HC Deb 17 April 1899 vol 69 cc1401-19

Motion made, and Question proposed— That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty praying Her graciously to with-hold Her consent to the new portions of Articles 37 and 42 on pages 90 and 91 of the Code of Regulations for Day Schools which was presented to the House on the 21st day of March last."—(Mr. Jeffreys.)

MR. JEFFREYS (Hants, N.)

I apologise to the House for keeping it at this late hour to discuss the additions which have been made to the new Code. I will explain at once that I am obliged to do so because the Code was only laid on the Table for 30 days, and if it had not been for your ruling, Sir, it would have become law during the Recess. But you ruled, Sir, that the 30 days should count from the time when it was distributed to Members, and consequently two or three more days elapse before it becomes law-. I am obliged, therefore, to bring it on now, but I will be as brief as possible in stating our objections to articles 37 and 42. I have supported the voluntary schools in my own neighbourhood a great many years, and many honourable Members on both sides of the House also give them a support without which they could not possibly continue to exist. Now, as to article 37. It provides that after the 1st of January 1900 no pupil teacher shall be recognised in a school in which there are not at least two adult teachers employed, except with the special consent of the inspector. That, of course, means an addition to the teaching staff of the school. There would be no objection to that if the money could be found to pay for it. I suppose honourable Gentlemen know that country schools are very badly off at the present time, and that in many parishes there are only two or three people—in some cases even only one— to support them with voluntary contributions. I have received letters from country clergymen from which I should like to read extracts. One writes from Devonshire that the subscriptions for his schools will need to be trebled if this article is enforced, and that that will practically mean death to the school. Another clergyman writes from Hertfordshire that there they have a few boys taught by a schoolmistress assisted by a pupil teacher, and that the new provision will be disastrous to numberless schools besides his own. They now just manage to keep their heads above water, and if the addition to the Code were passed he did not see how they could possibly pay for the additional teacher who must of necessity be employed. As we know, the task of keeping up schools in many rural parishes is one of great anxiety, and surely we ought not to increase the difficulty. But article 37 will virtually' abolish pupil teachers in all small schools. If we do away with pupil teachers we do away with apprentices. It has been the custom to train up pupil teachers in the schools so that they may become assistant teachers, and finally certified teachers, and if you are going to abolish them you will not only be doing a great injury to the schools, but you will be laying a great burden upon the managers, and you will inflict a serious blow upon the cause of education. I do not think I need say any more about article 37. As to article 42, that again tends to do away with pupil teachers. In former days three pupil teachers were allowed to every principal teacher, and now, under this new article only two are to be allowed. I should like to read an extract from the Report of the majority of the Committee on the working of the Elementary Schools Act, 1888. They say that, having regard to the necessity of maintaining an adequate supply of teachers, the system of apprenticeship ought to be upheld. That is what we want. But article 42 is calculated to limit the supply and therefore we object to it. I think I need not dilate on this any longer. Honourable Members must draw their own conclusions, as we have drawn ours. I submit that it will be a great misfortune to the schools if these provisions are insisted upon, and I ask the Government if even now they cannot withdraw them. The managers of the schools have had no opportunity of discussing them, and I really think there ought to be a complete change in the way of dealing with the Education Code, for at present all sorts of conditions may be made and laid on the Table, and unless somebody happens to detect them they may become law without any possibility of discussion or Debate upon them. I submit that when any addition is made due notice ought to be given, and an opportunity afforded to school managers to give their opinions on the subject. We object to having these burdens sprung upon us without any intimation whatever. It was only by accident that we detected these additions to the Code, and if the Government will not withdraw them, but allow them to become law, a great hardship will be inflicted upon voluntary schools. I ask my right honourable Friend the Leader of the House, and the Vice-President of the Committee of Council, even at this late hour, to withdraw these two additions to the Code, and to give the House and the country an opportunity of considering them. All the opinion I have been able to gather is opposed to these two additions.

LORD E. TALBOT (Sussex, Chichester)

I beg to second the Motion, and I also do so on behalf of the schools in my own constituency as well as the denomination to which I belong, and which possesses schools throughout the country. It is not necessary for me to speak at length, because I have every hope that the right honourable Gentleman will see his way to give a favourable reply to our request. I will therefore simply second the Motion.

THE VICE-PRESIDENT OF THE COMMITTEE OF COUNCIL ON EDUCATION (Sir J. GORST,) Cambridge University

