HC Deb 27 February 1899 vol 67 cc630-45

Member for the Borough of Northampton, rose in his place, and asked leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance, viz., The persistent refusal of the Managers of the only school in the urban district of St. James, Northamptonshire, to admit above 300 children of the ratepayers of the district into this school on the sole ground of their wearing a medal, thus rendering the parents of these children unable to fulfil the obligations imposed on them by law; but the pleasure of the House not having been signified, MR. SPEAKER called on those Members who supported the Motion to rise in their places, and not less than 40 Members having accordingly risen.

Motion made—"That the House do now adjourn."—(Mr. Labouchere.)


In spite of the laughter of honourable Gentlemen opposite, I am convinced that this is a matter of urgent public importance. It is not only urgent to the inhabitants of Northamptonshire, but it is also urgent to Dissenters in every part of the country. The case, Sir, is this: St. James End is a suburb of Northampton, containing about 6,000 inhabitants. It is in the Parliamentary Borough of Northampton, but it is not in the Municipal Borough. This suburb is attached to the school district of Dunstan Cross, and there are also two agricultural villages in the district, with the result that although, I am given to understand, the majority of the inhabitants of this urban district are in favour of Board schools, they are outvoted by the agricultural voters in the two villages outside. There is, therefore, at, present only a Church of England school there. The Church of England school is, I believe, a most estimable school, after the manner of Church of England schools. It spends £1,650 a year, and its annual subscriptions are £40 a year. In September last 150 children of Nonconformists declared, through their parents, their intention of withdrawing for the period of religious instruction. At the same time there was a conscience-class school established just opposite, where the children went to learn the leanings of their particular religion during the period that the religious instruction was given in the school. By Christmas this number had increased to about 350, 300 of whom were taught in this little conscience class, while about 50 went to the Board schools in Northampton. The numbers are exceedingly large, the House will observe—300 taught in this way in, the little room opposite the schools. Well, the conscience school met, I think, at nine o'clock, and at half-past nine the children went to be registered. On account of their number, there was some difficulty in marking them in. Consequently the heads of the conscience school thought a very simple plan would be to have a medal, upon, which was the number of the child, and by which means it would be possible to ascertain quickly how many children were present. The medal was issued on 22nd December, just before the holidays, which ended on 9th January. On that occasion—namely, 9th January—the children went across from this little school to the large Church of England school with the medals on them. They were told by the teachers to take them off. The children, like all Northampton parents—very much amenable to the law—took off the medals, but there was one little girl who had strong views on the subject—or perhaps I ought to say that her mother had strong views on the subject, for she had sewn the medal on to the child's pinafore. The pinafore was taken off, a pair of scissors was placed in her hands, and, under the eyes of the schoolmistress, the girl was forced to cut the medal off the pinafore, thus injuring the pinafore. The girl, still feeling that she ought to obey the direct orders of her mother, put the medal on again, upon which she was caned and otherwise punished. Of course, this excited a great deal of indignation among the parents, and on the following day they told their children to wear the medals. They therefore presented themselves with the medals, but were refused admission, and had been locked out ever since. Now there is an inscription on this medal. The inscription, I believe, is a very sound one, and though I do not wear medals myself, I should be proud to have such an inscription on any medal of mine. It is, "We want a Board school." But the inscription has nothing to do with the question. The managers have laid down that these children are not to he admitted if they wear any medal whatsoever, as is clear from the following notice which has been served on the parents— January 12th. Dear Sir,—I have to inform you that the wearing of medals"—[not this medal, hut "medals"]—"is contrary to the rules of the