HC Deb 17 December 1902 vol 116 cc1577-603

Lords' Amendments further considered. In page 10, line 31, after 'council' insert 'otherwise than under Part III. of this Act.'

—the next Amendment, read a second time.

(9.0.) Lords' Amendment.

MR. LLOYD-GEORGE

moved that the House should disagree with the Amendment. He said that the Amendment moved in Committee in the Commons, which the present Lords' Amendment destroyed, was agreed to by the Government. It was very unfortunate that it was struck out by the Lords, because it was of the utmost value that the assistance of the elementary teachers should be secured in the framing and working of the education schemes, and he was very glad that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education agreed with the Motion he now had to move.

Lords' Amendment—

"In page 11, lines 1 and 2, leave out 'and may, if they think lit, hold a public inquiry.'"

—the next Amendment, read a second time.

MR. LLOYD-GEORGE

said he could not understand why the Lords had made this Amendment, for the provision was inserted in the Bill after a long discussion. Was it not really desirable for the Board of Education to hold an inquiry?

*SIR WILLIAM ANSON

explained that the power to hold an inquiry was simply transferred from one Clause to another.

MR. LLOYD GEORGE

If that is the case, I do not object.

Lords' Amendment agreed to.

Lords' Amendment—

"In page 12, line 6, after 'expenditure' insert 'or rent.' "

—the next Amendment, read a second time.

*MR. SPEAKER

It is my duty to inform the House that this involves a breach of privilege. Sub-Section (c) of Section 19 permits County Councils to apportion capital expenditure among certain parishes. This Amendment proposes that they should be allowed to apportion, not only capital expenditure on provided schools, but rent. That is very much on the same principle as the apportionment of capital expenditure, and is, in fact, an addition to the expenditure, the incidence of which is affected. Therefore, I have to call the attention of the House to the fact that it is a breach of privilege.

SIR WILLIAM ANSON

said he would move that the House should waive its privilege in this matter, which, after all, was a small one, and agree with the Lords. As the Hill stood, if the local authority had to build a school it could charge the cost and the instalments of repayment of the cost on the particular district which the school served. It seemed fair that where premises were hired by the local authority, the rent should be charged, like the instalments, on that particular area. The whole objec of the Amendment was to include rent in the general term "expenditure."

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."—(Sir William Anson.)

*SIR CHARLES DILKE

said it was most extraordinary that the Secretary of the Board of Education in moving that the House should waive its privilege should give no explanation to the House of the circumstances under which this breach of privilege had occurred. He had spoken as if it were one of those cases in which the Lords' Amendment was necessary to fill some gap left by the House of Commons, and in which by universal consent the House had sometimes consented to waive its privilege. There was, so far as he knew, no precedent for its being done against opposition. He should at any rate be very much astonished if the Government could provide one. The extraordinary thing about this was that the Government were aware of the necessity, from their point of view, of this Amendment when the matter was before the House on an earlier occasion. It was down on the Amendment Paper at the Report stage, and, with several others, was ruled out of Order. The proper course for the Government, surely, I was to recommit the Bill on this precise issue. There was no precedent what ever for a breach of privilege being thus wilfully committed by a Government. He did not propose to discuss the question of privilege at any length, because the House was exhausted by the theological discussion on which it was engaged during the afternoon, but he would remind hon. members that experience in the Colonies had demonstrated that they could not be too careful in insisting on the strict observance of precedents in these matters.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

said the observations of the right hon. Baronet were not made for the purpose of preventing the House from waiving its privileges on this occasion, but rather for the purpose of criticising the Government for not having recommitted the Bill on the Report stage. It might, perhaps, have been better to recommit the Bill on the Report stage, but he would recall to the House the difficulties under which that stage was carried through. He was not arguing whether the guillotine was a wise or an unwise proceeding; but it would have been felt as rather a hardship by Members who wished to discuss substantial Amendments on that occasion if the Government had gone through the elaborate process of recommitting the Bill in order to introduce this Amendment. On the question of waiving their privileges, he would remind the House that their privileges did not exist for the purpose of annoying the House of Commons. Their purpose was to keep the House of Lords in order. Why make this protest against doing what the House of Commons really wanted to do? This was to turn the privileges of the House into a positive disadvantage instead of an advantage. This Amendment would be an advantage to the local authority. In these circumstances he hoped that the House, remembering its ancient procedure in matters of this kind, would waive its technical privileges and would introduce an Amendment which was intended to further an object equally desired, as he believed, by both sides.

MR. BRYCE

said there were two aspects of the question—merit and privilege, As regarded the former he felt rather strongly that it would be better for the Bill if the Amendment were rejected. The principle of the county charge was being departed from to their great regret, and naturally they resisted the Amendment. There might be some alleviation afforded to the county ratepayers, but there would be no advantage conferred on the parish ratepayers, on whom the Amendment might impose a heavy charge. In his opinion they ought to extend their indulgence to the parish ratepayer rather than to the county ratepayer. The right hon. Gentleman had suggested that the time allotted for the Report stage was very limited, and that it was not possible to recommit the Bill. But the right hon. Gentleman had the guillotine, and he would remind him that there was a legal axiom that no man was entitled to take advantage of his own wrong. At any rate, there was time for recommittal on the Third Reading, which was exempt from the guillotine altogether, and hon. Members on that side

fully expected that on that stage the Government would have recommitted the Bill in respect of that particular point. It would not have occupied much time, and there was no law of the Medes and Persians which compelled them to complete the Third Reading in a given time. As to the breach of privilege on the part of the Lords, the right hon. Gentleman had said that they existed for the benefit of the House. On that he differed with him, and he maintained that the privileges possessed by the House of Commons in this matter were introduced for the protection of the people, and lion. Members should be careful not to depart from these privileges more than was necessary. This particular privilege insured that when an alteration of this nature was made in a Hill, it should only be done in Committee and it secured two stages. It was therefore a rule of privilege of real value and substance. It was a mere subterfuge to insert in the House of Lords' Amendments which had been brought to the notice of the House of Commons and then to ask hon. Members to waive the proper method of considering them. He urged that the House was bound to insist on the recognition of its privilege, and on that ground he and his friends must oppose the Motion.

