HC Deb 01 July 1902 vol 110 cc484-519

Considered in Committee.

(In the Committee.)

Clause 3:—

Question again proposed. "That Clause 3, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

(9.0.) DR. MACNAMARA (continuing)

said he had heard with consternation the; alarming interpretation which the First Lord had put on the functions of the non-county boroughs and urban districts; and he considered it of so serious a nature that he proposed to move the rejection of the clause. Where, he would like to know, were they drifting? The original scheme of the Bill, which he had cordially supported in principle, was that of a single authority for all grades of education, administering a suitable area. In this respect he was a sincere and convinced disciple of the Vice-President, whose speeches as to the necessity of one authority he had followed with great interest. But now it appeared that the scheme was to set up paramount authorities for all grades of education in each of the sixty-two administrative counties, and in each of the sixty-seven non-county boroughs, thus making 129 authorities; and the provisio would let in 140 municipal boroughs over 10,000 population, and sixty-one urban districts over 20,000, thus making 201 authorities who would have an absolute autonomy over elementary education and concurrent' powers with the County Council over higher education. This gave in all 330 authorities. It was a monstrous farce to talk any longer about one authority. Moreover, they had now let in all non-county boroughs, who, while they were not to be autonomous for elementary education, were to be absolutely independent, up to a penny in the pound, with regard to higher education, thus giving 108 more authorities. Then they were letting in also the urban districts, who were to have autonomous independence, up to a penny in the pound for higher education, and these were no fewer than 745 in number. He had spent the interval of the Suspension in working out these figures, because he was anxious to see the Bill emerge from its Committee stage in as good an educational form as possible. He found that, in addition to the 330 authorities set up by the interpretation of the First Lord, there were to be 853 authorities for secondary education, making altogether the alarming total of 1,183 educational authorities. He must say that for a one authority Bill that was rather a large order. And this curious fact should be noted—that the autonomous authorities for higher education were four times as many as those for elementary education. That was not simply grotesque; it was the climax of grotesqueness. The Vice President in 1896, under a similar scheme, declared that 128 autonomous authorities were too many and, when the First Lord admitted 197 more, said he had killed the Bill. What had the right hon. Gentleman now to say when there were no fewer than 1,183 authorities to be created 1 The secondary authorities, according to the statement of the First Lord, ought to be less in number than the elementary authorities. The right hon. Gentleman had said that he did not desire to take away functions of the non-county boroughs and urban districts which already existed, but that was a very good argument for the non-abolition of the School Boards.


We take no powers away from them.


said the Government wore taking away their existence altogether. The Bill repealed the Technical Instruction Acts altogether. The right hon. Gentleman said he simply wanted to set up something else which was equivalent. In regard to education "other than elementary" they were placing on the small bodies the obligation not only of continuing technical instruction, but of providing for the training of adult teachers. Therefore it was no argument to say that the Government went on this line of policy because they were 10th to take away powers which these bodies had already. They did more than continue former powers; they added a number of functions to those which they already possessed. At an earlier part of the debate he asked the First Lord of the Treasury whether the 1,183 authorities could, if they desired to, set up a secondary school in their own area in defiance of the wish of the County Council; and the right hon. Gentleman said, "Yes, if it were with their own penny." Then he asked if they would have the rate of the Education Committee for that purpose, and the First Lord replied "Yes." He could well imagine a small urban authority foregoing any right to a share in the whisky money and relying on its own penny in order to avoid interference by the County Council. He would take three typical counties. In Devonshire there would be, first of all, the administrative county, which would be able to levy up to 2d. in the £ for secondary education. Then there were the three county boroughs of Devonport, Exeter, and Plymouth, which would have the right to levy up to any sum for secondary education, and perfect autonomy in regard to elementary education. Then there were the three non-county boroughs of Barnstaple, Tiverton, and Torquay, which would be autonomous for elementary education, and also for higher education up to the limit of a Id. in the £, and thirty-four urban districts which would not be autonomous for elementary education but would be so for higher education up to a 1d. in the £. There was a spectacle! Forty-one different authorities in one county He commended that condition of things to Mr. W. S. Gilbert. In Cheshire there was the administrative county, four county boroughs, six municipal boroughs over 10,000, one, urban district over 20,000, and thirty-three other urban districts and municipal boroughs, all with the various powers the corresponding bodies in Devonshire had. But Lancashire was the most remarkable of all. Starting with the administrative county, there were also sixteen county boroughs, which would be absolutely dominant for higher and elementary education, levying any rate they liked in both cases; nineteen municipal boroughs over 10,000; eleven urban districts over 20,000 with autonomy for elementary education and autonomy up to a 1d. in the£ for higher education; and, over and above all those eighty-six other non-county boroughs and urban districts not having any functions whatever with regard to elementary education, but having perfect autonomy and independence up to Id. in the £ for higher education. In Lancashire there would be 133 autonomous authorities for higher and forty-seven for elementary education. There were 1183 autonomous authorities for higher education, and 330 authorities for elementary education, and this- face to face with the fact that in 1896 the Vice-President of the Council stated that 197 would be fatal to any local government for education. The hon. Member hoped the case was not so bad as he had painted it, but his interpretation of the First Lord's statement was absolutely accurate. He hoped that before the Clause passed into law the Committee would hear from the Attorney-General what was the exact interpretation of all those new authorities. The Bill was a very long way from being what he considered to be a one-authority Bill, and he felt compelled to move the rejection of the Clause.


said the hon. Member for North Camberwell had on former occasions expressed a desire to hear him on the subject, and he would take this opportunity of stating his views. In the first place, he wished to call the attention of the Committee to the fact that the 1,183 authorities of which the hon. Member spoke were now in existence, and had been in existence during the last twelve years.


Not for this purpose.


During the whole of that time it had been open to any non-county borough or urban district to start a technical school in defiance of the County Council, and to the County Council to open a technical school on the opposite side of the street, or side by side, and for competition to be carried on between the two. Yet throughout the whole of England and Wales there had not been a single case in which such a thing had been done. Why? Because the County Councils and the councils of the non-county boroughs and the urban districts were commonsense men, who had used their powers in a rational, and not an irrational, manner. The case of Stockton had been quoted; but that was not a case of rival schools. The people of Stockton were aggrieved because the county of Durham did not give them a larger share of the local taxation money. He defied any hon. Member to point to a case in which the existence of these concurrent powers under the Technical Instruction Act had ever given rise to overlapping or to rival schools. So far so good. The hon. Member for North Camber-well objected that this Bill dealt not with technical, but with higher, education. But as the hon. Member himself well knew, the definition of technical education was extremely loose and wide. It included even continuation schools, and there were a number of evening continuation schools being carried on by the local taxation money. In Cambridgeshire where he lived it was their boast, and he believed the boast was true, that they had never levied a rate at all, and that there was a continuation school now within reach of every one of the inhabitants. That was the case of a rather sparsely populated county. Therefore, under the present Bill the local authorities would practically have to provide only the same kind of schools that they had been providing during the last twelve years. He thought they could teach a great deal of elementary instruction under the Technical Instruction Act. [An HON. MEMBER: "No."]—Well, but they did. After all, this was a matter in which they should not go upon theory and logic, but on the practical way in which a Bill of this kind was to be worked in its administration. Hehadnever known in his life an Act of Parliament; logical from one end to the other. In a complicated civilisation like ours, there had to be a good deal of moderation and confidence, a good deal of give and take, to make our laws work as well as they had worked in actual practice. The hon. Member for North Camberwell might have made exactly the same speech in respect of the Technical Instruction Act; yet that "absurd" Act had worked perfectly well for twelve years without any hitch, or any of the difficulties which would have been conjured up by the hon. Gentleman if he had been in the House at that time, and if he had been in the same frame of mind then. When the Government framed this Bill, they were face to face with the fact that a number of authorities who possessed these powers had exercised them. A logical scheme would have swept the powers away; but the authorities would have remained, smarting under the sense of having been deprived, not only of authority, but of property. How could any new programme have been carried out with all these authorities initially unsympathetic? Originally, when the Bill was introduced by my right hon. friend, the plan was to deprive the smaller districts of their powers, and they would have been deprived, in; many cases, of what they regarded as their property in the schools they had built; but who made representations to the Government of the inexpediency of such a course? It was not the small boroughs, or the small urban districts themselves. It was the counties that brought this matter strongly to the notice of the Government. It was the great counties, in whose interest, and to preserve whose authority, the Government scheme was introduced. He was present last week when a most influential deputation waited on the Duke of Devonshire, representing all the great counties, and this point was urged most especially by the Chairman of the Lancashire County Council—the county to which the hon. Member had referred as the most grotesque case of all. That gentleman was Sir John Hibbert, whose name would be received with respect, especially by hon. Members opposite. When he sat in this House he was one of the greatest ornaments of their Party. He was a man of knowledge and experience, and when he recommended a course of action, his opinion should be treated with some respect. The right hon. Gentleman did not think it was given to an hon. Member like the hon. Member for North Camberwell to describe Sir John Hibbert's representation as grotesque and absurd. It was most essential to the Clause that the powers of these authorities should be limited to a very small rate; because, with unlimited powers of rating, they might be tempted to set themselves up in opposition to the county authorities. But with only a penny rate it would be impossible to interfere with the general county management of education. The idea of the Bill was that the county authorities should inquire into the state of education and frame a general county scheme for secondary education. He would not at present go into a discussion on the question of elementary education, because that would be dealt with later on. If a county contemplated a great scheme including secondary education, what opposition would the urban districts or boroughs be able to give to it with a penny scheme 1 There would be an unlimited scheme in the county.