St. James's School. I am compelled, therefore, to refuse your children admission as long as they come to school wearing medals. Well, Sir, that is a very remarkable order to give, because we know perfectly well that there are medals—or ribbons identical with medals—which children do wear. I believe there are children who belong to the White Cross Society, who wear white medals, and children belonging to the Band of Hope, who wear blue medals, and everybody knows that Catholic children very often wear medals, or a cross, bearing the words "Ave Maria." And am I told that the managers of a Voluntary school are to say that the children attending it shall not wear medals? It is absurd. But it is even worse than it appears, because I am credibly informed that a great many ritualistic curates appear in these Voluntary Church of England schools wearing crosses. Are curates to be allowed to wear an equivalent to a medal showing their views with regard to religion, and the children to be refused? Sir, I have had an interview with my right honourable Friend the Vice-President of the Council. The Vice-President of the Council was very conciliatory, I admit, but he was firm. He said, as I gathered, that the managers were right, or that they were not so far wrong that he ought to interfere in the matter. But that is not the point. For many years this school has been kept entirely by funds and subscriptions from the State. The children have only this school to go to, and many parents feel that they would not be fulfilling their proper obligations if their children were not cancelled there. We know perfectly well what happens in country districts where there is a Church of England school only—the clergyman is the great man of the place; there is no one to interfere with him. Put if you allow this inroad upon the rights of Nonconformists in a suburb of Northampton, we can well imagine what will take place in country schools. The children, as I have said, have this little conscience school, where they attend to the number of about 300. It may be asked, Why don't they go to the Board schools of Northampton? Well, the reason is that the nearest Board school is a mile and a quarter from St. James End. That is a long way to send little children; and in the nearest school there is no room for them. The other school is a mile and a half distant, in addition to which the road is very bad, and there is a great deal of traffic upon it. It would, therefore, be very undesirable, and almost impossible, to compel little children to trudge through a long country road, backwards and forwards, to school. The parents, therefore, are in this position—they are stopped from fulfilling their legal obligations, and, as I say, stopped unfairly and improperly, and yet the Department will not interfere and put an end to this state of things. I quite admit that I think it would be desirable if St. James End were separated from the rural villages by making it a school district, or joining it to the Board school district of Northampton; and if the right honourable Gentleman the Vice-President will assure me that he will alter the present arrangement, and that in future—or as soon as possible; I do not mention any particular time—St. James End shall have a school district of its own, or that it shall be added to. Northampton, I will not press the matter, but will even try and arrange some sort of modus vivendi. I will go so far as to say that I will urge the parents—notwithstanding their undoubted rights—to withdraw this medal for the time being. Sir, I want the House clearly to understand what I am moving the Adjournment for. The question is not whether these children are to be allowed this particular medal with this particular inscription, but whether they are to be allowed to wear any medal. To my mind, the action of the managers at St. James End imposes not merely a disability, but an insult upon the parents, and I contend that the right honourable Gentleman ought to tell them that the present state of affairs is not to continue. Putting aside the fact that it is very possible that parents may be liable to pains and penalties, it really is a sad thing that you should, have a school maintained almost entirely by the State, and yet that there should be 300 little children turned adrift into the streets day after day, and not able to get any sort of education except the little voluntary education which is given them. In order to meet the difficulty, the children ought to be allowed to go into this school—that is the point—with their medals or without them; and unless I receive a satisfactory assurance from the right honourable Gentleman, I shall take the sense of the House upon the matter.