(9.22.) Question put.

The House divided:—Ayes, 127: Noes, 43. (Division List No. 646.)

AYES.
Anson, Sir William Reynell Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse Fletcher, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry
Arkwright, John Stanhope Colston, Charles Edw. H. Atho'e Flower, Ernest
Arnold-Forster, Hugh O. Condon, Thomas Joseph Forster, Henry William
Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John Cranborne, Viscount Gardner, Ernest
Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy Crossley, Sir Savile Garfit, William
Bailey, James (Walworth) Cullinan, J. Gilhooly, James
Balfour, Rt. Hon. A J.(Manch'r Dickson, Charles Scott Godson, Sir Augustus Frederick
Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey) Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph Gore, Hon. S. F. Ormsby-(Linc.)
Balfour. RtHnGerald W.(Leels Doogan, P. C. Gray, Ernest (West Ham)
Banbury, Sir Frederick George Dorington, Rt. Hon. Sir John E. Greene, Henry D. (Shrewsbury
Bignold, Arthur Doughty, George Groves, James Grimble
Bigwood, James Douglas, Rt. Hon. A Akers- Henderson, Sir Alexander
Blundell, Colonel Henry Doxford, Sir William Theodore Higginbottom, S. W.
Bond, Edward Duke, Henry Edward Hobhouse, Rt Hn'd (Somers t, E
Bullard, Sir Harry Esmonde, Sir Thomas Hope, J. F.(Sheffield, Brightside
Campbell, John (Armagh, S.) Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward Hoult, Joseph
Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H. Ffreach, Peter Hudson, George Bickerstech
Cavendish, V. C. W.(Derbyshire Finch, Rt. Hon. George H. Hutton, John (Yorks, N. R.)
Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich) Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne Jameson, Major J. Eustace
Chamberlain, Rt Hn J. A.(Wore Fisher, William Hayes Jordan, Jeremiah
Chapman, Edward Fitzroy, Hon. Edward Algernon Joyce, Michael
Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A, E. Flannery, Sir Fortescue Kennedy, Patrick James
Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny) Rutherford, John
Leamy, Edmund O'Brien. P. J. (Tipperary, N.) Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-
Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage O'Doherty, William Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse)
Lockwood, Lt.-Col. A. R. O'Donnell, T. (Kerry, W.) Seely, Maj. J. E. B.(Isleof Wight
Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine O'Dowd, John Sheehan, Daniel Daniel
Long, Rt. Hn. Walter(Bristol, S. O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N Skewes-Cox, Thomas
Loyd, Archie Kirkman O'Mara, James Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)
Lucas, Reginald J.(Portsmonth O'Shaughnessy, P. J. Sullivan, Donal
Lundon, W. Palmer, Walter (Salisbury) Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)
MacDonnell, Dr. Mark A. Percy, Earl Talbot, Rt. Hn J G (Oxford Univ.
M'Govern, T. Platt-Higgins, Frederick Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)
M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire) Plummer, Walter R. Thornton, Percy M.
More, Robt. Jasper (Shropshire Powell, Sir Francis Sharp Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.
Morrell, George Herbert Power, Patrick Joseph Tully, Jasper
Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer Pretyman, Ernest George Valentia, Viscount
Murray, Rt. Hn. A. Graham(Bute Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward Willox, Sir John Archibald
Murray, Charles J. (Coventry) Purvis, Robert Wyndham, Rt. Hon. Georgo
Nicol, Donald Ninian Rasch, Major Frederic Carne
Nolan, Col. John P.(Galway, N. Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)
Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South) Rolleston, Sir John F. L. TELLERS FOR THE AYES—
O'Brien, James F. X. (Cork) Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye Sir Alexander Acland-
O'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary Mid Round, Rt. Hon. James Hood and Mr. Anstruther
NOES.
Allen, Charles P. (Glouc., Stroud Jacoby, James Alfred Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr
Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire) Layland-Barratt, Francis Thomas, J A (Glamorgan, Gower
Brigg, John Levy, Maurice Toulmin, George
Broadhurst, Henry Lloyd-George, David Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)
Brown, George M. (Edinburgh) Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J. Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.
Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson Markham, Arthur Basil Weir, James Galloway
Bryce, Rt. Hon. James Nussey, Thomas Willans Whitley, J, H. (Halifax)
Caldwell, James Rea, Russell Whittaker, Thomas Palmer
Cremer, William Randal Reckett, Harold James Wilson, Fred. W. (Norfolk, Mid.
Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion) Wilson, Henry J. (York, W. R.)
Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond Roe, Sir Thomas Yoxall, James Henry
Goddard, Daniel Ford Samuel, Herbert L.(Cleveland)
Griffith, Ellis J. Shipman, Dr. John G.
Helme, Norval Watson Sinclair, John (Forfarshire) TELLERS FOR THE NOES—
Holland, Sir William Henry Strachey, Sir Edward Mr. Causton and Mr.
Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley) Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe) Robert Spencer.

Question put, and agreed to.

Lords' Amendment—

"In page 12, line 13, after 'loans,' insert 'or rent.'"

—the next Amendment, read a second time.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."—(Sir William Anson.)

*Sir CHARLES DILKE

You have not, Mr. Speaker, made the same statement in regard to this Amendment.

*MR. SPEAKER

It is obvious that the same remarks apply.

*SIR CHARLES DILKE

said that this Amendment raised the same point of breach of privilege. There was no precedent for this case, where, on the Report stage of a Bill, the House was informed that certain financial Amendments were out of order. Instead of the Government taking the opportunity to put the Amendments in the Bill, when the debate would have been confined to the question, the course was adopted of inserting them in another place, it being known beforehand that this would be a breach of privilege.

