritors so long as the political development of the country considers it consistent with ordinary justice that one Church should have that right. But to put forward a Bill, and thrust it in the face of voluntaryists, which is going to perpetuate that system is going to close the door to union, for I am certain that there are thousands of people in Scotland who had hoped for union between the two Churches who, when they see the continuance of this system in the Bill, will say, "With love in our hearts and regret in our souls we leave you, because we cannot concede this principle."

In Glasgow, a city of a million inhabitants, one-fourth of whom are Roman Catholics, we actually have people worshipping in church, taking the most Holy Communion, which in Scotland is only twice in the year, and is a very serious ceremony, and the very bread and wine which represent the Body and Blood of the Lord are provided by people who regard the ceremony as blasphemous in the extreme. Does not our knowledge tell us that if a church is furnished from material which is bought from sources like that it is going to be detrimental? I know about the teinds; I give willingly to my hon. Friends on the other side, and to the Church in Scotland, the point that the teinds are a separate estate. I do not deny that. They are frequently held by people for financial reasons, because the stipend of the Minister does not always exhaust the amount of the teind. I admit at once that they are allocated very much the same as we have an allocation of feu duty. I am not going to worry about little legal technicalities, with which few of us in this House are familiar, but I do ask you to consider that the teinds such as they are were granted to the Church for four purposes. The first was the administration of religion, the second was the education of the young, the third was the care of the poor, and the fourth was the maintenance of burial grounds. For those purposes the teinds were granted. Pious endowments are not touched by this Bill at all.

8.0 P.M.

The first, the administration of religion, still goes on. If I were asked a question as to whether the quoad sacra parishes are more or less vital than the quoad omnia parishes, I should have no difficulty in saying. But education has passed over now into the hands of the State. The care of the poor and of the burying grounds has passed into the hands of the parish council. The condition of the burying grounds of Scotland is a disgrace to the Church which has these teinds for the purpose of maintaining them. All these three departments have now gone, and we are left with the Church claiming the right to draw all the teinds in perpetuity —no longer year by year, leaving it to the people to say whether they should stop or not—for the purpose of one of the four things. That is not fair. In Glasgow, out, of the piety of the people, churches were erected at a time when churches were much needed in that city. Each of those churches remained the property of the corporation. They were built on sites which are of very great value. The stipends of the ministers are paid from the common good, 2600 a year each. The seat rents go to the Corporation. They are trifling. The collections remain with the church. I will give one instance to show the condition into which the endowed church will permit its churches to lapse. The St. Enoch's Church in Glasgow had not one member, minister, bell-ringer, officer or session clerk, not any single individual associated with the church who was resident in the parish which the church was supposed to, and formerly did, care for. Everybody had flitted West. What happened? There was a church with £400 a year stipend for the minister, and latterly £600 a year, a great church on a valuable site, where the minister performed his functions in the morning to seven or eight people and in the evening to 10 or 11. At the same time his brethren in the townward areas of Glasgow, whose hands were hardly ever out of their pockets in helping distressing cases, who were slaving, toiling and moiling seven days a week without rest, were receiving a pittance of £240 to £250 a year.

That was a colossal, a gross and an unholy waste of the resources of the church. You come along with this Bill now. Take St. George's Church in Glasgow. You say that that church, which, with its site, belongs to the Corporation, is to be handed over to the Church Trustees. That church receives from the Corporation £600 a year for stipend. It receives from the Corporation the cost of its communion elements, its payments for bell ringing and all the rest of the trivialities which make me shiver with shame that they should be demanded from the people in the name of the Church of Christ. Apart from that, the site on which that church is built is worth £150,000. The church is a useless encumbrance. You want to hand it over to the Church of Scotland. Within 12 months that church could be pulled down and the site sold for £150,000. The site belongs to the citizens of Glasgow. There is St. James's Church. You propose to give that to the Church of Scotland. The site never belonged to the church. It never belonged to the Corporation, but to the University of Glasgow. Directly this Bill passes it is open to the trustees of the Established Church of Scotland to take away the derelict buildings and sell the site.

I do not think it is a fair thing that the House of Commons, composed of so many Members who do not belong to the Presbyterian Churches, should do this thing. It is utterly unjust to the Roman Catholics of Scotland; it is grossly unjust to the Episcopalians, to the Wesleyans, to the Congregationalists, all of whom have to maintain their own establishments, and still would be called upon in perpetuity to maintain another church in whose doctrines they do not believe. Why cannot the Church of Scotland have faith in the people of Scotland? I do not want this money for education or for anything else. I do not think that a man because he owns land should be taxed to maintain a church any more than the man who owns a public house. The ownership of land does not make a man particularly suitable to uphold any special church or denomination. That idea has had its day. Two young friends of mine, ex-service men, bought a farm in Kincardine. What did they know about chalders of wheat? Nothing. Within a year they were served with a notice demanding payment of £75, their share of teinds. It was more than they were earning. Let the Church of Scotland have faith in the people. The people of Scot- land never failed the church yet. The people of Scotland want the churches to be one. If the Church of Scotland has faith in the people, she will never lack voluntary gifts. The day that she lacks voluntary gifts, that day she ought to know that her day is done. The Church of Scotland will never flourish by reason of this Bill, for by the passing of it she herself would be putting up a barrier against those who most eagerly wish to become one communion with her. That is my contribution to this Debate as an unrepentant voluntaryist.

I intervene in support of the Second Reading of the Bill for two reasons. The first is that, having been a lawyer in Edinburgh, a Writer to the Signet, for the past 30 years, I have had to advocate the points of view both of the Church of Scotland and of the heritors, and I am bound at once to say that the two points of view did not always coincide. I, therefore, welcome the proposals of the Bill for a friendly and agreed settlement between the Church and the heritors. My second and more important reason is that as a Scotsman, and a prejudiced Scotsman, I firmly believe that the principles embodied in this Bill will be for the good of Scotland as a whole. Before mentioning in any detail the provisions of the Bill, I would make two remarks of a general nature. I believe that there will be general agreement with the proposition that the fact of there being throughout the length and breadth of Scotland, in every parish, Churches where the Christian faith is preached and ministers who uphold that faith and show it in their lives, is of enormous importance in establishing the standard of moral and social conduct throughout the land, and that thereby an atmosphere is created and maintained which helps to the good and moral living of the people as a whole.

My second general remark is that I believe that the true line of advance, whether in politics or in business or in society or in religion is to endeavour to discover common aims, to find points of agreement and not of dissension, to believe in the best in other people even where their opinions differ from your own to believe, in a word, in union as against disunion. Even the opponents of this Bill will admit that it is a genuine attempt to carry out union between two, great branches of the church in Scotland The time has passed for any serious discussion as to whether or not church union is of advantage for the religious uplift of the people. The fact is that the vast majority of the people in Scotland who love their church want this union and will have it. If this Bill be not pressed forward now, there will be grievous disappointment among the vast majority of people, not merely among churchmen, in Scotland. There may be details in the Bill which call for further consideration, and I feel certain that they will receive drastic consideration from the Scottish Members of the House. But there are certainly two main matters in the Bill which ought to be welcomed by anyone who knows the conditions, and particularly the legal conditions, in Scotland. There is the proposal to get rid of the method of calculating the stipend payable to ministers in cases where it varies from year to year, where neither the heritor nor the minister knows how either is going to stand in any given year. I come of a line of Scottish ministers, and I know what I am saying. The other is the vesting in the Church of churches and manses, which will remove a great source of dis-peace between the heritors and the Church and will relieve the minds of both of uncertainty in future. If it be a good thing to heal the wound in the side of the Church caused by the Disruption in 1843 if union rather than dissension be held to foster the religious and moral life of the nation; if unity and not sectarianism be the desire of the vast majority of church people in Scotland—then this Bill demands the support of this House.

This Debate, I think, will be remembered for two features in particular—one, the excellent maiden speeches to which we have listened and the other the splendid tone and temper in which the Debate has been conducted. Other hon. Members have already offered congratulations to the hon. Member for Motherwell (Mr. Barr) on his splendid presentation of the case against the Bill. No one was better qualified than he to be the chief exponent of the opposition. It remains for me to offer my particularly warm congratulations to the two last speakers. They are both distinguished members of the branch of the legal profession to which I belong, and was very pleased to hear the marvel lously able speech of the hon. Member for Paisley (Mr. Rosslyn Mitchell) followed by the trenchant and highly critical speech of the hon. Member for West Edinburgh (Mr. MacIntyre). I believe I have the support of the House when I offer them my very warm congratulations on their respective maiden efforts. I have referred to the tone and temper of the Debate. In that we discover an indication of the feeling of Scotland. We Scotsmen know that no Church Bill could be discussed in the tone and temper in which this Bill has been discussed, unless we felt in our hearts, whatever our individual views might be, that the Bill had truly behind it, I will not say overwhelming support, but a very large measure of support from the people of Scotland. To some extent that accounts for the tone and temper of the Debate.

I will not do anything to disturb it, but one or two observations have been made on the other side of which additional notice may be taken. In moving the rejection of the Bill, the hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. T. Johnston) pinned his faith to a dictum of Lord Sands'. What was Lord Sandys' position? It was that this Parliament, observing the terms of the Act of Union, could not consistently do anything which interfered with the worship discipline or forms of government of the Church of Scotland. If I may say so of such a distinguished Senator of the College of Justice, that is a very correct interpretation of the law and the spirit of the Act of Union, but there is nothing in this Bill which seeks to disturb in any way the position of the Church of Scotland in regard to worship, discipline or forms of government.

Whatever controls its funds would surely have something to do with its government.

I have given my interpretation of Lord Sands' statement, and I think I shall have no difficulty in proving it to be correct. As regards the speech of the Member for Motherwell, may I say with all respect, while appreciating it very much, that it would have been much more proper to a Disestablishment Bill than to the Measure before the House. There was a tendency in the speeches of hon. Members opposite to take away from the real character of the Bill. Hon. Members should consider the origin of the estates of the Church of Scotland and should discount entirely all references to burdens being placed upon Jew as well as Gentile in the matter of teinds. After all, we must remember that the character of a Church's patrimony depends on its origin and date of origin. This Church's patrimony originated at a time when land represented practically the only form of property and when the grant of land under the feudal system found its source in the Crown. It is obvious that any patrimony appropriate to the Church of Scotland under those conditions must take the form of land coming in the shape of a grant from the Crown. Therefore all the criticisms a-bout a taint being upon the property of the Church of Scotland make no appeal to any man with the historic sense or the legal sense.

I quite understand that when we come to a commercial era we are dealing with different tokens, if I may say so, and land loses its position as practically the only commodity of value. I only make the point, and with all deference to hon. Gentlemen opposite it is a sound point, that the particular character of the property of any society, any church, or any individual, is explained always by the date of origin or the date of acquisition of that property. The only difference between the estates of the Church of Scotland and the estates of the Free Church is the difference arising from their respective dates of origin. In the one case they could be nothing but land or the fruits of land; in the other it might be money or other properties following on the introduction of commerce on a wide scale. I put it to the hon. Member for Paisley that he was hardly fair in making reference to the disestablishment of the Churches of Ireland and Wales. He will be the first to agree that there is all the -difference in the world between the Church of Scotland, native to the people, and the Church of Ireland alien to Ireland, and not only alien to, but challenging the Church which is truly the native Church of Ireland. In regard to the disestablishment of the Church of Wales, the Church there was at any rate suspected of having a somewhat alien character.