The Amendments to the Code to which the honourable Member objects were designed for the improvement of the staff of the rural schools, and so to promote the efficiency of those schools. The Education Department believe that they are acting in the interests of voluntary schools, because it is the efficiency of those schools alone which can insure their permanence. These Amendments were recommended by a Committee of experts who sat two years ago on the whole subject of the provision of teachers for our schools. They are also recommended by the inspectors and by the professional advisers of the Education Department. They are only very small steps in the direction in which, have no doubt, the Education Department will very shortly have to move, I should like to explain to the Housewhat the exact position is. According to the Code, the pupil teacher is appointed on condition of teaching during school hours under the superintendence! of the principal teacher, and receiving suitable instruction out of school hours. Now, how can that condition be fulfilled in a school of 80 children, where there is only one adult teacher and one pupil teacher? How is it possible for that pupil teacher to give instruction under the superintendence of the adult teacher, and how can this overworked adult teacher find the time to give a suitable instruction out of school hours? The proposal of the Government, which was intended to benefit voluntary schools, has been very ill received by those for whose benefit it was designed, and I am authorised to say that Her Majesty's Government have no intention of forcing a benefit of this kind upon a reluctant House of Commons. The honourable Member for Hampshire said that the matter had been sprung upon, him and his friends, that they had had no opportunity of discussing, and no time for considering these proposals. Therefore it seems to the Government a more reasonable and proper course not to persevere in this Amendment to the Code in the present year, and to return to it at some future period. But I would say, perhaps, that the Government have been some-what readily brought to that conclusion, because it had been pointed out to them that the object which they desired to obtain by this Amendment to the Code can be obtained in another way. The honourable Member for Hampshire made a, most valuable and important suggestion to the Lord President of the Council. He pointed out that by the Code as it stands the managers of schools are bound to see that the pupil teacher is properly instructed during the engagement, and that the Department, if satisfied that this duty is neglected, may decline to recognise pupil teachers as members of the staff of any school under the same management. That important and valuable suggestion will be carefully considered by my noble Friend the Lord President of the Council, and we will see whether under these powers the Department cannot secure that pupil teachers shall not be appointed in schools where it is not possible for them to teach under the superintendence of the principal teacher, and to receive that special instruction which they are entitled to under the terms of their agreement. I should say that in cases where it is proposed to have one adult teacher and one pupil teacher as the staff of a school of 80 it would be quite open to the inspector to call the attention of the Department to the impossibility of the Code beng carried out, and the Department might, by refusing to recognise pupil teachers as members of the staff, obtain the same object that they endeavour to obtain by their Amendment.

MR. WILLIAM JONES (Carnarvon, Arfon)

Mr. Speaker, the reply of the right honourable Gentleman the Vice-President of the Council is a most remarkable one. The right honourable Gentleman delivers educational speeches in the country of a most enlightened character, and showers upon us enlightened educational schemes; but when he comes to lay his proposals before this House, the reactionary Tory Government mingles a curse with every blessing it gives. What is the object of the Motion of the honourable Gentleman opposite? It is not proposed in the interests of education either in rural or any other schools, but it is moved in the interests of cheap child labour. The Code proposals are the very minimum of the recommendations of the Departmental Committee on the pupil teacher system, and I would urge the Government to stick to them. In the whole of England you have at the rate of 58.5 non-certificated teachers, as compared with only 41.5 in Scotland. The teacher is the most important factor in the training of our children. We have tried to get children compulsorily to school, but unless we get properly-equipped teachers to train them, what is the use of getting children to school, and how can you get properly-trained teachers if you employ pupil teachers at the ages of 13, 14, and 15? Would honourable Gentlemen in this House like their children to be taught by those who were badly taught themselves? Under the London School Hoard, you can send pupil teachers to centres, but not so in rural districts. In Wales, the committee of the rural schools have been enlightened enough to send the pupil teachers to secondary schools, and I have school boards in my district which will not employ pupil teachers unless they have been for two or three years in a secondary school. We are the only country in Europe that employs pupil teachers. You have 9,000 boy pupil teachers, as compared with 27,000 girl pupil teachers. One reason for this great difference is, that they are only paid from 1s. 6d. to 7a 6d. per week, and in rural districts from 1s. 6d. to 3s. 6d. That is the main reason why the managers of rural voluntary schools stick to the pupil teacher system. In Germany they are beating us in trade and in commerce. Why? Because they get the best trained University teachers to teach the infants and the small standards. Why cannot we get them? I know that means expenditure. You can spend £27,000,000 or more on your Fleet, but you can only spend a miserable pittance upon education. You must, I know, equip your Fleet for defensive purposes, but you must also train good citizens, or we shall not be in the van of moral and civilised progress. That is why I oppose this proposal, and I ask the Government to be enlightened enough to stick by their Education Minister, and let these provisions stand in the Code.

VISCOUNT CRANBORNE (Rochester)

The honourable Gentleman who has just sat down claimed, in very moving terms, that there is not enough spent on education. Well, I am not going to quarrel with him about that. I did my best not long ago to get the House to spend more on education than they do, but the question of expenditure is a very important one, and, as things now stand, it must be considered. It is very possible that by the proposed alteration in the Code a large expenditure would be thrown upon Voluntary schools. That is precisely what we told the House and the Government would happen when the Education Bill was under discussion. We said then that you may give us this special aid grant, but that immediately afterwards you would begin to screw up the expenditure of the schools to such a degree as to render the effect of the special aid grant nugatory for the purpose which it was intended to serve. The immediate effect, of course, of throwing a great, burden upon Voluntary schools would be to shut them up, and have rural Board schools in their stead. [Opposition cheers.] I am not surprised to hear that cheer, because the very worst possible thing that could be established in a rural district is a Board school. There is a great deal to be said for a good Board school in a city or town, from an educational point of view, but there is nothing whatever to be said for a rural Board school, which is neither good for character, for education, or for the pockets of the ratepayers, and the result of throwing, under the present conditions, any extra burdens on Voluntary schools would be undoubtedly very disastrous. I quite agree that the pupil teacher question is a very important one, and ought not to be dealt with by mere partisan retorts across the floor of the House, but that the interests of the teachers ought to be carefully considered. It is very true that this matter has been sprung upon us by surprise, and it is not, therefore, unreasonable that the Government should put the matter off, and give us some opportunity of considering the additions to the Code before they are passed into law.