said the rate proposed was twopence.


said the county authority would get the whole of the whisky money, and also the twopenny rate, but they would have unlimited power to increase the rate if they could convince the Local Government Board that their financial position warranted the expenditure. Compared with that of the little recalcitrant boroughs that was an enormous power. How, in these circumstances, could a small borough set itself up against the county authority? It would be foolish to try to do it. The county could proceed to carry out its plan irrespective of any trivial disturbance which might come from a municipal borough. If, on the other hand, as would be the case in 999 boroughs out of 1000, the borough authorities were reasonable and sensible men their power to levy a penny rate would greatly assist the county scheme. In return for the assistance of the district, the county would probably establish the county school there, and thug give that individual interest which people acquired in things which they thought were their own. If the authorities of counties and small boroughs were people of ordinary intelligence and common sense, he thought that the preservation in the Bill of this power to levy the penny rate, in addition to the county rate, would greatly facilitate the spread of secondary' education. At all events, the Committee might take it that this was the opinion of Sir John Hibbert, and it was the opinion which the representatives of all County Councils in England had urged on the Government as facilitating their operations and in making it more easy for them to carry out the plan which they understood to be the plan of the Bill. That being their opinion, and it being most essential that a Bill should be passed which was in accordance with the views and the opinions of those who had to carry out its provisions, it would be most unfortunate if the Committee were to reject this Clause on the fanciful objections urged by the hon. Member.


said the Committee had heard a great deal about the opinion of Sir John Hibbert, and very little about the opinion of Sir John Gorst. It was a pity that the right hon. Gentleman, having got up to answer the speech of his hon. friend the Member for North Camberwell, should have thought fit to sit down without giving the Committee the benefit of his own opinion. They knew what was the opinion of the Vice-President in 1896, and so far he had not been able to gather anything in the course of the debates on the Bill to show that the right hon. Gentleman had discarded any of the opinions he then held, and which he declared in emphatic language to the House. Moreover, the right hon. Gentleman had, no doubt, been consulted by the Government in the framing of the Bill; and the scheme of the Government, at any rate at the beginning, was not to bring in those small bodies. It was to destroy the small bodies as autonomous centres, and to take from them the property they possessed, or thought they possessed. If that was the scheme of the Government, had the right hon. Gentleman given sufficient reason for saying that now they must preserve these small bodies? Sir John Hibbert was, no doubt, under the impression that the County Council was to be the governing authority, but now there had been created a vast number of small autonomous centres. If these small bodies which were now included in the Bill had a penny rate, they would be able to form a Committee and to frame a scheme of their own. That would cause the functions of those small bodies to clash with the general functions of the County Council. The small bodies in their particular centres would be the persons to decide whether they would have a school of their own, and were they likely to sit down and allow it to be in the hands of the County Council? The First Lord of the Treasury said, "No, they are to be autonomous in this regard." That was what hon. Members on this side of the House thought was not conducive to the interests of higher education. That was chiefly why he was entirely against giving autonomy in the matter of higher education to the smaller boroughs. He wanted to know why these urban districts were to be invested with this autonomous power if the larger rural districts were not also to be invested with the same power. An Urban Council like Frinton-on-Sea, in Essex, with a population of seventy-five persons, was to have autonomy; while large rural districts, with populations of 20,000 and upwards, were to be deprived of it. There would be a similar anomaly in the case of Child wall, in Lancashire, with a population of 219. These were cases which lie took simply at random. He wondered what Sir John Hibbert would say after reading the speech of the First Lord of the Treasury in regard to the creation of a vast number of autonomous centres. As the clause now stood, it was in a hopeless jumble. He did not believe the Government themselves understood it, or that it carried out their own intentions.


rose in his place, and claimed to move. "That the Question he now put."

(9.57.) Question put, "That the Question be now put."

The Committee divided:—Ayes, 195; Noes, 117. (Division List No. 257.)

Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir Alex. F. Gray, Ernest (West Ham) Percy, Earl
Anson, Sir William Reynell Green, Ernest (West Ham) Pierpoint. Robert
Arkwright, John Stanhope Greene, Henry D. (Shrewsbury) Platt-Higgins, Frederick
Arnold-Forster, Hugh O. Grove, James Grimble Powell, Sir Francis Sharp
Arrol, Sir William Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill Pretyman, Ernest George
Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John Hain, Edward Purvis, Robert
Bain, Colonel James Robert Had, Edward Marshall Pym, C. Guy
Baird, John George Alexander Hamilton Rt. Hn. L'rdG. (Middx Randles, John S.
Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J. (Manch'r. Hamilton, Marq. of (L'ndnderry Rasch, Major Frederic Carne
Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey) Hanbury, Rt. Hon. Robert Wm. Remnant, James Farquharson
Half our, Rt. Hon. G. W. (Leeds Harris, Frederick Leverton Renshaw, Charles Bine
Ban bury, Frederick George Haslett, Sir James Horner Richards, Henry Charles
Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjmin Hatch, Ernest Frederick Geo. Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson
Beaeh, Rt. Hn. Sir Mieha'l Hicks Henderson, Alexander Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)
Bentinck, Lord Henry C. Hermon-Hodge, Robert Trotter Robertson, Herbert (Haekney)
Bignold, Arthur Hickman, Sir Alfred Ropner, Colonel Robert
Bigwood, James Higginbottom, S. W. Royds, Clement Molyneux
Bill, Charles Hobhouse, Henry (Somerset, E. Russell, T. W.
Blundell, Colonel Henry Hogg, Lindsay Rutherford, John
Boscawen, Arthur Griffith- Hope, J. F. (Sheffield, Brightside Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander
Brassey, Albert Horner, Fredrick William Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse)
Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John Hoult, Joseph Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)
Brotherton, Edward Allen Houston, Robert Paterson Seely, Maj. J. E. B. (Isleof Wight
Brymer, William Ernest Hozier, Hon. James Henry Cecil Skewes-Cox, Thomas
Bull, William James Hudson, George Bickerstath Smith, Abel H.(Hertford, East)
Butcher, John George Hutton, John (Yorks. N. R.) Smith, James Parker(Lanarks.
Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H. Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand)
Cavendish, R. F. (N. Lanes.) Johnston, William (Belfast) Spear, John Ward
Cavendish, V. C. W (Derbyshire Johnstone, Hey wood (Sussex) Stanley, Hon. Arthur(Ormskirk
Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich) Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W. (Salop. Stanley, Lord (Lanes.)
Chamberlain, J. Austen(Wor'c. Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow) Ste wart, Sir M ark J. M'Taggart
Chapman, Edward Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool) Stone, Sir Benjamin
Charrington, Spencer Lawson, John Grant Sturt, Hon. Humphry Napier
Clive. Capt. Percy A. Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage Talbot, Rt. Hn. J. G.(Oxf'd Univ.
Coghill, Douglas Harry Llewellyn, Evan Henry Thornton, Percy M.
Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine Tomlinson, Wm. Edw. Murray
Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow) Long, Rt. Hn. Walter(Bristol, S) Tufnell, Lieut.-Col. Edward
Corbett, T. L. (Down, North) Loyd, Archie Kirkman Valentia, Viscount
Cox, Irwin Edward Bainbridge Lucas, Regd. J. (Portsmouth) Warde, Colonel C. E.
Cranborne, Viscount Macartney, Rt Hn W. G. Edison Warr, Augustus Frederick
Cripps, Charles Alfred Macdona, John Cumming Webb, Colonel William George
Dalkeith, Earl of MacIver. David (Liverpool) Welby, Lt.-Col. A. C. E.(T'nton
Dalrymple, Sir Charles Maconochie. A. W. Welby, Sir Chas. G. E. (Notts.
Denny, Colonel M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool) Wentworth, Bruce C. Vernon-
Dickson, Charles Scott M'Iver, Sir Lewis(E'inburgh, W Williams, Rt. Hn. J Powell(Birm.
Dorington, Sir John Edward M'Killop, Jas. (Stirlingshire) Williams, Col. R. (Dorset)
Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers- Maxwell, W J H(Dumfriesshire Willoughby de Eresby, Lord
Doxford, Sir William Theodore Middlemore, John Throgmort'n Willox, Sir John Archibald
Duke, Henry Edward Mildmay, Francis Bingham Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E. R.
Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin Milvain, Thomas Wilson, John (Falkirk)
Dyke, Rr, Hon Sir William Hart Molesworth, Sir Lewis Wilson, John (Glasgow)
Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton Moon, Edward Robert Pacy Wilson, J. W.(Worcestersh. N.)
Faber, George Denison (York) More, Robt. Jasper(Shropshire) Wilson-Todd, Wm. H. (Yorks.
Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward Morgan, David J.(Walth'stow) Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm
Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst Morrell, George Herbert Wood, James
Finch, George H. Mount, William Arthur Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart-
Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C. Wrightson, Sir Thomas
Fisher, William Hayes Murray, Rt Hn A. Graham(Bute Wylie, Alexander
Fison, Frederick William Murray, Charles J. (Coventry) Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George
Fitz Gerald, Sir Robert Penrose- Newdigate, Francis Alexander Yerburgh, Robert Armstrong
Flower, Ernest O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens Younger, William
Forster, Henry William Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay
Gordon, Hn. JE.(Elgin & Nairn) Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)
Gordon, J. (Londonderry. S.) Parkes, Ebenezer
Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon Pease, Herbet Pike(Darlingt'n Tellers for the Ayes—
Goschen, Hon. George Joachim Peel, Hon. Win. R. Wellesley Sir William Walrond and
Coulding, Edward Alfred Pemberton, John S. G. Mr. Anstruther.
Abraham, William(Cork, N. E.) Black, Alexander William Broadhurst, Henry
Allan, William (Gateshead) Boland, John Brown, George M. (Edinburgh)
Allen, Charles P.(Glouc., Stroud Bolton, Thomas Dolling Bryce, Rt. Hon. James
Atherley-Jones, L. Bowles, T. Gibson (King's Lynn Burke, E. Haviland-
Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire) Brigg, John Burns. John
Buxton, Sydney Charles Humphreys-Owen, Arthur C. O'Shaughnessy, P. J.
Caldwell, James Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley) Paulton, James Mellor
Cameron, Robert Joicey, Sir James Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)
Campbell, John (Armagh, S.) Jones, David Brynm'r (Swansea Perks, Robert William
Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H. Jones, Wm. (Carnarvonshire) Reddy, M.
Cawley, Frederick Jordon, Jeremiah Redmond, John E. (Waterford)
Charming, Francis Allston Joyce, Michael Redmond. William (Clare)
Craig, Robert Hunter Kitson, Sir James Rickett, J. Compton
Cremer, William Randal Lambert, George Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)
Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen) Langley, Batty Roberts, John H. (Denbighs)
Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan Leamy, Edmund Robertson, Edmund (Dundee)
Delany, William Leese, Sir Jos. F. (Accrington) Roe, Sir Thomas
Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh. Lewis, John Herbert Schwann, Charles E.
Donelan, Captain A. Lloyd-George, David Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)
Doogan, P. C. Lundon, W. Spencer, Rt. Hn. C. R(Northants
Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark) MacDonnell, Dr. Mark A. Sullivan, Donal
Duncan, J. Hastings Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J. Thomas, F. Freeman-(Hastings
Edwards, Frank MacNeill, John Gordon Swift Thomas, JA(Glamorgan, Gower
Evans, Samuel T. (Glamorgan MacVeagh, Jeremiah Thomson, F. W. (York, W. R.)
Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmund M'Crae, George Trevelyan, Charles Philips
Flavin, Michael Joseph M'Kean, John Tuke, Sir John Batty
Flynn, James Christopher M'Kenna, Reginald Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.
Foster, Sir Michael(Lond. Univ. M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North) Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)
Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.) Mansfield, Horace Rendall White, George (Norfolk)
Fuller, J. M. F. Markham, Arthur Basil White, Luke (York, E. R.)
Goddard, Daniel Ford Morley, Charles (Breconshire) Whitley, George(York, W. R.)
Grant, Corrie Murphy, John Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)
Grey, Sir Edward (Berwick) Nannetti, Joseph P. Wilson, Fred. W.(Norfolk. Mid.
Griffith, Ellis J. Nolan, Joseph (Louth. South) Wilson, Henry J.(York, W. R.)
Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton Norton, Capt. Cecil William Yoxall, Jamea Henry
Harmsworth, R. Leicester O'Brien, Kendal (Tipp'rary Mid
Hayden, John Patrick O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)
Hayne, Rt. Hn. Charles Seale- O'Brien, P. J. (Tipperary, N.) TELLERS FOR THE NOES—
Helme, Norval Watson O'Connor, James(Wicklow, W. Mr. William M'Arthur
Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H. O'Dowd, John and Mr. Causton.
Horniman, Frederick John O'Malley, William

(10.8.) Question put accordingly, "That Clause 3, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

Abraham, William (Cork, N. E. Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich) Fison, Frederick William
Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir Alex. F. Chamberlain, J. Austen(Worc'r Fitz Gerald, Sir Robert Penrose
Anson, Sir William Reynell Channing, Francis Allston Fitzmaurics, Lord Edmund
Arkwright, John Stanhope Chapman, Edward Fitrzoy, Hon. Edward Algernon
Arnold-Forster, Hugh O. Charrington, Spencer Flavie, Michael Joseph
Arrol, Sir William Clive, Captain Percy A. Flower, Ernest
Ashton, Thomas Gair Coghill, Douglas Harry Flynn, James Christopher
Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse Forster, Henry William
Bain, Colonel James Robert Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow) Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.
Baird, John George Alexander Corbett, T. L. (Down, North) Gordon, Hn. J. E(Elgin & Nairn)
Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J. (Manch'r Cox, Irwin Edward Bainbridge Gordon, J. (Londonderry, S.)
Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey) Cranborne, Viscount Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon
Balfour, Rt. Hn. Gerald W. (Leeds Cripps, Charles Alfred Goschen, Hon. George Joachim
Banbury, Frederick George Dalkeith, Earl of Goulding, Edward Alfred
Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin Dalrymple, Sir Charles Gray, Ernsst (West Ham)
Beach. Rt. Hn. Sir Michael Hicks Delany, William Green, Walford D.(Wednesb'ry
Bentinck, Lord Henry C. Denny, Colonel Greene, Henry D. (Shrewsbury)
Bignold, Arthur Dickson, Charles Scott Groves, James Grimble
Bigwood, James Donelan, Capt. A. Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill
Bill, Charles Doogan, P. C. Hain, Edward
Blundell, Colonel Henry Dorington, Sir John Edward Hall, Edward Marshall
Boland, John Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers- Hamilton, Rt. Hn Lord G.(Mid'x.
Boscawen, Arthur Griffith- Doxford, Sir William Theodore Hamilton, Marq. of(L'nd'nd'rry
Brassey, Albert Duke, Henry Edward Hanbury, Rt. Hon. Robert Win.
Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin Harris, Fredrick Leverton
Brotherton, Edward Allen Dyke, Rt. Hn. Sir William Hart Haslett, Sir James Horner
Brymer, William Ernest Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton Hatch, Ernest Frederick Geo.
Bull, William James Faber, George Denison (York) Hayden, John Patrick
Burke, E. Haviland- Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward Henderson, Alexander
Butcher, John George Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst Hermon-Hodge, Robert Trotter
Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H. Finch, George H. Hickman, Sir Alfred
Cavendish, R. F. (N. Lanes.) Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne Higginbottom, S. W.
Cavendish, V. C W. (Derbyshire Fisher, William Hayes Hobhouse, Henry (Somerset, E,

The Committee divided:—Ayes, 232; Noes, 87. (Division List No. 258.)