My hon. Friend will admit that I spoke only from the financial point of view.

I am coming to that point. One could understand a Church which had been established in a country where the feeling of the people was alien to it, experiencing prosperity after it had been taken away from its false position. The prosperity which may have attended the Churches of Ireland and Wales after disestablishment is no argument in favour of disestablishment in this case. In any event we are not discussing disestablish-Brent. Reference has been made to the Haldane Report. We owe much to that Report. May I say that not the least of our indebtedness is due to its accuracy of language. It refers to the assets of the Church, and all that this Bill seeks to do is to have these assets valued in terms of modern currency. I agree that this is one of the many stages towards a great union of the two Churches. I share the opinion stated by the hon. Member for West Edinburgh that no greater dis-service has been done to the social, and may I also say the educational, life of Scotland than has been done by the division of the Churches, and in the unity of the Churches we look for a stimulus to the social life of our people which cannot be given by a divided Church. We also look for a stimulus being given to the education of our people by greater concentration on the religious basis of our education, such as education enjoyed at a time when there was no division. I say all that, but meantime, without discussing the question of establishment or disestablishment, endowment or disendowment, this is a very practical step towards union.

On the other hand, you have the Church of Scotland, with its assets valued in terms of kind. The hon. Member for Paisley knows that you still have the land, on many farms, assessed in terms of kind transmuted into money. The Church of Scotland has its property valued in terms of kind, with a constant fluctuation, and the other Church has its property valued in terms of modern currency. Therefore, from a purely practical point of view, from a clean financial point of view, it was a necessity for union that there should be harmony in the mode of assessment of value of the properties of the two Churches, and that is all that this Bill says. The hon. Member for Paisley bemoaned his two friends who had bought two farms and found themselves liable for stipend, but if he acted as their agent, his clients must have realised that they paid subject to the burden of the teind, and I can hardly beileve that clients who had bought with the full knowledge that they were responsible for that stipend, would seek to escape its payment. Generally speaking the Bill simply seeks to assess in terms of money, to bring into harmony with the currency of the times, with our ideas of value, the assets of the Church of Scotland. These are the criticisms I would offer with regard to the speeches made in opposition to the Bill, and I cannot help concluding with a restatement of the feeling I hold that this Bill will be welcomed by the majority of the people of Scotland.

The hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Kidd) having intimated that he belonged to the legal profession. I am somewhat surprised to find that he was lacking in his information. He tried to make it out that the Free Church stood in the same relation to its property as the State Church, but he ought to know, as a lawyer, if he had read the history of the Scottish Churches, that that which is in the possession of the State Church to-day was by compulsion, while that which is owned to-day by the other Churches is by voluntary effort—a very different position from what he sought to impose upon the House. When he referred to the land losing its position, he also seems to me to have fallen into the same lack of logic. His reason seems to have left him, for the land has not left its position, and if the land has done anything at all, it has been the source of increasing the owners' wealth. What I wanted particularly to say on this subject to-night was that I am one of the protesting heritors in the Cathcart case, one of those that have been pursued by this so-called Christian body of Established Churches, who carry their Christianity so deep that they would pursue you even over the borders of England, and put the bailiffs in on you, and sell your table, if need be, to get a few pence, so great is their belief in what they call their Christian faith, but their very action gives the lie to what they claim to be theirs.

If there is anything in this world that is going to destroy what is claimed as the hope of union contained in this Bill, it is the case quoted by my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee (Mr. Johnston), the well-known case of Kirkintilloch, and the Cathcart case. Where was the sense of justice in this great profound State Church, in this so-called Christian body, when they were made to realise that hundreds of these people called rent heritors did not know that when they feud the piece of ground upon which they built their little house to try and give their children a better life than they had had, they became what is called real rent heritors? What happened? Was there any sense of Christian justice when, on Glasgow Fair Friday, the clay when the City is practically shut up, and the people who can go have gone for their holidays, in the corner of an obscure local paper, not even one of our great daily or evening papers in the City, in an obscure little sheet, by the real heritors and the minister—[An HON. MEMBER: "The Little Minister?"]—No, not "The Little Minister." He has some sort of moral sense, but this one had none. On the holidays, in an obscure little paper, in a corner, there was an intimation of a meeting, and only those who published it knew about the meeting, and they held it, and decreed that they were going to tax us for something that the parish did not require. That parish does not require what our supposed justice in our Scottish Courts has upheld to be the right of a handful of men, but let us leave out the Courts of Justice and take the moral sense that we would wish to be evident in what is claimed to be a Christian Church.

If these men had even the sense of Christianity that they profess, they would have said: It is evident from this body of rent heritor protestors that they are not all blackguards and cat-burglars, and we take it that they did not see this paper, and did not know of its existence. Let us, therefore, as Christian men, issue a notice so that all may come to the meeting and decide the question. Did they do that? No. They went on, knowing that they had taken a foul and mean advantage by not putting the notice in the usual sources from which the average reading public get such information. Did that bring unity of feeling among the Churches in Cathcart? Not a bit of it. You had the protestors led by a Mr. Campbell, a man whose name will go down in history for the valiant fight he has put up in connection with this eternal fight for freedom that is born in Scotland, if nowhere else.

The interest that ought to have been taken in this Scottish Bill to-day, from the point of view of the Union of the Churches, has been destroyed by the Established Church using all the means they can, in the name of law, to pursue every man who has a right to his conscience and to know what he is doing. What can we say about a Bill that in no way takes cognisance of that? The Secretary for Scotland to-day, in reply to a question, said this Bill wipes that all out. This Bill does nothing of the kind. What it says is, "You are not getting off. We are making another condition. We are not going to take it out of your right-hand pocket, but we are going to take it out of your left-hand pocket, in the hope that you will not see it." That which is embodied in this Bill is nothing but another effort to legalise that continuous theft of what is known as the people's property through the original Church. -This is the last attempt to try and swindle what is the property of the common people to-day. The hon. Member for Paisley made a reference to burial grounds. I have been to some of these pauper burials in Scotland, where these funds should have been spent, at least, to have made things sweet and bright for those taking a last farewell. At all these pauper funerals at which I have been in country places, was there a glass hearse and flowers? No. It might be an old box fastened to the axles of an old cab- care of the poor? What about the lands and the money which were to benefit every poor child in Scotland? They have been filched away. Just as we have had these things transferred to the shoulders of the ratepayers, now they come along and say they want the capitalised value of that which they have compelled us to transfer to the rates.

That is the position of the Bill as it stands to-day, so far as I see it. There is no security for the rent heritor under this Bill. If there were any shred of desire to make the people of Scotland of different denominations feel that this was an honest attempt at unity, the first thing the Secretary for Scotland would do would be to say to the rent heritor, that if there is to be any change made, or any claim made, there shall be issued to every individual heritor a notice as to the meeting being called for the purpose therein stated. Why does he not do that? Because he knows it has been characteristic of this whole crowd that have run this from the beginning of the great day of the Reformation to dupe the citizens of this country by trying to make them believe that they were something superior, that they were going to do something for nothing, and all the time they are adding to the swindles that have been carried on. I know of no other word to describe it. If the Government were sincere about aiming at unity, they would give that assurance to the heritor that he would receive direct information in regard to any change that was going to take place. In conclusion, I want to say that those who build up their hopes about unity must have very little understanding of the common people so far as the Church in Scotland is concerned. You are going to have no unity so long as you try to force through Bills such as this one to-day. Trying to legalise forms of theft that are robbing rights from the common people is not going to fire the imagination for this combination of churches.

I have listened with great interest to this Debate, and especially to the speeches of the hon. Member for Motherwell (Mr. Barr) and the hon. Member for Paisley (Mr. R. Mitchell). What they have said, however, seems to me to be for the most part quite irrelevant to present considerations. I respectfully suggest that the Debate, to a large extent, has got into irrelevancies. The hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. J. Brown) said, and I think truly, that no prejudice and no hurt is to be suffered by any person by the passing of this Bill. The attack upon this Bill to a large extent has been, not on the Bill, but upon our social conditions, and upon the fact that in the past the Church of Scotland acquired certain property. The same attack could have been made on the proprietors of land generally, and I daresay in this matter hon. Gentlemen on the opposite benches will be with me—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear !"] I quite agree, and I can follow the logic of that argument. What, however, I do say to hon. Members opposite, is that this Bill does not in any way give to the Church of Scotland anything it does not already possess. The Bill, indeed, rather takes away from the Church of Scotland. Some people in the Church of Scotland think that the standard price is not fair. Accordingly we find that in the Church of Scotland there is a small body of stalwarts who think that this Bill is going to prejudice their Church. I do not think so, nor do the main mass of men in the two Churches think so—I am speaking more particularly of the laymen when I say that the mass of laymen in the Established Church and in the United Free Church are satisfied. In so far as this Bill facilitates union or helps it in any way they think the Bill should be supported. Accordingly, I put forward the view that because this Bill is, in the opinion of many men, helpful to union that that in itself is a reason for its support. Let that be, as it may. Take this Bill by itself, and do not look to the future at all. I say that this Bill ought to be passed on its merits and ought not to be opposed by hon. Members opposite for this reason; that there has been for many years in Scotland a cumbrous system, an obsolete system, under which the stipend of ministers is fixed and the money collected. You have the intervention of juries, the Law Courts, and all the rest of it. It has got to be gone through every year.

The point I am making is that the cumbrous procedure that you apply, or say applies, to the ministers of Scotland applies only to a small minority of all the clergymen in Scotland, and only to a minority of those of the Established Church.

If the hon. Member came into my constituency he might judge a little differently. There are, of course, a number of clergymen who have nothing to do with teinds in the Church of Scotland. We have had the number put at about 540. They are supported voluntarily. That may be so. In regard to the balance of the parish ministers every one has to go through the present system. Leave out of account the question of whether the Church of Scotland should or should not have these properties. That is one question. What I am suggesting for the moment is that the Church of Scotland is as much entitled to the property it holds as any other proprietor. Take it for the moment that the Church has as much right to its property as the hon. Member for Springburn (Mr. Hardie) has to that which belongs to him. Assume that for 300 or 400 years the Church of Scotland has had certain property rights. You may believe that she ought not to have had these rights, but she has them, and this Bill does not give any more. The Bill gives less. Not only that, but I was much impressed by the speech of the hon. Member for Spring-burn (Mr. Hardie) in regard to the hardship which he seems to think has arisen out of the Cathcart case. It may be so: but this Bill is going to a large extent to put that right. I note the hon. Member shakes his head. I think it does, because it is going in the future to see that ecclesiastical assessments are put in order.