MR. A. E. HUTTON (York, W.R., Morley)

I think it is most pitiable and ridiculous for the House to negative a proposal adopted by the Education Department, after a full and careful consideration of the exigencies of the case. The right honourable Gentleman the Vice-President shows himself to be a far too faithful disciple of the Prime Minister, and these graceful concessions are most lamentable indeed. When the noble Viscount tells us that the special aid grant would be rendered nugatory for the purpose for which it was intended if these additional screws are put upon the expenditure of the rural schools, then we recognise the admission from the noble Viscount that the special aid grant was intended to be devoted to the assistance of voluntary subscribers, and not to the raising of the standard of education. When the Bill was before the House of Commons in 1897, we asked that provision should be inserted that the teachers might be improved both in number and in efficiency, and that various other safeguards should be taken to maintain a satisfactory standard of education in the schools. We were told that it was not necessary, and that we might trust the Department, but we find, on the very first occasion, that the Department is not strong enough to resist the pressure of the noble Viscount and his friends. It has been asked, "Where is the money to came from? Well, I would ask, What has been done with the three quarters of a million under the Special Aid Grant which was voted in 1897?"

AN HONOURABLE MEMBER: The pay of the teachers has been increased.

MR. A. E. HUTTON

I do not think that has happened to a very great extent. I do not think it can be proved that anything like a considerable portion of the money which was voted by Parliament has been devoted to raising the salaries of the teachers. I think we have a right to expect the Education Department to act up to the pledges they gave us when the Bill was being considered. When we find that there is a great difficulty in getting pupil teachers, to make the condition of their life harder and more difficult is not the way to obtain them. The suggestion of the honourable Member for Hampshire, which the Vice-President referred to, would not deal with the matter of adult teachers at all, but only with pupil teachers. I think the action of the Vice-President in yielding to the pressure of honourable Members behind him is pitiable and lamentable to the last degree.

* MR. E. GRAY (West Ham, N.)

If I stand alone on the Government side of this House, I feel it my duty, in the interests of the children attending the voluntary schools, to protest against the capitulation of the Government. Can anyone pretend it is in the interest of education that in schools attended by 110 children it will now be possible for 60 of the pupils to be placed in charge of two girls of the age of 15, morning and afternoon? That is a condition to which Her Majesty's Government have just given their consent. The pupil teachers themselves cannot receive the training which they ought to receive from the competent head teacher, and I assert that by admitting pupil teachers to schools where they cannot be properly trained, we are defrauding the parents of those pupil teachers and those young persons themselves. The managers of the schools enter into contracts, which are approved by the Education Department, agreeing that the pupil teachers shall be properly taught and properly trained in the profession they are proposing to follow, but this training will be impossible under the conditions now accepted. I recognise that great pressure had boon put on the Government, but I believe this pressure had been altogether misconceived. I believe the object aimed at could have been obtained by a verbal modification of the clause instead of by its abandonment In eliminating these two amendments from our Educational Code you have taken away inducements to improvement which nine-tenths of the schools could have met without any disturbance to their financial conditions. This has been done in the interests of the poorer schools, whose needs could have been met by giving the inspector power to make an exception where he saw that an exception was essential? The honourable Member for Hampshire, in bringing forward this Motion, said the Government were seeking to abolish pupil teachers. Anyone who knows the condition of affairs knows that that statement is not only inaccurate, but grotesquely absurd. The object of these Amendments to the Code was to secure that pupil teachers should be trained in establishments fitted for their training. In France, Germany, and Switzerland, where they will not allow a single teacher to enter a school under the age of 18, they will tell you that you are wasting your money by spending it on this child labour. If my memory serves me rightly this Departmental Committee's Report was published two years ago, and excited a good deal of criticism. The Chairman of that Committee was a clergyman of the Church of England—Mr. Sharp, H.M. Chief Inspector—who, I venture to assert, knows more about the condition of voluntary schools than any man living, and he joined with the other members of the Committee in recommending changes far in advance of those that were put in this Code by the Government, and which they now wish to sacrifice. We have been accustomed to see the Vice-President thrown over, but now we have the spectacle of the noble Duke the Lord President of the Council being deliberately cast on one side, and we can understand why it is that he should say his political career is growing to a close. The expert advisers of the Education Department have expressed themselves in favour of those changes, which they believe to be beneficial, and, with my knowledge of these schools and the training of pupil teachers, I believe they would have been of the utmost value. I cannot regard the position as satisfactory, and I feel that when honourable Members on this side of the House have to face their constituents they will find some difficulty in justifying their action on this matter. While we lament the inefficiency of education in England we are deliberately entrusting it to the care of young children, and we abandon the limitation on the number of young children who may be employed as teachers. I am convinced that in the very near future this House will recognise that a very great mistake has been made to-night.

SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN (Stirling Burghs)

Mr. Speaker, my honourable Friend the Member for the Morley Division twice in the course of his brief speech employed an adjective which appeared to me to be particularly appropriate in the present situation. My honourable Friend said the situation was pitiable. Pitiable it is, Sir. Pitiable, in the first place, if we put the support of the merits of the educational question aside; pitiable, secondly, if we consider the picture presented of the organisation of the administration of education, because here, again, not for the first time, but for the twentieth time, we find the Minister who specially represents the Education Department in this House, and who is qualified above almost any man in this House to be at the head of that Department, and to give assistance to that Department on account of his ability, of which it would be impertinent of me to speak, and of his interest and enlightened views of the subject, has very little to do with the matter; and whenever he attempts to introduce a little alteration of a beneficial character he is liable to be ignominiously ignored, or thrown overboard. I cannot think that is a good, although it is an entirely novel, as far as I am aware, Governmental arrangement, and I am not sure that it is entirely confined to the Education Department. I have observed to-night that while we have been discussing a very important Government Measure of the first order connected with local government, we have not had the advantage of the presence of the President of the Local Government Board. I am not going to revive an old controversy, but we all know the circumstances in which a large sum of money was devoted two years ago to the support of the necessitous voluntary schools, which were subjected to so severe a financial strain. It was urged by the opponents of that proposal that there should be some sort of guarantee that the money would be well spent, and would not be merely devoted to saving the pockets of the subscribers, but would be accompanied by a real, substantial improvement in the efficiency of the schools, and when we have the first modest instalment of reform introduced, up get the friends of the Church schools and say that it should be postponed because they have been taken by surprise, and are unable to bear the terrible expenditure which would be involved. Why, Sir, I understand that it has been stated in the House—and I believe it will not be con- troverted—that this whole system of pupil teachers and teaching by the help of pupil teachers is the very weakest point in our educational system, and that the arrangement which prevails in this country does not exist in any of the other countries of Europe where education is valued. Yet, when this small and modest attempt is made, which the right honourable Gentleman opposite, the Vice-President of the Council, and the noble Duke—shall I say at the head of the Department, for we do not know how he stands in that Department now? —on the advice of their skilled assistants, have introduced and which has received the approval of the Government, and been embodied in their Code, is brought forward it is on the first breath of opposition overthrown and rejected. We are not advancing so rapidly in these matters of education as most of us would wish, except in the matter of expense, and there is a very strong opinion, supported by some high authorities, that the country does not get full value for the money so expended. From that point of view, from the point of view of commercial advantage, of a money return for the sacrifices made, this proposal to-have a more efficient system of education, and to place the little burden of expenditure which would be incurred on the proper shoulders—namely, on the shoulders of those who insisted on having these Voluntary schools, and no other, ought to have been accepted. I end as I began, by borrowing from my right honourable Friend the word "pitiable." The whole situation is pitiable. The whole system with regard to the Department began by being a joke, and it is rapidly becoming, if it has not actually become a scandal. At this late hour the Debate does not attract so much attention as it would if it came on earlier in the day, but I trust the-country will not lose sight of the events of to-night as an object lesson of the degree of value attached by the Government to the excellence and efficiency of our educational system.

THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY

The right honourable Gentleman has, in his brief speech, drawn a parallel between the educational system in this country and foreign countries, in which he has pointed out that no foreign country employs pupil teachers, and that we in England are very much behind the age in still employing that means of educational work. I gather that the right honourable Gentleman regarded that observation as relevant to the present Debate, but if he had listened to the speech of the Vice-President of the Council he would have understood from him that the object of the Amendment to the Act, which the Government do not propose to press to-night, is not at all the abandonment of the system of pupil teachers which the right honourable Gentleman desires, but, on the contrary, the improvement of its efficiency. I, therefore, fail to see what is the object of the parallel which the right honourable Gentleman drew between the educational system in this country and foreign countries, altogether, apparently, in his view, to the disadvantage of this country. The right honourable Gentleman went on to attack the Education Act of two years ago. He was, however, wrong in supposing that the money then voted by Parliament has gone, as was prophesied, entirely into the pockets of subscribers to Voluntary schools. There is really no justification for such a statement. The main portion of the money, as I contemplated, has undoubtedly gone towards the improvement of education. When the right honourable Gentleman implied, as he did, that there was an attempt to get the money voted by Parliament to be employed for educational purposes diverted into the pockets of the subscribers, he exhibited his ignorance—very pardonable ignorance—of what is going on in rural districts and in Voluntary schools, both in town and country. There has been no reply to the contention of the noble Lord the Member for Rochester, that if we overburden the Voluntary schools those schools must perish—a remark which was cheered by honourable Members opposite. I perfectly understand why honourable Members want Voluntary schools to perish. Their reason is not an educational one. There is not a single educationist in this House who seriously thinks that in the poor rural districts at this moment the interests of education would be better looked after in the hands of a school board than they are at the present time in the hands of voluntary managers. While, no doubt, some honourable Members opposite hold a sincere, though, as I have said, a mistaken view that this Motion is against education, I cannot doubt that a great deal of the feeling which this Debate has elicited depends not upon any educational controversy properly so called, but upon that perennial contest—into which I do not mean to enter at the present moment—between the system represented by the Voluntary schools and the other system represented by the Board schools. It is for that reason, among others, that I think the country—to whom the right honourable-Gentleman has appealed—would be very strangely mistaken if they thought that this division of opinion tonight is a division on educational matters, and I, for one, in supporting my right honourable Friend near me in the course he has announced he intends to pursue, shall certainly feel I am acting not- merely in the interests of the Voluntary schools, but also in the interests of education in the poorer rural districts of this country.