MR. CHANNING (Northampton, E.)

Representing, as I do, an adjoining constituency to that of the honourable Member for Northampton, and having interested myself in this subject, I should like to say a few words in seconding his proposal for the Adjournment of the House. The question is, after all, a very simple one. The State has paid £1,660 a year for the education of certain children in this district, while the voluntary contributions are only £37 10s., and yet the children of this school are being deprived of the education which has been paid for in this enormous proportion by the taxpayers of the State. The right honourable Gentleman who represents the State, in his reply this afternoon, so far as I understand, accepts the managers' excuse as a reasonable cause for their withholding the education that they have contracted to give these 300 or 400 children, and for which the State is paying £45 down for every subscriber's £1, and says that the wearing of a simple little medal or badge on the breasts of these children is a sufficient reason for these managers refusing to fulfil the contract. That is the point, Mr. Speaker, and it is a point which the right honourable Gentleman cannot fly away from with his usual jests and subterfuges. [Ministerial laughter, and cries of "Oh!"] I am sorry I have betrayed myself into an expression of that kind, and I will withdraw any word that may be considered in the least offensive to the right honourable Gentleman. I do, however, want the House to realise that what is apparently a trivial question, which honourable Members opposite laugh at, is a very serious question indeed. These children are being withdrawn by their parents, under the law of the land—under the 7th section of the Education Act of 1870. They are perfectly within their right in withdrawing those children from the religious instruction of the school, and having at the same time the benefit of the whole of the secular instruction. Now, Sir, my honourable Friend has laboured this case somewhat before the House, but I would ask the indulgence of the House for a moment while I say one or two words about it. I should like to ask the right honourable Gentleman specifically whether, in the first place, he admits that the managers of any school can make any rules they please as to the apparel children shall wear, or shall not wear? The right honourable Gentleman shakes his head. I am very glad he does, because I have always regarded him as a man of intellectual force. I would, however, remind him that his inspector, at the somewhat farcical inquiry he held at Northampton, said that it was perfectly within the right of managers to make any rule whatsoever with regard to the schools. I was reading the other day the very interesting auto biography of my honourable Friend the Member for North-West Norfolk (Mr. Arch), edited by Lady Warwick. In that book there is a description of a Warwickshire parson, who imposed upon all the children in the village school a certain way of cutting their hair. The mother of my honourable Friend the Member for North-West Norfolk was, however, a plucky Nonconformist, and she had the courage to face the parson's wife, and the result was that this absurd regulation was knocked on the head. I would ask the right honourable Gentleman whether he would have approved of rules like that? I would also ask him whether these managers have said that they would allow no medals whatever to he worn in the school? In 1897 these children were allowed to wear the Jubilee medals in the school, and my honourable Friend has referred to the case of Catholic children. Suppose a committee of managers of an extremely anti-Catholic type were to pass a rule that no Catholic child should appear in the Church of England schools with a cross or one of the innocent little medals of the the Catholic religious societies—a badge indicating the particular religion of the wearer? Surely the right honourable Gentleman would not accept that as a sufficient reason for excluding a child from school. Now, Sir, I contend that there is animus behind the whole of these proceedings. I wish the right honourable Gentleman the Member for Dartford had been in his place. He would have remembered, if the present Vice-President does not, that I drew the attention of the House to a similar case six or seven years ago, where parents had withdrawn their children under the Conscience Clause from the religious teaching in the Church school at Ringstead, in Northamptonshire. The clergyman in that case was as despotic in his treatment of those children as the clergyman in the present case. When the children returned to the school after the religious teaching they were each day humiliated by being put at the bottom of the class. Now, I drew the attention of the then Vice-President, the right honourable Gentleman the Member for Dartford, to the case, and he very frankly said that it would be a breach of the Conscience Clause, and he righted the matter. Well, Sir, I say this matter is very much more serious. It is not a matter of treating these children with disparagement and with contumely in the school; it is a matter of depriving them by this shallow and miserable pretext of these medals of the education which they are entitled to receive, and which the right honourable Gentleman is paid his salary by the country to see that they are receiving and will receive. Now, Sir, I should like to know whether the right honourable Gentleman is the man who ought to challenge the right to use some distinctive badge, when he was responsible for the introduction of the Education Bill of 1806, which came to so miserable a fate in the House. That Bill contained a clause, as many honourable Members will recollect, in which it was provided that religious teachers of all denominations should have access to the schools, and have the children of their particular denomination set aside and marked off from the others. The 27th clause of the Education Bill provided that the religious teacher should have access to the schools.




Well, the right honourable Gentleman can explain his Bill again in any way he pleases, but the impression on my mind is—


Order, order! The honourable Member is travelling away from the subject of the Debate.


Mr. Speaker, with all respect, I would submit to you that my argument is this—that, in order to carry out the object which proposed, in the 27th clause of the Hill of 1896—namely, to have separate religious teaching in the schools by the teachers of various denominations, it would be necessary to have some mark of distinction on the different sets of children. It would be almost impossible to work that clause without some kind of distinctive badge. That is the sole object with which I desire to put that question. I think it is perfectly clear that these people are acting in a practical and reasonable spirit in wishing to have some token or badge on these 300 or 400 children, so that they may be taken off to their own schoolroom and taught there. Now, Sir, I have read the speech of the Rev. Mr. Hurrell, in which he refers to the whole question of the withdrawal of these children, and anyone reading that speech will see the animus there is behind the whole of these proceedings. The order with reference to the medals is a pretext associated with other humiliations imposed on children and their parents, with the set purpose of coercing the children back into the flock of the Rev. Mr. Hurrell to learn his catechism. It is a policy of coercion from beginning to end, and nothing but coercion. To forbid 300 or 400 children to enter the schools because they wear a medal is a miserable pettifogging pretext to oppress humble Nonconformists, and deprive them of the educational advantages the law allows.