MR. BRYCE

said it would be understood that they repeated their protest upon this occasion, but he would not trouble the House with a division.

Lords' Amendment— In page 12, line 28, after 'apply,' insert n lieu of the provisions of the Municipal Corporations Act, 1882, relating to accounts and audit.'

—the next Amendment, read a second time.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Resolution."—(Sir William Anson.)

*SIR ALBERT ROLLIT

said this Amendment emphasised a provision in the Bill to which great exception was taken. There had been no opportunity of discussing this most important question because, on both occasions when the Bill was before the House this Clause had not been reached, and was closured. The right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board did receive a most influential and representative deputation upon this question, but he did not take the view of that deputation, He simply desired now to enter a strong protest against a claim being made which was at variance with municipal feeling throughout the whole of the country. He still believed the boroughs welcomed this Bill on the ground of its municipal principle, which was his own reason for supporting it in the interest of public education, in which we were lamentably behindhand, a condition which he hoped and believed through municipal authorities commanding, as they did, large resources, and marked by much enterprise, would redress, but this proposal was a non-municipal innovation. It had a precedent in the County Councils Act, but the County Council had a widely distributed area where a local audit might be a matter of difficulty, but in boroughs there was no such difficulty, and it was felt that this was only the thin end of the wedge in regard to the adoption of this principle. As far as municipal education was concerned, it was an innovation, and two audits by two different sets of auditors must create very considerable confusion. By this proposal there might be differences of principle and opinion arrising on these audits, and there might be a great expenditure of time and money on the part of the local authority and its officers. He thought this change would be a very distracting one in the interests of local self-government. While he did not propose to divide the House, he had been asked by municipal people belonging to all parties to enter an emphatic protest against a change to which there was great objection, and he asked the President of the Local Government Board for the most explicit assurance that it should not be carried further in municipal matters. They did not want their boroughs or schools Cockertonising.

THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. WALTER LONG,) Bristol, S.

said that as the time at their disposal was of a very limited character, he only desired to say a few words in answer to this protest. The Government had adhered to the existing law with regard to audit for two reasons. There was a distinction between the expenditure under this Act and any other expenditure incurred by a municipal authority because more than half the sum would be received from the Imperial Exchequer. Again, Parliament had laid down the lines on which the money should be spent, and without a system of Government audit it would be impossible to tell whether the orders of Parliament were obeyed. The Government did not in any way prejudge the question of the audit of municipal accounts. It was perfectly true that the audit spoken of by his hon. friend was as good as the Government audit, but when they came to the question of the purpose for which money was spent the only audit which was efficient was the Government audit, because the Government auditor was the only auditor who could surcharge illegal expenditure. This was not a case of driving in the thin edge of the wedge at all. All they said was that these accounts were now subject to this audit because they were different from the ordinary municipal accounts, and for that reason they had thought it right to continue the system of audit now in existence, and not impose upon the corporations any system which applied to general accounts, but which was not equally applicable to education accounts.

Lords' Amendments, as far as the Amendment in page 14, line 12, agreed to.

Lords' Amendment— In page 14, line 12, leave out from the first 'Education' to the end of the sub-Section.

—the next Amendment, read a second time.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."—(Sir William Anson.)

DR. MACNAMRA

said that the effect of the Lords' Amendment was to exclude evening schools altogether from the definition. The original form of the Bill was thus returned to; and he preferred it to that introduced by the Government on Report. There was much elementary work done in the night schools; and it would not be made higher education by being called so. But it was now clear that any local authority was at liberty to give elementary instruction in any evening school to any adult pupil.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

Hear, hear!

DR. MACNAMARA

said that although this elementary education could be given to adults in evening continuation schools, it would have to be paid for out of the money which, under Clause 22, was to be used for higher education. That would be detrimental to higher education in the counties, where the rate for higher education would be limited to 2d. He thought that in administrative counties there would be a difficulty, for what would happen would be that in administrative counties the higher education money, which was limited, could be used for night school work, and he was afraid that this would be detrimental to higher education. Nevertheless he thought it was much better to go back to the original state of the Bill.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

I quite admit that the Government in their wanderings, have, like Ulysses, returned to the place whence they originally started. We first accepted an Amendment that elementary education might be given. What is elementary education? The hon. Gentleman has been severe upon the definition of non-elementary education, which includes reading, writing, and arithmetic, but there may be corresponding criticism of what is called elementary education in the code, which, I think, includes everything up to fiddling and dancing. I have not verified the accomplishments, but it will be admitted that things are introduced into the Code which no one would describe as elementary. This proves that it is impossible to define elementary education so as to make it fit in with the ordinary usages of the English language, and therefore we must have some arbitrary element in the definition. Our first change was to use the word "elementary." That broke down because "elementary" does not really mean elementary in the ordinary sense of the word. We have tried in our second metamorphosis to substitute "reading, writing, and arithmetic." These are undoubtedly elementary, but then the Bill, as thus amended, is open to this objection which will be obvious to anybody when it is stated. You limit the elementary night schools and evening continuation schools in which reading, writing, and arithmetic are taught. Those can be paid for out of the unlimited elementary rate in the borough. In a non-county borough, which has a right to manage its own elementary education, but is under the county as regards secondary education, an evening continuation school in which alone reading, writing, and arithmetic are taught can be paid for out of the unlimited elementary education rate. But if one boy in that school wishes to be taught elementary geography for the purpose of passing an examination for the Post Office or some other place of that kind; if he wants to go beyond the narrowest limits of reading, writing, or arithmetic, and his wish is acceded to, the school at once becomes a higher school and cannot be paid for out of the borough elementary rate. When that boy leaves the school, it returns to its original position. That is a hopeless state of things; and when the whole subject came up for consideration in another place, the Government were for the second time driven out of the position they had taken up, and had no choice but to go back to our original plan of making the sharp, clear and necessarily arbitrary definition which now finds its place in the Bill. I am quite sure everybody will admit that administratively that is the convenient course to have adopted. The only question is, will it interfere with the successful prosecution of this invaluable educational work of the elementary continuation evening schools? Well, I think I may confidently say it will not. The hon. Gentleman has perfectly accurately repeated in substance certain answers I gave at Question time today, and from these answers the House will see that the whole of this important work can be carried on under the Bill, although it must be paid for out of the whisky money and out of the secondary education rate. The only question that remains is—will it be at too great a cost to that rate; will it throw such a heavy demand on that rate that there will not be a sufficient sum available for the purposes of secondary education in the larger and truer sense of the word. I think my answer to that will be conclusive. In the first place, the rate for secondary education is unlimited in the boroughs, and in the counties, though it is not indeed unlimited, it can be increased if necessary. Secondly, what is perhaps more to the purpose than either of those considerations, we have some experience of what this kind of work has cost. It has been largely developed in a large number of counties, I will not say to excess but on a liberal scale. The experience we have of this kind of work in the evening continuation schools shows that on the whole they are not expensive, and certainly that portion of evening continuation school work which is concerned with reading, writing, and arithmetic will impose a fractional burden upon the ratepayers and take a fractional part of the 2d. rate in the counties and of the secondary rate in the boroughs. In these circumstances, I think the House may feel that the Bill as it stands will in no wise interfere with the admirable work which is now being carried on, and will, I hope, be carried on with even greater efficiency in the future in evening secondary schools. I think the House will feel that, though the Government may be open to the charge of having been too easily persuaded in Committee to alter the original form of the Bill, in substance the intentions of both sides of the House in regard to this matter are adequately carried out by the Bill as amended in another place.

