HC Deb 22 May 1900 vol 83 cc888-918
MR. HUMPHREYS-OWEN (Montgomeryshire)

I think the House may congratulate itself on the fact that a considerable change has taken place with regard to this Bill since the motion which stands in my name was put on the Paper. We have now got rid of the somewhat irrelevant questions which related to the Charity Commissioners, for the House has decided that the wish of the promoter's to be released from the control of the Charity Commissioners shall be complied with. But I should like to take this opportunity of saying that I greatly regret that there should be in any part of the House a feeling that the Charity Commissioners have not conducted their educational work with the greatest liberality and with the strongest wish to further educational aims which the statute under which they act allows them to display. We are now free to discuss the more general question raised by this Bill. That question is whether there shall be any, and, if any, what control over the administration of subordinate endowments. I think we may take it for granted that the principle of State control over all subordinate bodies is accepted throughout the whole hierarchy of the Local Government; it is, in fact, accepted by the Treasury itself. The position of the Auditor-General, his independence of the bodies whose accounts he audits, the position of the Auditor of the Local Government Board—


Order, order! The hon. Member appears to be about to enter again on a Second Reading debate. He must confine himself to the question of the propriety of referring this Bill to a Select Committee. He cannot again discuss generally the propriety of the matter being dealt with by the Charity Commissioners.


Perhaps I have been too prolix in laying the foundation of the case I wish to make out in favour of sending this Bill before a Select Committee. What I wish to show is that the protection of the State is east round all subordinate public bodies. Now it being granted, as I think it is, that this great corporation is not to be released altogether from control in regard to the management of its property, and the selling, leasing, or mortgaging of the corporations, the question arises, in whom is the protection to be vested? The Chairman of Ways and Means threw out a suggestion—


That does not arise on this motion. The sole question is, whether the Bill should go in the ordinary way before the Unopposed Bills Committee, or whether it shall be sent to a Select Committee.


And in order that that matter may be discussed fully, I wish to point out the difficulties which the course suggested would entail. I think we are bound to have the matter thoroughly threshed out before the Select Committee. The questions of how far the jurisdiction of the Court of Chancery is ousted by this Bill, how far that is likely to be modified by any amendment to the Bill, and what are likely to be the results of any such modifications, could not possibly, I venture to think, be discussed with any advantage in the House. What we want to do is to bring home to the promoters of the Bill the full responsibility for the interference which they propose with the ordinary law of the land. That can only be brought out by full and free discussion before a Select Committee thoroughly representative of the parties and of all the interests in the House, whose decision would be a precedent for any future legislation of a similar kind. There can be no doubt that if this Bill goes through successfully the House will have a series of Bills of the same kind submitted to it, and it is therefore of the most vital importance that such Bills should be framed in accordance with general principles, and should not be dealt with haphazard. I bog to move, "That the Order for Committee be discharged, and that the Bill be committed to a Select Committee of not less than fifteen members to be appointed by the Committee of Selection; that nine be the quorum; that the Committee have power to send for persons, papers, and records."

MR. HERBERT LEWIS (Flint Boroughs)

I beg to second. The House is now committing itself to a precedent of the greatest possible gravity. The issues are not limited by any moans by the municipal boundaries of Birmingham, and if there ever was a question that ought to be considered carefully in all its bearings, it is the one which this Bill raises. The House has absolutely nothing whatever to lose, while it has everything to gain, by sending this Bill to a Select Committee upstairs. Nobody would suggest for a single moment, except, perhaps, by way of a joke, that this Bill was being pressed through the House practically by the authority of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham simply because Birmingham is chiefly interested in it. This is intended to be a precedent — a precedent of the greatest magnitude, and it will be so regarded I am sure in all quarters of the House. That is the reason we think it should be sent before a Select Committee. A suggestion was made when this Bill was last under discussion that the Court of Chancery should be given certain functions in connection with the control of education in Birmingham under this Bill. It seems to me that that is a question which ought to be very carefully examined. The history of the Court of Chancery with regard to educational schemes in the past has certainly not been such as to inspire confidence. There is another matter which deserves consideration at the hands of the Select Committee. It is right that individuals should have power of appeal for redress in matters of this kind. This Bill provides that an appeal may be made by three governors; but if an individual wishes to obtain redress he will have to proceed at his own expense to move the Court of Chancery, which is a costly process. Where, then, does the redress of the individual come in in such cases? What protection is the House now going to give to the individual? Does not the Leader of the House think that this is a question which in the public interest should be carefully considered by a Committee upstairs? You are taking away the control of the Charity Commissioners, with its accumulated store of experience, and transferring it to a Department which, so far as I know, has not had the slightest experience in matters of this kind. Surely that question also should be inquired into by a Select Committee. The House, without having all the facts before it, is rashly setting its seal to a precedent of enormous magnitude, and I venture to submit that under the circumstances any change should be preceded by a full and careful inquiry into the case and all its bearings, for we know the precedent will hereafter be used in every direction, and that it cannot possibly be held to apply to the city of Birmingham alone.


I propose to put first the question that the Order for Committal be discharged.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Order for the Committal of the Birmingham (King Edward the Sixth) Schools Bill [Lords] be discharged, and that the Bill be committed to a Select Committee." — (Mr. Humphreys-Owen.

SIR JOHN BRUNNER (Cheshire, Northwich)

My hon. friend who moved this motion has asked me to say that he wishes it not to be regarded as hostile to the Bill. He wishes the Members for the City of Birmingham to fully understand that. [Cries of "Oh!"] There is some little incredulity as to that, but I think I shall be able to convince everybody that in this matter we are absolutely sincere. We have all heard with the very greatest interest of the constitution of the Board of Education, and those of us who are interested in education are desirous that every educational institution, whether it be managed by governors of a charity or not, should be under the control of some great central Imperial authority. It is bad that education should be coupled with a system of doles which—


That is hardly the question. The point is, shall this Bill be sent to a Select Committee.


Yes, Sir; and we recommend this motion to the House, first, because it is in no way hostile to the Bill, and secondly, because whether the Bill is intended to be a precedent or not, it will in fact constitute one. I heard one of my friends near me say just now, "Bradford is as good as Birmingham. Why should not the Bradford Grammar School be under the control of the Board of Education as well as Birmingham?" There is one other point I should like to make. On Friday last there was laid on the Table of the House an Order in Council transferring from the Charity Commissioners to the Board of Education a number of the powers of the former body, and I submit that before a Committee passes this Bill it should have that document before it. This Bill is doing something which I hope may be repeated, but I would rather it was not repeated piecemeal. I would rather have all the powers of the Charity Commissioners relating to education transferred en bloc to the Board of Education. I think that would be very much to the advantage of the country. It is to be hoped that many of the doles now distributed throughout the country, which are intended—


Order, order! The hon. Member is again attempting to discuss the question which was discussed on Friday.