Mr. Speaker, this is a very small matter on which to move the adjournment of the House, but it is one which deserves the attention of the House, because it is a novel and, I think, not at all a praiseworthy method of carrying on the agitation in favour of Board schools. The people of St. James' End are prompted by outside influence, and largely by a society of which, I believe, the honourable Member who has just spoken is a distinguished member.


If the right honourable Gentleman refers to the Education League in Northampton, I have nothing to do with it. I am a member of the Northamptonshire County Education League, founded by Lord Spencer, but that association has taken no official part whatever in these proceedings.


It is one of its ramifications. The agitation began after the election in August last, in which the School Board party were defeated, and one of the first steps was to withdraw more than 300 children from the school under the Conscience Clause. Here let me say that there has been a great deal of misapprehension among honourable Members about the power of the Conscience Clause. There is a right to withdraw children from religious infraction, but not to withdraw them from a school.


Will the right honourable Gentleman allow me to explain? The managers have no accommodation for separate teachings; they have one schoolroom only.


I understand that the managers of the Church schools are very glad to allow the teaching of the children in the conscience school. The difficulty often arises in various parts of England and Wales, and the state of the law is not at all satisfactory. School Boards are within their right in making such arrangements as they please as to the time for religious instruction. I will give the House an illustration of what occurred in a village school a short time ago. A little Nonconformist girl was separated from the rest of the village school at the time of religious instruction, but, woman-like, she paid especial attention to what she was forbidden to hear, and when the time came for the annual examination by the diocesan inspector, that little girl went in for the Scripture examination, and won the prize. The House will remember that in 1896 the Government tried to induce the House of Commons to assent to a real Conscience Clause which would allow children not only to be withdrawn from religious instruction, but to have such religious instruction as the parents preferred, and this clause would have made absolutely legal the course taken by the Nonconformists at St. James's End. But that clause was bitterly opposed. And who opposed it? The very Nonconformist Party who now complain of the inefficiency of the existing Conscience Clause. Well, the next step taken by the Education League of Northampton was to send children to school decorated with medals, a specimen of which I hold in my hand. Everybody knows how easy it is by giving children emblems to make violent partisans of them. If you give them a piece of ribbon or a rosette to wear you may turn them into partisans of almost any cause you like. But what a pity to do so! How much a proceeding of that kind interferes with the good order and discipline of a school. The honourable Member for Northampton mentioned the fact that the little girl was punished. I regret that she should have been punished for refusing to obey the order to take the medal off, but I would ask right honourable Members to carry their recollection back to their boyhood days, and think of what would have been the fate of a boy who refused to remove a medal or party emblem when told to do so by his class-master. Well, this medal was intended to indicate that the little girl was taking a particular side in the contest that was going on. The Department sent down the senior chief inspector, who was, of course, the best official we could send, and who was entirely impartial in the matter, because he happened to be neither a Nonconformist nor a Churchman. The inspector reported to me that this particular medal was provocative and intended to provoke. The honourable Member has asked me what rules managers may make for observance in their schools. They may make such rules as they think fit and which are reasonably necessary for the maintenance of discipline and good order in their schools. The Committee of Council are of opinion that a rule which prohibits children from wearing medals which are provocative or intended to provoke, so long as it is impartially administered on both sides, is a very good rule, and sufficient reason for managers and teachers refusing to allow children wearing such medals in their schools. Where there is risk of quarrel and in this case there had been fights already—I think it is perfectly reasonable—and I hope the House of Commons will admit it—for the managers to prohibit partisan medals altogether. But I have a great authority on this subject. The honourable Member for Northampton has himself written a letter—I read the letter at the time it was written—in which there is some extremely good sense. I will read a sentence to the House— Apart from the question of a School Board the question seems to me to be this: Have the children the right to wear a medal of a Party and controversial character?


I had some doubt whether it could be done without the permission of the right honourable Gentleman, and I wondered whether the right honourable Gentleman was prepared to give the permission.