What, however, I want to point out is this: if you look at this Bill from the point of View that it recognises property, then, if the times comes—I hope it will not—if the time comes when property is taken over by the State—the Bill, if it passes and becomes an Act, does not prejudice the position of Parliament in the future at all. People talk about the creation of a vested right. You are giving no vested right by this Bill. This Parliament can undo next year what it does to-day. Parliament is creating no vested right in the Church of Scotland at the present time. It is there. You are not making a new vested right. I would just like to say one or two things in regard to certain of the statements made by the hon. Member for Motherwell, and by the hon. Member for Paisley. In regard to the teinds, I think—if I may respectfully say so—that their knowledge is inaccurate. That is, of course, where there will be a difference of opinion. I will put it this way: that the teinds before the Reformation belonged to the Church—to the Roman Catholics. After the Reformation these teinds were not handed over to the new Reformed Church. They were first of all taken by the Crown and by others. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear !"] Yes, but that does not alter the fact that the Church did not get them. Here is where the error comes in in regard to what both hon. Members said. The teinds are a separate estate. The hon. Member for Motherwell (Mr. Barr) does not agree to that, but the hon. Member for Paisley (Mr. E. R. Mitchell) said, "Yes, they are a separate estate." John Knox asked that these teinds should be handed over to the Church—the teinds, the separate property which had belonged to the Church before—in order that they might provide for the maintenance of the ministers, for education, and for the poor, but the Church of which John Knox was the head did not get these teinds. At the start of the Reformation, the total sum the Church got was £2,000 per annum: 50 years after a little more was received by the Church of Scotland: the rest was in the hands of proprietors—Titulars and others.

It may he so, but we are not dealing with landowners. There may he an argument with regard to the confiscation of property, but I ask hon. Members to be relevant. If John Knox and his Church could have obtained possession of these teinds they could have maintained the clergy and provided for education and the poor. But they did not get them. In the year 1633, Charles I tried to get some of the teinds back for the Church. And what did he get back?

He did not get the teinds in order that he might apply them to the maintenance of the ministers, to education and to the poor. The Church is not at fault, as hon. Members opposite suggest, in not applying them to the poor, and education, for the reason that they did not get the teinds. What they got under the Act of Parliament of 1633 was a reasonable stipend for the minister out of the teinds. The teinds remained in and are in the hands of the proprietors to this day, most of them held by the Crown. [HON. MEMBERS "No!"] A portion of them.

I must remind hon. Members that this is a maiden speech, and that the hon. Member for Motherwell (Mr. Barr) was listened to in perfect silence.

The point I want to make is this, that you cannot call in question the Church of Scotland for not using the teinds for certain purposes, because they did not get the teinds, but only got a proportion of them, and only got that proportion which was referable to the maintenance of the clergy. The balance of the teinds was kept from them, and still remains in the hands of those who own the teinds. The teinds were owned by titulars, or by colleges and hospitals, and also by the Crown. What I put to hon. Members opposite is that there is no point in suggesting that the Church has been at fault with regard to its application of these teinds. The Church have a vested right by Act of Parliament in the teinds to an extent: and at the present day that vested right would give them £22 per chalder. This Bill simply says: Instead of fixing the prices each year let us fix a given sum of money value for the chalder now and keep that in the future. If the chalder goes up the Minister does not get the benefit, and if it goes down he does not lose. That is a most reasonable thing to do. It has been agitated for for years and years, apart from the question of union.

It is suggested that this is a tax upon the land. Of course it is a tax upon the land in one sense, just the same as the farmer who pays a rent to his landlord might say that that is a tax. It is all property, it is the property of the Church. The hon. Member for Paisley (Mr. R. Mitchell) put it correctly when he said the teinds were a separate estate. The teinds could be leased out; they could have been felted out in the old days, they could have been sold. And they have been sold, and the heritors or landowners do not come into the question at all, except that under the same old Act of 1633 they had the right to buy the surplus teinds, and they bought them because they were able to get them for six years' and nine years' purchase. The result today is that most of the teinds are in the hands of the landowners, the heritors. If you are going to take them away, do it properly by Act of Parliament, saying, "We will confiscate"; but if you are not going to do that, and that is not what this Bill proposes, why on earth should you object to a Bill which simplifies and makes sensible the method of collection of the stipend? Accordingly I say there is no point at all in that criticism.

9.0 P.M.

Take the other points referred to, the point of public funds. There is a question there. The burgh churches, as a matter of fact, will be dealt with by the Ecclesiastical Commissioners. There is a lot to be said for the view put forward by hon. Members opposite, and that can be put before the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, and will be dealt with justly by them. But as regards the stipend or money which corporations pay. At the present moment they pay, they have got to pay, by law, and this Bill does not add anything to that. But there is nothing to prevent a future Parliament from saying, "That should not have been done; we will deal with that." The Bill that is before us is quite harmless. The position is exactly the same with regard to the Parliamentary Churches.

There is just one other thing on which I wish to speak, the Cathcart case. I do not want to go very much into that case, because I have rather an intimate knowledge of it, as some hon. Members know.

The central point is, that "It is a hardship upon the mass of the heritors, because they do not read the papers."

It was published according to the law. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] It was published, I say again, in accordance with an Act of Parliament passed by this House not so very long ago.

It is no doubt true that many of the heritors were nut aware of the meeting of heritors and there may be a grievance there. But because this Bill will take away that grievance in large part, I am sure hon. Members opposite will support it.

That brings me to say this in conclusion. _Here, you have a Bill which has not been forced upon the people of Scotland. It is a Bill which the people of Scotland. I submit, are wanting. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] In particular the laymen of those churches are wanting this Bill. They want this Bill to promote union. This Measure is founded upon the report of a Committee of gentlemen none of whom are identified with the Church of Scotland, or with the Conservative party. As a matter of fact the members of this Committee belong either to the Liberal party or the Labour party. I put it to hon. Members who are open and fair-minded to let it weigh with them that this matter has been dealt with according to the recommendations of a report by a neutral committee, and this Bill is the result. I submit that this Measure is asked for by the Church of Scotland and by the members of the United Free Church as well. Further I submit that this Bill can do no harm to any person. It creates no vested right which did not already exist, and therefore I submit on these grounds that it is a Bill that ought to be supported.

I wish to join in the protests against this Bill which have been so ably made from this side of the House. It is somewhat unfortunate that this Bill should bear the imprimatur of the last Government. I think it would have had better prospects and it would have been more for the interests of Scotland at large, and particularly the religious denominations there, if we had had more evidence placed before the House of spiritual vitality, and less of this keen anxiety about property and monetary interests. These seem to be the only occasions in comparatively recent years in which the Church comes to the front. Going back to early Gladstonian times I remember that Mr. Gladstone on one occasion was expected to make a special pronouncement upon Disestablishment during his Edinburgh campaign, and a number of Conservative candidates came forward and defended the establishment. Mr. Gladstone let the matter down very gently, and he decided that it would be advisable not to interfere with the Church. During this discussion we have had more than once emphases placed on the argument that a vast majority of the people are keenly concerned about getting this Bill. How that idea has got about I do not know, and my own view is that, outside some of the ecclesiastical dovecotes, there is no real anxiety about getting this Bill through at all. This unity movement has spread amongst certain religious organisations who say that the assistance of the State is necessary. Even dissenting bodies, with their utilisation of extraneous methods for assisting the Church, admit that there is evidence of a steady decline in the Church itself, and that there is going to be no building up of the Church movement in Scotland by any attempt of this kind.

If only we found in the Church a keener anxiety about the spiritual life of the people; if the supporters of this Measure could bring forward evidence of the deep-seated concern of the Church in regard to dealing with many of these questions which we are endeavouring to handle in the House of Commons: if it could be shown that all these efforts were leading towards a settlement of these questions instead of only being a drag on their solution, then there would be no necessity for this Bill to-day. A11 these things show that there is within the Church a lack of spiritual vitality and a moral cowardice in handling great ques- tions. Under these circumstances, it is rather disappointing to find such an enthusiasm with regard to pushing forward a Measure of this kind which has nothing else in it but sheer gross materialism.

You are dealing in this Bill with property, but you have no proof whatever of any actual negotiations regarding any union, and no proof whatever that such a Measure as this has ever been submitted to the Church Courts of the country. On the other hand you have that limited concentrated line of action which says, "We see trouble ahead, we see disaster in front of the Churches and we are more concerned than ever now to secure the buttressing up of the financial situation rather than any concern for getting that unity which does not depend upon a Bill of this kind at all." At the present time there is nothing to prevent any religious bodies in Scotland from coming together for the application of their professed principles, and I am confident that if we do have such a, manifestation you would find every Church in Scotland, and not simply the Established Church, giving the lead to the country at large. In my view it is deplorable that on this occasion, as on the other occasion when we had the Wee Free trouble which was taken to the Law Courts you find thousands of those officially representing the Church going to mass meetings and assembling solely to deal with the question of the loaves and fishes.

What an example to the great mass of the toilers, to whom the advice is so frequently given, "Cease this industrial unrest, get down to more satisfying, more contented lines, apply yourselves more to work." Here you have a Measure which is an incentive to the Ministry of the Established Church of Scotland in the very opposite direction. The body of the working people are not giving one rap about what you are doing; they know it is a lot of humbug, without any real spiritual significance at all. What are they discussing in the Church Courts? Why are the people not going to church? Because they find an unreality in the Church. because they find an ignominious failure on the part of the leaders, laymen as well as Ministers, to stand forward. There is not a question that we have to face in our national or international life but we find the Church lagging behind. It is the average man or woman who has to stand out from the Church and suffer the contempt and criticism, aye, and the boycotting, for standing up to realistic business. They are even going the length, with their own members, of shutting out the truths that God Almighty will see shall not be held back.

An illustration has been quoted regarding the Chancellor of the Exchequer's emphatic declaration that he could see nothing better for the Church than that there should be separation from the State and that everything should be done in that direction. The hon. Member for Motherwell said that there was only one Lobby for the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but you will see which Lobby he will go into. I have no doubt in my mind which one it will be. What does that mean? Politicians and statesmen can be found to make any kind of declaration regarding matters even of this kind, or anything else, that may suit themselves at the moment for selfish interests, and yet we are asking for altruism among other people—we are asking the body of workers to show an example. We slate them, we criticise them from this House, and from church and chapel you can hear those criticisms meted out to them. The workers take their lesson from this. They see the Ministry combining to say, "We shall see that we are made certain and secure in our positions," just as the professors in the City of Dundee are doing just now. They have managed, in spite of all these criticisms that we hear when workers make demands in regard to wages, to go right up from £400 and £600 to £1,000, and yet you cannot get the actual facts submitted to the public through the Press of tae City.