* MR. LOWE (Birmingham, Edgbaston)

I must say that I am somewhat surprised that the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire should have brought forward this motion, seeing that it relates practically to the same question as that which has been discussed most fully on the two previous occasions, when this Bill was before the House. And on the last occasion the adjournment of the debate was moved on the express ground that it would give time to consider whether it was desirable that this Bill should be referred to a Select Committee. That motion, as the House will remember, was defeated by a substantial majority after the question had been discussed from all possible points of view. I should have thought that those hon. Members, who on that occasion were in favour of the adjournment, would have gracefully accepted their defeat, and that they would not have taken up the time of the House by re-opening the whole question to-day. I know they have a perfect right to do this if they please, and it is quite within their power to compel us to go all through this wearisome process again; but it, none the less, appears to me to he wholly unnecessary for them to do so, for the question involved is undoubtedly a very small and a very simple one, and it has already been discussed almost ad nauseam. It is, shortly, this, whether a representative board of local governors, such as these schools will possess under their new constitution, are to be left free to conduct their ordinary routine business.


Order, order! I must tell the hon. Member what I have said to other speakers. That is not the question. The question is, shall this Bill be referred to a Select Committee.


I will not, of course, pursue that question. I should, however, like to say a few words upon the point which seems to have been mainly relied upon by those hon. Gentlemen who have supported this motion. They urge that we have no right to alter the general law by a Private Bill. I want to know why we should not do so. There are just the same, in fact I am disposed to think there are even greater facilities for discussing a Private Bill than there are for discussing a public one. Indeed, so far as my experience goes, it is much easier to get the former kind of Bill than it is to get the latter passed into law. When it is passed, it is no longer a Private Bill, but it becomes part of the general law of the land and has just as much force and effect as any other Act. It seems to me, then, that it is a very convenient method of bringing about a useful alteration of the law which might take years to accomplish if it could only be brought about by promoting a Public Bill.


Order, order! I have already said that the question whether this matter should be dealt with in a Public or Private Bill is not now before the House.


If I am not in order in discussing that question I will only say, in conclusion, that I am sure this subject has already been quite sufficiently dis- cussed, and that I hope the House will be satisfied with and adhere to the decision it came to on the last occasion.


I wish to say a few words, and I hope I shall be able to confine myself strictly to the question. It seems to me that there are three courses that might be taken with regard to the Bill. Supposing it went on in the ordinary way, the Bill, as there are no petitions against it, would be sent to the Unopposed Bill Committee, which I may say consists chiefly of myself. I hope I may not be considered egotistic, but although I occasionally get valuable assistance, the decisions really are taken by myself, and I am responsible for them to this House. Of course after the decision of the House I should feel it impossible for me to accept the recommendations sent down by the Charity Commissioners. Its principle having been affirmed on the Second Reading, I should be limited to making such minor alterations as have been agreed upon. In practically the same form as it is now, the Bill would be returned to the House for Third Reading. As regards the second course, I cannot find any precedent for sending a Private Bill to a Select Committee of fifteen members.


Was there not a precedent a short time ago in regard to the Electric Powers Bill?


That was a Special Committee of a rather different kind. It was not a Special Committee of fifteen members. It was appointed by the Committee of Selection. My objection to it is on this ground. The House has already approved the principle of this Bill, and I do not think it would accept from a Committee the rejection of that principle. A Committee of fifteen might, no doubt, make alterations in the details of the Bill, but, with all due submission, it seems to me that this Bill is one of principle— namely, that an endowed charity, in the broadest sense of the term, is entitled to come to this House to propound its own scheme for its own government, and to receive the assent of this House to that scheme. The details are not, therefore, of very great importance. That is my reason for objecting to send this Bill to a Committee. Hon. Members will remember I am opposed to this Bill and voted against it on general grounds on the Second Reading. As to the third course, by the Standing Orders of the House, I have the power to report when a Bill is technically unopposed that it should be treated as an opposed Bill. It would then be referred to a group, and would go before a Committee of four members, and in that case it would be open to the Committee to reject the Bill altogether and find that the preamble was not proved. That, I think, would be a rather dangerous precedent to set, and I am therefore driven back to the first course— namely, that the Bill should go forward in the ordinary way to the Unopposed Bill Committee, and on the Third Reading the House will again have an opportunity of giving or withholding its assent to the principles contained in the Bill.

* SIR JOSEPH PEASE (Durham, Barnard Castle)

Those who have read this Bill will see how very important a measure it is. In my humble judgment the House came to a right decision in affirming the principle of the Bill. Those of us who have taken part in the management of grammar schools feel how very important this largely extended principle might become. We believe it might be usefully extended throughout the country where the local authority is strong enough to take the charge of the higher grade schools of their locality. It seems to me that by far the best thing the promoters of the Bill and the House generally can do is to refer the Bill to a Committee which can consider the policy of delegating the powers now held by the school branch of the Charity Commissioners to local authorities. I am anxious that nothing should be done to damage the work carried out under the late Lord Lyttelton in the endowed schools Commission—but surely now under revised schemes these schools can be safely trusted to those who understand their own wants better than the Charity Commission. I do not now attempt to discuss what would be the controlling power of the new educational authority. I strongly support the view that the education of the country would be best helped by sending the Bill to a Committee with a view to its being made a precedent for similar delegation of local educational authority into local hands.


The House may expect the guidance of the Charity Commission on the question.. My hands are tied, because the Commissioners are absolutely indifferent. They have clean consciences, and will, if the House wishes it, appear before any Committee; but it would cause delay, and, above all things, the Charity Commissioners hate and avoid delay. Throwing aside my official position, and speaking in my private capacity, I may say that my intention is to vote against the motion. I consider that in the Bill there is only one principle — namely, whether one school shall be let loose from the general law. That is a principle which the House can decide for itself without referring the matter to a Committee.

MR. BRYNMOR JONES (Swansea District)

I quite appreciate the desire of the promoters of this measure to escape from the jurisdiction of the Charity Commission, which is so ably represented by the hon. Member for Thirsk. But I am still not quite satisfied whether I ought, even in their interests, to vote against the motion of the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire, for I do not quite understand what is the principle we affirmed last week. The Chairman of Committees has told us that the House has approved the principle without committing itself in any way to the details of this particular scheme. It has affirmed the principle that it is right and proper that the jurisdiction exercised by the Charity Commissioners under the Charitable Trusts Act shall not apply in the case of this particular foundation. If the Bill is carried, and the control of the Charity Commission is removed, I want to know who is to exercise control over the powers conferred on the governors of the institution by this Bill. Is there any authority, except perhaps under the general law of the land, which can prevent the improper expenditure of the money of this foundation? I am not quite sure what would be the position of this charity with regard to the High Courts.


Order, order! The hon. Gentleman is now discussing the merits of the Bill.


My vote hangs upon this question, whether or not there is any authority to control this body in case the Bill becomes law—


Order, order! It is the misfortune of the hon. Member that his vote should hang upon an irrelevant point.


After your ruling, Sir, I will not, of course, press the question further. But I must say that in all probability this Bill will pass through this House without our understanding why we are thus dealing with an Act of Parliament and substituting a new authority for the Charity Commission.


The hon. Member cannot upon this motion discuss the principle of the Bill. It will be competent for him to do so on the motion for the Third Reading.