The honourable Gentleman thought, at all events, that there was a great deal of doubt about it. I myself have inquired through a senior chief inspector, and I have no doubt about it. The Education Department, though they much regret the unfortunate quarrel going on in Northampton, are perfectly prepared to support the managers of the schools. Now, may I say one word in the hope that this unfortunate difference may be put an end to? I do not blame the children of Northampton, and I do not very much blame the parents, because, as I say, they have been worked upon by outside influence. But I do blame the noblemen and gentlemen and Members of Parliament who have encouraged them to carry on this unfortunate quarrel in which the children are the only sufferers. The battle between the Voluntary schools and the Board schools will, I suppose, continue to be waged through all our time. Let us carry it on by all legitimate means, but don't let us bring the children into it. So far as I know, there is no religious difficulty between the teachers and the parents. I have not had one single instance brought to my notice in which the religious difficulty has not been imported from the outside from political motives, and if the honourable Members for Northampton and Northamptonshire will only use their influence to induce the parents of these children to let their children return to school, I am quite sure they will consent in a moment. The moment outside influence is withdrawn I believe the children will be allowed to return to school.

MR. LLOYD-GEORGE (Carnarvon)

I have only one word to add to the Debate. I should like to point out to the House that the right honourable Gentleman very cleverly evaded the whole issue. The question is not whether these children, by wearing the medal, have been guilty of a breach of discipline, but whether that breach of discipline has been sufficient to justify the managers of the schools in excluding

them from the educational advantages provided by the State. The ruling which has been laid down by the Department is to the effect that breaches of discipline should be met by the ordinary laws. How is it that the rule laid down by the Privv Council does not apply to this particular case? I venture to submit to the House that the special rule has been made in order to assist the clergyman who happens to manage this school to use too much influence over the children in the matter of religious instruction.

SIR J. BRENNER (Cheshire, Northwich)

I understand that the honourable Member for Northampton will withdraw his Motion to-day if he can get a satisfactory answer from the right honourable Gentleman the Vice-President of the Council. Whether my honourable Friend thinks that he will receive a satisfactory answer or not, I really do not know. I am bound to say, Sir, that the answer that he has received is not satisfactory to me. My honourable Friend the Member for Northamptonshire when he said that there was animus behind this matter, encountered a cheer from the other side. I was pleased to hear it, and I am very much obliged to the honourable Member for giving honourable Gentlemen opposite an opportunity to cheer and laugh. There is animus, Sir, and I shall give my vote in favour of the Motion of my honourable Friend in order to protest against clericalism, and I shall take care to represent any votes given against the Motion as votes of approval of clericalism. Many honourable Gentlemen have a large proportion of Dissenters among their constituents, and I give them distinct notice that I intend to do so.

Question put— That this House do now adjourn."—(Mr. Labouchere.)

The House divided:—Ayes 99; Noes 201. (Division List, No. 21.).