This sort of business, in my view, is antagonising people regarding the Church. We need to win them; we need to try to cultivate their relationship with the Church, but Christian religion does not depend upon the organised Church, established or other vise. You find that in the mission hall, when you look to the body of workers—the ordinary everyday toilers of the country—to find the money, you can get a meeting every night of the week with intense enthusiasm. You can do that in Wales as well as in Scotland. It is not a question of looking to see where they are going to get money or property. The whole thing is an absolute scandal. I think the Bill ought to be rejected, and I have great pleasure in joining my protests to those which have already been made.

It used to be said that every Scotsman was a theologian. I am afraid that is not true to-day. But he would be a poor Scotsman who did not take an interest in our National Church, and so we find at this time a very considerable interest in this Measure. I rise from these benches to support the Second Reading of the Bill, and to second the efforts of my hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. J. Brown). We show, therefore, that there is a body of opinion on these benches in favour of this Bill, and, although we may not be quite so demonstrative as the other section, we hold our convictions equally strongly, and are prepared equally to state them. I do not agree on all points with this Bill. I believe that certain Amendments are necessary in Committee, but I do think that, when those are accomplished, the Bill, when it becomes an Act, will be a very important contribution towards settling the vexed question of the union of two great Churches.

I look at this Bill as a Scotsman and as a member of the United Free Church, as well as a member of the Labour party, and I say that the greatest argument for this Bill is its purpose. It will make possible the union of two great religious bodies whose aims are the same, whose creed is the same, and whose forms of worship, of government, and of constitution are practically identical. We would not, of course, do evil that good might come, and we should not condone a bad Bill because it was well meant, but its purpose at least should tend to make us look at it more sympathetically. I think that no Scotsman, looking back on the history of his country, can help feeling that our religions conflicts have been at once our glory and our shame. The spirit of true religion was not conspicuous in many of them. The tone and temper of our people to-day would not permit of their revival. The hon. Member for Motherwell (Mr. Barr), whom we congratulate on his maiden speech—and I was very glad to see that he did not suffer from any of the tremulousness or lack of words which usually afflicts a young speaker—has for so long written strongly and spoken eloquently on the subject of disestablishment of the Church that we could not expect him to approach this: Measure with an unbiased mind. I am sure we all respect his sincerity and earnestness, but he is flogging a dead horse in trying to revive the fierce conflicts of the last century on Church constitution and government. The people are no longer interested in these matters, and they cannot understand what all the bother is about Looking to the general interests of religion in Scotland. I say that those who oppose this Bill out and out are incurring a very serious responsibility.

There are also practical considerations. We all know that many small villages and towns are strewn with half-empty churches, where, if there were only one-half or one-third of the number, there would be much greater efficiency and as a result the scorner would he left in confusion. There has to be a separate organisation for each, and all the arguments in favour of the abolition of the competitive system are applicable here. These facts are well known to the people of Scotland, and they have looked upon the tedious and dragging negotiations for union with an impatience which may soon pass into contempt.

It. is quite true to say, as hon. Members have done, that the people do not think much about this Bill and are not much interested in it, but they are really interested in union and they have become disgusted at the length of time the thing has been dragging on. They blame the Church leaders either for half-heartedness or lack of business ability. I confess shared that feeling to some extent until I looked at the matter more closely, and then I realised that, the leaders of the Church of Scotland had a thorny problem to deal with. They naturally had to consider themselves as the guardians of the ancient rights of their Church. They had to meet with the objections of the voluntaries of the United Free Church on the one hand and of the heritors on the other. Lord Haldane's Commission showed a way out, although it did not provide a perfect solution of the problem. There were three main classes of objectors to the report. There were the voluntaries, the Free Church of Scotland and the heritors. The main objections of the minority of the United Free Church are met in the Declaratory Act of 1921 where, inter alia , it says:

The Free Church of Scotland has no scruples at all about taking State money and would gladly welcome some allocation under the Bill. They believe themselves to be the real Church of Scotland and claim that they alone have never reinterpreted their doctrine in the light of modern knowledge. We cannot but admire their simple faith and fidelity and their devotion to conservative principles, but they are quite out of touch with, and cannot represent the people of Scotland.

The third class of the objectors were the heritors. There has been a great deal of sympathy expressed for the heritors and some sympathy for them even from these benches. Some of the speakers have spoken with mixed voices. On the one hand they have sympathised with the heritors of a different religious way of thinking and on the other hand have condemned them as rapacious landowners. We have to remember that these people do not pay as Roman Catholics or anything else, but -because they are land and property owners. When land was given to the original owners it was given with certain obligations. The landowner was responsible for the upkeep of the poor, for education and for the Church. By the Proclamation of William and Mary, dated the 11th August, 1692, the heritors, ministers and elders were required

Then, again, for 300 years parish schools were maintained from the land. They were under the direct control of the heritors and the parish ministers. This great system of education was carried on without a single penny of taxation falling upon the common people. This educational obligation on the heritors was abolished by the School Board Act of 1872.

So now only the Church remains. I would have preferred the Haldane proposals for complete redemption of teinds to those in the Bill. It would have been a cleaner cut and better for the Church. The heritors objected for two reasons. The first was the hardship on the small landowners, which has been described, although they were allowed a possible 11 years to pay, and the second reason was explained by the hon. Member for Motherwell, when he quoted the circular of the Lao d and Property Federation. It was to make a permanent burden on the land for fear that, otherwise, wicked Socialists would come along and impose heavy taxation upon the landowners. But the device has been so very obvious and so freely advertised that I am afraid it will not avail them when the day of retribution comes. They will be treated with strict justice by the Labour party, and they should not fear that. I think the heritors have made a very good bargain. The 50 years' average of fiars prices certainly included the war years, which were very good years, but it also included very lean years between 1873 and 1910. The heritors are relieved of the maintenance of churches, manses, provision of glebes and maintenance of churchyards, and no compensation is paid for such relief.

Another point which I think calls for amendment on the Bill is in regard to burghal churches. These, with their sites, are to be taken over by the general trustees. The town councils are somewhat anxious about the future. If you take the Tron Church in Edinburgh, which occupies a very valuable site and in the near future is likely to be superfluous as a church, you have the position there that if the church became superfluous and were disposed of to some outside body, the town council, in carrying out future city improvements, might have to pay a ransome price for what was their original property. This, I think, is a bad feature. It might be met by a Clause making it compulsory on the trustees, before they dispose of the church or site to any outside bodies, to give option of purchase first to the corporation, the price to be fixed by valuation or by arbitration when the public interest and the original connections would be considered. I certainly think that would meet many of the objections of the town councils.

This Bill, then, I believe, is an honest endeavour to advance the cause of religion in Scotland. It is, of course, a compromise of conflicting interests, and some of its unsatisfactory provisions are a legacy from old times, but we have accepted much worse Bills in worse causes. After all, it only deals with machinery, and in Scotland we have always thought far too much about machinery. It is really, after all, the product that counts. I support the Bill so that we may have a great united Church. Some of us feel that up to now the Church has not completely fulfilled its functions. It has put a great stress on the personal side of religion and has rather neglected its social implications. We do not wish the Church to suggest political remedies for modern problems, but we wish it to keep sensitive the social con- science of the people. It is in the hope that a large Church, freed from ecclesiastical turmoil, with more efficient organisation and new enthusiasm, will help to bring about a better and happier Scotland that I support the Second Reading.

Although I am not quite a new Member, I have never had the opportunity of addressing the House before, and I do so with some considerable amount of diffidence. The only thing that makes me feel it my duty to do so is the fact that I think I am the only office hearer in the United Free Church of Scotland who sits on this side of the House of Commons, and I wish to impress on the House that the United Free Church of Scotland is very fully in favour of this Measure. I have had communications, both by letter and by conversation, with many clergymen and many laymen in the United Free Church, and all of them have asked me to do what I can to see that this Measure is passed into law as quickly as possible in order that the union of which the hon. Member for East Edinburgh (Dr. Shiels) has spoken already may be carried out. I confess to the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. J. Brown) that I am a United Presbyterian, but I have been merged in the United Free Church of Scotland. I took part in the memorable procession when the United Presbyterian Church and the Free Church of Scotland joined their forces and I sincerely trust that in a year or two I may again be privileged to take part in a similar procession when we shall become one great Presbyterian Church. A good many quotations have been made from various eminent Divines of long ago. I should like to draw attention to the sayings of some men who are living at present. The Moderator of the Church to which I belong, the Rev. Dr. Inch, has many times within recent days advocated this measure because he believes it is a first step towards union. I was not a member of the last United Free Church Assembly but I think it was the Rev. Dr. Bogle, who was one of the leading authorities on ecclesiasticism in the United Free Church of Scotland, who made an observation to the effect that the people of Scotland had of far beyond the ecclesiasticism of the Rev. Dr. Young and the Rev. Mr. Barr.

I wish once again to impress upon hon. Members, especially those who do not know Scotland, the fact that the Scottish people wish this Measure because they desire to see a great united Church in Scotland. They want to see all the old sores healed and they want to feel that they are one Church and one Church alone, and it is for that reason that I hope the House will grant the Second Reading.

I am not going to enter into the merits of this Bill because, as I stated prior to the moving of the Second Reading, I considered the Bill had no right to be discussed at all. The point I have risen to make a statement upon is that you, Sir, in your ruling upon the point of procedure that raised, stated that the point of view I had expressed in that point of procedure would be met in the debate. Many hon. Members have taken part in it from different angles both of politics and of religion. Not one of them has raised the constitutional question, and consequently I am left in rather a curious position. In an hour and 20 minutes we shall be taking a division. [ Interruption .] If you are not going to vote I am sorry. Some of your friends on that side will be disappointed if you do not support them. The division will be as to whether we should give the Bill a Second Beading and proceed to Committee stage. No division has been or is likely to be taken as to whether this House has a right to discuss the Bill. The points I raised in my point of order have not been met by you, Sir. I read extracts from the Treaty of Union which, in my opinion, justified the point of view I have taken, that the discussion of this question was unconstitutional. You said the House would proceed to discuss that point of view. The House has no right to discuss that point of view. It has already been expressed in the Treaty of Union, and in the Act of Security, that is a part of it. I object very strongly to hon. Members coming to this House and saying this question has been before the people of Scotland. No such question was raised during the past Election. I challenge any Scottish Member who either supports or opposes the Bill, Labour. Liberal or Tory, to state that he made any reference to the Church of Scotland Bill in his election address. I include all. Tory, Liberal or Labour. Not one put this Bill in his election address, and yet we have had from all quarters of the House to-night the statement that the people of Scotland are crying out for this Bill. It is sheer nonsense. They are not concerned with the Bill, outside a small coterie of Church officials.

The point I rose to make is, that I am in the same position that I was in this afternoon when I placed my point of view before you, Mr. Speaker, and you declined to give a ruling. I again protest, at the close of this debate against this House interfering with a question that is outside its jurisdiction, because of a Treaty entered into by Scotland and England, and ratified by the Parliaments of both countries. It is because I am against this House of Commons breaking a Treaty, and treating it as a scrap of paper, that I shall not take part in the vote to-night.