This Bill is gradually becoming a very old friend. This is the third afternoon on which we have been occupied in discussing it, and we are promised a fourth occasion on the motion for the Third Reading. Limiting myself to the principal point under discussion, as far as I can make out those who propose to vote for the motion are in one of three categories—those who have frankly opposed the Bill at all stages in the intention of destroying it; those who, like the hon. Member for the Northwich Division of Cheshire, declare that the motion is not directed against the Bill, and who have no prejudices or feeling one way or another; and those who, like the hon. Member for the Barnard Castle Division of Durham, are strongly in favour of the principle of the Bill, and wish to see the powers of the Charity Commissioners delegated to local authorities. I think that the course adopted by hon. Members who take the view of the Member for the Barnard Castle Division of Durham is the most extraordinary of all, because they must be perfectly well aware that nothing could so much imperil the principle they favour as the passing of the motion. I confess that I would not myself show my favour towards the Bill in that way. I would vote against the motion on the grounds very clearly stated by the Chairman of Committees — namely, that it is contrary to the practice of the House and contrary to its convenience that Private Bills should be referred to such a Committee. I would also vote against it because it appears to me that the object which hon. Members desire to see accomplished has already been attained. They seem to think that this Bill is simply the creation of its promoters, unmodified by any Government Department, and they argue that some such Department should have power to appear before a Select Committee. They are under a misapprehension. The Bill has been referred to the Education Department, which, by statute, has large powers of taking to itself the authority of the Charity Commissioners. It has passed through the recognised ordeals of examination by that Department, and every suggestion which that Department has made has been accepted by the promoters. Therefore, the Bill comes before the House not as the unauthorised invention of a particular set of promoters, but as a scheme having the sanction of the new Education Department, which this House created last year. Under these circumstances, I think that the hon. Members who vote for the Bill going before a Select Committee will be doing so under a complete misapprehension. I trust, therefore, that they will not imperil the passage of the Bill, which in its general scope meets the approval of this House. To refer it to a Select Committee, whatever else it might do, would not promote its rapid passage into law. I shall vote against the Amendment with a clear conscience.

MR. HEDDERWICK (Wick Burghs)

I understand the right hon. Gentleman the Chairman of Committees to suggest that the principle of this Bill, as it has been affirmed by this House, is not a matter which can be dealt with by a Committee. On the last occasion that this Bill was before the House it was agreed to withdraw the scheme from the Charity Commission, but I think it was also understood that it was to be placed under the control of the Court of Chancery. Now, a clause to secure that has never been submitted to this House, and therefore we are absolutely ignorant as to whether there will be any real control or not by the Court of Chancery. I could imagine that a clause might be so drawn as to avoid having any such real control, while, on the other hand, if the governors of the school were compelled to get an Order of the Court before they could alienate any property, there would be very real control indeed. What I desire to know is, if this Bill is sent to a Select Committee, will not the whole subject with regard to the powers of the Court of Chancery be brought before the Committee and discussed more fully and adequately than before the right hon. Gentlemen sitting as the Unopposed Bill Committee? If that is the case there is very good ground for the motion which has been moved, and I for one shall certainly support it.


said that there was no doubt that any proposals brought forward to amend the Bill would be much more largely discussed before a Committee of fifteen members than before an Unopposed Bill Committee. In the latter case he should require from the promoters a draft of the clause which they proposed

to insert to carry out the arrangement arrived at last Friday, and if that draft clause, in his opinion, carried out that arrangement, he should insert it in the Bill, but naturally there would not be the same discussion as in a Select Committee.

MR. J. A. PEASE (Northumberland, Tyneside)

asked whether the right hon. Gentleman, as representing the Unopposed Bill Committee, had power so to amend the clause if necessary in order to make the powers of the Court of Chancery not illusory but substantial, and to provide a check against the governors of the college sacrificing the corpus of the estate.


replied that he should not propose to insert anything beyond the arrangement come to last Friday. If the House, when they saw that clause inserted in the Bill, were not satisfied, they could either on Consideration or on Third Reading amend the Bill, or take whatever other steps they thought right.

Question put.

The House divided:—Ayes, 122; Noes, 201. (Division List No. 132.)