MR. EVANS (Glamorgan, Mid.)

The right honourable Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury has reproached some of us on this side of the House by saying that our reason for opposing this Amendment is not an educational one. I listened attentively to the right honourable Gentleman's speech, but I fail to discover any educational reason whatever for supporting the Amendment. Moreover, the speech of the honourable Member who moved the Amendment was also devoid of a single educational reason in support of it. The honourable Member, however, had the honesty not to pretend that he moved it in the interest of education, but in the interest of Voluntary schools. The Motion was moved by the honourable Member for Hants, and accepted by the Government, in that spirit. The Voluntary schools are supported by honourable Members opposite because they are the nurseries for a particular denomination, and whenever any proposal is made to increase the efficiency of these schools, the Government are forced to capitulate their own proposals. The right honourable Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury did not pretend that he accepted the Motion in the interest of education.

THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY

That is exactly what I said.

MR. EVANS

Well, the right honourable Gentleman advanced no argument whatever. If the right honourable Gentleman said that he thought that to allow these young children to teach other children in the schools was in the interest of education, that would be an argument, but the right honourable Gentleman is far too sensible to imply an argument of that sort. We are sorry that the enlightened views of the Vice-President of the Council have not the free play which they ought to have, and it is deplorable to see the right honourable Gentleman who is responsible for the Education Department in this House, and who is regarded as an enlightened educationist throughout the country, thrown over in the interests of the Voluntary schools.

MR. LLOYD GEORGE (Carnarvon)

I sincerely regret having to prolong the Debate at this time of the morning, but I think the House will recognise that this is a matter of very great importance. One would think, from the speech of the First Lord, that this was a wicked attempt on the part of the enemies of Voluntary schools on this side of the House to import something into the Code which would be detrimental to Voluntary schools, but he forgets that this is a proposal introduced by his own Government, and that the only reason he and the Vice-President can give in favour of abandoning it is that another 12 months ought to be given to consider it. No one has been more stern and severe in his denunciation of the present pupil teacher system than the right honourable Gentleman, and the Committee was appointed to investigate the whole system, the result toeing that 14 main recommendations were brought up. Out of those, two have been embodied in the Code. These are the recommendations of the right honourable Gentleman's own Committee that he proposes to abandon at the very first suggestion of opposition in this House. The action of the Government in this matter will at least be valuable as another demonstration to the counry how the interests of Education are being sacrificed to the interests of sectarianism. It is a most contemptible and cowardly attitude on the part of the Government. They are the most powerful Government in modern times, but when any opposition is raised to their proposals by their followers they immediately abandon those proposals.

* MR. H. J. WILSON (York, W.R., Holmfirth)

I desire, before the Debate closes, to emphasise the fact that no answer has been given to the educational arguments in favour of the alterations in the Code. The Leader of the House has thrown unworthy taunts on some Members on this side, and has attributed sectarian motives to them. But why does he not answer the educational arguments? Was not the speech of the honourable Member for North Carnarvon (Mr. William Jones) a thoroughly educational speech, which required an answer? Then there was the speech of the honourable Member for West Ham (Mr. E. Grey), a supporter of the Government, a man who knows as much about elemental education as any in the House. His speech was not sectarian; it was thoroughly educational. Why did not the First Lord answer a speech like that? Because it could not be answered. The Government is left in this pitiable condition, that they have accepted this Motion without answering the educational arguments that have been used.

Question put— That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty praying Her graciously to withhold her consent to the new portions of Articles 37 and 42 on pages 90 and 91 of the Code of Regulations for Day Schools which was presented to the House on the 21st day of March last."—(Mr. Jeffreys.)

The House divided:—Ayes 147; Noes 67.—(Division List No. 83.)