I desire to associate myself with the tributes which have already been paid to the hon. Members who have spoken for the first time to-night. A feature of this debate has been the number of maiden speeches, all of which have contributed very considerably to the darkness which undoubtedly surrounds this question. I should like to refer particularly to the speech of the hon. Member for Motherwell (Mr. Barr). I think he, is to be congratulated in having as the subject of his maiden speech a matter upon which he is an acknowledged authority, and I think the House is to be congratulated in that it has had the advantage in this debate of listening to one who was able to say all that can be said in opposition to this Bill, and probably said it as forcibly as it can be said.

There is one thing that has emerged from this Debate, and it is this, that not only throughout Scotland, among those who are opposed to the Bill as well as among those who are in favour of the Bill, but in this House also there is a desire for the union of the Churches in Scotland. There has been a- general agreement that the present state of affairs in Scotland, where you have two branches of the same Church, with the same doctrine, the same discipline, the same Church government, covering exactly the same area, divided by a partition which few people can understand, should come to an end. That that state of affairs should end is, I think, an opinion that is universal throughout Scotland. There have been two distinct movements having the aim of ending this state of affairs, which is a scandal to Scotland and a reproach to Christendom.

Under the auspices of the Liberal party, in order that union might be brought about in Scotland, a campaign that is within the memory of most if not all the Members of this House was inaugurated. Union was to be brought about by the disestablishment and disendowment of the Church of Scotland. That campaign failed. It was said on the part of those in the Liberal party who were responsible for the disestablishment movement that what they wanted was not a wreck of the Church of Scotland, but a launch for the Church of Scotland. Out of the goodness of their hearts they wished to cut away the shores supporting the Established Church of Scotland, that it might launch out into newer and greater adventures. There is a saying in Scotland to the effect that no person can with impunity harm the kirk. I know not how far that has been carried out with regard to the Liberal party, but this, at any rate, is true, that it has to-day fallen from the estimation which it once held in this country. Whether that is due to the part which the Liberal party played in the disestablishment campaign, I will not pause to say.

That campaign of disestablishment and disendowment of the Church of Scotland failed, and certainly from 1890, from the union of the United Presbyterian Church and the Free Church there set in immediately in Scotland a tide in favour of the union of the Churches. Two committees, representing the Church of Scotland on the one hand and the United Free Church on the other hand, have been sitting over a stretch of 15 years, and in a model spirit of charity—something new in the relations between these two Churches—the negotiations were carried on until they culminated in the Church of Scotland Act, 1921, which had to do with the spiritualities of the Church, now to be completed by this Bill, which has to do with the temporalities of the Church of Scotland. While these negotiations were going on, what was happening among the people of the two branches of the Church? Immediately, a new spirit was springing up in both branches of the Church, until to-day you have actually consummated within these Churches a union which Par- liament at the present moment is only being called upon to ratify.

What are the objections to this Bill? We have heard a great deal about volutaryism and spiritual independence. The fact of the matter is that spiritual independence is an impossibility until we become disembodied spirits. So long as we have to enter into relations with one another there is some relation with the State, and the United Free Church learned that after bitter experience in 1000. After exercising their spiritual independence of which they were so proud they found themselves a disembodied Church, and it was only when they were confronted with a small United Free Church, like victors sitting on a sack filled with plunder of which they could make no use, the real property of the Free Church, which was handed to them as a trust which they were unable to fulfil, that Parliament had to enter in after all and provide a solution.

We hear a great deal of voluntaryism in Scotland, as if there were nothing to the discredit of this voluntaryism in its records in Scotland. We have heard about the amount of money that has been raised in Scotland by voluntaryism. If you take the funds and endowment that have been raised by the United Presbyterian Church and add to these the endowments that are the fruits of this voluntary spirit within the Church of Scotland you find, quite true, an enormous amount of money. It simply shows the extraordinary liberality of the Scottish people, when their church and their religion are concerned, but the question is what has been done with the fruits of the voluntary spirit? After all, the endowments of the Church of Scotland, as has been pointed out again and again to-night, have been used, not only for the upkeep of the fabric of the Church of Scotland, but also in ministering to the poor of Scotland, but what has been the result of this voluntary liberality? It has simply provided churches throughout Scotland. It has placed in small towns three or four churches where the population is scarcely able to provide accommodation for one. In the Western Highlands, where the housing conditions are probably as bad as in any part of the country, what has the outcome of this voluntary spirit and this Christian liberality been for the social improvement of the people? That had not to be left to voluntaryism, but left to the taxation of the people of this country.

10.0 P.M.

My argument is that this Christian liberality, which was supposed to take the place of the endowments of the Church of Scotland and to be devoted, not only for the upkeep of the Church in Scotland, but also for the service of the poor of Scotland, was in the case of the voluntary church devoted purely and simply to the erection of church fabrics for which there was no need. We have heard again and again to-night about people who have no interest in the Church of Scotland having to pay a levy for the support of the Church, and an hon. Member opposite boasted that he was not only a believer in religious liberty, but also in political liberty, and he objects to that levy being laid upon these people. I will not admit that there is any levy, but I heard nothing with regard to the levy upon people for the upkeep of a political party in this country. [HON. MEMBERS: "Come to the point!"] The point is that it is not the free will of the people. It is not the voluntary spirit where trade unions are concerned——

You know nothing about it. I protest against the hon. Member raising this question in the present debate.

The subject does not seem to me to be relevant to the matter under discussion.

The relevancy of the statement appeared to me to be in the allegation that there was a levy laid upon people for a church with which they had no sympathy, and objection was taken to this alleged levy, which as I will show in a moment is not a levy at all in the case of the Church of Scotland, and I suggested that it could only be consistent to object to the levy that was made for the support of a political party.

This is not a levy upon people. These endowments of the Church of Scotland are not endowments that have been provided for that Church by statute, but are the funds that have been provided out of the liberality of our forbears, and these endowments are regulated by statute. This House owes to the Church of Scotland a duty in this respect, that it was through the indifference, I would almost say the ignorance, of Parliament in 1843, that there was brought about disruption in Scotland. If Parliament will carry out what undoubtedly is the desire and the hope of the vast majority of the people of Scotland, it will pass this Bill, in order that there may be created the condition in which these two churches will go forward united to continue the great work that they have already done.

I shall not follow the Secretary for Scotland and others in their descriptions of the great. struggle between the various sections of the Presbyterian Church in Scotland, nor shall I follow the last speaker in his explanations of the various provisions of the Bill, except in a very small degree. I would not have risen at this stage but for the purpose of explaining in a small way the part played by the last Government and myself in this matter. I frankly confess that it is a great relief to me that the responsibility for moving the Second Reading of this Bill has fallen upon the shoulders of my right hon. and gallent Friend the Secretary for Scotland instead of on my shoulders. The House can readily under stand my reason for this, when I explain that I belong to one of the dissenting Churches in Scotland. As a matter of fact. I do not belong to either of the sections of the Presbyterian Church which for a long number of years have been the chief protagonists in this matter.

Reference was made by the, Secretary for Scotland to the part played by the Labour Government in regard to this Bill. The Labour Government have no responsibility whatever for the introduction of this Measure. The introduction of such a Bill was first considered by the Coalition Government in 1918 or 1919, and I believe that effect would have been given to it at that time had the Established Church been prepared to accept the financial arrangement offered by the then Secretary for Scotland. But they refused. I believe that they would now very gladly accept the same financial arrangement if they could get it. The next stage was that the Bill was introduced in another place by Lord Novar, in January, 1924, a few days before the last Tory Government quitted office. Therefore, this Bill was part of the heritage bequeathed to the Labour Government by their predecessors. What the Labour Government did was to agree to proceed with the Measure in the House of Lords so as to give the question prominence and to provide an opportunity for public opinion in Scotland to crystallise around the question. Had there been anything like a general demand reported, and had the terms been equitable and fair, I believe that the Government would have proceeded to put the Bill through its remaining stages.

My own personal position in the matter is simply this: While I belong to a Church which is opposed to the present Bill, as an individual I would have been glad to have seen the age-long dispute which has divided the Presbyterian Churches in Scotland settled, if anything like general agreement were secured and fair and equitable terms were arranged. There were several points in the Bill to which I took very strong exception. The first was the position of the small heritor. The Secretary for Scotland this afternoon paid a very high tribute to the Lord Advocate in the Labour Government for the good work that he did in trying to arrange terms that would be acceptable to the two parties involved in the dispute, think he will agree that that work was done solely as between the large heritor on the one hand and the Church on the other. So far as the small heritor was concerned, there was no one to speak for him. No machinery existed for dealing with his case in these particular negotiations. Many of these small heritors have never been called upon to pay a single penny, because the cost of collection was too great or because the inconvenience was more than the minister concerned cared to undertake or because there was surplus teinds in the parish in which they were heritors. Under the terms of this Bill all these will be roped in and I have contended right through—and I still reserve my right to deal with this matter—that those who have not been called upon to pay anything up to this stage should not be compelled to do so under this Bill.

The second point to which I object is that the Bill provides for the heritors being called upon to repair these churches and manses to the satisfaction of the ministers before they are handed over.

Such a provision means that before this question is finally adjusted hundreds of Cathcart cases may arise. The Secretary for Scotland, in moving the, Second Reading, said this Measure would end the Cathcarts. I profoundly disagree with him on that point. If it is passed with the provision to which I have referred in it, there is room for hundreds of Cathcarts, perhaps in a lesser degree, arising before the matter is finally adjusted. There, also, I reserve my right so far as this Bill is concerned. I am bound to say that the reception of this Bill in Scotland was a great disappointment to me. I have already said that we agreed to proceed with the Measure for the purpose of giving it prominence and allowing public opinion in Scotland to crystallise.

The reception of this Measure was a great disappointment to me, and not only to me, but to my right hon. Friend the then Prime Minister. Outside the Church Courts, for or against, nobody in Scotland has concerned himself very much about this question, notwithstanding the fact that the Bill passed through all its stages in the House of Lords and was given a First Reading in this House. It is perfectly true that during the time it was under consideration, when I filled the position now occupied by my right hon. and gallant Friend the Secretary for Scotland, I had to receive numerous deputations. There were deputations from the 'Established Church, the United Free Church, the minority in the United Free Church, the Free Church, or the Wee Free as it is sometimes called, and the Voluntary Churches Council of Scotland. But outside of these nobody has taken very much interest in the question at all. I have been over a large part of Scotland in the course of the past year, in discharging my official duties, and have had the opportunity of meeting with all sections of our people. In the course of those meetings, outside of ministers and church officials, I have not had half a dozen questions put to me, either publicly or privately, on the question. That is the tragedy, in my opinion, for both sides in the House to-night, that the people of Scotland have not taken very much interest in the matter at all.