Abraham, William (Rhondda) Dunn, Sir William Jones, David Brynmor (Sw'ns'a.)
Allison, Robert Andrew Emmott, Alfred Kay-Shuttleworth, Rt. Hn Sir U.
Ambrose, Robert Evans, Saml. T. (Glamorgan) Kilbride, Denis
Ashton, Thomas Cair Farquharson, Dr. Robert Lambert, George
Baker, Sir John Ferguson, R. C. Munro (Leith) Langley, Batty
Balcarres, Lord Ffrench, Peter Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool)
Barlow, John Emmott Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond Leng, Sir John
Bethell, Commander Fox, Dr. Joseph Francis Lough, Thomas
Blake, Edward Galloway, William Johnson Lyell, Sir Leonard
Bond, Edward Gibney, James Macaleese, Daniel
Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson Gold, Charles MacDonnell, Dr. M. A.(Qn'sC.)
Bryce, Rt. Hon. James Greville, Hon. Ronald Maclean, James Mackenzie
Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn Gurdon, Sir William Brampton MacNeill, John Gordon Swift
Burt, Thomas Hammond,.John (Carlow) M'Cartan, Michael
Buxton, Sydney Charles Hardy, Laurence M'Ewan, William
Caldwell, James Harrington, Timothy M'Ghee, Richard
Cameron, Robert (Durham) Harwood, George M'Kenna, Reginald
Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H. Hayden, John Patrick Mappin, Sir Frederick Thorpe
Carew, James Laurence Hayne, Rt. Hn. Charles Seale- Mather, William
Carmichael, Sir T. D. Gibson- Healy, Maurice (Cork) Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)
Causton, Richard Knight Healy, Thomas J. (Wexford) Morris, Samuel
Cawley, Frederick Healy, Timothy M. (N. Louth) Morton, Edw. J. C. (Devonport)
Commins, Andrew Hedderwick, Thomas Chas. H. Murnaghan, George
Crilly, Daniel Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H. Nussey, Thomas Willans
Crombie, John William Hobhouse, Henry O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)
Curran, Thomas (Sligo, S.) Holland, William Henry O'Connor, J.(Wicklow, W.)
Daly, James Horniman, Frederick John O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)
Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan) Howell, William Tudor Pease, Joseph A. (Northumb.)
Dillon, John Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley) Pease, Sir Joseph W. (Durham)
Donelan, Captain A. Jacoby, James Alfred Pinkerton, John
Doogan, P. C. Johnson-Ferguson, Jabez E. Power, Patrick Joseph
Price, Robert John Stanhope, Hon. Philip J. Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)
Redmond, John F. (Waterford) Stevenson, Francis S. Wilson, John (Govan)
Redmond, William (Clare) Sullivan, T. D. (Donegal, W.) Woodhouse, Sir J. T. (Hudders)
Reid, Sir Robert Threshie Tennant, Harold John Woods, Samuel
Roberts, John H. (Denbigh.) Trevelyan, Charles Philips Young, Samuel (Cavan, E.)
Sandon, Viscount Wallace, Robert Yoxall, James Henry
Schwann, Charles E. Wilson, Eugene
Scott, Chas. Prestwich (Leigh) Whitmore, C. Algernon TELLERS FOR THE AYES—
Sinclair, Capt. J. (Forfarshire) Williams, John Carvell (Notts.) Mr. Humphreys-Owen and
Smith, Samuel (Flint) Wilson, Frederick W. (Norfolk) Mr. Herbert Lewis.
Souttar, Robinson Wilson, H. J. (York, W. R.)
Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir A. F. Flannery, Sir Fortescue Moore, William (Antrim, N.)
Aird, John Fletcher, Sir Henry More, Robt. J. (Shropshire)
Allan, William (Gateshead) Flower, Ernest Morgan, Hn. F. (Monm'thsh.)
Anson, Sir William Reynell Foster, Colonel (Lancaster) Morton, A. H. A. (Deptford)
Anstruther, H. T. Foster, Sir Michael (Lond. Univ.) Munoz, Philip A.
Archdale, Edward Mervyn Foster, Sir W. (Derby Co.) Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)
Arrol, Sir William Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry Myers, William Henry
Austin, Sir John (Yorkshire) Gilliat, John Saunders Newdigate, Fras. Alexander
Baillie, J. E. B (Inverness) Goddard, Daniel Ford Nicol, Donald Ninian
Baird, John George Alexander Goldsworthy, Major-General Norton, Capt. Cecil William
Balfour, Rt. Hn. A. J. (Manch'r) Gorst, Rt. Hn. Sir John Eldon Parkes, Ebenezer
Banbury, Frederick George Gourley, Sir Edw. Temperley Paulton, James Mellor
Barry, Rt. Hn. A. H. S. (Hunts) Green, W. D. (Wednesbury) Pease, H. Pike (Darlington)
Barry, Sir Francis T.(Windsor) Gunter, Colonel Penn, John
Beaumont, Wentworth C.B. Halsey, Thomas Frederick Phillpotts, Captain Arthur
Bhownaggree, Sir M. M. Hamilton, Rt. Hn. Lord George Pilkington, Sir G. A. (Lancs SW)
Blundell, Colonel Henry Hanbury, Rt. Hn. Robert Wm. Plunkett, Rt. Hn. Horace Curzon
Bonsor, Henry Cosmo Orme Haslett, Sir James Horner Powell, Sir Francis Sharp
Boscawen, Arthur Griffith- Heaton, John Henniker Pretyman, Ernest George
Boulnois, Edmund Helder, Augustus Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edw.
Bowles, T. G. (King's Lynn) Hickman, Sir Alfred Purvis, Robert
Broadhurst, Henry Hill, Rt. Hon. A. S. (Staffs.) Rankin, Sir James
Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John Hoare, Sir Samuel (Norwich) Rasch, Major Frederic Carne
Brown, Alexander H. Houldsworth, Sir Wm. Henry Renshaw, Charles Bine
Bullard, Sir Harry Houston, R. P. Richardson, Sir T. (Hartlep'l)
Campbell, Rt. Hn. J. A. (Glasgow) Howard, Joseph Ridley, Rt. Hn. Sir Matthew W.
Campbell, J. H. M. (Dublin) Hozier, Hon. James Henry Cecil Ritchie, Rt. Hn. C. Thomson
Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbysh.) Hutton, John (Yorks. N. R.) Robinson, Brooke
Cecil, Evelyn (Hertford, East) Jackson, Rt. Hon. Wm. Lawies Royds, Clement Molyneux
Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich) Jebb, Richard Claver house Russell, Gen. F. S.(Cheltenham)
Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. (Birm.) Jeffreys, Arthur Frederick Russell, T. W. (Tyrone)
Chamberlain, J. Austen (Worc'r) Johnston, William (Belfast) Rutherford, John
Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry Joicey, Sir James Samuel H. S. (Lime house)
Coddington, Sir William Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir John H. Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees),
Coghill, Douglas Harry Knowles, Lees Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert
Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse Lawrence, Sir E Durning- (Corn.) Savory, Sir Joseph
Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole Lawson, John Grant (Yorks.) Sharpe, William Edward T.
Cooke, C. W. R. (Hereford) Leighton, Stanley Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)
Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow) Llewelyn, Sir Dillwyn (Swansea) Shaw-Stewart, M. H. (Renfrew)
Cross, Herbert S. (Bolton) Lock wood, Lt.-Col. A. R. Sidebotham, J. W. (Cheshire)
Cruddas, William Donaldson Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine Sidebottom, William (Derbys.)
Cubitt, Hon. Henry Long, Col. C. W. (Evesham) Sinclair, Louis (Romford)
Curran, Thomas B. (Donegal) Long, Rt. Hon. W. (Liverp'l) Smith, Abel H.(Christchurch)
Curzon, Viscount Lopes, Henry Yarde Buller Smith, Jas. Parker (Lanarks.)
Dalrymple, Sir Charles Lowther, Rt. Hn. James (Kent) Stanley, Edward, Jas. (Somerset)
Denny, Colonel Lowther, Rt. Hn. J. W. (Cumb'land) Stanley, Sir Henry M. (Lambeth)
Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles Loyd, Archie Kirkman Steadman, William Charles
Dorington, Sir John Edward Lucas-Shadwell, William Stewart, Sir M. J. M'Taggart
Doughty, George Macartney, W. G. Ellison Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M.
Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark) Macdona, John Cumming Stone, Sir Benjamin
Doxford, Sir William Theodore Maclure, Sir J. William Strachey, Edward
Drage, Geoffrey M'Calmont, Col. J. (Antrim, E.) Sturt, Hon. Humphry Napier
Dyke, Rt. Hon Sir Wm. H. M'Killop, James Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)
Faber, George Denison Maddison, Fred. Talbot, Rt. Hn. J. G. (Oxf'd Univ)
Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edw. Maple, Sir John Blundell Thorburn, Sir Walter
Fenwick, Charles Mellor, Rt. Hn. J. W. (Yorks) Tollemache, Henry James
Fergusson, Rt. Hn. Sir J. (Manc'r) Meysey-Thompson, Sir H. M. Tomlinson, W. E. Murray
Finch, George H. Middlemore, J. Throgmorton Tritton, Charles Ernest
Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne Monk, Charles James Vincent, Sir Edgar (Exeter)
Fisher, William Hayes Moore, Arthur (Londonderry) Walrond, Rt. Hon. Sir W. H.
Walton, Joseph (Barnsley) Williams, J. Powell- (Birm.) Wylie, Alexander
Wanklyn, James Leslie Wills, Sir William Henry Wyndham, George
Warr, Augustus Frederick Wilson, J. W. (Worcestersh, N.) Wyvill, Marmaduke D'Arcy
Welby, Lt. -Col. A. C. E. (Taun'n) Wilson-Todd, Wm. H. (Yorks) Yerburgh, Robert Armstrong
Welby, Sir C. G. E. (Notts.) Wodehouse, Rt. Hn. E. R. (Bath) Young, Commander (Berks, E.)
Wentworth, Bruce C. Vernon- Wolff, Gastav Wilhelm TELLERS FOR THE NOES—
Wharton, Rt. Hn. John Lloyd Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart- Colonel Milward and Mr.
Whiteley, H. (Ashton-under-L.) Wrightson, Thomas Lowe.
* MR. YOXALL (Nottingham, W.)

