HC Deb 11 February 1897 vol 46 cc188-203

rose to move:— That the several stages of the Voluntary School Bill have precedence of all Orders of the Day and Notices of Motions on every day for which the Bill is appointed. The right hon. Gentleman said: Quite apart from the Notice standing on the Paper, I should imagine the Housefully expected and, on the whole, approves of the course which the Government find themselves obliged to take on the present occasion. I think it was in answer to a question put to me by the learned Member for Louth, at a very early period of the Session, that I stated that the Government did not propose, as had been reported, to take all the Wednesdays up to Easter, but that no doubt we should feel ourselves obliged, when once the proceedings on the Education Bill had commenced, to propose that the successive stages of the Bill should be taken continuously until each was finished. That obviously is the most convenient plan, and a plan which has been adopted by successive Administrations in dealing with Bills of this important character. Though I admit this will, of course, inflict hardship on private Members which I would gladly avoid, I do not see how I can possibly do so consistently with the general interest of the business of the House and of the great mass of Members belonging to the House. ["Hear!"] I am sanguine enough to think that the Bill is of so simple a character that it need not occupy any very prolonged period, and if that forecast proves to be accurate the sacrifice on the part of private Members will be extremely trifling. If, on the other hand, hon. Gentlemen think they would not be fulfilling their duty to their constituents without discussing the Bill at great length, then I admit the hardship to private Members will be increased considerably, and private Members will be the first to admit that the necessity for pursuing the course we propose is forced upon us by the action of the Opposition. ["Hear, hear!" and "Oh, oh!"] On that hypothesis, I mean. I am afraid these objections come from hon. Gentlemen who have not followed me. If, I say, the period of time taken for the successive stages of the Bill proves to be brief, then the sacrifice on the part of private Members will be small, but if that period is prolonged, the necessity for asking for further privileges for Government business stands manifest in the eyes of everybody. ["Hear, hear!"] Under the circumstances I hope the House will feel that in doing what every Government has found it necessary to do, we are doing that which the interests of the House, the interests of the country, the interests of legislation in connection with Voluntary schools, and the interest of the general legislation of the Session alike require, It is with some confidence I ask the House to accept this Motion, reminding hon. Members of what I have before stated, that, although it is not absolutely necessary that the Bill should come into operation at a given moment of a given day, it is in the highest degree desirable from the point of view of the Voluntary Schools that it should pass into law as soon as possible, so that the fullest time may be given for those organisations to spring into existence on whose work so much of the success of the Bill must, in my judgment, depend. I will not argue this further or I shall be launching into Debate more proper to the Second Beading than to this preliminary notice, but I thought it necessary to remind the House in the general interest of the work of the Session, and of the interest of education in Voluntary Schools, this Measure should be placed on the Statute-book without any unnecessary delay. I do not think it necessary to say more, and now I ask you, Sir, to put the Motion from the Chair.

MR. JAMES LOWTHER (Kent, Thanet)