AYES.
Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir A. F. Cecil, Lord H. (Greenwich) Fisher, William Hayes
Allhusen, Augustus H. E. Chaloner, Capt. R. G. W. Fitzgerald, Sir R. Penrose-
Arnold-Forster, Hugh O. Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. (Birm. Flannery, Sir Fortescue
Ashmead-Bartlett, Sir E. Chamberlain, J. A. (Worc'r) Flower, Ernest
Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry Folkestone, Viscount
Austin, Sir J. (Yorkshire) Charrington, Spencer Forster, Henry William
Bagot, Capt. Joceline FitzRoy Clare, Octavius Leigh Garfit, William
Bailey, James (Walworth) Cochrane, Hon. T. H. A. E. Gedge, Sydney
Baird, J. G. Alexander Coghill, Douglas Harry Gibbs, Hn. A. G. H. (C. of Lond.)
Balcarres, Lord Cohen, Benjamin Louis Gibbs, Hon. V. (St. Albans)
Balfour, Rt. Hn. A. J. (Manch'r Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse Godson, Sir Augustus Fredk.
Balfour, Rt. Hn. G. W. (Leeds) Colston, Chas. F. H. A. Goldsworthy, Major-General
Banbury, Fredk. George Corbett, A. C. (Glasgow) Gordon, Hon. John Edward
Barnes, Frederic Gorell Cornwallis, Fiennes Stanley W Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir J. Eldon
Barry, Rt Hn A H Smith-(Hunts Courtney, Rt. Hon. L. H. Goschen, Geo. J. (Sussex)
Barton, Dunbar Plunket Cranborne, Viscount Goulding, Edw. Alfred
Bathurst, Hon. A. Benjamin Cripps, Charles Alfred Graham, Henry Robert
Bentinck, Lord Henry C. Cross, Alexander (Glasgow) Gray, Ernest (West Ham)
Beresford, Lord Charles Cross, H. Shepherd (Bolton) Green, W. D. (Wednesbury)
Bethell, Commander Cruddas, Wm. Donaldson Greene, H. D. (Shrewsbury)
Bhownaggree, Sir M. M. Dalbiac, Col. Philip Hugh Greene, W. Raymond- (Cambs.)
Bigwood, James Dalrymple, Sir Charles Gull, Sir Cameron
Bill, Charles Davies, Sir H. D. (Chatham) Hamilton, Rt. Hon. Lord G.
Blakiston-Houston, John Digby, J. K. D. Wingfield- Hanson, Sir Reginald
Blundell, Colonel Henry Dorington, Sir J. Edward Hardy, Laurence
Bolitho, Thomas Bedford Doughty, George Heath, James
Boscawen, Arthur Griffith- Douglas, Rt. Hn. A. Akers- Helder, Augustus
Brassey, Albert Doxford, Wm. Theodore Henderson, Alexander
Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John Duncombe, Hon. H. V. Hermon-Hodge, R. Trotter
Burdett-Coutts, W. Fardell, Sir T. George Holland, Hon. L. R. (Bow)
Burns, John Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn E. Hozier, Hon. J. H. Cecil
Butcher, John George Fenwick, Charles Hubbard, Hon. Evelyn
Cavendish, R. F. (N. Lancs.) Fergusson, Rt. Hn. Sir J. (Manc'r Humphreys-Owen, A. C.
Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbysh.) Field, Admiral (Eastbourne) Hutchinson, Capt. G. W. Grice-
Cayzer, Sir Chas. Wm. Finch, George H. Jebb, R. Claverhouse
Cecil, Evelyn (Hertford, E.) Finlay, Sir R. Bannatyne Jeffreys, A. Fredk.
Johnson-Ferguson, Jabez E. Montagu, Hn. J. Scott (Hants) Scoble, Sir Andrew Richard
Johnston, Wm. (Belfast) More, R. J. (Shropshire) Seely, Charles Hilton
Johnstone, Heywood (Sussex) Morgan, J. L. (Carmarthen) Sharpe, William Edward T.
Jolliffe, Hon. H. George Morton, A. H. A. (Deptford) Sidebotham, J. W. (Cheshire)
Jones, W. (Carnarvonshire) Mount, Wm, George Sidebottom, William (Derbysh.)
Kemp, George Muntz, Philip A. Simeon, Sir Barrington
Kenyon, James Murray, Rt. Hn. A. G. (Bute) Smith, Abel H. (Christchurch)
Kenyon-Slaney, Col. Wm. Murray, C. J. (Coventry) Smith, Hon. F. D. (Strand)
King, Sir H. Seymour Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath) Stanley, Edward Jas. (Somerset)
Lafone, Alfred Myers, William Henry Stanley, Lord (Lancs)
Laurie, Lieut.-General Newdigate, Francis Alexander Stewart Sir Mark J. M 'Taggart
Lawrence, Sir E. Durning-(Corn Nicholson, William Graham Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M.
Lawson, John Grant (Yorks) Nicol, Donald Ninian Stone, Sir Benjamin
Lea, Sir T. (Londonderry) Northcote, Hon. Sir H. S. Strauss, Arthur
Lees, Sir E. (Birkenhead) Oldroyd, Mark Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley
Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie Orr-Ewing, Chas. Lindsay Sturt, Hon. Humphry Napier
Llewellyn, E. H. (Somerset) Pease, Herbert P. (Darlington) Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)
Loder, Gerald W. Erskine Pender, Sir James Thornton, Percy M.
Long, Col. C. W. (Evesham) Pierpoint, Robert Tollemache, Henry James
Long, Rt. Hon. W. (Liverpool) Pilkington, Richard Tomlinson, Wm. Edw. Murray
Lopes, Henry Yarde Buller Pirie, Duncan V. Valentia, Viscount
Lorne, Marquess of Pollock, Harry Fredk. Vincent, Col. Sir. C. E. H.
Lowe, Francis William Pretyman, Ernest George Wanklyn, James Leslie
Lowles, John Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. E. Warde, Lt.-Col. C. E. (Kent)