Hogg, Lindsay Mowbray, Sir Robert, Gray C Seton-Karr, Henry
Hope, J. F.(Sheffield, Brightside Murphy. John Skewes-Cox, Thomas
Horner, Frederick William Murray, Rt. Hn A. Graham(Bute Sniith, Abel H.(HeiUurd. EaM)
Hoult, Joseph Murray, Charles J. (Coventry) Smith, James Parker(Lanarks.
Hozier, Hon. James Henry Cecil Nannetti, Joseph P. Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand)
Hudson, George Bickersteth Newdigate, Francis Alexander Spear, John Ward
Hutton, John (Yorks, N. R.) Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South) Stanley, Hn. Arthur(Ormskirk
Jebb, Sir Richard Claver house O'Brien, Kendal(Tipp' rary Mid Stanley, Lord (Lanes.)
Johnston, William(Belfast) O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny) Stewart, Sir Mark J. M'Taggart
Johnstone, Heywood (Sussex) O'Brien, P. J. (Tipperary, N.) Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M.
Jordan, Jeremiah O'Connor, James(Wicklow, W. Stone, Sir Benjamin
Joyce, Michael O' Dowd, John Sturt, Hon. Humphry Napier
Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W. (Salop. O'Malley. William Sullivan, Donal
Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm. O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens Talbot Rt. Hn J. G.(Oxf'd Univ.
Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay Thornton, Percy M.
Lawrence, Win. F. (Liverpool) O'Shaughnessy, P. J. Tomlinson, Wm. Edw. Murray
Lawson, John Grant Palmer, Walter (Salisbury) Tufnell, Lieut.-Col. Edward
Leamy, Edmund Parkes, Ebenezer Valentia, Viscount
Legge, Col. Hon Heneage Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington Warde, Colonel C E.
Llewellyn, Evan Henry Peel, Hn Wm. Robert Wellesley Warr, Augustus Frederick
Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine Percy, Earl Webb, Colonel William George
Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (Bristol, S) Pierpoint, Robert Welby, Lt-Col. A. C. E. Taunt'n)
Loyd, Archie Kirkman Platt Higgins, Frederick Welby, Sir Charles G. E.(Notts.
Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsmouth Powell, Sir Francis Sharp Went worth, Bruce C. Vernon-
Lundon, W. Pretyman, Ernest George Whiteley, H(Ashton und. Lyne
Macartney, Rt. Hn. WG Ellison Purvis, Robert William, Rt Hn J Powell-(Birm
Macdona, John Gumming Pym, C. Gay Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)
MacDonnell, Dr. Mark A. Randles, John S. Willoughby de Eresby, Lord
MacIver, David (Liverpool) Rasch, Major Frederic Carne Wilcox, Sir John Archibald
MacNeill, John Gordon Swift Reddy, M. Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E. R.
Maconochie, A. W. Redmond, John E. (Waterford) Wilson, John (Falkirk)
MacVeagh, Jeremiah Redmond, William (Clare) Wilson, John (Glasgow)
M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool) Remnant, James Farquharson Wilson, J. W.(Worcestersh. N.
M'Iver, Sir Lewis(Edinburgh W Renshaw, Charles Bine Wilson-Todd, Wm. H.(Yorks.)
M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire Richards, Henry Charles Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm
M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North) Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson Wortley, Rt. Hn. C. B. Stuart-
Maxwell, W J H (Dumfriesshire Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield) Wrightson, Sir Thomas
Middlemore, J no. Throgmorton Robertson, Herbert (Hackney) Wylie, Alexander
Mildmay, Francis Bingham Ropner, Colonel Robert Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George
Milvain, Thomas Royds, Clement Molyneux Yerburgh, Robert Armstrong
Molesworth, Sir Lewis Rutherford. John Younger, William
Moon, Edward Robert Pacy Sackville, Col. S, G. Stopford-
More, Robt. Jasper (Shropshire) Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander
Morgan, David J (Walthamst'w Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse) TELLERS FOR THE AYES-
Morrell, George Herbert Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.) Sir William Walrond and
Mount, William Arthur Seely, Maj. J. E. B (IsleofWight Mr. Anstruther.
Allan, William (Gateshead) Foster, Sir M'eh'el (L'nd'n Univ. Lloyd-George, David
Allen, Charles P (Gloue., Stroud Fuller, J. M. F. M'Arthur, William (Cornwall)
Atherley-Jones, L. Goddard, Daniel Ford M'Crae, George
Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire) Grant, Corrie M'Kean, John
Black, Alexander William Grey, Sir Edward (Berwick) M'Kenna, Reginald
Bolton, Thomas Dolling Griffith, Ellis J. Mansfield, Horace Rendall
Brigg, John Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton Markham, Arthur Basil
Broadhurst, Henry Harmsworth, R. Leicester Morley, Charles (Breconshire)
Brown, George M. (Edinburgh Hayne, Rt. Hon. Charles Seale- Norton, Capt. Cecil William
Burns, John Helme, Norval Watson Nussey, Thomas Willans
Buxton, Sydney Charles Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H. Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)
Caldwell, James Horniman, Frederick John Perks, Robert William
Cameron, Robert Houston, Robert Paterson Rickett, J. Compton
Campbell, John (Armagh, S.) Humphreys-Owen, Arthur C. Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)
Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H. Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley) Roberts, John H.(Denbighs.)
Causton, Richard Knight Joiecy, Sir James Robertson, Edmund (Dundee)
Cawley, Frederick Jones, Dav. Brynmor (Swansea Roe, Sir Thomas
Craig, Robert Hunter Jones, William (Carnarvonsh. Russell, T. W.
Cremer, William Randal Kitson, Sir James Schwann, Charles E.
Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen) Lambert, George Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)
Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan Langley, Batty Spencer, Rt Hn. C. R.(Northants
Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh. Layland-Barratt, Francis Tennant, Harold John
Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark) Leese, Sir Joseph F.(Accrington Thomas, J A(Glamorgan, Gower
Duncan, J. Hastings Leigh, Sir Joseph Thomson, F. W. (York, W. R.)
Edwards, Frank Lewis, John Herbert Tomkinson, James
Trevelvan, Charles Philips White, Luke (York, E. R) Wood, James
Toke, Sir John Batty Whiteley, George (York, W. R.) Woohouse, Sir J T (Huddersf'd
Warner, Thomas Courtenay T. Whitley, J. H. (Halifax) TELLERS FOR THE NOES—
Wason, John Catheart (Orkney Wilson, Fred. W. (Norfolk, Mid. Dr. Macnamara and Mr.
White, George (Norfolk) Wilson, Henry J. (York, W. R. Samuel Evans.

I beg to move that you, Sir, report progress. The Committee has been engaged for some time in discussing the details of this important clause, and when all the Amendments wore exhausted there came the natural period for the discussion of the clause as a whole. By the clock, we have been occupied fifty minutes on the clause itself. Some most important speeches were made. There was a short and pointed speech from my right hon. friend the Member for East Fife, before the dinner hour; and there was a most elaborate indictment of the clause, and an exposure of the hollow condition into which the Government have managed to struggle during the discussion on this Bill, by my hon. friend the Member for North Camberwell. No answer to these allegations was attempted by the Minister of Education. Member after Member was ready to speak on this side, and when the hon. Member for East Somerset on the other side—who, at least, is an authority that the Government and their friends will recognise—was inviting the Committee to listen to him, a Minister—not the Minister in charge of the Bill—moved that the Question be now put.


I would remind the right hon. Gentleman that no reflection is possible on the action of the Committee in deciding that the Question be now put.


I am aware of that fact, Sir. What I am reflecting upon is not the action of the Committee, but the action of His Majesty's Government. The right hon. Gentleman opposite is responsible for the conduct of these debates, and it is his duty to see that the Committee has ample opportunity for discussing the position.


I think the right hon. Gentleman is aware that it is not permissible to go back on a decision which has been come to by the Committee. It is obvious that if we were to go back and discuss the question of closure every time it is applied there would never be any end to our proceedings. I cannot allow any reflection to be passed either on the Minister for having moved, or the Committee for having passed, the closure. As for the discretion in. accepting such a Motion, that rests with me.


I accept your ruling, Sir, that there is to be no reflection on the conduct of the Minister; but we are at least entitled to say, as we remain without the full information that we desire as to real intentions of the Government in regard to this vital clause, and as we have been hitherto denied that positive and accurate information which it was our business to demand, and which we ought to have received, that there is ample reason for the Motion which I am about to make. I do not know that I am entitled now to go back on the whole question of the unity of authorities, but, as my hon. friend the Member for North Camberwell has said, he regards himself, as a good many regard themselves, as having been induced by a sort of confidence trick, on many occasions, to support the views of the Government. My hon. friend is a strong advocate of the unity of authority, and now he finds that there is to be no unity of authority.


The right hon. Gentleman will not be in order in discussing that question.


I will not discuss the merits of the question, as I see I am to be kept between very narrow bounds, but. at all events, I have said enough to show—if the courtesy of hon. Gentlemen opposite will permit me to proceed—that we on this side think that there is abundant reason for reporting progress and ceasing to continue now the discussion of a Bill in regard to which we have been treated in the manner in which the Government have treated us.

Motion made and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Sir H. Campbell-Bannerman.)


The Question is, that I report progress and ask leave to sit again. Under Standing Order 23, I shall immediately put the Question.