said before the House adopted this Motion, it would be well to consider, without at all going into the merits or demerits of the Bill to be affected by the Motion, the position the House occupied in regard to its Standing Orders. It was very possible those Standing Orders were not absolutely perfect, he was perfectly willing to admit that, but while those Standing Orders remained to guide the proceedings of the House, some attempt ought to be made to conform to them. What a good many Members complained of was that they did not know from day to day what the order of business would be. ["Hear, hear!"] What took place last Session certainly did not tend to regularise the conduct of business, and a condition of Parliamentary anarchy might be said to have prevailed. ["Hear!"] It was the law of the strongest. The Standing Orders prescribed one class of business for a particular day, but the law of the strongest interposed and that day was taken away for purposes which, whether good or bad, were not the purposes contemplated in the Standing Orders of the House. The House might very well consider how far it was conducive to business that its Orders should remain to be violated from day to day. Whether private Members should have the right to make Motions at all was a matter for the House to consider. Some hon. Members thought such Motions a nuisance which should be put down. ["Hear, hear!"] His right hon. Friend behind him with a large Parliamentary experience emphatically endorsed that idea. Others said that Bills introduced by private Members were for the most part advertisements for the purpose of ventilating "fads," and to glorify Members who advocated those Bills, and he was not prepared very loudly to contradict that opinion, but what he did say was, that the House ought to establish some reasonable code of rules and orders, and when established these should be adhered to. ["Hear, hear!"] What had happened this Session in regard to Tuesdays, which, according to Standing Orders should be set apart for Motions? The very first Tuesday, he would not say whether lightly or wrongly, was allocated to another purpose, and after one Tuesday had been used for the purpose contemplated in the Standing Orders, probably for the rest of the Session or nearly so, those days would be diverted from the purpose contemplated in the Orders. The House had been told that if these Tuesdays were given up, Members would still find opportunities for bringing on subjects in which they were interested on the details of Supply. Now, whatever the merits or demerits of the rule in regard to Supply, which he was bound to admit had in many respects worked uncommonly well, it did not fulfil all the purposes, for there were many questions it was perfectly impossible to raise on Fridays in connection with the Votes in Supply. He would not go into detail, but under the rules of Debate, rightly interpreted by the Chairman of Committees, many questions which were legitimate subjects for discussion in the House had been ruled not within the four corners of any single Vote, and could not, therefore, be discussed. So much for Tuesdays and Fridays. Then they were told that any question of real urgency could be discussed under Standing Order No. 91 on a Motion for Adjournment. But what happened was well known. A rumour obtained currency that such an intention existed, and a Notice made its appearance on the Paper effectively precluding the intended course from being taken. Of course, he would not be in order in referring to Standing Order No. 91 in detail, but he thought when the Government took away from the great body of the House, that was all the non-official Members, facilities which the Standing Orders placed within their reach, they had a right to ask whether some modification should be made in the Rule governing the right of Members to call attention to matters of urgent public importance. A blocking Notice, perhaps inspired from interested quarters might preclude discussion, and the obstacles to the free ventilation of grievances concerned every Member. He thought some alteration might reasonably be made under which the Speaker should be judge of the desirability and fitness of the subject proposed for Debate. Some concession of this kind might go some way to accommodate Members for this huge encroachment on the rights and privileges they had hitherto enjoyed. On the present proposal he would not follow the right hon. Gentleman into the merits of the Bill, and he was rather trespassing on delicate ground when he spoke of the urgency of the Bill. He assumed the matter was urgent. Every Government thought every Bill it brought forward of great importance and urgency, and his right hon. Friend found a reason, for the course he proposed in the fact that all Governments had done the same thing, and within recent years had asked for similar facilities. But where was this to end? Were non-official Members simply to be converted into cog-wheels in a lawmaking machine? Were they to maintain the position of the House as the grand inquest of the nation, or were matters of urgent importance to be tabooed and no convenience to be consulted but that of the Government? This it would be well for the House to consider when once more the opportunities for private Members were annexed for an indefinite time. They would perhaps be told that this was only to last perhaps for a few days, that if the House behaved well and did as the Government wished that even next Tuesday would be at the disposal of Members, and that with a moderate amount of good behaviour even Wednesdays would be left at the disposal of Members who had been fortunate enough to obtain days for their Bills, but he asked the House to consider whether it was desirable that the condition of affairs last year, which he referred to as absolutely chaotic, should be perpetuated.


said that this discussion might have been shortened, or altogether obviated, if the right hon. Gentleman had not put down the Second Reading of the Education Bill for such an early day. The country had not had time to understand the Bill.


The hon. Gentleman is not in order in discussing the question whether the Bill should have been postponed or not.


said that the Bill was a very complicated Measure. But his chief objection to the present Motion was that it was the most drastic of its kind ever submitted to the House. The right hon. Gentleman took precedence for the Bill in all its stages; he might have held out hope that, with fair progress in the earlier stages, consideration would be shown to private Members when the later stages were reached. He hoped the Bill would not be put down on every day in the week. The right hon. Gentleman had not mentioned Tuesdays, but, of course, that priceless possession of private Members went by the board with the Wednesdays. The right hon. Gentleman would have shortened discussion by adopting a more conciliatory tone, and leaving to private Members some shred of those ancient rights which the right hon. Gentleman had so often defended.