complained that the promoters of the Bill had petitioned Members of the House in a most misleading and unauthorised Whip to vote against the proposal he was about to move. The Whip bore the names of several hon. Members who had given no authority for their names to be appended, and an injury had been done to the motion which no explanation or apology could possibly remove. The motion was coupled in a most unjustifiable manner in the Whip with the proposal just negatived by the House, seeing that the two wore entirely separate and distinct. The motion he desired to move was not inimical to the Bill, nor did it go to the principle of the measure. It dealt with a very important detail which ought to be considered by the House as an Instruction to the Unopposed Bill Committee. The Birmingham educational system consisted of public elementary schools, endowed secondary schools, a university college, and now a university. The public elementary schools were controlled as to school attendance and largely as to education by the School Board of Birmingham, which body was by Act of Parliament represented by two of its members upon the governing body of the Birmingham University College of Science, and by Royal Charter was to be represented upon the Court of Governors by two members. In three out of the four links, therefore, the School Board had influence on the educational system of Birmingham, but the fourth and most important link, so far as public elementary education was concerned, was missing. By the terms of the trust, 50 per cent. of the children who entered the endowed grammar schools had to be children from the public elementary schools as foundation scholars, but as a matter of fact no less than 68 per cent. were from that source, of whom 53 per cent. came from the Birmingham Board schools. Up to the present, however, the governors of this charity had refused absolutely to admit to their counsels a single representative of the School Board. That was an inconsistent and unintelligent tyranny, for which there was no reason but a woman's reason — they would not do it, and if they would not do it they would not; and there was an end of it. It was sought to perpetuate by an Act of Parliament this injustice, which so far had existed by means of a scheme under the Charity Commission. If the new governing body was now to be constituted under a scheme, it was almost certain that the Charity Commissioners would insist upon the representation of the great, important, and well-managed School Board for Birmingham. All that he asked was that in these days, when it was universally admitted to be essential that there should be a proper progress from one class of school to another, and that the governors of the various classes of school should be in touch with each other, there should be upon this governing body of twenty-two members more than one representative of the Birmingham School Board. There was no reason except ancient prejudice and prescription why members of the School Board, as such, should be excluded from that body. The Board was one of the most able, important, and successful in the country, and was recognised by institutions giving the highest type of education. If the School Board was worthy of being represented upon the University College and the Birmingham University itself, surely it was good enough to be represented upon the governing body of this foundation. The custom was now universal in all schemes with regard to secondary schools of placing representatives of the school boards upon the governing bodies. The London School Board appointed ninety-nine representatives upon governing bodies of secondary schools, the Bradford School Board had seven such representatives, Bristol six, Coventry one, Exeter one, Hull two, Leeds two, Leicester three, Manchester one, Newcastle four, Northampton two, Nottingham one, Portsmouth two, Sheffield two, Southampton two, Wolverhampton three, Worcester two, and Yarmouth one; in fact, eighteen school boards sent to the govern- ing bodies of secondary schools in their localities 141 representatives. It was therefore a perfectly reasonable and moderate request that the Birmingham School Board should of right and ex officio send to this governing body of twenty-two members two representatives —a request justified by educational reasons and upon general grounds, especially in these schools where the public elementary schools supplied more than half the scholars. The Birmingham School Board had by resolution and deputation made this request, but without success. Probably the House would be told that it was proposed to admit one member—namely, the vice-chairman of the School Board—to their counsels, but that gentleman had decided to refuse the post in his personal capacity. The members of the School Board claimed, by virtue of their office, to have representation upon this governing body, and he did not believe the promoters of the Bill could bring forward any sound argument against the Instruction which he now had the honour to move.

MR. ALFRED HUTTON (Yorkshire, W.R., Morley)

formally seconded.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That it be an Instruction to the Committee on the Birmingham (King Edward the Sixth) Schools Bill [Lords] to make provision in Clause 9 for the appointment of Governors representative of the School Board for Birmingham." —(Mr. Yoxall.)

* COLONEL MILWARD (Warwickshire, Stratford-upon-Avon)

said he wished to apologise most sincerely and express his regret that the names of certain hon. Members in favour of the motion had appeared on the Whip issued against it by the promoters of the Bill. It was entirely due to inadvertence upon his part, and he had already apologised to those hon. Members personally. He thought, however, that the accident had strengthened rather than prejudiced the motion. On behalf of the promoters he regretted to say that it was impossible to accede to the request of the hon. Member. There was not only one school board in Birmingham, but also several other important school boards, such as the Aston, Smethwick, and King's Norton school boards, and others. A deputation from these school boards, and also from the Voluntary schools, had waited upon the governors of King Edward's School, and it was decided that it was impossible to comply with the wishes of those Gentlemen, because it was not a question of adding one or two, but they would have had to add eight governors. Under those circumstances what had the School Board done? He did not think his hon. friend opposite was fully posted as to what had happened quite recently in this matter. He said that the governors of King Edward's School had offered a place to the vice-chairman of the School Board upon the governing body, and that the School Board claimed this as a right. He had evidence in his possession to show that they did not claim this as a right, but asked it as a favour. Who was the hon. Member opposite speaking for? Was he speaking for the School Board? He would read to them a passage from the Agenda Paper which was to be considered on Friday next. On that Agenda Paper the Education Committee reported and recommended that a reply be sent to the letter received from the governors of King Edward's School expressing regret that the governors were unable to make any alteration in the representation of governing bodies in the Bill before Parliament. That meant that on Friday next the School Board would adopt that resolution, and that would virtually dispose of the question. If the claim of the Birmingham School Board to representation were admitted, a similar claim would be advanced by the school boards of the various districts touching upon Birmingham, and by the Voluntary Schools Association, so that it was not a question of adding one or two, but eight new members to a body already numerous.

* MR. MADDISON (Sheffield, Brightside)

said he desired to say a word or two because his name was on the Whip. The hon. and gallant Member opposite had apologised to him, and he quite accepted it. Why he rose was this: He did want to make an appeal to the promoters of this Bill. Speaking for himself, he was very pleased to have his name on that Whip on the ground that the promoters of the Bill, as he understood it, desired a more democratic method of Government for this old and great foundation. The hon. Member who moved this Instruction had put a proposal before the House in the same direction as that which induced them to support the Colonial Secretary and his friends, who were now supporting this Bill. Therefore he did think that they would only strengthen their case and confirm the ground upon which they had obtained support on his side of the House by appointing two members of the Birmingham School Board as governors. He would say very frankly, although to him Birmingham was not a very pleasant name in most things, that upon education he would trust Birmingham with anything he possessed. He had absolute confidence in the educational policy of the city of Birmingham generally, and that confidence had been largely evoked by the splendid work done by the Birmingham School Board. Anyone who took an interest in education could not fail to see that there was probably not a school board in the kingdom, speaking from a Radical standpoint, which had advanced so much in educational matters. Then why should the promoters hesitate about strengthening this great foundation? With regard to the Aston and King's Norton School Boards he did not think that the hon. Gentleman contended that there was any very serious difficulty. Those School Boards were perfectly aware of the almost unique position of the Birmingham School Board, and he was quite sure that they would be content with the admission of the principle advocated by the hon. Member for Nottingham, that two or more members of the Birmingham School Board should be elected as governors. He did very urgently appeal to the promoters of this Bill not to detach some of them on that side of the House who were strongly in favour of the measure, and who intended to support it through its Third Reading. His hon. friend's proposal was a democratic one, and it was because the measure was of a democratic character that the promoters got their support. He would make this last almost despairing appeal to the Colonial Secretary to complete his scheme by giving them this representation of the Birmingham School Board.