A general election has been held since this Bill passed through the Lords and got its First Reading in this House. No one, to my knowledge, in that general election in Scotland made this question an issue, and I would he surprised if half a dozen of the Scottish Members discussed the matter with their constituents during the election. I do not know of one Scottish Member who mentioned this matter in his election address, and still we have both sides in this controversy to-night solemnly declaring in this House that they speak for the overwhelming majority of the Scottish people on this subject. That is the position with which we find ourselves face to face in going to a division on this very important matter. So far as I am personally concerned, I have already pointed out that in certain respects I have reserved my right to deal with this Bill in its later stages in the event of it getting a Second Beading.

On a point of Order. Is it not a customary privilege in this House for those who are opposing a Bill to get a right to close the Debate on the side of its opponents, and those who are supporting it to close it from their side? I want to ask you, Mr. Speaker, in view- of the last speaker's remarks, if it is not a departure from past precedents for one who is opposing the Bill to be deprived of the right of closing the Debate on that side.

There is no such right. There is plenty of time yet, and there may be time for two more speakers—I do not know.

We have now had a very full Debate on the topic which is embodied in this Bill, and I would first of all like to say a word or two about the subject to which the last speaker, the right hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. W. Adamson) referred, namely, the question of what I may call the mandate for this Bill. It would have been very surprising, to refer to one point that he made, to have found in an election address of a Conservative or Liberal candidate from Scotland a point as in opposition to a Labour candidate in Scotland in favour of a Bill which had just been introduced and passed through one House, and introduced into the other House, by the Labour Government, and, therefore, it is hardly surprising that its absence from the election addresses should be noted. But I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that even in this country of England there were people who were interested during the Election in these union questions, and in this Bill in particular, as well as in Scotland. The situation has to be taken in its proper proportions, and it is vital to remember that this is only a part, an incidental though not unimportant part, of the progress towards union, and if two points are clear in the attitude of the people of Scotland towards the progress of religion they are these, that they will have no more to do with any question of disestablishment and disendowment—and nothing practically has been heard of them for some years past—and that they are impatient of the delay which is taking place in the progress towards union.

This Bill, admittedly, is a necessary incident in the march towards union. It was found out, if, indeed, it needed to be found out, during the War that complete co-operation., the substitution one for the other of the members and ministers of both Churches, was perfectly possible and perfectly consistent with the views and tenets of both Churches. Great delay has taken place. Anyone who realises the complications of the antiquated system, which forms part of our law of Scotland, relating to the law of teinds, realises that it is not only a difficult matter to get it altered, but that the sooner we alter it and get rid of it the better. A good deal in this Bill, as was pointed out in the opening speech by my right hon. Friend, has been fathered by three Governments, including the Labour Government, and while I appreciate that the right hon. Gentleman who has just spoken is entitled to reserve views on details for Committee, I, surely, am entitled to remind him that the stage at which it was asked by the Labour Government that opinion in Scotland should crystallise was after the introduction of the Bill and the coming of the Labour Government info power, and before Lord Haldane, the Lord Chancellor, issued his Amendments. Time was given until after the Assembly had met in May, in order that the Lord Chancellor might be made aware of the crystallisation of opinion, of which thereafter he was made aware very fully, as appeared in the White Paper. In the White Paper also there appeared the results of the Conference between the heritors and the Church, and the Bill as it passed through the House of Lords represented an agreement come to between the representatives of the Church of Scotland and the representatives of the larger heritors in Scotland, generally speaking, and was passed through all its stages in the House of Lords. It will hardly do if, after that had all taken place, my right hon. Friend is to suggest that they are still going to await the crystallisation of opinion in Scotland.

A further point was suggested about want of mandate. If anything is true of our Church government in Scotland, it is that it is a democratic form of government. Negotiations for union have been going on now for some 15 years and for the large part of those 15 years it has been well known throughout the Church that some dealing with these endowments of the Church would be essential in order to enable union to be agreed upon and consummated, and year after year congregations of the Presbyterians throughout the Church have elected their representatives to the General Assembly each year to deal with these various matters, and as recently as last year this Bill, as it was first introduced, was actually before them when they were electing their representatives.

Yes. these representatives are elected about February or March, and the Bill was introduced before that and was in the public Press. Everyone knew it was coming. It was a matter of debate, and criticism in the newspapers for months—I might almost say years. It. was no new matter. What was the result? A unanimous crystallisation of opinion in favour of it in the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland, and there was a very large majority in favour of it in the General Assembly of the United Free Church—subject. I agree, to the reservation about possible difficulty in the negotiations—but that reservation was a complaint, not that the Bill went too far, but that it did not go far enough. And the complaint of the hon. Member—and the compliments on his speech I should like to join in, if I may— the complaint of the hon. Member for Motherwell was that this Bill goes too far. The General Assembly said it did not go far enough.

The Bill is a corollary to the Act of 1921. I just want to say one word or two about the suggestion of the hon. Member for Govan. You, Sir, have ruled already that it is not incompetent for this House to deal with the proposed Amendments to the Act, of Union. The hon. Member for Govan read out a passage from a handbook by told Sands which, I think the House will agree with me, completely refuted any suggestion he was making because Lord Sands states definitely it would be in the power of the House of Commons to do so, whatever the morality of such proceeding might be. The point Lord Sands is dealing with is the question of disestablishment. That is not the question we are dealing with here. You look in vain through the Act of Security to find a single sentence in it a breach of which might be suggested under the terms of this Bill. Why, the object of the Act of Security was to make more secure and freer the Church of Scotland and the Protestant religion in Scotland. If there is any complaint of this Bill from its opponents it is that it makes the Church more secure and freer in the opposite direction. There is no foundation for the suggestion that a breach of the Act of Union has been made. We need not, therefore, bother much more about that.

I would rather now come to what, after all, are the merits of the Bill. I hope that everyone will bear this in mind: that these endowments, which are called endowments of the Church, are held by the Church in trust for providing religious ordinances, and for cognate purposes, for the whole of the people of Scotland. That trust remains after this Bill is passed. A good deal has been said about the origin of these teinds. A good many quotations have been made from the speeches of learned Judges and others. I am going to give the House two in reply. I could give many others. One is from the speech of an English Lord Chancellor, whom everyone recognises to be a very great church lawyer, Lord Selborne. In 1888 he said this:

A word about the question of the State and ownership of land. If the present question were whether private ownership in land is to cease now and all land revert to the State, I could understand some of the arguments which have been put this evening, but that is not the question. The question is whether this interest in land is going to be permitted to take another form: if you are not going to recognise a right which is already there, and are going to do away with it, then that is another matter. It will be equally open in the future, if you desire it and if you can persuade the House of Commons to carry it, to abolish private ownership without compensation, and abolish the interest of the Church in these moneys, even in their future form. But that is no reason for refusing at this stage, and under present conditions, to allow a conversion to take place which is going to be beneficial to everybody and is not in any way going to injure the religious trust purposes under which the funds are to be held.

With regard to the other endowments, let me say a word or two more than has been said, in explanation more than otherwise., about the funds provided under the two Teinds Acts of 1810 and 1824. These sums were provided in order to enable certain parishes to get religious ordinances with a minister having a stipend up to a maximum of £150. That was not too adequate a stipend, and the later Act was passed to enable some addition to be made where there was no manse and no glebe. These were the recognition by the State of the old obligation, they still having some of the Church's patrimony in their hands, to see that religious ordinances should be provided throughout the Kingdom—to see that that obligation should be fully carried out where the system adopted in 1633 had proved ineffectual.

The rest of what has been referred to in the course of the debate include points which would appear to be rather Committee points than otherwise, but there is one very important matter I want to say a word or two about and that is the question of small heritors. It is perfectly true that neither the Church nor the Landed Property Federation, who were the parties to the conferences and the negotiations, in any sense represented the interest of the small heritors, but the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Fife (Mr. Adamson) I am sure will agree with me when I say that my predecessor was specially asked to pay attention to the interests of the small heritor, and the result was that a modification was made in this Bill in favour of the small heritor.

There are two points in respect of which the small heritor is interested. The first is as to any part he has to take in the payment of a stipend. In that case his liability is under £2, and this can be redeemed by a sum agreed upon or by the payment of 18 years' purchase, which is not an unreasonable period. It may be that even these terms are not fair, but that is surely a matter for discussion in Committee.

My point was that they apply to men who have never been asked to pay a penny until now.

I am sure that anything of that nature will be carefully considered in Committee. The other respect in regard to which the small heritor is interested is in regard to what is known as the heritor's assessment. I know that this matter has been, accentuated by the Cathcart case, but I would like to point out that that cannot occur again under this Bill because it was the case of a new church, and the present Bill in regard to putting into tenantable repair excludes any structural alterations at all. While it is true there may be cases in which the small heritor will be assessed on this one occasion in order to put the church or manse into proper repair, that can never be so as regards a structural alteration, and therefore that means that it will be a lighter form of assessment than is suggested by the Cathcart ease. This obligation to put into tenantable repair exists at the present moment. Very often people who buy property do not find out immediately what their obligations are, and frequently they have to suffer in consequence.

That was the statutory method provided in 1868. I know that there has been some friction in individual parishes, but not particularly on this question of small heritors. Recently, like many other things, it has become more accentuated since the War, because the increase in the cost of building has resulted in heavier assessments. I quite agree that more objection is being taken nowadays by small proprietors, just as small Income Tax payers have been taking notice in a way that they never were before. That, again, is a question upon which perfectly fair proposals may be made to the Committee, and I am quite sure that the Government, although they think that the proposals made in the Bill last year, and now in this Bill, are quite fair, will not refuse to look at and consider any suggestion that may be made with regard to that matter. As I have already said, we have had a very full debate on this subject, and I would ask the House now to be ready to give a Second Reading to the Bill.

I want to speak in support of the rejection of this Bill, mainly for the reason advanced by my hon. Friend the Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan), that, while there may be no rule on the subject in this House, it certainly is the invariable practice that we do not close an important Debate by having two speeches on the same side, both favouring the giving of a Second Reading to the Bill. I think that that is very wrong in a case where a very large proportion of the Scottish Members in this House believe that this is a matter over which this House really has no jurisdiction. While by clever reading of various statements on the subject one may make out a case for saying that we in Scotland have not a right to retain full control over our ecclesiastical matters, yet it is the fact that control of our ecclesiastical matters was left very definitely in our own hands under the Act of Union. In that partnership Scotland has maintained its side honourably and fairly, and we do not think it is right and proper that this House should now start to decide upon a matter that was left to us very definitely when we entered into political partnership with England.

It is certainly grossly unfair that a Debate of this sort should be closed with what is a minority point of view in Scotland. The vast, majority of the people of Scotland are not in favour of this Bill, nor of the principle underlying it. The whole Church history of Scotland has shown that we have always been against any processes of wider establishment or increasing State control over our ecclesiastical affairs. The apologists on the other side now ask us—because there is no enthusiasm for it on the other side; the only reason they are bringing it forward is because leading Members of the Labour Government were enthusiastic about it; Lord Haldane wanted it in a tepid way, and hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite want it in an enthusiastic way—we are asked to hand over in, as they say, a more up-to-date and more modern form, the money value of what was granted to Scotland under what I admit was a somewhat cumbrous system. I admit the cumbrous nature of the teind system of calculating this ecclesiastical expenditure in Scotland. We are asked now to hand over to the Established Church—not to Scottish Presbyterians, but to that minority of Scottish Presbyterians who belong to the Established Church—the capitalised value of this burden that has been placed upon the heritors of Scotland, at a time when this money value is very high, and at a point in Scottish history when this Church has got rid of practically all the responsibilities which were originally expected of it.