MR. J. SAMUEL (Stockton)

said that he had charge of the Steam Engines and Boilers (Persons in Charge) Bill, which was down for Wednesday next. He hoped that that day would be excluded from the Resolution. This Bill had been introduced for many years, and in 1895 it obtained a Second Heading. It was regarded with the deepest interest by a large section of the working classes, and last year the Trade Union Congress unanimously passed a resolution in favour of the Bill.


said he did not desire to delay the progress of the Education Bill, but he could not approve or support the Government's Motion. He had secured in the ballot Tuesday fortnight for the question of our National Food Supplies; and he should like to have an assurance that that date would be exempted from the Resolution. The right hon. Gentleman said that he did not anticipate that the Education Bill would take long to discuss. If so, this Motion was quite unnecessary; and if the Bill were to be obstructed, the Government ought to wait till the obstruction had declared itself before proposing such a Motion. If private Members' time was to be taken away so early Session after Session, there should be some examination of the Standing Orders. Private Members balloted for Tuesdays on the understanding that they would have a chance of using those days for their own questions. During the last 11 years, however, he had often secured first or second place on Tuesdays and Fridays, but on every single occasion he had had his privilege taken away by the Government of the day. This was turning the Standing-Orders into a farce, without the element of humour, which was the only justification for a farce.


supported the appeal on behalf of the Steam Engines and Boilers Bill. There was quite as much urgency for it as for the Education Bill. The Measure had been before the House for the last 18 or 19 years; and it was thought to be of the greatest importance by the working-classes of the country, as promoting the safety of the men working by the side of engines and boilers. If, at the outset of the Session, the Government had given notice that they would thus early take away private Members' time, the promoters of the Bill would have set it down for a later day.


said, that although Parliament had been summoned earlier than usual, the time of private Members was also taken earlier than usual by the Government. He had a most important Motion down for Tuesday next—a Motion which affected every county Member in the United Kingdom. It seemed as though private Members were destined to become the mere slaves of the two Front Benches. The interests of the working classes should be considered first, rather than that the time and attention of the House and the nation's money should be devoted to creating nurseries for Ritualistic Churches. [Laughter.]


I have great difficulty in, hearing what the hon. Gentleman is saying, but I am under the impression that he is out of order. [Laughter.]


who, on again rising, was received with cries of "Speak up," concluded by stating that the Government's line of action in regard to the Education Bill was unfair, undignified, and unworthy of a great Party. [Laughter.]

MR. DOUGLAS COGHILL (Stoke-upon-Trent)

asked whether the First Lord of the Treasury could indicate what time it was proposed to occupy with the Second Reading of the Education Bill. He would point out that when the subject was last before the House, notwithstanding all their tremendous orations, only 99 of the Gentlemen of the Opposition went into the Lobby against the Bill. ["Hear, hear!"]

MR. JOSEPH A. PEASE (Northumberland, Tyneside)

proposed, after the word "That," to insert the words "except on Wednesday, the 17th February." He said that last year he had charge of the Engines and Boilers Bill, which was down for consideration on Wednesday, February 17, and he could assure the House that the Measure—the object of which was to save the lives and limbs of the working classes—had not only the unanimous support of the workmen, but the support of a large number of the employers. ["Hear, hear!"] He found that Wednesdays had never before been taken from private Members earlier than March 30th, and that was in 1893, when the Home Rule Bill was under consideration.

MR. J. M. PAULTON (Durham, Bishop Auckland)

seconded the Amendment, which he should be glad to see extended so as to cover all Wednesdays. ["Hear, hear!"] He agreed with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Thanet that there ought to be a little more certainty about the conduct of the business of the House. ["Hear, hear!"]