The hon. Member opposite makes a despairing appeal; but he makes it under a misapprehension. He says he makes it because he wishes to secure the democratic character of this institution. As a matter of fact, for twenty years back the institution has been managed by the representatives of the Town Council of Birmingham, and the representatives of this Council are as democratic a body as possible. They are elected by an electorate of the whole people of Birmingham, in which there is an enormous constituency in proportion to the population. If I argued the question on democratic grounds I should at once have to say that the School Board is nothing like as democratic an assembly as the Town Council of Birmingham, because the Birmingham School Board is elected under the cumulative vote, to which the vast majority of the people of Birmingham are opposed, with the result that the minority is represented out of all proportion. I think the hon. Member opposite also takes that view, and I think he will agree with me that from the point of view of making this institution a more democratic body, it is not desirable to have a member of the School Board upon the governing body. I have answered the hon. Member's argument, but that is not the line I propose to take. There is no objection whatever on principle to the representation of the School Board, or any educational authority like it, on the governing body of the schools. The hon. Member who moved the Instruction used very strong language, which was very unnecessary, and he talked about inconsistency and unintelligent tyranny, and he used other adjectives which are always used by hon. Gentlemen opposite in reference to such questions; and they have now been used in reference to what I have truly described as one of the most democratic bodies in the kingdom. And this criticism comes from a democrat! There is no prejudice whatever against the representatives of the School Board. So far from that being the case, the governors did, as a matter of fact, invite a distinguished member of the School Board, who is the vice-chairman of that body, to join their Board. The Instruction which the hon. Member proposes is really a very serious one. It is perfectly true that if you put on the governing body with their consent members of the School Board, it. adds to their strength; but if as a matter of right you put on members of the School Board, undoubtedly you lay the foundation for a similar claim and right from all those other school boards outside Birmingham which are quite as important as the School Board for Birmingham; and, moreover, you also lay a foundation for a claim of right from those who represent Voluntary schools. At the present time there are in the Voluntary schools nearly as many children as there are in the Board schools, and to say that the interests of one class of schools should be represented by two members of the School Board, and that the other children should have no representation whatever, would be an extremely unfair proposition. We claim that the appointments by the Town Council under this system of popular election represent all the people of Birmingham, and represent them quite as well, and even better, than the School Board themselves. Of course, you may, as a matter of convenience, and with advantage, from time to time take either from the Birmingham School Board or from any other body a gentleman whose qualifications are such that he will greatly assist the deliberations of the governors. I do not think the hon. Member opposite knows very much of the details of the educational system in Birmingham, or he would not have given us the illustration which he has put before the House. The governors we are dealing with now are twenty-two in number, and if you put on two additional members you are adding one-eleventh of the number, and you are altering the constitution of that body. But on the governing body of the new University I should think there are at least 100, and we can afford to put two additional member's on such a body. There is no rule either in regard to Mason's College or the new University which requires members of the School Board to be placed in what is, after all, an executive position. A very large proportion of the work which this body of governors has to do is that of dealing with a property, and for this work, of course, the members of the School Board have no special qualification. I am not in the least opposed to the principle of the Instruction. I am only anxious that the House should not, under a mistaken view, make the governing body so cumbersome as to render it unworkable. The only result would be a new committee or sub-committee, to whom the whole work would be remitted. It is quite impossible for a body much larger than twenty-two to deal satisfactorily with the business. That is the only point I wish to press. On principle, I see no-objection to the views of the hon. Member, and I will go so far as to accept the Instruction, provided it be confined to-one member of the Birmingham School Board being appointed a representative of that body. I think the governors would have no objection to that.

SIR WALTER FOSTER (Derbyshire, Ilkeston)

I only want to intervene in the debate for a few minutes, and I do so because I took a deep interest in the school long before the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham was connected with it. I was secretary of the association which obtained the existing scheme for the working of the school, and that scheme was obtained, after long agitation, under the Endowed Schools Commission. The great defect of that scheme, which burdened it for years, was that it was not sufficiently democratic in character or sufficiently representative. There were really two defects. First of all, it gave the Birmingham City Council only a comparatively small number of members on the governing body; and, secondly, the scheme allowed the larger number of the members to be co-opted by the governing body. Since co-optation has always, been objectionable to the citizens of Birmingham, I am very sorry that when a new scheme was promulgated in this Bill the promoters did not endeavour to alter the governing body, and make it more representative than they have done. I am glad the right hon. Gentleman has made a concession to the hon. Member for Nottingham in consenting to the principle of his instruction, though I think he might have agreed to the admission of two members of the School Board. I have supported the Bill ever since it made its appearance in this House until now, and I believe that the school will be worked more satisfactorily by the people of Birmingham acting through their Councillors than under the control of the Charity Commission. I think the instruction a wise one, and that it ought to have been accepted in its entirety. Reference was made to the representation of other school boards in the district, but they contribute a very small moiety of scholars, and these bodies are comparatively insignificant compared with the Birmingham School Board. I believe that this scheme will complete what we have been struggling for since 1864, namely, the coordination of the education in the Birmingham Board schools with that in this great educational endowment. The great defect of this school has been that it has not taken the chief educational power in Birmingham into its councils. If the education of Birmingham is to be made as complete and as thorough as we hoped, it must be by linking all the educational institutions in Birmingham together in the management of this great charity. The greatest educational institution is the School Board which belongs to the city of Birmingham. This charity belongs also to the city, and the School Board, therefore, ought to have an effective voice in its management, in order to give complete co-ordination to the education of the city. I beg to support the Instruction moved by my hon. friend.


Although the concession has been made somewhat ungraciously, I beg to accept the right hon. Gentleman's proposal.


I confess that the whole of this discussion has been most surprising. As I understand the right hon. Gentleman, he proposes to put into this Bill a representative of the Birmingham School Board, and to leave out a representative of the Voluntary Schools Association, although he admits that the interests of the latter are at least as large as those of the School Board. In the course of his speech my right hon. friend appeared to show that if any representatives of educational authorities were to be granted on the governing body they ought to be granted all round. I was surprised, therefore, to learn at the conclusion of his speech that he seemed to contemplate, after all, that one member should be put on the governing body to represent the School Board, without any corresponding representative of the Voluntary Schools Association. That, in my opinion, would be unreasonable, and I should take strong objection to it. I understood that this Bill was one which the people of Birmingham, through their representatives, had framed consistently with the local needs of the city, and I have as such consistently supported it. And then comes in the hon. Member for West Nottingham, who has no concern whatever with Birmingham, except only that he has very pronounced opinions on the education question, and makes a proposal, which, I presume, he thinks will be for the benefit of the governing body, to introduce two members of the Birmingham School Board on that governing body, which already was perfectly satisfactory to the people of Birmingham. Are we to have this apple of discord cast down and a question introduced which divides the people interested in the Voluntary and Board schools? I earnestly hope that the promoters of the Bill will not accept the Instruction of the hon. Member; but in order to give myself the opportunity of moving a fresh Instruction on a subsequent day to include a representative of the Voluntary Schools Association, I beg-to move the adjournment of the debate.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the debate be now adjourned."— (Lord Hugh Cecil.)


I trust my noble friend will not press that motion. I should be very happy to give him such information as I can on the point which he has raised. I do not think the claim on the part of the School Board is on the same plane as any claim for representation that might be made by the Voluntary Schools Association; for, of course, the former is a representative body and is recognised as such by the governing body of a school of this kind. My noble friend is perhaps not aware that under the scheme there are nine co-opted members, and that it is perfectly open— it would not be an unnatural thing— for one or more of the co-opted members to be chosen as representatives of other bodies who interest themselves in educational matters. But it would be to reduce the thing to an absurdity if everybody who has any interest whatever in education in the town is to be forcibly represented on the governing body of this school. I only yielded in the case of the School Board, because it is a representative body.