MR. BRYCE

said he would not follow the right hon. Gentleman through his long wanderings, because there was not time now, the House having spent too much time on the religious controversy at the beginning of the Sitting. He only wanted to point out that although elementary education could be given in these schools, it could not be called elementary education. Before the Cockerton judgment, what was really secondary education was called elementary. Now they had reversed the position, and what was really elementary education was to be called secondary. Reading, writing, and arithmetic would be purely elementary education, but it would come out of the secondary rate and be given by the secondary education authority.

(10.0.) MR. HENRY HOBHOUSE

said he wished to remind the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Aberdeen that the Secondary Education Commission recommended that the evening continuation schools should come under the supervision of the secondary education authority. He had had considerable experience of evening schools in his own county, and he knew from his own knowledge that a large number of them did give secondary education. In many cases the education was of a mixed character. He ventured to say on the Committee Stage of the Bill that the Government would make a great mistake if they attempted to draw a line between the evening schools which were of an elementary character and those which were of a secondary character. It was an impossible problem, and he was glad to think that the prognostications in regard to this matter had been justified.

LORD EDMUND FITZMAURICE

said he should have agreed with every word of his hon. friend who had just spoken if the financial arrangements had been different. There was very great danger that if the charge for elementary education in the evening schools was met in the way proposed, the higher education portion of the Bill would be very disappointing.

MR. ERNEST GRAY

said that if the House divided on this Amendment which was made in the House of Lords he should support the action of the Government on the ground that the alteration which was made on the Report stage was of the most deplorable character. He was amused at the attempts of his right hon. friend to define what was elementary and what was higher education. The right hon. Gentleman had reduced the definitions to an absurdity.

He was perfectly sure that the day was not far distant when those attempts to draw the line between elementary and higher education would disappear. It was absurd that the same instruction which was given before four o'clock should be elementary, while after four it was higher education. If that was not reducing definition to an absurdity, he did not know what it was.

*MR. HELME (Lancashire, Lancaster)

said that the present arrangement was most disadvantageous, as it opened a prospect of division where he would gladly have avoided it —viz., between the elementary day schools and evening continuation classes. The arrangement which the First Lord of the Treasury agreed to when the House was in Committee contained a very satisfactory development of the plan that was found useful in years which were gone; but as the Bill now stood, in the large Urban Districts and non-County Boroughs it would be found disastrous to transfer the management of evening schools from the local educational authority to the County Councils. Surely this was an illustration of the absurdity of the claim of the Government that this Bill provided a single authority for all sorts of education.

MR. LLOYD-GEORGE

said it was agreed on all hands that the present settlement was unsatisfactory. He did not think that with a perfectly free hand the Prime Minister would have suggested such a solution. It divided the authority in respect to elementary education. The wiser course would have been for the Government to amend the Lords' Amendments by handing over work which was purely elementary to the elementary authority. There were a number of authorities which dealt with elementary, but not secondary education. During the evening elementary education went out of their hands into the hands of someone else. That was a most unsatisfactory arrangement. What he apprehended was that the 2d. rate, especially in poor counties, where the assessment was low, would be completely absorbed by purely elementary work, and that there would be nothing left for secondary or higher education.

Lords' Amendments as far as the Amendment in page 15, line 6, agreed to.

Lords' Amendment—

"In page 15, line 6, after 'school,' insert 'or college.'"

—the next Amendment, read a second time.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."—(Sir William Anson.)

MR. BRYCE

asked for some explanation of this Amendment. He said he had looked through Parts II. and IV. of the Bill, and he did not find any reference to a trust deed. He did not see why the word "college" should be brought in here.

SIR WILLIAM ANSON

said the right hon. Gentleman would find the reference to colleges in Schedule III.

MR. BRYCE

said he would like to ask whether the Secretary to the Board of Education supposed that under these provisions anything could be done to interfere with the trusts of these secondary schools or colleges, which had schemes made for them by the Charity Commission or the Endowed School Commissioners.

SIR WILLIAM ANSON

No.

A Consequential Amendment made to the Bill— In page 15, line 7, by leaving out 'Local Education Authority,' and inserting 'Council.'" —(Sir William Anson.)

Lords' Amendments as far as the Amendment in page 20, line 26, agreed to.