said he rose not, of course, to reply to the general queries which had been put to him from both sides of the House, but merely to deal with the Amendment, which was that Wednesday next should be excluded from the operation of the Resolution. He expressed his entire sympathy with the views of the hon. Gentleman who had urged upon him the importance of discussing the Boilers Bill. He did not profess to be entirely acquainted with the merits of that Bill, but he believed it had found acceptance on previous occasions by hon. Members on both sides of the House. ["Hear, hear!"] He hoped the Bill was in no danger whatever from the rule now under discussion. The rule did not take every Wednesday. It only provided that on any day the Education Bill was put down it should have precedence over every other Order of the Day, the object in view being to obtain continuous discussion of each separate stage of the Measure. He was sure, from what had fallen from hon. Gentlemen opposite in regard to the Boilers Bill, that they would co-operate with the Government in bringing the Debate on the Second Reading of the Education Bill to a close before Wednesday next. [Cheers and Opposition cries of "Oh!"] Those hon. Gentlemen had said that the lives and limbs of working men were imperilled by the existing machinery of the law, and they had impressed earnestly upon the House the desirability of having that state of things altered. He had never in his wildest moments imagined that the Second Reading Debate on the Education Bill would extend over next Tuesday night—[Opposition cries of "Oh!"]—and if he were right in that forecast the Boilers Bill would be absolutely safe from the operation of the rule. He hoped, therefore, that everybody on both sides of the House would co-operate in bringing the discussion on the Second Reading of the Education Bill to a close before that day. [Cheers.]

*SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT (Monmouthshire, W.)

said he did not think he had ever heard before such an attempt to put the House under duress. [Opposition cheers and Ministerial laughter.] First of all the right hon. Gentleman, departing from the usual practice in such cases, began his reasons for asking for this control over the time of the House with a sort of anticipatory censure of the conduct the Opposition might possibly pursue. [Cheers.]


Not at all; nothing of the sort.


said he certainly understood the language of the right hon. Gentleman to convey such a censure, and he was not alone in getting that impression. ["Hear, hear!"] There was no dispute at all that this demand was far beyond that which any Government had ever made under similar circumstances. Why was it necessary to make that extraordinary and unprecedented demand? The First Lord of the Treasury was under the impression that the Education Bill was a very simple Measure. [Laughter.] He thought the right hon. Gentleman had said the same of the Bill of last year. ["Hear, hear!" and laughter.]


No; I never said so.


said that the simplicity was rather in the author than in the Bill. [Laughter.] The right hon. Gentleman had given the House as a reason for coming to a speedy decision on the Bill that it was in order that the voluntary organisations might get to work at the earliest opportunity. Might he suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that it would be a good thing, at the earliest possible opportunity, that the House of Commons should discuss these voluntary organisations, and that the country should have some opportunity of understanding them? [THE FIRST LORD of the TREASURY: "Hear, hear!"] The right hon. Gentleman told them that these voluntary organisations were very simple affairs. They were very simple, no doubt, because they were not explained. Part of the principal business of the House, if it was going to do its duty, was to insist on particulars as to their voluntary organisations which the Government had not inserted in the Bill. That was true of every line of the Bill, for it suggested a great number of things of which it made no explanation whatever; therefore to call it a simple Bill which was to be passed under this sort of pressure was to give an entirely wrong interpretation of the character of the Measure. From the nature of the Motion of the right hon. Gentleman it was clear that as soon as the House got into Committee on the Bill all the Wednesdays were gone. They had a, perfect right, and it was, indeed, their business, to demand that this Bill and its bearings should be understood by the country. The Second Beading stage was the proper occasion on which the House should consider whether this was a fair Bill, having regard to what it did and did not contain. There had been no previous proposal on the part of any Government to take the Wednesdays in February under any circumstances. He desired to point out that next Wednesday was to have been devoted to a subject of great interest and importance; therefore, the Division they should take on the Amendment was a declaration that, in order to hurry through the House this Education Bill before the country had had time to examine and understand it, the Government were going to take a Wednesday which was to be devoted to a subject of the highest importance to the working classes. [Cheers.]