I cannot go back to discuss the differences between Presbyterianism, Catholicism, and Episcopalianism. On that line of reasoning we might be able to prove that the property really belonged to the ancient Druids or someone of that sort. But they have got absolutely clear of the educational duty that they were supposed to do, and they have got absolutely clear of all their duties to the poor. It is no good an hon. Gentleman below the Bench shaking his head. The parish council is doing the work the Church was supposed to do when these rights are granted to them. The educational work is being done by the education authorities, and the only thing that is left is that we are going to pay over to the Church the high amount they had when they are doing these things. We are going to hand over to them a greater money value when they are doing merely nothing except attending to the spiritual side, and that at a time when the Established Church of Scotland is attending to the spiritual welfare of the small minority of the people of Scotland.

By far the larger majority of the people of Scotland are outside the Church—the United Frees, the Wee Frees, Presbyterians, Episcopalians. Roman Catholics, Baptists, Free Thinkers and the huge variety of religious and no religious faiths in Scotland. The one thing that is obvious and clear to every Scottish person is that the Established Church is only attending to a very small minority in the matter of their spiritual needs and it is a common joke in Scotland that the people who have no spiritual needs are the people who actually attend. We are asked to give to these people a huge sum of money, a secure sum of money, with the whole British Exchequer behind them and the whole credit of the British nation behind them, we are asked to hand over to this small minority who are attending to the spiritual needs of the small majority of the Scottish people and not attending to those needs in an efficient and adequate manner, who have little responsibility for the education of Scotland, who have thrown over their responsibility to the poor of Scotland, we are asked to hand over to these people a huge sum of money in return for what they have to do, an annual income which is fairly secure, but which is dependent upon the harvest from week to week. I should say that the Church who prayed for bounteous harvests and who believe that the harvest is a direct result of the efficacy of their prayer, should be prepared to put their faith in themselves in the spiritual Ark rather than come to us and put their faith in the money changers. A very eminent Scottish evangelist used to say:

real work of being the spiritual leaders of the people their churches would fill up and their church collection plates would fill up, because the people of Scotland are essentially a religious people and they have no faith in the established Church to-day because it makes absolutely no appeal to their spiritual side. Those of us on this side who are genuinely interested in the spiritual as well as in the material welfare of our people—[ Interruption ]. I am not talking in any theological sense at all. If the people of Scotland had the spirit I want to see them have they would not have any of you fellows sitting there. If the Church of Scotland were really representing the spiritual needs of the people, if they were making any response to the demands of the people for a lead in spiritual affairs, I. should not be standing here opposing this Bill to-day. But I am not prepared to vote public money—that is what it means—into the hands of a body of people who have not performed their functions in the past and are not performing them now, and can only speak at the present moment for a very small and negligible percentage of the whole of the people of Scotland.

Question put, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."

The House divided: Ayes, 282: Noes, 110.

Division No. 9.]

AYES.

[11.0 p.m.

Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive

Cowan Sir Wm. Henry (Islingtn. N.)

Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.

Briggs, J. Harold

Craig, Captain C. C. (Antrim, South)

Ainsworth, Major Charles

Briscoe, Richard George

Craig, Ernest (Chester, Crewe)

Albery, Irving James

Brocklebank, C. E. R.

Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)

Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.

Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)

Alexander, Sir Wm. (Glasgow, Cent'l)

Brown, Maj. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)

Crookshank, Cal. C. de W. (Berwick)

Allen, J. Sandeman (L'pool, W. Derby)

Brown, Brig.-Gen.H.C.(Berks, Newb'y)

Crookshank, Cpt.H.(Lindsey, Gainsbro)

Applin, Colonel R. V. K.

Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)

Curtis-Bennett, Sir Henry

Apsley, Lord

Brown-Lindsay, Major H,

Curzon, Captain Viscount

Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.

Bullock, Captain M.

Dalziel, Sir Davison

Ashmead-Bartlett, E.

Burgoyne, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Alan

Davidson, J.(Hertf'd, Hemel Hempst'd)

Atholl, Duchess of

Burman, J. B.

Davies, A. V. (Lancaster, Royton)

Atkinson, C.

Burton, Colonel H. W.

Davies, Maj. Geo. F.(Somerset, Yeovil)

Baird, Major Rt. Hon. Sir John L

Butler, Sir Geoffrey

Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)

Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward

Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)

Balfour, George (Hampstead)

Campbell, E. T.

Dawson, Sir Philip

Balniel, Lord

Cautley, Sir Henry S.

Dixey, A. C.

Barnett, Major Richard W.

Cazalet, Captain Victor A.

Doyle, Sir N. Grattan

Barnston, Major Sir Harry

Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton

Drewe, C.

Beamish, Captain T. P. H.

Chapman, Sir S.

Edmondson, Major A. J.

Berry, Sir George

Charteris, Brigadier-General J.

Elliot, Captain Walter E.

Bethell, A.

Christie, J. A.

Ellis, R. G.

Betterton, Henry B.

Clarry, Reginald George

Elvedon, Viscount

Birchall, Major J. Dearman

Clayton, G. C.

England, Colonel A.

Bird, E. R. (Yorks, W. R., Skipton)

Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.

Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s-M.)

Bird, Sir R. B. (Wolverhampton, W.)

Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips

Evans, Captain A. (Cardiff. South)

Blundell, F. N.

Cooper, A. Duff

Fairfax, Captain J. G.

Boothby, R. J. G.

Cope, Major William

Falls, Sir Charles F.

Bourne, Captain Robert Croft

Couper, J. B.

Fermoy, Lord

Bowyer, Capt. G. F. W.

Courthope, Lieut.-Col. George L.

Fielden, E. B.

Brass, Captain W.

Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)

Finburgh, S.

Fisher, Rt. Hon. Herbert A. L.

Lloyd, Cyrll E. (Dudley)

Sanders, Sir Robert A.

Fleming, D. P.

Loder, J. de V.

Sanderson, Sir Frank

Ford, P. J.

Looker, Herbert William

Sandon, Lord

Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.

Lougher, L.

Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.

Ganzoni, Sir John

Luce, Major-Gen Sir Richard Harman

Savery, S. S.

Gee, Captain R.

MacAndrew, Charles Glen

Shaw, R. G. (Yorks, W.R., Sowerby)

Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John

Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)

Shaw, Lt.-Col. A. D. Mcl. (Renfrew, W)

Glyn, Major R. G. C.

Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart)

Shaw, Capt. W. W. (Wilts, Westb'y)

Goff, Sir Park

McDonnell, Colonel Hon. Angus

Shepperson, E. W.

Gower, Sir Robert

MacIntyre, Ian

Shiels, Dr. Drummond

Grace, John

McLean, Major A.

Simms, Dr. John M. (Co. Down)

Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)

Macmillan, Captain H.

Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)

Grant, J. A.

Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm

Skelton, A. N.

Greene, W. P. Crawford

Macquisten, F. A.

Slaney, Major P. Kenyon

Greenwood, William (Stockport)

Mac Robert, Alexander M.

Slesser, Sir Henry H.

Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)

Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel-

Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)

Grotrian, H. Brent

Makins, Brigadier-General E.

Smith-Carington, Neville W.

Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.

Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn

Smithers, Waldron

Hacking, Captain Douglas H.

Margesson, Captain D.

Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)

Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.)

Marriott, Sir J. A. R.

Spender Clay, Colonel H.

Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

Meller, R. J.

Sprot, Sir Alexander

Harland, A.

Merriman, F. B.

Stanley, Col. Hon. G. F. (Will'sden, E.)

Harrison, G. J. C.

Meyer, Sir Frank

Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland)

Hartington, Marquess of

Milne, J. S. Wardlaw-

Storry Deans, R.

Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)

Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)

Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.

Haslam, Henry C.

Mitchell. Sir W. Lane (Streatham)

Strickland, Sir Gerald

Hawke, John Anthony

Moore, Sir Newton J.

Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C.

Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.

Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.

Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)

Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)

Moreing, Captain A. H.

Sugden, Sir Wilfrid

Henderson, Lieut.-Col. V. L. (Bootle)

Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)

Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H.

Heneage, Lieut.-Col. Arthur P.

Murchison, C. K.

Templeton, W. P.

Henn, Sir Sydney H.

Nall, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Joseph

Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)

Hennessy, Major J. R. G

Nelson, Sir Frank

Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)

Henniker-Hughan, Vice-Adm. Sir A.

Neville, R. J.

Thomson, Sir W. Mitchell-(Croydon, S.)

Herbert, S. (York, N. R., Scar. & Wh'by)

Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)

Tinne, J. A.

Hilton, Cecil

Nicholson, O. (Westminster)

Titchfield, Major the Marquess of

Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G

Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)

Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.

Hohler, Sir Gerald Fitzroy

Nuttall, Ellis

Waddington, R.

Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard

O'Connor, T. J. (Bedford, Luton)

Walker, Forestier-, L.

Holland, Sir Arthur

Oman, Sir Charles William C.

Wallace, Captain D. E.

Holt, Capt. H. P.

Penny, Frederick George

Ward, Lt.-Col. A.L.(Kingston-on-Hull)

Homan, C. W. J.

Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)

Warner, Brigadler-General W. W.

Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.)

Perkins, Colonel E. K.

Waterhouse, Captain Charles

Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)

Peto, Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)

Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)

Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)

Peto, G. (Somerset, Frame)

Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)

Horlick, Lieut.-Colonel J. N.

Philipson, Mabel

Wells, S. R.

Howard, Captain Hon. Donald

Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton

Wheler, Major Granville C. H.

Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney. N.)

Price, Major C. W. M.

Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)

Hurst, Gerald B.

Radford, E. A.

Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)

Hutchison, G.A. Clark (Midl'n & P'bl's)

Raine, W.

Wilson, Sir Charles H. (Leeds, Central)

Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)

Rawson, Alfred Cooper

Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)

Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.

Reid, Capt. A. S. C. (Warrington)

Winby, Colonel L. P.

Jacob, A. E.

Reid, D. D. (County Down)

Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl

James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert

Remer, J. R.

Wise, Sir Fredric

Jephcott, A. R.

Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.

Womersley, W. J.

Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newington)

Rice, Sir Frederick

Wood, B. C. (Somerset, Bridgwater)

Kennedy, A. R. (Preston).

Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)

Wood, Rt. Hon. E. (York, W.R., Ripon).

Kidd, J. (Linlithgow)

Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint)

Wood, E. (Chest'r, Stalyb'dge & Hyde)

Kindersley, Major G. M.

Ropner, Major L.

Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich, W.).

King, Capt. Henry Douglas

Ruggles-Brise, Major E. A.

Woodcock, Colonel H. C.

Knox, Sir Alfred

Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

Yerburgh, Major Robert D T.