Lords' Amendment— In page 20, line 20, after 'purposes,' insert 'provided that the Board of Education may, if they think fit, pay any share of the Aid Grant under The Voluntary Schools Act, 1897, allotted to an association of Voluntary Schools, to the governing body of that association, if such governing body satisfy the Board of Education that proper arrangements have been made for the application of any sum so paid.'

—the next Amendment, read a second time,

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."—(Sir William Anson.)

DR. MACNAMARA

said it was perfectly straightforward that any outstanding grant upon which the managers of voluntary schools had a claim should be paid over to them, but what he wanted to ask was what liability these associations had incurred. These associations were called into existence under the Act of 1897, for paying the grants to the voluntary schools. Their formation was not compulsory, but only permissive; and it was beyond his comprehension to know what claims these associations must have between the close of one system, and the beginning of another. He could not conceive of any liability which they would have to entitle them to this money at all. They were estimable bodies who had done nothing but meet together to dispense this money to the managers. This money ought to be applied to the school managers, who had done good work. In the absence of any explanation from the Secretary to the Board of Education as to what serious liability these voluntary school associations had entered into, he was entitled very strongly to object to this Amendment.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

said he could not quite understand why the hon. Gentleman objected to the Lords' Amendment. No money was taken from the taxpayer, because this was money which he had already parted with, and therefore he was not wronged, and the provided schools were not injured. The only people, therefore, who could be injured by the Amendment were the managers of the Voluntary schools. But this Amendment was introduced entirely in the interest of the managers of these Voluntary schools. It was thought that arrangements should be made that the managers should regard themselves over a great area as one corporate body, and that the money should be paid to them to give assistance to the weaker schools. Nobody would be hurt by that. He did not think that anyone interested in the Voluntary schools would take the line suggested by the hon. Member, and he hoped that the House would consent to the Lords' Amendment.

MR. LLOYD-GEORGE

said that the Prime Minister had suggested that nobody was damnified by the proposal in the Amendment, but he certainly thought the taxpayer was. He believed that a sum of £150,000 accrued to these voluntary associations to meet all the liabilities of the Voluntary schools. But supposing the managers said that they had no liabilities, were the voluntary associations to retain the money in their own hands, and have the right to hold the money, and use it for a building fund?

Mr. A. J. BALFOUR

Yes.

MR. LLOYD-GEORGE

said he was very glad to hear that admission, because it showed quite clearly why this Amendment had been inserted. All these payments were made in advance, and this money would be paid over to the voluntary associations immediately before the charge for maintenance was transferred to the County Councils. It was quite clear that this £150,000 would be retained by the voluntary associations as an additional little gift to the Bishops and their satellites.

SIR ROBERT FINLAY

said that if the hon. Member would look carefully at the Amendment he would see that there was no ground for the suggestion he had made. The money would be applied in payment of outstanding liabilities, and the amount not required for that purpose would be taken over by the managers of the schools for the purposes sanctioned by the Act. This was merely a provision that instead of the money being paid to the individual managers, it should be paid to the voluntary associations to be distributed by them.

LORD EDMUND FITZMAURICE

said this Amendment could not be separated from one which had been discussed earlier in the evening when they found that these voluntary associations were to be galvanised into life for this special purpose, for a hint had fallen from the Attorney General that the voluntary associations were to be allowed to distribute this money, not according to the claims of the individual schools, but for any purpose the associations thought fit. The objection which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Forest of Dean had made was that, in the county a part of which he represented, there was a suspicion that there had been a great deal, if not of favouritism, at least of favour. If this money was to be paid over to these voluntary associations to be distributed as they thought fit, then they were fully justified, even at this last stage, in making a final protest against it.

SIR JOHN DORINGTON

said this was an arrangement for meeting a gap until the appointed day occurred. The noble Lord the Member for the Cricklade Division had reiterated the charge made by the right hon. Baronet the Member for Forest of Dean, that the voluntary associations of Gloucester had been guilty of malpractices in regard to the distribution of this

grant. He repudiated any such charge whatever, and he ventured to say that the right hon. Gentleman ought to have stated more fully the evidence on which he had made that charge. The right hon. Gentleman's information had evidently come from a schoolmaster who had been refused an increase of salary, not by the school committee, but by his own managers, and who had raked up a long list of inequalities in the distribution of the grant. But these inequalities had been sanctioned by the Board of Education in order that a pupil teachers' centre might be established.

(10.38.) Question put.

The House divided:—Ayes, 151; Noes, 46. (Division List No. 647.)