MR. LLOYD-GEORGE (Carnarvon Boroughs)

observed that as it was the general desire that the opinion of the House should not be taken with regard to this particular Wednesday, but all Wedneslays, he proposed to amend the Amendment by moving to insert, after "17th, of February," the words "and following Wednesdays." He made this Motion in the interests of two or three Bills which were of the first importance, and of a particularly urgent and practical character. For instance, for the 17th of March a Bill was to have been considered for the Amendment of the Coal Mines Regulation Act. That, he submitted, was a matter of great and urgent importance. Many of the accidents which occurred were reported by the inspectors to be attributable to negligence in the management of the mines, and when they had accidents from explosions imperilling the lives of workmen it was highly essential that a Bill of this character should receive the early and earnest consideration of the House of Commons. The First Lord of the Treasury did not attempt to make any case of urgency for this Motion. It was true he made the assertion that other Governments had done the same thing, but he failed to point to a single instance of it. The Coal Mines Regulation Bill was not the only Bill of importance which was to come on upon a Wednesday. There was a Bill for dealing with the land question in Ireland, and also a Measure which, hon. Gentlemen opposite had stated to be of the greatest possible importance to agriculture—namely, the Agricultural Produce Marks Bill. These were to be swept on one side altogther, for the purpose of dealing with a Bill for which there was no urgency at all amongst its attributes. He begged to move his Amendment to the proposed Amendment.


seconded the Amendment to the proposed Amendment. He said he wished to remind the House of the position in which they stood. At the end of last Session they were told by the First Lord of the Treasury that Parliament was to be summoned at an exceptionally early time in order that there might be got through a Bill—the present Education Bill—before the 31st March. Parliament this year did meet at an exceptionally early period, and one of the first things hon. Members were told was that there was no necessity whatever to get this Bill through before the 31st March. The result was they found themselves to-day about to commence the Second Reading of the Bill at a period which was two days earlier than Parliament met last Session, and at that period they were asked by the Government to allow them, whenever they chose, to take the whole time of the House. Last Session the Government did not come to the House with any such demand until the 27th April, or ten weeks later than the period they were now at. This had been done for the sake of a Bill which the Leader of the House himself told them was not a Bill of urgency, and did not need to be passed before the close of the financial year. The usual practice was, that when a Government asked for the time of the private Members it was because there was special urgency for Government business. It was perfectly impossible for the Government to pretend now, at a period earlier than that at which the House met at all last Session, and earlier than, that at which the Session usually commenced, that the Government business was of such urgency that they required all the time of private Members whenever they chose to take it. As had been already said, the Government ought seriously to consider whether they should repeal all the Standing Orders of the House. What was the use of Standing Orders, when Session after Session—and this year before the usual time for the Session to commence at all—the Government proposed absolutely to abrogate the Standing Orders of the House?

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

Proposed Amendment amended, by adding, at the end thereof, the words "and other Wednesdays."

The House divided:—Ayes, 129; Noes, 256.—(Division List, No. 24.)


read, and was about to put the main Question, when

MR. CARVELL WILLIAMS (Notts,) Mansfield

proposed that on the Opposition side of the House they should assent to the proposals of the Government with regard to the Second Reading of the Bill, but refuse to tie the hands of the House in all the future stages of the Measure. He, therefore, moved to leave out the words "the several stages of," leaving the House free to come to a decision on each successive stage as circumstances seemed desirable.

Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir A. F. Banbury, Frederick George Bill, Charles
Allhusen, Augustus Henry Eden Banes, Major George Edward Blundell, Colonel Henry
Arnold, Alfred Barnes, Frederic Gorell Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-
Arnold-Forster, Hugh O. Barry, A. H. Smith-(Hunts.) Boulnois, Edmund
Arrol, Sir William Barry, Francis Tress (Windsor) Bowles, Capt. H. F. (Middlesex)
Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin Brassey, Albert
Baden-Powell, Sir Geo. Smyth Beach, Rt. Hon. Sir M. H. (Bristol) Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John
Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy Beach, W. W. Bramston (Hants.) Brown, Alexander H.
Bailey, James (Walworth) Beckett, Ernest William Ballard, Sir Harry
Balcarres, Lord Bemrose, Henry Howe Butcher, John George
Baldwin, Alfred Bethell, Commander Campbell, James A.
Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J. (Maneh'r) Biddulph, Michael Carson, Edward
Balfour, Gerald William (Leeds) Bigwood, James Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbyshire)
MR. JOHN BRIGG (York, W.R., Keighley)

seconded the Amendment.


having put the Amendment to the House,


rose to address the House amid cries of "Order!"