Abraham, William (Cork, N. E. Grey, Sir Edward (Berwick) O'Brien, Kendal (Tipp'ary Mid.
Allan, William (Gateshead) Griffith, Ellis J. O'Brien, Patrick (KilKenny)
Allen, Charles P.(Glouc., Stroud Gurdon. Sir W. Brampton O'Brien, P. J. (Tipperary N.)
Ashton, Thomas Gair Harmsworth, R. Leicester O'Connor, James (Wicklow W.
Asquith, Rt. Hn Herbert Henry Hayden, John Patrick O'Dowd, John
Atherley-Jones, L. Hayne, Rt. Hn. Charles Seale- O'Malley, William
Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire) Helme, Norval Watson O'Shaughnessy, P. J.
Black, Alexander William Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H. Pease, J. A. (saffron Walden)
Boland, John Horniman, Frederick John Perks, Robert William
Bolton, Thomas Dolling Humphreys-Owen, Arthur C. Reddy, M.
Brand, Hon. Arthur G. Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley) Redmond, John E. (Waterford
Brigg, John Joicey, Sir James Redmond, William (Clare)
Broadhurst, Henry Jones, Dav. Brynmor (Swansea Rickett, J. Compton
Brown, Geo. M. (Edinburgh) Jones, William (Carnarvonsh.) Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)
Bryce, Kt. Hon. James Jordan, Jeremiah Roberts, John H. (Denbighs)
Burke, K. Haviland- Joyce, Michael Robertson, Edmund (Dundee)
Burns, John Kitson, Sir James Roe, Sir Thomas
Buxton. Sydney Charles Lambert, George Russell, T. W.
Caldwell, James Langley, Batty Schwann, Charles E.
Cameron, Robert Leyland-Barratt, Francis Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)
Campbell, John (Armagh, S.) Leamy, Edmund Shipman, Dr. John G.
Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H. Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington Spencer, Rt. Hn. C. R. (N'thants)
Cawley, Frederick Leigh, Sir Joseph Sullivan, Donal
Chinning, Francis Allston Lewis, John Herbert Tennant, Harold John
Craig, Robert Hunter Lloyd-George, David Thomas, J. A. (Glamor. Gower
Cremer, William Randal Lough, Thomas Thomson, F. W. (York, W. K.)
Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen) Lundon, W. Tomkinson, James
Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardigan MacDonnell, Dr. Mark A. Trevelyan, Charles Philips
Delany, William Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J. Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.
Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh. MacNeill, John Gordon Swift Wason, John Cath cart(Orkney
Donelan, Captain A. MacVeagh, Jeremiah White, George (Norfolk)
Doogan, P. C. M'Crae, George White, Luke (York, E. R.)
Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark) M'Kean, John Whireley, George(York, W. R.
Duncan. J. Hastings M'Kenna, Reginald Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)
Edwards, Frank M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North) Wilson, Fred. W. (Norfolk, Mid.
Evans, Samuel T.(Glamorgan) Mansfield, Horace Rendall Wilson, Henry J.(York, W. R.)
Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmund Markham, Arthur Basil Wood, James
Flavin, Michael Joseph Morley, Charles (Breconehire) Woodhouse, Sir J. T.(Hud'rsfid
Flynn, James Christopher Murphy, John
Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.) Nannetti, Joseph P.
Fuller, J. M. F. Nolan, Joseph (Loath, South) TELLERS FOR THE AYES—
Goddard, Daniel Ford Norton, Capt. Cecil William Mr. William M'Arthur
Grant, Corrie Nussey, Thomas Willans and Mr. Causton.
Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir Alex. F. Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin Bull, William James
Anson, Sir William Reynell Beach, Rt Hn. Sir Michael Hicks Butcher, John George
Arkwright, John Stanhope Bentinck, Lord Henry C. Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.
Arnold-Forster, Hugh 0. Bignold, Arthur Cavendish, R. F. (N. Lanes.)
Arrol, Sir William Bigwood, James Cavendish, V. C. W (Derbyshire
Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John Bill, Charles Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)
Bailey, James (Walworth) Blundell, Colonel Henry Chamberlain, J. Austen(Worc'r
Bain, Colonel James Robert Bond, Edward Chapman, Edward
Baird, John George Alexander Boscawen, Arthur Griffith- Charrington, Spencer
Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J.(Manch'r Brassey, Albert Clive, Captain Percy A.
Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey) Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John Coghill, Douglas Harry
Balfour, Rt Hn Gerald W (Leeds Brotherton, Edward Allen Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse
Ban bury, Frederick George Brymer, William Ernest Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow

dee): Sir, I desire to ask you whether you rule that this Motion of my right hon. friend is an abuse of the Rules of the House.



(10.28.) Question put.

The Committee divided:—Ayes, 124; Noes, 212. (Division List No. 259.)

Corbett, T. L. (Down, North) Hutton, John (Yorks. N. K.) Richards, Henry Charles
Cox, Irwin Edward Bainbrige Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson
Cranborne, Viscount Jessel, Capt. Herbert Morton Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)
Cripps Charles Alfred Johnston, William (Belfast) Robertson, Horbert(Hackney;
Dalkeith, Earl of Johnstone, Heywood (Sussex) Ropner, Colonel Robert
Dalrymple, Sir Charles Kenyon-Sianey, Col. W. (Salop. Royds, Clement Molyneux
Denby, Colonel Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm. Rutherford, John
Dickson, Charles Scott Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow) Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-
Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P. Lawrence, Win. F. (Liverpool) Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander
Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph Lawson, John Grant Samuel. Harry S. (Limehouse
Dorington, Sir John Edward Legge, Colonel Hon. Heneage Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)
Douglas, lit. Hon. A. Akers- Leign-Bennett, Henry Currie Seely, Maj J. E. B. (Isle of Wight
Doxford, Sir William Pheodore Llewellyn, Evan Henry Seton-Karr, Henry
Duke, Henry Edward Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine Skewes-Cox, Thomas
Durning,- Lawrence, Sir Edwin Long, Rt, Hn Walter(Bristol, S.) Smith, Abel H (Hertford, East)
Dyke, Rt. Hn. Sir William Hart Lonsdale, John Brownies Smith, James Parker (Lanarks.
Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton Lowe, Francis William Smith, Hon. W. F. D.(Strand)
Faber, George Denison (York) Loyd, Archie Kirkman Spear, John Ward
Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Ed. Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsm'th Stanley, Hn. Arthur(Ormskirk
Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst Macartney, Rt Hn W G. Ellison Stanley, Lord (Lancas.)
Finch, George II. Macdona, John Cumming Stewart, Sir Mark J. M'Taggart
Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne Maclver, David (Liverpool) Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M.
Fisher, William Hayes Maconochie, A. W. Stone, Sir Benjamin
Fison, Frederick William M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool) Sturt, Hon. Humphry Napier
FitzGerald, Sir Rob't Penrose- M'Iver, Sir Lewis(Edinb'rgh W. Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)
Fitzroy, Hon. Ed. Algernon M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire) Talbot, Rt Hn. J. G. (Oxf d Univ.
Flower, Ernest Martin, Richard Biddulph Thornton, Percy M.
Forster, Henry William Maxwell, W J H (Dumfriesshire Tomlinson, Wm. Ed. Murray
Foster, Sir Michael(Lond. Univ Middlemore, John Throgmort'n Tufnell, Lt.-Colonel Edward
Gardner, Ernest Mildmay, Francis Bingham Tuke, Sir John Batty
Gordon, Hn. J. E.(Elgin & Nairn Milvain, Thomas Valentia, Viscount
Gordon, J. (Londonderry, S.) Molesworth, Sir Lewis Warde, Colonel C. E.
Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon Montagu, G. (Huntingdon) Warr, Augustus Frederick
Goschen, Hon. George Joachim Moon, Edward Robert Pacy Webb, Colonel William George
Goulding, Edward Alfred More, Robt. Jasper (Shropshire Welby, Lt.-Col. A. C. E(Taunton
Gray, Ernest (West Ham) Morgan, David J. (Walt'stow) Welby, Sir Chas. G. E. (Notts.
Green, Walford D. (Wednesb'y Morrell, George Herbert Wentworth, Bruce C. Vernon-
Greene, Henry D. (Shrewsbury) Mount, William Arthur Whiteley, H. (As'ton und. Lyne
Groves, James Grimble Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C Whitmore, Charles Algernon
Hain, Edward Murray, Rt Hn. A Graham(Bute Williams, Rt Hn J Powell-(Birm
Hall, Edward Marshall Murray, Charles J. (Coventry) William, Col. R. (Dorset)
Hamilton, Rt Hn. LdG. (Midd'x Newdigate, Francis Alexander Willough by, de Eresby, Lord
Hamilton, Mq of (Londonderry O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens Willox, Sir John Archibald
Hanbury, Rt. Hon. Robt, Wm. Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay Wilson, A. Stanley(York, E. R.)
Harris, Frederick Leverton Palmer, Walter (Salisbury) Wilson, John (Falkirk)
Haslett, Sir James Horner Parkes, Ebenezer Wilson, John (Glasgow)
Hatch, Ernest Frederick Geo. Pease, Herbert Pike(Darlington Wilson, J. W. (Wor'tersh' N.)
Heath, Arthur Hn ward (Hanley Peel, Hn Wm. Robert Wellesley Wilson-Todd, Wm. H.(Yorks.
Henderson, Alexander Percy, Earl Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm
Hermon-Hodge, Robert Trotter Pier point, Robert Wortley, Rt. Hn. C. B. Stuart-
Hickman, Sir Alfred Platt-Higgins, Frederick Wrightson, Sir Thomas
Higginbottom, S. W, Powell, Sir Francis Sharp Wylie, Alexander
Hobhouse, Henry(Somerset, E.) Pretyman, Ernest George Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George
Hogg, Lindsay Purvis, Robert Yerburgh, Robert Armstrong
Hope, J. F.(Sheffield, Brightside Pym, C. Guy Younger, William
Horner, Frederick William Randles, John S.
Hoult, Joseph Rasch, Major Frederic Carne TELLERS FOR THE NOES—
Houston, Robert Paterson Remnant, James Farquharson Sir Wm. Walrond and
Hudson, George Bickersteth Renshaw, Charles Bine Mr. Anstruther.