On a point of order, Mr. Speaker this is a motion for adjournment.


I am quite aware of that. The motion for the adjournment was made expressly with a view to asking a question as to how that particular course suggested by the right hon. Gentleman was justifiable, and the right hon. Gentleman is answering that.


I trust I have so satisfied my noble friend that he will not think it necessary to press his motion for delay.

MR. JAMES LOWTHER (Kent, Thanet)

Having listened to the whole of the discussion to-day, I must say that my right hon. friend himself gave conclusive reasons against the adoption of the suggestion with which he concluded his speech. He told us that the educational authorities in Birmingham were divided on this question—that there were an equal number representing the Board schools and the Voluntary schools, but he now tells us that he is going to give a representation of one on the governing body to one-half of the educational authorities of the city, and that the other half is to be unrepresented altogether.


NO. It is not put in the Bill as a statutory claim of right that the Voluntary schools should be represented; but there is nothing to prevent them being represented by the method of co-optation provided in the Bill.


Does the right hon. Gentlemen guarantee to the House that the Voluntary Schools Association Mill have always the same privilege which Parliament is now asked to grant to the School Board? It seems to me a one-sided proposal which has been deservedly condemned by the right hon. Gentleman himself, and I hope he will stand by his original resolution and not ask the House to stultify itself by giving a one-sided representation to the School Board.


The motion for the adjournment of the debate seems to me unanswerable. This is the second importation into the Bill since it came down from Birmingham. First of all the Court of Chancery was imported into it, and suddenly now a School Board representative has been imported into it; and in both cases we cannot gauge the meaning of the new importation. For instance, the right hon. Gentleman has just stated that the representative of the School Board is not to be put into the Bill, but is left to be co-opted by the other members of the governing body. [HON. MEMBERS: No, no!] That is the suggestion; the right hon. Gentleman himself will correct me if I am wrong. I understood him to say that under the co-optive power a School Board member would be taken in. But if the School Board member is to be put into the Bill,, so should the representative of the Voluntary Schools Association. I think when these sudden acceptances of revolutionary changes are made, we who attach importance to the Voluntary schools should have a little more time to consider them.


I think the most convenient course would be for me to withdraw my motion for adjournment and allow the division as to the Instruction to be taken.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

Original Question again proposed.


On a point of order, Sir, it is not on the Instruction that the point arises. I understood the hon. Member was willing to withdraw the instruction; but, of course, if it remains, it will have to be altered to meet my suggestion.


I may have spoken rather inaudibly, but my intention was to withdraw the Instruction.


The hon. Member could not withdraw it without the consent of the House.

MR. COURTNEY (Cornwall, Bodmin)

Would not the object of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham be effected by amending the Instruction by substituting one governor for two? The Instruction can, I understand, be reduced but not enlarged.


Is it not necessary that notice must be given of an Instruction before it can be moved, and does not that rule apply when an Instruction is fundamentally altered?


A relevant Amendment may be raised to an Instruction.

SIR J. FERGUSSON (Manchester, N. E.)

Would it not be more logical, instead of inserting the words "a governor," to insert "representatives of the school board and voluntary associations"?


In my opinion it would be better to negative the Instruction as it now stands, the hon. Member for West Nottingham being content with the

undertaking which was given to him by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham.


I beg to move to amend the Instruction by omitting the words "in Clause 9," and substituting the words "a governor" for "governors."

Amendment agreed to.

Main Question, as amended, put.

The House divided:—Ayes, 144; Noes, 201. (Division List No. 133.)