The hon. Member is too late.


I regret that I did not catch your eye, Sir, but I certainly did rise before you put the Amendment for the purpose of making a few observations.


I did not see the hon. Member rise, although I was looking in his direction. When I did see him I had already collected the opinions of both sides of the House.

The House divided:—Ayes, 257; Noes, 123.—(Division List, No. 25.)

MR. Lloyd-George, Mr. JOHN DILLON, (Mayo, E.)

Mr. P. STANHOPE, and other Members of the Opposition rose to continue the discussion, but


claimed to move "That the Question be now put." [Loud Opposition cries of "Oh," and cheers.]

Question put, "That the words" the several stages of "stand part of the Question."

The House divided:—Ayes, 257; Noes, 123.—(Division List, No. 2G.)

Main Question put accordingly.—The House divided:—Ayes, 255; Noes, 117.—(Division List—No. 27—appended.)

Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir A. F. Banbury, Frederick George Bill, Charles
Allhusen, Augustus Henry Eden Banes, Major George Edward Blundell, Colonel Henry
Arnold, Alfred Barnes, Frederic Gorell Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-
Arnold-Forster, Hugh O. Barry, A. H. Smith-(Hunts.) Boulnois, Edmund
Arrol, Sir William Barry, Francis Tress (Windsor) Bowles, Capt. H. F. (Middlesex)
Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin Brassey, Albert
Baden-Powell, Sir Geo. Smyth Beach, Rt. Hon. Sir M. H. (Bristol) Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John
Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy Beach, W. W. Bramston (Hants.) Brown, Alexander H.
Bailey, James (Walworth) Beckett, Ernest William Ballard, Sir Harry
Balcarres, Lord Bemrose, Henry Howe Butcher, John George
Baldwin, Alfred Bethell, Commander Campbell, James A.
Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J. (Maneh'r) Biddulph, Michael Carson, Edward
Balfour, Gerald William (Leeds) Bigwood, James Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbyshire)
Cecil, Lord Hugh Hardy, Laurence O'Kelly, James
Chaloner, Captain R. G. W. Hare, Thomas Leigh O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens
Chamberlain J. Austen (Worc'r) Havelock-Allan, General Sir H. Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay
Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry Heath, James Parkes, Ebenezer
Chelsea, Viscount Heaton, John Henniker Pease, Arthur (Darlington)
Clare, Octavius Leigh Helder, Augustus Penn John
Clarke, Sir Edward (Plymouth) Hill, Rt. Hn. Lord Arthur (Down) Rhillpotts, Captain Arthur
Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E. Hoare, Edw. Brodie (Hampstead) Pierpoint, Robert
Coddington, Sir William Hoare, Samuel (Norwich) Pollock, Harry Frederick
Coghill, Douglas Harry Hobhouse, Henry Powell, Sir Francis Sharp
Cohen, Benjamin Louis Holland, Hon. Lionel Raleigh Pryce-Jones, Edward
Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse Hopkinson, Alfred Purvis, Robert
Colomb, Sir John Charles Ready Houston, R. P. Quilter, William Cuthbert
Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole Howard, Joseph Rankin, James
Compton, Lord Alwyne (Beds.) Hozier, James Rasch, Major Frederic Carne
Cook, Fred. Lucas (Lambeth) Hudson, George Bickersteth Richards, Henry Charles
Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow) Hughes, Colonel Edwin Richardson, Thomas
Cranborne, Viscount Hutton, John (Yorks., N. R.) Ridley, Rt. Hn. Sir Matthew W.
Cripps, Charles Alfred Isaacson, Frederick Wootton Ritchie, Rt. Hon. Chas. Thomson
Carrie, Sir Donald Jebb, Richard Claverhouse Robinson, Brooke
Curzon, Rt. Hn. G. N. (Lancs. SW.) Jenkins, Sir John Jones Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye
Curzon, Viscount (Bucks.) Jessel, Captain Herbert Merton Round, James