Loyd, Archie Kirkman Purvis, Robert Warr, Augustus Frederick
Lucas-Shadwell, William Quilter, Sir Cuthbert Webster, Sir R. E. (I. of W.)
Macartney, W. G. Ellison Rasch, Major Fredk. Carne Welby, Lieut.-Col. A. C. E.
Macdona, John Cumming Rentoul, James Alexander Wentworth, Bruce C. Vernon-
Maclure, Sir J. William Richards, Henry Charles Whiteley, H. (Ashton-under-L.)
M'Calmont, Col. J. (Antrim, E. Richardson, Sir T. (Hartlep'l) Williams, Joseph Powell (Birm.
M'Iver, Sir L (Edinburgh, W Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson Willox, Sir John Archibald
M'Laren, C. Benjamin Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion) Wilson, John (Falkirk)
Malcoln, Ian Robertson, Herbert (Hackney) Wilson-Todd, Wm. H. (Yorks.)
Martin, R. Biddulph Round, James Wodehouse, Rt. Hn. E. R. (Bath
Massey-Mainwaring, Hn. W. I. Royds, Clement Molyneux Wortley, Rt. Hn. C. B. Stuart-
Mellor, Colonel (Lancashire) Russell, Gen. F. S. (Cheltenham) Wyvill, Marmaduke D'Arcy
Meysey-Thompson, Sir H. M. Russell, T. W. (Tyrone)
Middlemore, J. Throgmorton Rutherford, John TELLERS FOR THE AYES—
Milward, Colonel Victor Ryder, John Herbert Dudley Sir William Walrond and Mr. Anstruther.
Monckton, Edward Philip Sandys, Lieut.-Col. Thos. Myles
NOES.
Abraham, William (Cork, N. E. Haldane, Richard Burdon Roberts, J. H. (Denbighsh.)
Allen, W. (Newc.-under-Lyme Hedderwick, Thomas C. H. Robson, William Snowdon
Allison, Robert Andrew Holland, Wm. H. (York, W. R.) Samuel J. (Stockton-on-Tees)
Asquith, Rt. Hn. Herbert H. Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley) Shaw, Chas. Edw. (Stafford)
Balfour, Rt Hn J. B. (Clackm.) Jones, David B. (Swansea) Sinclair, Capt. J. (Forfarshire)
Barlow, John Emmott Lambert, George Souttar, Robinson
Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire) Langley, Batty Spicer, Albert
Billson, Alfred Leese, Sir J. F. (Accrington) Steadman, William Charles
Birrell, Augustine Leng, Sir John Stevenson, Francis S.
Bolton, Thomas Dolling Macaleese, Daniel Strachey, Edward
Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson M'Arthur Wm. (Cornwall) Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)
Bryce, Rt. Hn. James M'Ghee, Richard Thomas, Alfred (Glamorgan, E)
Buxton, Sydney Charles M'Leod, John Thomas, David Alf. (Merthyr)
Caldwell, James Maddison, Fred. Trevelyan, Charles Philips
Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H. Maden, John Henry Ure, Alexander
Causton, Richard Knight Mendl, Sigismund Ferdinand Wallace Robert (Perth)
Clark, Dr. G. B. (Caithness-sh.) Moss, Samuel Warner, Thomas C. T.
Clough, Walter Owen Norton, Capt. Cecil William Wedderburn, Sir William
Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan O'Connor, Arthur (Donegal) Whittaker, Thomas Palmer
Donelan, Captain A. Palmer, George W. (Reading) Wilson, John (Govan)
Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark) Pease, Alfred E. (Cleveland) Wilson, J. H. (Middlesbrough)
Evans, Samuel T. (Glamorgan) Pease, Joseph A. (Northumb.) Woods, Samuel
Ferguson, R. C. Munro (Leith) Pease, Sir Joseph W. (Durham) Yoxall, James Henry
Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond Philipps, John Wynford
Foster, Sir W. (Derby Co.) Pickersgill, Edward Hare TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr. M'Kenna and Mr Lough.
Galloway, William Johnson Power, Patrick Joseph
Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert J. Provand, Andrew Dryburgh
Goddard, Daniel Ford Rickett, J. Compton
AYES.
Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir A. F. Godson, Sir Augustus Fredk. Nicholson, William Graham
Allhusen, Augustus H. E. Goldsworthy, Major-General Nicol, Donald Ninian
Anstruther, H. T. Gordon, Hon. John Edward Northcote, Hon. Sir H. S.
Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John Goschen, Geo. J. (Sussex) O'Connor, Arthur (Donegal)
Bagot, Capt. Joceline FitzRoy Goulding, Edw. Alfred Pierpoint, Robert
Bailey, James (Walworth) Graham, Henry Robert Pollock, Harry Fredk.
Balcarres, Lord Green W. D. (Wednesbury) Pretyman, Ernest George
Balfour, Rt. Hn. A. J. (Manch'r Greene, W. Raymond- (Cambs. Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edwd.
Banbury, Fredk. George Hamilton, Rt. Hon. Lord G. Purvis, Robert
Barry, Rt Hn A H Smith-'(Hunts Hanson, Sir Reginald Rasch, Major Fredk. Carne
Barton, Dunbar Plunket Hardy, Laurence Rentoul, James Alexander
Bathurst, Hon. A. Benjamin Heath, James Richards, Henry Charles
Bethell, Commander Holder, Augustus Richardson, Sir Thos. (Hartlep'l)
Blundell, Colonel Henry Henderson, Alexander Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson
Boscawen, Arthur Griffith- Hermon-Hodge, R. Trotter Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)
Brassey, Albert Hozier, Hon. J. H. Cecil Round, James