Abraham, Wm. (Cork, N. E.) Wake, Edward Clough, Walter Owen
Allan, William (Gateshead) Brunner, Sir J. Tomlinson Colville, John
Allen, W.(Newc.-under-Lyme) Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn Commins, Andrew
Allison, Robert Andrew Burt, Thomas Crombie, John William
Asher, Alexander Caldwell, James Daly, James
Atherley-Jones, L. Cameron, Sir Chas. (Glasgow) Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan)
Austin, Sir John (Yorkshire) Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H. Davitt, Michael
Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire) Causton, Richard Knight Dillon, John
Birrell, Augustine Clark, Dr. G. B. (Caithness-sh.) Donelan, Captain A.
Duckworth, James M'Kenna, Reginald Spicer, Albert
Farquharson, Dr. Robert Mappin, Sir Fredk. Thorpe Stanhope, Hon. Philip J.
Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmund Mellor, Rt. Hn. J. W. (Yorks.) Steadman, William Charles
Goddard, Daniel Ford Mendl, Sigismund Ferdinand Stevenson, Francis S.
Gold, Charles Morton, E. J. C. (Devonport) Strachey, Edward
Grey, Sir Edward (Berwick) O'Brien, James F. X. (Cork) Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)
Hayne, Rt. Hon Chas. Scale- O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny) Thomas, A. (Glamorgan, E.)
Hazell, Walter O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool) Wallace, Robert (Perth)
Hedderwick, Thomas C. H. Palmer, Sir C. M. (Durham) Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)
Hemphill, Rt. Hon. C. H. Perks, Robert Willliam Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.
Holland, W. H. (York, W.R.) Pickard, Benjamin Wedderburn, Sir William
Jacoby, James Alfrel Pickersgill, Edward Hare Weir, James Galloway
Jones, D. Brynmor (Swansea) Power, Patrick Joseph Whittaker, Thomas Palmer
Kearley, Hudson E. Price, Robert John Williams, J. Carvell (Notts.)
Kinloch, Sir J. George Smyth Priestley, Briggs (Yorks.) Wills, Sir William Henry
Lambert, George Provand, Andrew Dryburgh Wilson, John (Govan)
Lawson, Sir W. (Cumberland) Rickett, J. Compton Wilson, J. H. (Middlesbrough)
Leng, Sir John Roberts, John H. (Denbighs) Woods, Samuel
Lewis, John Herbert Robertson, Edmund (Dundee) Young, Samuel (Cavan, East)
Lloyd-George, David Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees) Yoxall, James Henry
Logan, John William Scott, C. Prestwich (Leigh)
Lough, Thomas Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.) TELLERS FOR THE AYES
Macaleese, Daniel Sinclair. Capt. J. (Forfarshire) Mr. Labouchere and Mr. Channing.
MacNeill, J. Gordon Swift Smith, Samuel (Flint)
M'Arthur, William (Cornwall) Soames, Arthur Wellesley
M'Cartan, Michael Souttar, Robinson
Arehdale, Edward Mervyn Dixon-Hartland, Sir F. Dixon Hobhouse, Henry
Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John Dorington, Sir John Edward Holland, Hn. Lionel R. (Bow)
Bagot, Capt. J. FitzRoy Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers- Howard, Joseph
Bailey, James (Walworth) Drage, Geoffrey Howell, William Tudor
Baird, John George Alexander Drucker, A. Hozier, Hon. James H. Cecil
Balcarres, Lord Duncombe, Hon. Hubert V. Hubbard, Hon. Evelyn
Balfour, Rt. Hn. A.J. (Manch'r) Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton Hutton, John (Yorks. N.R.)
Balfour, Rt. Hn. G.W. (Leeds) Elliot. Hon. A. R. Douglas Jeffreys, Arthur Frederick
Banbury, Frederick George Fardell, Sir T. George Jessel, Capt. Herbert Merton
Barnes, Frederic Gorell Fergusson, Rt. Hn. Sir J. (Manc'r Johnston, William (Belfast)
Barry,Rt. Hn. A.H. Smith-(Hunts) Finch, George H. Kemp, George
Barry, Sir F. T. (Windsor) Finlay, Sir R. Bannatyne Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir J. H.
Bartley, George C. T. Fisher, William Hayes Kenyon, James
Barton, Dunbar Plunket Fison, Frederick William Kenyon-Slaney, Col. Wm.
Beach, Rt. Hn. Sir M.H. (Bristol) Flannery, Sir Fortescue Kimber, Henry
Beckett, Ernest William Fletcher, Sir Henry Knowles, Lees
Bethell, Commander Flower, Ernest Lafone, Alfred
Bhownaggree, Sir M. M. Folkestone, Viscount Laurie, Lieut.-General