Clause 4:—


said he begged to move the postponement of Clause 4, for the following reasons. The first was that it was a clause which dealt with the question of religion, and he did not think that they were in a frame of mind at the present moment, through no fault of their own, to discuss it. Up to the present they had been discussing the question of secondary education in the true spirit of Christian charity, and if they were upset now, it was entirely due to the action of the Government. Besides that, they were entitled to know where they were before they entered on the discussion of the religious question. They could not discuss the question of religious instruction as it bore on secondary education without taking into account the whole question of religious instruction in connection with primary as well as secondary education. They could not deal out one measure for secondary education, and another measure for primary education. He wished to point out the position they were in in discussing the question of religious instruction in connection with secondary education. As the Bill stood at the present moment, it created about 1,200 little authorities, and he was bound to point out how that bore on the clause, and why, to his mind, they ought to postpone the consideration of the clause until they really knew what the Government had decided to do. The Government could subsidise all those little Church academies in every town and village throughout the country without any sort of control at all. With regard to primary education, the Government at least proposed to give one-third of the management, and he maintained that the Committee ought not to proceed with the discussion of the clause until they had decided what they would do with religious education all round. Under the Welsh Intermediate scheme, no sectarian schools of any kind were subsidised. Why would not the Government adopt that scheme, or wait until they could see what the whole scheme of the" Bill would be? What had the Government done? If he might use the term they had Rollitised the education system of the country, and they had created a large number of authorities, which made the scheme ridiculous. If the Bill stood as it was that morning, at any rate, the clause would only have applied to training colleges of a substantial character, and to technical schools established by the County Councils where no religious instruction of any denomination was given. Now, the whole scheme had been changed to such an extent that it applied to all the little schools throughout the country, which were purely denominational, and which belonged to Catholics, Anglicans, Wesleyans, Baptists, and other denominations. That changed the whole position when they came to consider the question of religious instruction. He had another reason for moving that the clause be postponed. He had already asked the Government, and he thought they were entitled to know before they went any further, now that they had come to the really controversial part of the Bill, whether the Government had made up their mind. Up to the present, the only controversy was between those who were in favour of strengthening and improving secondary education, and the Church party, who did not want any education at all. That was the only religious issue which had been introduced. But now they came to the really controversial part of the Bill. They had heard about suggestions which the Government were to make on the question of religious instruction. The Committee should know them, or the clause should be postponed until the Government had made up their mind. Up to the present, the Government had simply accepted the dictation of the small section of their own followers. If that were not so, what became of the memorial to the Government from a large body of their own supporters in favour of increased control? The Government had not consulted the feelings of the Committee, but had accepted the dictation of that retinue of acolytes who had been dragging the trail of priesthood through the lobbies of the House of Commons. He thought they were entitled to know whether the Government were prepared to regard the whole of this question independently, without listening to dictation from any quarter; and whether they were prepared to simply pass the Bill as an educational measure, and for educational reasons to sacrifice some minimum, at any rate, of their extreme views on this question, in order to get a really national system of education. It would be in the interests of the Bill to postpone this clause with a view to a conference of reasonable men, to consider what should be done. If they were to decide now that the second part of the Bill was to be stamped with sectarianism, if the Government were going to subsidise sectarian schools, academies, and colleges, without any kind of control by the County Councils, then it would be absolutely impossible to arrive at any reasonable solution. He appealed to the Government in the interests of the progress of the Bill itself. He could assure hon. Gentlemen opposite that the events which had just happened would not facilitate the progress of the Bill. Quite the reverse. Up to the present the spirit of conciliation which had been displayed had done more for progress than the spirit of coercion; and he would ask the First Lord of the Treasury, whether he did not think that it would be in the interests of the Bill, taking into account the temper of the House, that the Motion should be accepted, and that they should not now embark on the highly controversial subject of religious instruction.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Clause 4 be postponed."—(Mr. Lloyd-George.)


It is tolerably evident, from the tenour of the singular speech we have just heard, that, in the view of the hon. Member who has just sat down, what he is pleased to describe as the uncontroversial stage of this Bill has now been passed. The hon. Member really means the stage during which the discussions were courteous, and it is only too patent from the remarks which have just fallen from him, that the hon. Member considers himself at liberty in dealing with the question of religious education, at all events, to throw aside absolutely any indication of religious charity. I have always disapproved of these methods, and I will not endeavour to imitate them. When I pass from the vituperation of the hon. Member to the arguments he has advanced in support of his Motion, I confess I find myself somewhat at a loss. I rather admire the hon. Gentleman's power of vituperation, but I cannot in my heart admire his style of argument. This clause deals with the vexed and difficult question of religious education for secondary schools. Why are we to postpone it, and divorce it forcibly from that part of the Bill which deals with secondary education? Neither reason, nor logic, nor the practice of this House, nor common sense, suggests that such a course is preferable or desirable. It is too much to hope—indeed after the speech of the hon. Member, I have almost ceased to hope—that we should approach this question in that calm spirit which would certainly be fitting in a discussion of this kind. Why am I to promise myself or the House a more happy condition of the Parliamentary atmosphere when we have deferred the discussion of religious education for secondary schools until we have calmed our temper over the discussion of religious education in primary schools. I see nothing in the future clauses of the Bill in the nature of an anodyne and, though I regret that there should be any feeling of temper, of irritation, or impatience, I am quite unable to charge myself with having contributed to it. At all events we are quite as likely to be able to discuss this clause in its proper place in the Bill as we should be, if we now artificially divorce it from its proper context, and discuss it in a part of the Bill to which it does not properly belong. The hon. Gentleman said that in so far as we had made progress with this Bill that progress had been made by conciliation. By conciliation I understand him to mean accepting Amendments, and yet the very hon. Gentleman who made that observation said we had absolutely destroyed the Bill by accepting Amendments; and because we had accepted Amendments he regarded himself as justified in asking the Committee to postpone this clause.


The Amendment was a bad one.


By conciliation the hon. Gentleman really means accepting good Amendments; and by good Amendments he means Amendments he himself agrees with. That is a very narrow definition of conciliation, and it is not one which I think the Committee would do well to add to its dictionary. I think I have answered everything in the nature of argument which the hon. Gentleman brought before the Committee. Surely it is plain on the face of it that this is the proper point with which to deal with this question of religious education. Painful as it may be, and is, to drag this topic into the arena of controversy, there is no man in this House who does not know that I am speaking the absolute truth when I say that whatever Bill is introduced, whether it be favourable to the views of hon. Members opposite,' or favourable to the views of hon. Members who support the Government, it is unhappily—most unhappily—not possible to deal with education, primary or secondary for this country, without raising this question of religions education. If we all believe, as we have been told ad nauseam, with endless repetition, in these debates, that it is necessary for us to deal boldly with the question of education, we have unhappily to reconcile ourselves to the correlative necessity of having, to the best of our ability, to deal with the question of religious education. That is an absolute necessity—whoever brings forward an Education Bill, whatever principle it embodies, and whatever party is responsible for it. I can only beg the House to do for its part what I certainly desire to do for mine—to try to deal with a question bristling with difficulties, raising every kind of passion, but which yet must be dealt with in a spirit of calmness, and if possible of Christian charity, to deal with a topic which we cannot avoid, and which I trust we may be able to settle in a spirit befitting such a great Assembly.


said he agreed with the right hon. Gentleman that debates in this House should be as courteous as possible. He thought he might say that his hon. friend did not intend to be discourteous to the right hon. Gentleman, any more than any other hon. Member on that side ever did. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would now consider the matter calmly and dispassionately. He admired the first part of the right hon. Gentleman's speech very much. He never liked the right hon. Gentleman better than when he was quiet, but while the right hon. Gentleman was inviting the Committee to a calm and dispassionate discussion, he was striking the box on the Table. At the commencement of the right hon. Gentleman's observations, he displayed no violence, either mental or physical; but immediately he began to talk of Christian charity he began to smite the box, rather to the discomfort of his own hand. He did not think that at present the Committee was in a mood to properly discuss the Clause. Surely the best plan was to face the situation. The right hon. Gentleman had frequently to fight against Motions for adjournment, and after an hour had been wasted, he had to fall in with the general sense of the House. He ventured to think that the general sense of the House now was that they should not proceed with the discussion of the Clause. He might be wrong, but that was his view. Did the right hon. Gentleman think that any good could be done in the fifty-five minutes that now remained if they embarked on the discussion of the Clause. It was obvious that if any one wished to prolong the discussion on the Education Bill, he could not have devised a better means than that which had been devised by the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues. Up to a certain hour the discussion was proceeding drearily. He could say that because he took part in it himself, and the Bill was going through by weight of dreariness when the absence of the right hon. Gentleman gave occasion to a more ardent colleague.