Abraham, William (Rhondda) Gold, Charles Parkes, Ebenezer
Allan, William (Gateshead) Gourley, Sir Edward T. Paulton, James Mellor
Asher, Alexander Gray, Ernest (West Ham) Pearson, Sir Weetman D.
Ashton, Thomas Gair Green, W. D. (Wednesbury) Pease, Joseph A. (Northumb.)
Austin, Sir John (Yorkshire) Gurdon, Sir William B. Pickard, Benjamin
Bainbridge, Emerson Harrington, Timothy Pilkington, Sir G. A. (LancsS. W.)
Baker, Sir John Harwood, George Pinkerton, John
Barlow, John Emmott Hayne, Rt. Hon. C. Seale- Powell, Sir Francis Sharp
Beaumont, Wentworth C. B. Hedderwick, Thomas C. H. Price, Robert John
Blake, Edward Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Chas. H. Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)
Broadhurst, Henry Holland, William Henry Robinson, Brooke
Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson Horniman, Frederick John Royds, Clement (Molyneux)
Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn Humphreys-Owen, Arthur C. Russell, T. W. (Tyrone)
Burt, Thomas Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley) Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)
Buxton, Sydney Charles Jacoby, James Alfred Schwann, Charles E.
Caldwell, James Jebb, Richard Claverhouse Scott, Chas. Prestwich (Leigh)
Cameron, Robert (Durham) Jessel, Captain Herbert M. Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)
Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H. Johnson-Ferguson, Jabez E. Sinclair, Capt. John (Forfar.)
Carew, James Laurence Joicey, Sir James Smith, James Parker (Lanarks.)
Causton, Richard Knight Jones, David B. (Swansea) Smith, Samuel (Flint)
Cawley, Frederick Kay-Shuttleworth, Rt. Hn. Sir U Sonttar, Robinson
Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. (Birm.) Kearley, Hudson E. Stevenson, Francis S.
Chamberlain, J. A. (Worc'r) Kilbride, Denis Strachey, Edward
Clancy, John Joseph Langley, Batty Strauss, Arthur
Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse Lawrence, Sir E. Durning-(Corn) Tanner, Charles Kearns
Commins, Andrew Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington) Tennant, Harold John
Cooke, C. W. Radcliffe (Heref'd) Leng, Sir John Trevelyan, Charles Philips
Courtney, Rt. Hon. Leonard H. Lewis, John Herbert Wallace, Robert
Crombie, John William Lloyd-George, David Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)
Curzon, Viscount Lowe, Francis William Wanklyn, James Leslie
Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardigan) Lyell, Sir Leonard Warr, Augustus Frederick
Denny, Colonel Lyttelton, Hon. Alfred Wason, Eugene
Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles MacNeill, John Gordon Swift Whiteley, George (Stockport)
Dillon, John M'Cartan, Michael Williams, John Carvell (Notts.)
Donelan, Captain A. M'Dermott, Patrick Wills, Sir William Henry
Doxford, Wm. Theodore M'Ewan, William Wilson, Frederick W.(Norfolk)
Dunn, Sir William M'Ghee, Richard Wilson, Henry J. (York, W.R.)
Emmott, Alfred Maddison, Fred. Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)
Evans, Samuel T. (Glamorgan) Mappin, Sir Frederick Thorpe Wilson, John (Govan)
Evans, Sir Francis H (South'ton) Mendl, Sigismund Ferdinand Wilson, J. W. (Worcestersh, N.)
Farquharson, Dr. Robert Middlemore, Jn. Throgmorton Woodhouse, Sir J. T (Hudders'd)
Fenwick, Charles Milner, Sir Frederick George Woods, Samuel
Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmund Milward, Colonel Victor Wylie, Alexander
Foster, Sir M. (Lond. Univ.) Morton, Arthur H. A. (Deptford) Young, Samuel (Cavan, East)
Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry Norton, Capt. Cecil William
Fry, Lewis Nussey, Thomas Willans TELLERS FOR THE AYES—
Gibbons, J. Lloyd 0'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.) Mr. Yoxall and Sir Walter
Gladstone, Rt. Hon. H. J. O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool) Foster.
Goddard, Daniel Ford Oldroyd, Mark
Godson, Sir Augustus Fred. Palmer, George Win. (Reading)
Abraham, Wm. (Cork, N. E.) Foster, Colonel (Lancaster) Morrison, Walter
Acland-Hood, Cant. Sir Alex. F. Muntz, Philip A.
Aird, John Galloway, William Johnson Murnaghan, George
Ambrose, Robert Gibbs, Hon. Vicary (St. Albans) Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)
Anson, Sir William Reynell Gibney, James Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)
Anstruther, H. T. Gilliat, John Saunders Myers, William Henry
Archdale, Edward Mervyn Goldsworthy, Major-General
Arrol, Sir William Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon Newdigate, Francis Alexander
Austin, M. (Limerick, W.) Goschen, Rt. Hn G. J (St George's) O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)
Greville, Hon. Ronald O'Malley, William
Baillie, James E. B. (Inverness) Gunter, Colonel Pease, Herbert P. (Darlington)
Balcarres, Lord
Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J. (Manch'r) Halsey, Thomas Frederick Phillpotts, Captain Arthur
Banbury, Frederick George Hamilton, Rt. Hn. Lord Geo. Pierpoint, Robert
Barnes, Frederic Gorell Hammond, John (Carlow) Plunkett, Rt. Hn Horace Curzon
Barry, Rt. Hn A. H. Smith-(Hunts) Hanbury, Rt. Hn. R. W. Power, Patrick Joseph
Barry, Sir Francis T. (Windsor) Hardy, Laurence Pretyman, Ernest George
Bartley, George C. T. Haslett, Sir James Horner Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward
Beach, Rt. Hn. Sir M. H (Bristol) Hayden, John Patrick Purvis, Robert
Beckett, Ernest William Healy, Maurice (Cork) Quilter, Sir Cuthbert
Bhownaggree, Sir M. M. Healy, Timothy M. (N. Louth) Rankin, Sir James
Biddulph, Michael Heaton, John Henniker Rasch, Major Frederic Carne
Blundell, Colonel Henry Helder, Augustus Redmond, J. E. (Waterford)
Bolitho, Thomas Bedford Henderson, Alexander Renshaw, Charles Bine
Boscawen, Arthur Griffith- Hickman Sir Alfred Richardson, Sir T. (Hartlep'l)
Boulnois, Edmund Hill, Rt. Hon. A. S. (Staffs.) Ridley, Rt. Hn. Sir Matthew W.
Bowles, T. Gibson (King's Lynn) Hoare, E. B. (Hampstead) Ritchie, Rt. Hon. C. Thomson
Brassey, Albert Hoare, Sir Samuel (Norwich) Russell, Gen. F. S. (Cheltenham)
Brodrick, Rt. Hn. St. John Hornby, Sir William Henry Rutherford, John
Bullard, Sir Harry Houldsworth, Sir W. Henry
Houston, R. P. Samuel, H. S. (Limehouse)
Campbell, Rt. Hn. J. A (Glasg'w) Howard, Joseph Sandon, Viscount
Campbell, J. H. M. (Dublin) Howell, William Tudor Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert
Cavendish, R. F. (N. Lanes.) Hozier, Hon. James H. Cecil Savory, Sir Joseph
Cavendish, V. C. W.(Derbysh.) Hutton, John (Yorks. N. R.) Scoble, Sir Andrew Richard
Cecil, Evelyn (Hertford, E.) Sharpe, William Edward T.
Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry Jeffreys, Arthur Frederick Shaw-Stewart, M. H. (Renfrew)
Coddington, Sir William Johnston, William (Belfast) Sidebotham, J. W. (Cheshire)
Coghill, Douglas Harry Sidebottom, T. H. (Stalybr.)
Cohen, Benjamin Louis Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir John H. Sidebottom, Wm. (Derbysh.)
Colston, C. Edw. H. Athole Kenyon-Slaney, Col. William Skewes-Cox, Thomas
Cook, Fred. Lucas (Lambeth) Keswick, William Stanley, Edw. J. (Somerset)
Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasg'w) Kimber, Henry Stanley, Sir H. M. (Lambeth)
Crilly, Daniel Knowles, Lees Stewart, Sir Mark J. M Taggart
Cripps, Charles Alfred Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M.
Cross, H. Shepherd (Bolton) Lafone, Alfred Stone, Sir Benjamin
Cruddas, William Donaldson Lawson, J. Grant (Yorks.) Sturt, Hon. Humphry N.
Cubitt, Hon. Henry Llewellyn, Sir Dillwyn-(Swans.) Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)
Curran, Thos. B. (Donegal) Lockwood, Lt.-Col. A. R. Sullivan, T. D. (Donegal, W.)
Curran, Thomas (Sligo, S.) Loder Gerald W. Erskine Talbot, Rt. Hn. J. G. (Ox. Univ.)
Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham) Thorburn, Sir Walter
Dalrymple, Sir Charles Long, Rt. Hon. W (Liverpool) Thornton, Percy M.
Daly, James Lopes, Henry Yarde Buller Tritton, Charles Ernest
Doogan, P. C. Loyd, Archie Kirkman
Dorington, Sir John Edward Lucas-Shadwell, William Vincent, Col. Sir C. E. H (Sheffi'd)
Doughty, George Walrond, Rt. Hon. Sir W. H.
Drage, Geoffrey Macaleese, Daniel Welby, Lt.-Col. A. C. E (Tauntin)
Dyke, Rt. Hon. Sir William H. Macartney, W. G. Ellison Welby, Sir Charles G. E. (Notts.)
Macdona, John Cumming Wentworth, Bruce C. Vernon-
Faber, George Denison MacIver, David (Liverpool) Wharton, Rt. Hon. John Lloyd
Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward Maclean, James Mackenzie Whiteley, H. (Ashton-under-L.)
Fergusson, Rt. Hn. Sir J (Manc'r) Maclure, Sir John William Williams, Col. R. (Dorset)
Ffrench, Peter M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool) Wilson-Todd, W. H. (Yorks.)
Field, Admiral (Eastbourne) M'Calmont, Col. J. (Antrim, E.) Wodehouse, Rt. Hn E. R. (Bath)
Finch, George H. M'Killop, James Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm
Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne Malcolm, Ian Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart-
Firbank, Joseph Thomas Maple, Sir John Blundell Wrightson, Thomas
Fisher, William Hayes Meysey-Thompson, Sir H. M. Wyndham, George
Fitz Wygram, General Sir F. Monk, Charles James Young, Commander (Berks, E.)
Flannery, Sir Fortescue Moore, William (Antrim, N.)
Fletcher, Sir Henry More, Robt. Jasper (Shropshire) TELLERS FOR THE NOES—
Flower, Ernest Morgan, Hon. F. (Monm'thsh.) Mr. James Lowther and
Forster, Henry William Morrell, George Herbert Lord Hugh Cecil.