AYES.
Agg-Gardner, James Tynte Esmonde, Sir Thomas Long, Rt. Hn. Walter(Bristol, S.
Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward Lucas, Reginald J.(Portsmouth
Anson, Sir William Reynell Fergusson, Rt Hn. Sir J.(Manc'r Lundon, W.
Arkwright, John Stanhope Ffrench, Peter Lyttelton, Hon. Alfred
Arnold-Forster, Hugh O. Finch, Rt. Hon. George H. MacDonnell, Dr. Mark A.
Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne MacVeagh, Jeremiah
Bailey, James (Walworth) Fisher, William Hayes M'Govern, T.
Bain, Colonel James Robert Fison, Frederick William M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North)
Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J.(Manch'r Fitzroy, Hon. Edward Algernon Massey-Mainwaring, Hn. W. F.
Balfour, Capt. C. B.(Hornsey) Flannery, Sir Fortescue Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)
Balfour, Rt Hn Gerald W (Leeds Fletcher, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry More, Robt. Jasper (Shropshire)
Banbury, Sir Frederick George Flower, Ernest Morrell, George Herbert
Bentinck, Lord Henry C. Forster, Henry William Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer
Bignold, Arthur Gardner, Ernest Murray Rt Hn. A. Graham (Bute
Bigwood, James Garfit, William Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)
Blundell, Colonel Henry Gibbs, Hn. A. G. H (City of Lond Nicol, Donald Ninian
Bond, Edward Godson, Sir Augustus Frederick Nolan, Col. John P.(Galway, N.)
Bousfield, William Robert Gordon, Maj Evans-(T'rH'lets Nolan, Joseph (Louth South)
Brassey, Albert Gore, Hon. S. F. Ormsby-(Linc.) O'Brien, Kendal(Tipperary Mid
Brodrick, Rt Hon. St John Greene, Henry D. (Shrewsbury) O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)
Campbell, John (Armagh, S.) Groves, James Grimble O'Brien, P. J. (Tipperary, N.)
Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H. Hay, Hon. Claude George O'Doherty, William
Cavendish, V. CW.(Derbyshire Henderson, Sir Alexander O'Donnell, T. (Kerry, W.)
Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich) Hickman, Sir Alfred O'Dowd, John
Chamberlain, Rt Hn J A.(Worc. Higginbottom, S. W. O'Kelly, James(Roscommon, N.
Chapman, Edward Hobhouse, Rt Hn H.(Somers't, E O'Mara, James
Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E. Hope, J. F.(Sheffield, Brightside O'Shaughnessy, P. J.
Cohen, Benjamin Louis Hoult, Joseph Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)
Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse Hudson, George Bickersteth Pemberton, John S. G.
Colomb, Sir John Charles Ready Hutton, John (Yorks., N R.) Percy, Earl
Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole Jameson, Major J. Eustace Platt-Higgins, Frederick
Compton, Lord Alwyne Jordan, Jeremiah Plummer, Walter R.
Condon, Thomas Joseph Joyce, Michael Powell, Sir Francis Sharp
Cranborne, Viscount Kennedy, Patrick James Power, Patrick Joseph
Crossley, Sir Savile Keswick, William Pretyman, Ernest George
Cullinan, J. Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow) Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward
Davenport, W. Bromley- Lawrence, Sir Joseph(Monm'th Purvis, Robert
Dimsdale, Rt. Hon. Sir Joseph C. Leamy, Edmund Rasch, Major Frederic Carne
Disraeli, Conings by Ralph Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead) Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)
Doogan, P. C. Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage Rolleston, Sir John F. L.
Dorington, Rt. Hon. Sir John E. Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye
Doughty, George Lockie, John Round, Rt. Hon. James
Douglas Rt. Hon. A. Akers- Lockwood, Lt.-Col. A. R. Royds, Clement Molyneux
Doxford, Sir William Theodore Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine Rutherford, John
Duke, Henry Edward Long, Col. Charles W.(Evesham Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-
Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse) Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester) Wilson, A. Stanley(York, E. R.)
Seely. Maj. J. E. B.(lsleof Wight Talbot, Rt. Hn. J. G.(Oxf'd Univ. Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George
Sheehan, Daniel Daniel Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)
Skewes-Cox, Thomas Tomlinson, Sir. Wm. Edw. M.
Smith, Abel H.(Hertford, East) Tully, Jasper TELLERS FOR THE AYES—
Stanley, Edward Jas (Somerset) Valentia, Viscount Sir Alexander Acland-
Sullivan, Donal Willox, Sir John Archibald Hood and Mr. Anstruther.
NOES.
Allen, Charles P.(Glouc., Stroud Hope, John Deans (Fife, West) Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)
Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire) Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley) Strachey, Sir Edward
Brigg, John Jacoby, James Alfred Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)
Broadhurst, Henry Layland-Barratt, Francis Thomas, David Alfred(Merthyr
Brown, George M. (Edinburgh) Levy, Maurice Thomas, JA (Glamorgan, Gower
Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson Lloyd-George, David Toulmin, George
Bryce, Rt. Hon. James Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J. Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.
Caldwell, James Markham, Arthur Basil Weir, James Galloway
Cremer, William Randal Norman, Henry Whitley, J. H. (Hallifax)
Dalziel, James Henry Norton, Capt. Cecil William Whittaker, Thomas Palmer
Evans, Samuel T. (Glamorgan) Nussey, Thomas William Wilson, Fred. W. (Norfolk Mid.)
Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmund Rea, Russell Wilson, Henry J. (York, W. R.)
Goddard, Daniel Ford Reckitt, Harold James
Gray, Ernest (West Ham) Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)
Griffith, Ellis J. Roe, Sir Thomas TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—
Harmsworth, R. Leicester Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland) Mr. Causton and Mr.
Helme, Norval Watson Shipman, Dr. John G. Robert Spencer.

Question put, and agreed to.

Lords' Amendments as far as the Amendment in page 22, line 39, agreed to.

Lords' Amendment— In page22, line39, leave out 'to the,' and insert 'or in any provision of a scheme made under the Charitable Trusts Acts, 1853 to 1894, or the Endowed Schools Acts, 1869 to 1889, or the Elementary Education Acts, 1870 to 1900, to any.'

—the next Amendment, read a second time.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."—(Sir William Anson.)

MR. BRYCE

said this Amendment was one of very considerable importance. The House would remember that they had not been able to discuss the Schedule, and he thought that the mischief in the latter part of it was very much increased by the Amendment. Under the Endowed Schools Acts and the Charitable Trusts Acts schools had been declared to be undenominational, which under the Bill would be open to a certain amount of sectarianism. The effect of the Amendment would be, as far as he understood it, to undo the unsectarian provisions contained in those schemes, and to subject them to the new provision of the Bill. Clearly that would be an enormous change; and he hoped that the Board of Education would be able to give some assurance that it could not be done. If the change could be carried out, it ought not to have been made without the fullest discussion.

MR. LLOYD-GEORGE

said he wished to ask whether the Amendment would in the slightest degree affect schemes under the Welsh Intermediate Act. At present they were working very harmoniously, but if they were to be reconstructed he did not know what might happen.