Cavendish, R. F. (N. Lancs.) Hubbard, Hon Evelyn Russell, T. W. (Tyrone)
Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbysh.) Johnston, Wm. (Belfast) Ryder, John Herbert Dudley
Cecil, Lord H. (Greenwich) Johnstone, Heywood (Sussex) Sandys, Lieut.-Col. Thos. Myles
Chaloner, Capt. R. G. W. Jolliffe, Hon. H. George Scoble, Sir Andrew Richard
Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. (Birm. Kenyon-Slaney, Col. Wm. Scely, Charles Hilton
Chamberlain, J. A. (Worc'r) Lafone, Alfred Sharpe, William Edward T.
Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry Laurie, Lieut.-General Sidebotham, J. W. (Cheshire)
Charrington, Spencer Lawrence, Sir E. Durning-(Corn Sidebottom, William (Derbysh
Clare, Octavius Leigh Lawson, John Grant (Yorks) Simeon, Sir Barrington
Cochrane, Hon. T. H. A. E. Leigh-Bennett, H. Currie Smith, Abel H. (Christchureh)
Smith, Hn. F. W. D. (Strand)
Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse Leighton, Stanley Stanley, Edward Jas. (Somerset
Colston, Chas. F. H. A. Llewellyn, E. H. (Somerset) Stanley, Lord (Lancs)
Cornwallis, Fiennes Stanley W Long, Rt. Hon. W. (Liverpool) Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley
Cranborne, Viscount Lopes, Henry Yarde Buller Sturt, Hon. Humphrey Napier
Cripps, Charles Alfred Lowles, John Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)
Cross, H. Shepherd (Bolton) Loyd, Archie Kirkman Talbot, Rt. Hn. J. G. (Oxf'd.Un.)
Dalbiac, Col. Philip Hugh Lucas-Shadwell, William Tollemache, Henry James
Dalrymple, Sir Charles Macaleese, Daniel Tomlinson, Wm. Edw. Murray
Davies, Sir H. D. (Chatham) Macartney, W. G. Ellison Valentia, Viscount
Digby, J. K. D. (Wingfield) Macdona, John Cumming Walrond, Rt. Hn. Sir Wm. H.
Dorington, Sir J. Edward Maclure, Sir J. William Wanklyn, James Leslie
Douglas, Rt. Hn. A. Akers- M'Iver, Sir L. (Edinburgh, W. Warde, Lieut.-Col. C. E. (Kent)
Doxford, Wm. Theodore Martin, R. Biddulph Webster, Sir R. E. (I. of W.)
Duncombe, Hon. H. V. Massey-Mainwaring, Hn. W. F Welby, Lieut.-Col. A. C. E'
Fardell, Sir T. George Milward, Colonel Victor Whiteley, H. (Ashton-under-L.)
Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn E. Monckton, Edward Philip Williams, Joseph Powell-(Birm.
Field, Admiral (Eastbourne) Montagu, Hn. J. Scott (Hants) Willox, Sir John Archibald
Finch, George H. More, R. J (Shropshire) Wilson, John (Falkirk)
Fisher, William Hayes Morton, A. H. A. (Deptford) Wortley, Rt. Hn. C. B. Stuart-
Flannery, Sir Fortescue Mount, Wm. George Wyvill, Marmaduke D'Arcy
Folkestone, Viscount Muntz, Philip A.
Garfit, William Murray, Rt. Hn. A. G. (Bute) TELLERS FOR THE AYES—
Gibbs, Hn. A. G. H. (C. of Lond.) Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath) Mr. Jeffreys and Lord
Gibbs, Hon. V. (St. Albans) Newdigate, Francis Alexander Edmund Talbot.
NOES.
Asquith, Rt. Hn. Herbert H. Evans, Samuel T. (Glamorgan) Leese, Sir J. F. (Accrington)
Balfour, Rt Hn J. B. (Clackm.) Ferguson, R. C. Munro(Leith) Lewis, J. Herbert
Barlow, John Emmott Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond Lloyd-George, David
Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire) Foster, Sir W. (Derby Co.) McKenna, Reginald
Billson, Alfred Goddard, Daniel Ford M'Leod, John
Birrell, Augustine Gray, Ernest (West Ham) Maddison, Fred.
Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson Gull, Sir Cameron Mellor, Colonel (Lancashire)
Bryce, Rt. Hn. James Haldane, Richard Rurdon Mendl, Sigismund Ferdinand
Burns, John Hayne, Rt. Hon. C. Seale- Morgan, J. L. (Carmarthen)
Buxton, Sydney Charles Hedderwick, Thomas C. H. Morgan, W. P. (Merthyr)
Caldwell, James Holland, Wm. H. (York, W.R.) Morton, E. J. C. (Devonport)
Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H. Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley) Moss, Samuel,
Causton, Richard Knight Jones, William (Carnarvonshir Oldroyd, Mark
Clark, Dr. G. B. (Caithness-sh.) Kenyon, James Orr-Ewing, C. Lindsay
Clough, Walter Owen Lambert, George Palmer, George Wm. (Reading)
Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark) Langley, Batty Pease, H. Pike (Darlington)
Pease, Joseph A. (Northumb.) Sinclair, Capt. J. (Forfarshire) Whittaker, Thomas Palmer
Pilkington, Richard Stevenson, Francis S. Wilson, H. J. (Yorks, W. R.)
Pirie, Duncan V. Thomas, Alfred (Glamorgan, E) Woods, Samuel
Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion) Thomas, David Alf. (Merthyr)
Roberts, John H. (Denbighsh.) Trevelyan, Charles Philips TELLERS FOR THE NOES— Mr. Herbert Gladstone and Mr. M'Arthur.
Royds, C. Molyneux Ure, Alexander
Samuel J. (Stockton-on-Tees) Warner, Thomas C. T.
Shaw, Chas. Edw. (Stafford). Wedderburn, Sir William
To be presented by Privy Councillors and such Members as are of Her Majesty's Household.