Dalbiac, Major Philip Hugh Johnston, William (Belfast) Russell, Gen. F. S. (Cheltenham)
Dalkeith, Earl of Johnstone, John H. (Sussex) Russell, Sir George (Berkshire)
Dalrymple, Sir Charles Joliffe, Hon. H. George Russell, T. W. (Tyrone)
Darling, Charles John Kemp, George Rutherford, John
Dixon-Hartland, Sir Fred. Dixon Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir John H. Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse)
Donkin, Richard Sim Kenny, William Savory, Sir Joseph
Dorington, Sir John Edward Kenrick, William Scoble, Sir Andrew Richard
Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers- Kenyon, James Seely, Charles Hilton
Drage, Geoffrey King, Sir Henry Seymour Sharpe, William Edward T.
Drucker, A. Knowles, Lees Simeon, Sir Barrington
Duncombe, Hon. Hubert V. Laurie, Lieut.-General Sinclair, Louis (Romford)
Dyke, Rt. Hn. Sir William Hart Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool) Smith, Abel (Herts)
Fardell, Thomas George Lawson, John Grant (Yorks.) Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand)
Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward Lecky, William Edward H. Stanley, Lord (Lanes.)
Fergusson, Rt. Hn. Sir J. (Mane'r) Lees, Elliott (Birkenhead) Stanley, Edw. Jas. (Somerset)
Fielden, Thomas Llewellyn, Evan H. (Somerset) Stanley, Henry M. (Lambeth)
Finch, George H. Llewelyn, Sir Dilhwyn-(Swnsea) Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M.
Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne Lockwood, Lt.-Col. A. R. (Essex) Stone, Sir Benjamin
Firbank, Joseph Thomas Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine Strauss, Arthur
Fisher, William Hayes Hong, Col. Charles W. (Evesham) Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley
Fison, Frederick William Long, Rt. Hon. Walter (L'pool.) Sturt, Hon. Humphry Napier
FitzGerald, Sir R. U. Penrose Lopes, Henry Yarde Buller Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)
Flannery, Fortesctue Lome, Marquess of Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)
Folkestone, Viscount Lowles, John Talbot, John G. (Oxford Un.)
Forster, Henry William Loyd, Archie Kirkman Taylor, Francis
Foster, Colonel (Lancaster) Lueas-Shadwell, William Thornton, Percy M.
Foster, Harry S. (Suffolk) Lyttelton, Hon. Alfred Tomlinson, Wm. Edw. Murray
Fry, Lewis Macdona, John Cumming Tritton, Charles Ernest
Galloway, William Johnson MeCalmont, M j.-Gen (Antr'mN) Usborne, Thomas
Garfit, William Malcolm, Ian Valentia, Viscount
Gibbs, Hn. A. G. H. (City of Lond.) Massey-Mainwaring, Hon. W F. Wanklyn, James Leslie
Gibbs, Hon. Vicary (St. Albans) Melville, Beresford Valentine Warkworth, Lord
Giles, Charles Tyrrell Milbank, Powlett Charles John Webster, R. G. (St. Pancras)
Gilliat, John Saunders Milner, Sir Frederick George Webster, Sir R. E. (L of W.)
Godson, Augustus Frederick Milward, Colonel Victor Welby, Lieut.-Col, A. C. E.
Goldsworthy, Major-General Monckton, Edward Philip Whiteley, George (Stockport)
Gordon, John Edward Monk, Charles James Whiteley, H. (Ashton-under-L.)
Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon Montagu, Hon. J. Scott (Hants.) Whitmore, Charles Algernon
Goschen, Rt. Hon. G. J. (St. G'rg's) Moon, Edward Robert Pacy Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)
Goschen, George J. (Sussex) More, Robert Jasper Williams, Joseph Powell-(Birm.)
Goulding, Edward Alfred Morrison, Walter Wilson, John (Falkirk)
Graham, Henry Robert Mount, William George Wilson, J. W. (Worc'sh. N.)
Gray, Ernest (West Ham) Mow bray, Rt. Hon. Sir John Wilson-Todd, Wm. H. (Yorks.)
Green, Walford D. (Wednesb'y) Muntz, Philip A. Wodehonse, Edmond R. (Bath)
Gretton, John Murdoch, Charles Townshend Wyndham, George
Greville, Captain Murray, Rt. Hn. A. Graham (Bute) Wyndham-Quin, Major W. H.