SIR RORERT FINLAY

said the effect of the Amendment was to substitute, for a reference to the Technical Instruction Acts, Part II. of this Bill. If hon. Members would look at the Section they would see that it provided that— References in any enactment to the provisions of Technical Instruction Acts, 1889 and 1891, relating to the powers of supplying or aiding the supply of technical or manual instruction, shall, unless the context otherwise requires, be construed as references to the provisions of Part II. of this Act, and the provisions of this Act shall apply with respect to any school, college, or hostel established, and to any obligation incurred under the Technical Instruction Acts, 1889 and 1891, as if the school, college, or hostel had been established or the obligation incurred under Part II. of this Act. It was perfectly obvious that there must be references in schemes under the Charitable Trusts Acts, the Endowed Schools Acts, and the Technical Instruction Acts; and it was also obvious that where references were provided they should be construed with reference to Part II. of the Bill.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

said he believed that the Amendment would be found to be purely formal. The Technical Instruction Committee was abolished, and they must substitute a new authority. The schedule was intended to carry out that object. The right hon. Gentleman might take it from him that that was the intention, and he believed it would also be the effect, of the Amendment.

MR. BRYCE

said the difficulty was that the Amendment gave the power of altering schemes from an unsectarian to a sectarian character. That might not be the intention, but he feared it would be the effect.

Lords' Amendments, as far as the Amendment in page 22, line 46, agreed to.

Lords' Amendment— In page 22, line 46, after 'Act,' insert as a new paragraph: 'The Local Government Board may, after consultation with the Board of Education, by order make such adaptations in the provisions of any local Act (including any Act to confirm a Provisional Order and any scheme under the Municipal Corporations Act, 1882, as amended by any subsequent Act) as may seem to them to be necessary to make those provisions conform with the provisions of this Act, and may also in like manner, on the application of any Council who have powers as to education under this Act, and have also powers as to education under any local Act, make such modifications in the local Act as will enable the powers under that Act to be exercised as if they were powers under this Act. Any order made under this provision shall operate as if enacted in this Act.

—the next Amendment, read a second time.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."—(Sir William Anson.)

MR. GEORGE WHITELEY (Yorkshire, W. R., Pudsey)

said the Amendment was a very serious one to be introduced at this stage of the Bill. It appeared to give the Local Government Board the power of over-riding existing Acts of Parliament. No opportunity had been given to them of consulting their constituents as to whether those local Acts contained valuable provisions; and it seemed to him that the House ought not to give legislative power to a Government Department. The Amendment enabled the change to be carried out practically without application to the local authority; and he doubted whether Parliament had ever before given such power to a Government Department. He hoped an explanation would be given before the Amendment was accepted.

MR. WALTER LONG

said that he could assure the hon. Gentleman that his fears were absolutely groundless. This was one of the commonest provisions inserted in Acts of Parliament. In this particular case, there were a great many local Acts which governed the action of the local authorities in regard to technical education; and it would be impossible to include necessary alterations in those Acts within the compass of an ordinary Act of Parliament. The Amendment gave the Local Government Board power to amend the Statutes in order to bring them into conformity with the present Bill.

MR. SAMUEL EVANS

said that although the right hon. Gentleman stated it was one of the commonest provisions, he nevertheless gave no precedent. It was very doubtful, however, whether it was advisable to give this power to the Local Government Board, as the House had no power to supervise what the Board did.

Mr. WALTER LONG

Certainly, through the Provisional Order.

MR. SAMUEL EVANS

said there was nothing about a Provisional Order in the Section. The Local Government Board would have the final word in the matter; and he considered that if Acts of Parliament were to be repealed, it ought to be by Provisional Order or by an Order of the Board, which would have to lie on the Table for forty days. Under the Section, whether that was the intention or not, the Local Government Board would merely have to make a Departmental Order, even without a capital "O." Under these circumstances, unless the right hon. Gentleman was prepared to amend the Section in order to make it compulsory on the Local Government Board to lay any Order on the Table, he thought it would be difficult for the House to accept the Amendment.

SIR ROBERT FINLAY

said the hon. Gentleman complained that there was not a capital "O" to the word order, but the order would deal with a great many matters of detail.

MR. SAMUEL EVANS

said it was not a Provisional Order.

SIR ROBERT FINLAY

said he did not say it was.

MR. SAMUEL EVANS

But the right hon. Gentleman said it was.

SIR ROBERT FINLAY

said he was dealing with what the hon. Gentleman had said. A great many local authorities had expressed a desire that schemes under local Acts should be worked under this Act, and in order to give effect to those aspirations the Amendment was absolutely necessary.

MR. BRYCE

asked why in the case of a County Council application was necessary, whereas in the case of a municipality no provision was made for its concurrence. Surely there should be a provision enabling Municipal Councils as well as County Councils to express their agreement?

SIR ROBERT FINLAY

said that the Amendment would apply to Municipal as well as County Councils.

SIR JOHN BRUNNER

said it was evidently in the mind of the President of the Local Government Board that the Councils should be consulted in this matter, and

that also appeared to be the wish of the Attorney General. But he wanted to know if it was the intention of the Government to bring the words of the Bill into conformity with that wish; and would the House be assured that all Councils—County as well as Borough— would be consulted, and that their wishes would not be overruled.

MR. LLOYD-GEORGE

said the Amendment was really a very important constitutional departure. It was not the only constitutional departure they had had in connection with the Bill. Even the President of the Local Government Board considered it was an important departure; and the right hon. Gentleman assumed, and he was right in assuming, that if the Government proceeded regularly, they would proceed by Provisional Order, if they wished to modify Acts of Parliament. Then the House would be modifying Acts it had previously passed. But the principle which was now introduced gave, as far as he could discover, power to a Government Department to abrogate Acts of Parliament without any Provisional Order at all. That was a very important constitutional principle and this was not the only time that the privileges of this House were treated with contempt by the Government. The very last Amendment to the Education Bill which would be put in the House showed the extent to which the Government was gradually whittling away the privileges of this House, and distributing them among the House of Lords, the Bishops, and Government Departments.

(11.13.) Question put.