Biddulph, Michael Foster, Harry S. (Suffolk) Lawrence, SirE.Durning-(Corn
Bill, Charles Fry, Lewis Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool)
Blundell, Colonel Henry Galloway, William Johnson Lawson. John Grant (Yorks.)
Bolitho, Thomas Bedfo'rd Garfit, William Lecky, Rt. Hon. W. Edw. H.
Bonsor, Henry Cosmo Orme Gibbs, Hn. A.G. H.(City Lond.) Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie
Boscawen, Arthur Griffith- Giles, Charles Tyrrell Leighton, Stanley
Boulnois, Edmund Gilliat, John Saunders Llewellyn, Evan H. (Somerset)
Bowles, T. G. (King's Lynn) Goldsworthy, Major-General Llewelyn, Sir Dillwyn-(Swansea
Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John Gordon, Hon. John Edward Lockwood, Lt.-Col. A. R.
Cavendish, R. F. (N. Thanes.) Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir. J. Eldon Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine
Cecil, Evelyn (Hertford, East) Goschen,RtHn G.J. (St.Geo.'s) Long, Col. C. W. (Evesham)
Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich) Goschen, George J. (Sussex) Long, Rt. Hon. W. (Liverpool)
Chaloner, Captain R. G. W. Goulding, Edward Alfred Lopes, Henry Yarde Duller
Chamberlain, J. A. (Worc'r) Gray, Ernest (West Ham) Lowe, Francis William
Chelsea, Viscount Green, W D. (Wednesbury) Lowles, John
Cochrane, Hon. T. H. A. E. Gull, Sir Cameron Lowther, Rt. Hon. Jas. (Kent)
Coghill, Douglas Harry Hall, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles Loyd, Archie Kirkman
Cohen, Benjamin Louis Halsey, Thomas Frederick Lubbock, Rt. Hon. Sir John
Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse Hamilton, Rt. Hon. Lord Geo. Lucas-Shadwell, William
Cornwallis, Fiennes Stanley W. Hanbury, Rt. Hon. Rbt. Wm. Macartney, W. G. Ellison
Cripps, Charles Alfred Haslett, Sir James Horner Macdona, John Gumming
Cross, H. Shepherd (Bolton) Hatch, Ernest Frederick Geo. MacIver, David (Liverpool)
Cubitt, Hon. Henry Heath, James M'Calmont, H. L. B. (Cambs.)
Curran, Thomas B. (Donegal) Heaton, John Henniker M'Iver, Sir L. (Edinburgh,W.)
Curzon, Viscount Hermon-Hodge, Rbt. Trotter Malcolm, Ian
Dalbiac, Colonel Philip Hugh Hill, Rt. Hn. A. S. (Staffs.) Marks, Henry Hananel
Dalrymple, Sir Charles Hoare, E. Brodie (Hampstead) Middlemore, J. Throgmorton
Davenport, W. Bromley- Hoare, Samuel (Norwich) Mildmay, Francis Bingham
Milner, Sir Fredk. George Russell, Gen. F.S. (Cheltenham) Thorburn, Walter
Monckton, Edward Philip Rutherford, John Thornton, Percy M.
Monk, Charles James Samuel, H. S. (Limehouse) Tritton, Charles Ernest
Moore, Count (Londonderry) Sandys, Lieut.-Col. T. Myles Valentia, Viscount
More, R. Jasper (Shropshire) Savory, Sir Joseph Vincent, Col. Sir C. E. H.
Morton, A. H. A. (Deptford) Seton-Karr, Henry Ward, Hn. Robert A. (Crewe)
Murray, Rt. Hn. A. G. (Bute) Sharpe, William Edward T. Warr, Augustus Frederick
Nicol, Donal Ninian Shaw-Stewart, M.H. (Renfrew) Webster, R. G. (St. Pancras)
Norton, Capt. Cecil Wm. Simeon, Sir Barrington Webster, Sir R.E (I. of Wight)
O'Connor, Arthur (Donegal) Sinclair, Louis (Romford) Wentworth, B. C. Vernon
Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay Smith, Abel H. (Christchurch) Whiteley, George (Stockport)
Pease, H. Pike (Darlington) Smith, J. Parker (Lanarks.) Williams, J. Powell (Birm.)
Phillpotts, Captain Arthur Spencer, Ernest Wortley, Rt. Hn. C.B. Stuart-
Powell, Sir Francis Sharp Stanley, Hon. A. (Ormskirk) Wyndham, George
Priestley, Sir W. O. (Edin.) Stanley, Henry M. (Lambeth) Wyndham-Quin, Major W. H.
Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edw. Stanley, Lord (Lancs.) Wyvill, Marmaduke D'Arcy
Purvis, Robert Stephens, Henry Charles Young, Commander (Berks,E.)
Pym, C. Guy Stock, James Henry
Richards, Henry Charles Strauss, Arthur TELLERS FOR THE NOES
Ritchie, Rt. Hon. C. Thomson Sturt, Hon. Humphrey Napier Sir William Walrond and Mr. Anstruther.
Robinson, Brooke Sutherland, Sir Thomas
Roothschild, Hon. Lionel W. Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)
Round, James Talbot, Rt. Hn. J. G. (Oxf'd Univ