Lamb, J. Q.

Rye, F. G

TELLERS FOR THE AYES. ——

Lister, Cunliffe-, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip

Salmon, Major I.

Commander B. Eyres Monsell and Colonel G. A. Gibbs

Little, Dr. E. Graham

Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

NOES.

Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)

Dalton, Hugh

Guest, J. (York, Hemsworth)

Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')

Davies, Ellis (Denbigh, Denbigh)

Hall, F. (York, W.R., Normanten)

Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)

Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

Barnes, A.

Day, Colonel Harry

Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)

Batey, Joseph

Duncan, C.

Hammersley, S. S.

Beckett, John (Gateshead)

Edwards, C (Monmouth, Bedwellty)

Hardie, George D.

Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.

Fenby, T. D.

Harris, Percy A.

Broad, F. A.

Forrest, W.

Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon

Bromley, J.

Gibbins, Joseph

Hayday, Arthur

Buchanan, G.

Gillett, George M.

Hayes, John Henry

Cape, Thomas

Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)

Henderson, T. (Glasgow)

Charleton, H. C.

Greenall, T.

Hirst, G. H.

Cluse, W. S.

Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)

Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)

Compton, Joseph

Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)

Hudson, J, H. (Huddersfield)

Connolly, M.

Groves, T.

John, William (Rhondda, West)

Cove, W. G.

Grundy, T. W.

Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

Potts, John S.

Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.

Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)

Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

Viant, S. P.

Kelly, W. T.

Riley, Ben

Wallhead, Richard C.

Kennedy, T

Robinson, W. C, (Yorks, W. R., Elland)

Warne, G. H.

Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.

Saklatvala, Shapurji

Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)

Kirkwood, D.

Salter, Dr. Alfred

Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)

Lansbury, George

Scrymgeour, E.

Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah

Lee, F.

Scurr, John

Westwood, J.

Livingstone, A. M.

Sexton, James

Whiteley, W.

Lowth, T.

Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)

Wignall, James

Lunn, William

Smillie, Robert

Williams, C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham)

Mackinder, W.

Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)

Williams, David (Swansea, East)

MacLaren, Andrew

Smith, Rennie (Penistone)

Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)

March, S.

Snell, Harry

Williams. T. (York, Don Valley)

Maxton, James

Stamford, T. W.

Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)

Mitchell, E. Rosslyn (Paisley)

Stephen, Campbell

Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)

Montague, Frederick

Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)

Windsor, Walter

Naylor, T. E.

Sutton, J. E.

Wright, W.

Oliver, George Harold

Taylor, R. A.

TELLERS FOR THE NOES. ——

Paling, W.

Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)

Mr. Barr and Mr. T. Johnston.

Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)

Thurtle, E.

Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.

Tinker, John Joseph

Bill read a Second time.

Motion made, and Question put, "That the Bill be committed to a Committee of the Whole House."—[Mr. Duncan, Graham.]

The House divided: Ayes, 82; Noes, 218.

Division No. 10.]

AYES.

[11.12 p.m.

Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)

Harris, Percy A.

Riley, Ben

Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')

Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon

Robinson, W. C. (Yorks, W.R., Elland)

Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)

Hayday, Arthur

Saklatvala, Shapurji

Batey, Joseph

Hayes, John Henry

Scurr, John

Beckett, John (Gateshead)

Henderson, T (Glasgow)

Sexton, James

Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.

Hirst, G. H.

Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)

Bromley, J.

Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)

Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)

Buchanan, G.

Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)

Slesser, Sir Henry H

Cape, Thomas

John, William (Rhondda, West)

Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)

Charleton, H. C.

Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

Stamford, T. W.

Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock)

Jones, T.J. Mardy (Pontypridd)

Stephen, Campbell

Compton, Joseph

Kelly, W. T.

Sutton, J. E.

Connolly, M.

Kirkwood, D.

Taylor, R. A.

Dalton, Hugh

Lansbury, George

Thurtie, E.

Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

Livingstone, A. M.

Tinker, John Joseph

Day, Colonel Harry

Lowth, T.

Viant, S. P

Duncan, C

Lunn, William

Warne, G. H.

Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)

Mackinder, W.

Watson, W. M.(Dunfermline)

Fenby, T D.

MacLaren, Andrew

Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D (Rhondda)

Forrest, W.

Maxton, James

Westwood, J.

Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)

Mitchell, E. Rosslyn (Paisley)

Whiteley, W.

Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)

Montague, Frederick

Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)

Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)

Naylor, T. E.

Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)

Grundy, T. W.

Paling, W.

Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)

Guest, J. (York, Hemsworth)

Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)

Windsor, Walter

Hall, F. (York, W.R., Normanton)

Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.

Wright, W.

Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

Potts, John S.

Hardie, George D.

Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

TELLERS FOR THE AYES. ——

Mr. Barr and Mr. T, Johnston.

NOES.

Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

Birchall, Major J Dearman

Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.

Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.

Bird, E. R. (Yorks, W. R., Skipton)

Cooper, A. Duff

Ainsworth, Major Charles

Blundell, F. N.

Cope. Major William

Albery, Irving James

Boothby, R. J. G.

Couper, J. B.

Alexander, Sir Wm. (Glasgow, Cent'l)

Bourne, Captain Robert Croft

Courthope, Lieut.-Col. George L.

Allen, J. Sandeman (L'pool, W. Derby)

Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.

Crookshank, Col, C. de W. (Berwick)

Applin, Colonel R. V. K.

Brass, Captain W.

Crookshank, Cpt.H.(Lindsey, Gainsbro)

Apsley, Lord

Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive

Curtis-Bennett, Sir Henry

Atholl, Duchess of

Brocklebank, C. E. R.

Curzon, Captain Viscount

Atkinson, C.

Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.

Davidson, J.(Hertf'd, Hemel Hempst'd)

Baird, Rt. Hon. Sir John Lawrence

Brown, Maj. D.C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)

Davies, A. V. (Lancaster, Royton)

Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

Brown-Lindsay, Major H.

Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)

Balfour, George (Hampstead)

Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)

Davies, Ellis (Denbigh, Denbigh)

Balniel, Lord

Butter, Sir Geoffrey

Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)

Barnett, Major Richard W.

Campbell, E. T.

Dawson, Sir Philip

Barnston, Major Sir Harry

Cazalet, Captain Victor A.

Dixey, A. C.

Beamish, Captain T. P. H

Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton

Doyle, Sir N. Grattan

Bethell, A.

Charteris, Brigadier-General J.

Drewe, C.

Betterton, Henry B.

Christie, J. A.

Edmondson, Major A J.

Elliot, Captain Walter E.

Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint)

England, Colonel A.

Kennedy, A. R. (Preston).

Ropner, Major L.

Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.)

Kennedy, T.

Ruggles-Brise, Major E. A.

Evans, Captain A. (Cardiff, South)

Kidd, J. (Linlithgow)

Salmon, Major I.

Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)

Kindersley, Major G. M.

Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

Fairfax, Captain J G.

Lamb, J. Q.

Sanders, Sir Robert A.

Falls, Sir Charles F.

Lister, Cunliffe-, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip

Sanderson, Sir Frank

Fermoy, Lord

Loder, J. de V.

Sandon, Lord

Fielden, E. B.

Looker, Herbert William

Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustavo D.

Finburgh, S.

Lougher, L.

Shaw, R. G. (Yorks, W.R., Sowerby)

Fleming, D. P.

Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harman

Shaw, Lt.-Col. A. D Mcl. (Renfrew, W)

Ford, P. J.

MacAndrew, Charles Glen

Shaw, Capt. W. W. (Wilts, Westb'y)

Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.

Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)

Shepperson, E. W.

Ganzoni, Sir John

Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart)

Shiels, Dr. Drummond

Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John

McDonnell, Colonel Hon. Angus

Skelton, A. N.

Goff, Sir Park

Macintyre, Ian

Slaney, Major P. Kenyon

Gower, Sir Robert

McLean, Major A.

Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)

Grace, John

Macmillan, Captain H.

Smithers, Waldron

Grant, J. A.

Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm

Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)

Greene, W. P. Crawford

Macquisten, F. A.

Sprot, Sir Alexander

Greenwood, William (Stockport)

Mac Robert, Alexander M.

Stanley, Col. Hon. G. F. (Will'sden, E.)

Grotrian, H. Brent

Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel-

Stanley. Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland)

Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.

Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn

Storry Deans, R.

Hacking, Captain Douglas H.

Margesson, Captain D.

Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.

Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.)

Marriott, Sir J. A. R.

Strickland, Sir Gerald

Hammersley, S. S.

Merriman, F. B.

Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)

Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

Meyer, Sir Frank

Sugden, Sir Wilfrid

Harland, A.

Milne, J. S. Wardlaw-

Templeton, W. P.

Harrison, G. J. C.

Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)

Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)

Hartington, Marquess of

Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)

Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)

Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)

Moore, Sir Newton J.

Thomson, Sir W. Mitchell- (Croydon, S.)

Hawke, John Anthony

Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.

Tinne, J. A.

Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.

Moreing, Captain A. H.

Wallace, Captain D. E.

Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)

Murchison, C. K.

Ward, Lt.-Col. A. L.(Kingston-on-Hull)

Henderson, Lieut.-Col. V. L. (Bootle)

Nall, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Joseph

Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.

Heneage, Lieut.-Col. Arthur P.

Nelson, Sir Frank

Waterhouse, Captain Charles

Henn, Sir Sydney H.

Neville, R. J.

Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)

Hennessy, Major J. R. G.

Nuttall, Ellis

Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)

Henniker-Hughan, Vice-Adm. Sir A.

O'Connor, T. J. (Bedford, Luton)

Wells, S. R.

Herbert, S. (York, N.R., Scar. & Wh'by)

Oman, Sir Charles William C.

Wheler, Major Granville C. H.

Hilton, Cecil

Pennefather, Sir John

Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)

Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard

Penny, Frederick George

Williams, C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham)

Holland, Sir Arthur

Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)

Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)

Holt, Capt. H. P.

Phllipson, Mabel

Wilson, Sir Charles H. (Leeds, Central)

Homan, C. W. J.

Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton

Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)

Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.)

Price, Major C. W. M.

Winby, Colonel L. P.

Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)

Radford, E. A.

Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl

Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)

Raine, W.

Womersley, W. J.

Horlick, Lieut.-Colonel J. N.

Rawson, Alfred Cooper

Wood, B. C. (Somerset, Bridgwater)

Howard, Captain Hon. Donald

Reid, Capt. A. S. C. (Warrington)

Wood. Sir Kingsley (Woolwich, W.).

Hume, Sir G. H.

Reid, D. D. (County Down)

Woodcock, Colonel H. C.

Hutchison, G.A. Clark (Midl'n & P'bl's)

Remer, J. R.

TELLERS FOR THE NOES. ——

Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)

Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.

Commander B. Eyres Monsell and Colonel G. A. Gibbs.

Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.

Rice, Sir Frederick

Jacob, A. E.

Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)

Bill committed to a Standing Committee.

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed .

Adjournment

Resolved, "That this House do now adjourn."—[ Commander Eyres Monsell .]

Adjourned accordingly at Twenty-two Minutes after Eleven o'Clock.