The House divided:—Ayes, 152; Noes, 42. (Division List No. 648.)

AYES.
Agg-Gardner, James Tynte Bigwood, James Cohen, Benjamin Louis
Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel Blundell, Colonel Henry Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse
Anson. Sir William Reynell Bond, Edward Colomb, Sir John Charles Ready
Arkwright, John Stanhope Bousfield, William Robert Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole
Arnold-Forster, Hugh O. Brassey, Albert Compton, Lord Alwyne
Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John Condon, Thomas Joseph.
Bailey, James (Walworth) Campbell, John (Armagh, S.) Cranborne, Viscount
Bain, Colonel James Robert Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H. Crossley, Sir Savile
Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J.(Manch'r Cavendish, V. C. W.(Derbyshire Cullinan, J.
Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey) Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich) Davenport, W. Bromley-
Balfour, Rt Hn Gerald W.(Leeds Chamberlain, Rt Hn J. A (Worc. Dimsdale. Rt. Hon. Sir Joseph C.
Banbury, Sir Frederick George Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph
Bentinck, Lord Henry C. Chapman, Edward Doogan, P. C.
Bignold, Arthur Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E. Dorington, Rt. Hon. Sir John E.
Doughty, George Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow) O'Shaughnessy, P. J.)
Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers- Lawrence, Sir Joseph(Monm'th) Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)
Doxford, Sir William Theodore Leamy, Edmund Pemberton, John S. G.
Duke, Henry Edward Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead) Percy, Earl
Esmonde, Sir Thomas Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage Platt-Higgins, Frederick
Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie Plummer, Walter R.
Fergusson, Rt. Hn. Sir J.(Manc'r Lockie, John Powell, Sir Francis Sharp
Ffrench, Peter Lockwood, Lt.-Col. A. R. Power, Patrick Joseph
Finch, Rt. Hon. George H. Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine Pretyman, Ernest George
Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne Long, Col. Charles W.(Evesham Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward
Fisher, William Hayes Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (Bristol, S. Purvis, Robert
Fison, Frederick William Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsmouth Rasch, Major Frederic Carne
Fitzroy, Hon. Edward Algernon Lundon, W. Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)
Flannery, Sir Fortescue Lyttelton, Hon. Alfred Rolleston, Sir John F. L.
Fletcher, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry Macdona, John Cumming Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye
Flower, Ernest MacDonnell, Dr. Mark A. Round, Rt. Hon. James
Forster, Henry William MacVeagh, Jeremiah Royds, Clement Molyneux
Gardner, Ernest M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool) Rutherford, John
Godson, Sir Augustus Frederiek M'Govern, T. Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-
Gordon, Maj Evans-(T'rH'mlets M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North) Seely, Maj. J. E. B. (Isle of Wight
Gore, Hon. S. F. Ormsby-(Linc.) Massey-Mainwaring, Hn. W. F. Sheehan, Daniel Daniel
Gray, Ernest (West Ham) Montagu, G. (Huntingdon) Skewes-Cox, Thomas
Greene, Henry D. (Shrewsbury) More. Robt. Jasper (Shropshire) Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)
Groves, James Grimble Morrell, George Herbert Stanley, Edward Jas.(Somerset
Hay, Hon. Claude George Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer Sullivan, Donal
Henderson, Sir Alexander Murray, Rt Hn A. Graham (Bute Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)
Hickman, Sir Alfred Murray, Charles J. (Coventry) Talbot, Rt Hn. J. G.(Oxf'd Univ.
Higginbottom. S. W. Nicol, Donald Ninian Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)
Hobhouse, Rt Hn H.(Somers't, E Nolan, Col. John P.(Galway, N.) Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.
Hope, J. F.(Sheffield, Brightside Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South) Tully, Jasper
Hoult, Joseph O'Brien, Kendal(Tipperary Mid Valentia, Viscount
Hudson, George Bickersteth O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny) Willox, Sir John Archibald
Hutton, John (Yorks., N. R.) O'Brien, P. J. (Tipperary, N.) Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E. R.
Jameson, Major J. Eustace O'Doherty, William Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George
Jordan, Jeremiah O'Donnell, T. (Kerry, W.)
Joyce, Michael O'Dowd. John TELLERS FOR THE AYES—
Kennedy, Patrick James O'Kelly, James(Roscommon, N. Sir Alexander Acland-
Keswick, William O'Mara, James Hood and Mr. Anstruther.
NOES.
Allen, Charles P.(Glouc. Stroud Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley) Shipman, Dr. John G.
Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire) Jacoby, James Alfred Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)
Brigg, John Layland-Barratt, Francis Spencer, Rt Hn. C, R.(Northants
Broadhurst, Henry Levy, Maurice Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe
Brown, George M. (Edinburgh Lloyd-George, David Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr
Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J. Thomas, J A (Glamorgan, Gower
Bryce, Rt. Hon. James Markham, Arthur Basil Toulmin, George
Caldwell, James Norman, Henry Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.
Causton, Richard Knight Norton, Capt. Cecil William Weir, James Galloway
Cremer, William Randal Nussey, Thomas Willans Whittaker, Thomas Palmer
Dalziel, James Henry Rea, Russell Wilson, Fred. W.(Norfolk, Mid.
Goddard, Daniel Ford Reckitt, Harold James Wilson, Henry J. (York, W. R.
Griffith, Ellis J. Roberts, John Bryn (Eilion) TELLERS FOR THE NOES—
Helme, Norval Watson Roe, Sir Thomas Mr. Whitley and Mr.
Hope, John Deans (Fife, West Samuel, Herbert L.(Cleveland) Samuel Evans.

Committee appointed to draw up Reasons to be assigned to the Lords for disagreeing to one of their Amendments to the Bill.

Committee nominated of Sir William Anson, Mr. Attorney General, Mr. Bryce, Mr. Henry Hobhouse, Mr. Lloyd-George, and Mr. Long.

Committee to withdraw immediately.

Three to be the Quorum.—(Sir William Anson.)