The hon. Gentleman will not be in order in reflecting on the action of the Minister who moved the closure.


said he did not intend to make any reflection, and would withdraw any reflection which anybody thought he might have seemed to make. The argument was that in the state of feeling now prevailing in the House, the right hon. Gentleman could not hope to make progress with the Bill, particularly when a Clause dealing with religious instruction had to be considered. Another strong argument was that they really did not know the effect of the variation in the terms of Clause 3. Clause 4 stated that a council in the application of money under the Act should not require any particular form of instruction to be given in a school. What council was referred to? He was not a friend of the Bill, but if he were promoting it, he would consider that the best way of making progress was to accept the Motion before the Committee and not to force the House of Commons to deal with the clause in present circumstances, especially when the question involved excited feeling and passion on all sides.


said he wished to re-echo the words of the First Lord of the Treasury. The ardour displayed during the last hour was, he thought, due to other causes than interest in the Education Bill. Those who had been working hard during the afternoon, and who, he hoped, were educationists first, regretted as much as anyone the temper into which the House had got; and he would re-echo the words of the right hon. Gentleman frankly and earnestly that they might get back to the practice of Christian charity in the discussion of the matter. Many hon. Members could get back to that better and more quickly than the First Lord of the Treasury, because they had not a box in front of them. He would put a point to the right hon. Gentleman, which he thought would be of value. If they postponed Clause 4 they could proceed with Clause 5, which was a Clause with reference to which many hon. Members had been waiting for some explicit declaration from the Government. They wished to know if the Government were going to kill the School Boards or keep the option alive, and on the answer to that would depend very largely the attitude many hon. Members would take up on the religious question. If the School Boards were to be kept alive where the municipal authorities desired it, an entirely different position would be created. Many hon. Members had tried to obtain an answer to that question, and he thought the right hon. Gentleman would allow that the debates would have been shorter if he had answered it earlier. The practice which the Government had adopted of refusing to give any indication of their intention as to a particular Clause until it had been reached, was largely responsible for the length of the debates.


The hon. Gentleman is not now giving reasons for the postponement of the Clause.


said he was sorry if he had broken the Rule; but he was only pointing out that if the policy they now advocated had been followed in the past the discussions would have been shorter. The First Lord of the Treasury had declared that hon. Members knew in their conscience that what they were saying when they brought forward arguments was not true.


I think the hon. Member will feel on reflection that the statement he had made just now that the First Lord of the Treasury was in the habit of accusing hon. Gentlemen of saying that which they did not believe to be true, is going far beyond what is justifiable.


said if he said that he would withdraw it at once, and apologise for saying it. It was not quite easy for a man who was only a few months in the House to be called upon suddenly to remember language which had been used. They, on that side of the House, did not, however, like the reflections which had been made upon them; and when the First Lord came to reconsider what he said tonight, he hoped he would remember also the really earnest efforts made by many hon. Members on that side of the House to make the Bill a better Bill. Many of them had voted against their Party and in support of the Government. Their desire was, if possible, to thresh out a decently workable Bill. That could be done only if the Committee came back to the temper in which it had previously discussed the measure. If the right hon. Gentleman would now proceed with Clause 5 and make a declaration of the Government's intention with regard to the option, the Committee would have time to think over the matter, and be able to take up the discussion of Clause 4 on the morrow in a manner which would be profitable both to themselves and the Bill.


said he desired to submit a somewhat complicated and intricate argument. The Amendment accepted by the First Lord on Clause 3 would, he contended, require the complete reconstruction of Clause 4. Under Clause 12 the Council would have to act through the Education Committee. Under the Amendment of Clause 3 the Committee had established hundreds of new Educational Committees which would have no point of contact with the Board of Education or the Local Government Board. Consequently, if this Clause stood in its present form, there would be no means of applying compulsion to the Education Committee to carry out the Clause. He was referring to small urban districts. A totally independent Committee would be constituted, and there was no authority which could compel them to observe this Clause. He therefore submitted that Clause 4 should be postponed till the effect of the Amendment of Clause 3 had been considered, and Clause 12 had been discussed.


said that the suggestion of the First Lord of the Treasury that support of this Motion could only be found in vituperation and not in argument was not exactly in keeping with his appeal for Christian charity.


I think the hon. Gentleman has misunderstood what I said. I was not making a general observation, but making a criticism, perhaps undeserved, but still a criticism on the particular speech to which I was replying.


I must answer that.


said his hon. friend needed no defence from him, but he was sure that his speech was not lacking in well - reasoned argument. The First Lord attempted to answer the argument by saying that Clause 4 was a conscience Clause affecting secondary education; that therefore it was applicable to and ought not to be divorced from this part of the Bill. But the Committee were in the singular position of not knowing until they came to Clause 18 what the Government meant by secondary education. The only definition they had had up to the present was that it was other than elementary. Until the Government had made it clear what they meant by secondary education, it was obvious that this Clause could not be properly discussed. Then, too, the question of religious instruction and the conscience Clause affecting it would be greatly influenced according to whether or not private schools were to be subsidised and come under the scheme of the Government. It those schools were to be entirely in the hands of private individuals, one kin of conscience Clause would be suitable, whereas if they were to be in the hands of publicly elected bodies an entirely different Clause would be required. There were also schools being carried on under the Cowper-Temple Clause. Whether that Clause would be applicable or not in that case they could not say until they knew whether the schools would be secondary or elementary. With regard to these different classes of schools it was impossible to form a right judgment until the Government had given their definition of secondary education.

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

said the hon. Member for the Carnarvon Boroughs had supported his Motion with important and cogent arguments, to which no reply whatever had been made. The First Lord had instead read the hon. Member a lesson on the art and practice of Christian charity. They regarded the right hon. Gentleman as a teacher in many matters of political, social and philanthropic—


The hon. Member is not now giving reasons for postponing the Clause.


said there were forcible reasons for the postponement. The Committee was in an undesirable frame of mind for dealing with a matter of such great importance. No topic so magnified differences or rent parties asunder as a religious topic. By the acceptance of Amendments, Clause 3 had been so altered that it was in an entirely different form from that in which it was introduced. It was, therefore, necessary to inspect carefully the new form of the Clause, and that could not be done until they had seen it in print. All discussion on Clause 4 would be perfectly valueless, so far as moulding it so as best to deal with the important question involved was concerned, unless the Committee had before it the whole of the Bill so far as it had gone, with the various Amendments. He represented a constituency which was Nonconformist in tendency, though he was not of that persuasion, and it was necessary to walk warily and to hold the balance fairly between the Church of England on the one side, and Nonconformity on the other.


The hon. Member is not giving reasons for postponing the Clause, and I must remind him of the Standing Order against irrelevancy.


said he was endeavouring to show why it was not desirable to deal with the religious question until other matters had been dealt with. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would reconsider his decision, and not hurry this matter through as the previous Clause had been.


said a number of his hon. friends had adduced, as he thought, excellent reasons for the postponement of this Clause. The reason just referred to by his hon. friend should suffice in itself, namely, that the changes made in Clauses 1, 2, and 3, had been so great and important that they ought really to have those Clauses in their amended form before them. The right hon. Gentleman must see that, as these Clauses related to the secondary education part of the Bill, they ought to have the machinery which had been approved by the Committee fully before them before entering on this religious difficulty. The right hon. Gentleman had been very strong in his advocacy of Christian charity, and he seemed to think that there were wicked and subversive people who would disturb his even calm by always introducing this religious difficulty. Apparently, he did not realise the fact that the religious difficulty originated far more with his own friends than with Members on the Opposition side of the House. The latter might seem sensitive on the subject; but it was because attacks had been made upon them. If, however, the right hon. Gentleman remained obdurate and declined to report progress, they must have a division. It would then be time to go home and probably tomorrow they would be in a better frame of mind on both sides of the House. But the night would not have been spent in vain if the Government had learned that it was not by driving and forcible measures that they were likely to make progress with their Bill.