Gull, Sir Cameron Murray, Charles J. (Coventry) Wyvill, Marmaduke D'Arcy
Halsey, Thomas Frederick Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)
Hamilton, Rt. Hon. Lord Geo. Nicol, Donald Ninian TELLERS FOR THE AYES, Sir
Hanbury, Rt. Hon. Robert Wm. Northcote, Hon. Sir H. Stafford William Walrond and Mr.
Hanson, Sir Reginald O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny) Anstruther.
Abraham, William (Rhondda) Griffith, Ellis J. Pease, Joseph A. (Northumb.)
Allan, William (Gateshead) Haldane, Richard Burdon Perks, Robert William
Arch, Joseph Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Pickard, Benjamin
Asher, Alexander Harrison, Charles Piekersgill, Edward Hare
Ashton, Thomas Gair Hayne, Rt. Hon. Charles Seale- Priestley, Briggs (Yorks)
Asquith, Rt. Hn. Herbert Henry Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H. Reid, Sir Robert T.
Atherley-Jones, L. Hogan, James Francis Rickett, J. Compton
Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire) Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley) Roberts, John H. (Denbighs)
Birrell, Augustine Jacoby, James Alfred Robson, William Snowdon
Bolton, Thomas Dolling Johnson-Ferguson, Jabez Edw. Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)
Brigg, John Kearley, Hudson E. Scott, Charles Prestwich
Brunner, Sir John Thomas Kilbride, Denis Seton-Karr, Henry
Bryce, Rt. Hon. James Kinloch, Sir John George Smyth Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B)
Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn Labouchere, Henry Shaw, William Rawson (Halifax)
Buxton, Sydney Charles Lambert, George Smith, Samuel (Flint)
Caldwell, James Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cumb'land) Spicer, Albert
Cameron, Robert Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington) Stanhope, Hon. Philip J.
Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H. Deng, Sir John Stevenson, Francis S.
Causton, Richard Knight Lloyd-George, David Tanner, Charles Kearns
Cawley, Frederick Lockwood, Sir Frank (York) Tonnant, Harold John
Channing, Francis Allston Logan, John William Thomas, Alfred (Glamorgan)
Clough, Walter Owen Lough, Thomas Ure, Alexander
Colville, John Lowther, Rt. Hon. James (Kent) Wallace, Robert (Perth)
Condon, Thomas Joseph Luttrell, Hugh Fownes Walton, John Lawson
Cozens-Hardy, Herbert Hardy Lyell, Sir Leonard Wayman, Thomas
Dalziel, James Henry Macaleese, Daniel Weir, James Galloway
Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan) McEwan, William Whittaker, Thomas Palmer
Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles McKenna, Reginald Williams, John Carvell (Notts)
Dillon, John McLaren, Charles Benjamin Wilson, Charles Henry (Hull)
Doughty, George McLeod, John Wilson, Frederick W. (Norfolk)
Dunn, Sir William Maden, John Henry Wilson, Henry J. (York, W. R.)
Ellis, John Edward (Notts.) Mappin, Sir Frederick Thorpe Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)
Engledow, Charles John Montagu, Sir S. (Whitechapel) Wilson, John (Govan)
Evans, Sir Francis H. (South'ton) Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen) Woodall, William
Ferguson, R. C. Munro (Leith) Morley, Charles (Breconshire) Woods, Samuel
Fowler, Rt. Hn. Sir Hy. (Wol'tn) Morley, Rt. Hn. John (Montrose)
Gilhooly, James Morton, Edward John Chalmers TELLERS FOR THE NOES, Mr.
Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John Mundella, Rt. Hn. Anthony John Thomas Ellis and Mr.
Goddard, Daniel Ford O'Brien, James F. X. (Cork) McArthur.
Gold, Charles O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)
Gourley, Sir Edward Temperley Paulton, James Mellor

Ordered, that the several stages of the Voluntary Schools Bill have precedence of all Orders of the Day and Notices of Motion on every day for which the Bill is appointed.