MR. JOHN REDMOND (Waterford, E.)

said he understood that, if this Motion were carried, the Clause would go back to the very end of the Bill and would not come up for discussion until the rest of the Bill had been disposed of. He really did not think that was a reasonable proposal. He spoke as one who had voted for the Second Reading of the Bill, and who, upon many of the vital points of the measure, was not in agreement, he was sorry to say, with his good friends on that side of the House. Speaking in that capacity, he put it to the Government whether they were not getting into a ridiculous position. They had now reached one of the most debateable and serious portions of the Bill, and it seemed a ridiculous thing for the First Lord of the Treasury to force on the discussion of the matter at this time. He could make no progress, because the clock was against him. He ventured to suggest that the right hon. Gentleman would be well advised if he allowed the proceedings to come to an end now and took up this fresh subject tomorrow, when, perhaps, they would all be in a better frame of mind. If the right hon. Gentleman did not do so he would not make any progress and he would certainly not promote the reasonable discussion of this Clause when they met again tomorrow. While he could not support the proposal to postpone this clause indefinitely to the end of the Bill, he would press upon the right hon. Gentleman the advisability of making this small concession by not asking them to commence at this late hour, a discussion upon this new and thorny subject.


said it was with some feelings of compunction that he trespassed for a second time upon the indulgence of the Committee in connection with this Amendment. The Leader of the Opposition had urged the Committee to acccept this Motion on the ground that so many important changes had been introduced into the first three Clauses of the Bill that it was impossible to proceed now with the fourth Clause, until hon. Members had had an opportunity of seeing the first three Clauses in their amended form. He thought that if he had given the close attention to the debates that his colleague the Member for Aberdeen had done, he would have known that the first Clause passed without any Amendment at all, that, as regarded the second Clause, there were no changes of substance but only changes of phraseology, and that the alteration in Clause 3, which was, moved last night, was whether it was good or bad, simplicity itself. If the right hon. Gentleman's proposal were carried out they would adjourn the discussion as soon as an Amendment was accepted, and no Government would ever accept an Amendment. Indeed the conduct of Parliamentary business would be impossible. He ventured to suggest that the right hon. Gentleman should not press that canon of conduct upon the House. The Leader of the Nationalist Party had said he disapproved of the Amendment, but on the whole there was nothing to be gained by continuing the discussion of it. He could not agree, because he thought they ought to conclude the discussion of it that night.

Allen, Charles P (Glouc., Stroud Harms worth, R. Leicester Reckitt, Harold James
Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire) Hayne, Rt. Hn. Charles Seale- Rickett, J. Compton
Beaumont, Wentworth C. B. Helme, Norval Watson Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)
Black, Alexander William Hemphill. Rt. Hn. Charles H. Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)
Bolton, Thomas Dolling Holland, William Henry Roe, Sir Thomas
Brand, Hon. Arthur G. Horniman, Frederick John Runciman, Walter
Brigg. John Humphreys-Owen, Arthur C. Russell, T. W.
Broadhurst, Henry Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley) Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)
B own, George M. (Edinburgh) Joicey, Sir James Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)
Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson Jones, David Brynmor (Sw'usea Shipman, Dr. John G,
Bryce, Rt. Hon. James Jones, William (Carnarvonsh. Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)
Burns, John Kearley, Hudson E. Spencer, Rt. Hn. C R (Northants
Buxton, Sydney Charles Kitson, Sir James Tennant, Harold John
Caldwell, James Lambert, Geerge Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)
Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H. Langley, Batty Thomas, David Alfred(Merthyr
Causton, Richard Knight Layland-Barratt, Francis Thomas, J A (Glamorgan Gower
Cawley, Frederick Leese, Sir Joseph F (Accrington Thomson, F. W. (York, W. R.)
Channing, Francis Allston Leigh, Sir Joseph Tomkinson, James
Craig, Robert Hunter Lewis, John Herbert Toulmin, George
Cremer, William Randal Lloyd-George, David Trevelyan, Charles Philips
Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen) Lough, Thomas Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.
Dewar, John A.(Inverness-sh.) M'Crae, George White, George (Norfolk)
Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark) M'Kenna, Reginald White, Luke (York, E. R.)
Duncan, J. Hastings M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North) Whiteley, George(York, W. K.)
Edwards, Frank Mansfield, Horace Rendall Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)
Evans, Samuel T (Glamorgansh Markham, Arthur Basil Williams, Osmond (Merioneth
Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmund Morley, Charles (Breconshire) Wilson, Fred. W (Norfolk, Mid.
Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.) Norton, Capt. William Cecil Wilson, Henry J. (York, W. R.
Fuller, J. M. F. Nussey, Thomas Willans Wood, James
Goddard, Daniel Ford Partington, Oswald Wood house, Sir J. T (Huddersf'd
Grant, Corrie Paulton, James Mellor TELLERS FOR THE AYES—
Griffith, Ellis J. Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden) Mr. Herbert Gladstone and
Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton Perks, Robert William Mr. William M'Arthur.
Abraham, William (Cork, N. E. Big wood, James Chapman, Edward
Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir Alex. F. Bill, Charles Charrington, Spencer
Agg-Gardner, James Tynte Blundell, Colonel Henry Clive, Captain Percy A.
Anson, Sir William Reynell Boland, John Coghill, Douglas Harry
Arkwright, John Stanhope Bond, Edward Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse
Arnold-Forster, Hugh O. Boscawen, Arthur Griffith- Compton, Lord Alwyne
Arrol, Sir William Brassey, Albert Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow
Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John Brodrick, Rt. Hn. St. John Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)
Bailey, James (Walworth) Brotherton, Edward Allen Cox, Irwin Edward Bainbridge
Bain, Colonel James Robert Brymer, William Ernest Cranborne, Viscount
Baird, John George Alexander Bull, William James Dalkeith, Earl of
Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J. (Manch'r Burke, E. Haviland- Dalrymple, Sir Charles
Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey) Butcher, John George Delany, William
Balfour, Rt. Hn. G' r' ld W (Leeds Campbell, John (Armagh, S.) Denny, Colonel
Banbury, Frederick George Carson, Rt. Hn. Sir Edw. H. Dickson, Charles Scott
Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin Cavendish, R. E. (N. Lanes.) Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.
Beach, Rt Hn. Sir Michael Hicks Cavendish, V. C. W. (D'rbyshire Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph
Beckett, Ernest William Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich) Donelan, Captain A.
Bignold. Arthur Chamberlain, J. Austen (Worc'r Doogan, P. C.

said he suggested that it was not desirable to commence that night the discussion on the new Clause.


said this was an Amendment on the Clause and it ought to be disposed of that night. He seldom had the good fortune to speak without being replied to, and he freely admitted that it was highly improbable that they could begin the discussion on any subsequent Amendment.

(11.43.) Question put.

The Committee divided:—Aves, 96; Noes, 243. (Division List No. 260.)

Dorington, Sir John Edward Leamy, Edmund Purvis, Robert
Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers- Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage Pym, C. Guy
Doxford, Sir William Theodore Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie Randles, John S.
Durning-Lawrence. Sir Edwin Llewellyn, Evan Henry Raseh, Major Frederic Carne
Dyke, Rt. Hon. Sir William Hart Loder. Gerald Walter Erskine Reddy, M.
Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (Bristol, S. Redmond, John E. (Waterford
Faber, George Denison (York) Lonsdale, John Brownlee Redmond, William (Clare)
Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward Lowe, Francis William Remnant. James Farquharson
Fergusson. Rt. Hn. Sir J (Manc'r Lowther, C. (Cumb., Eskdale) Ridley, Hon M W (Stalvbridge)
Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst Loyd, Archie Kirkman Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson
Finch, George H. Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft) Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)
Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsmouth Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)
Fisher, William Hayes Lundon, W. Ropner, Colonel Robert
Fison, Frederick William Macartney, Rt Hn W. G. Ellison Round, James
Fitzgerald, Sir Robert Penrose- Macdona, John Cumming Royds, Clement Molyneux
Fitzroy, Hon. Edward Algernon Mac Donnell, Dr. Mark A. Rutherford, John
Flavin, Michael Joseph MacIver, David (Liverpool) Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-
Flynn, James Christopher Mac Neill, John Gordon Swift Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander
Forster, Henrv William Maconochie, A. W. Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone. W.)
Foster, Sir Michael (Lond. Univ. Mac Veagh, Jeremiah Seely, Maj. J E B (Isle of Wight
Galloway, William Johnson M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool) Seton-Karr, Henry
Gardner. Ernest M'Iver, Sir Lewis (Edinb'rgh W Sinclair, Louis (Romford)
Gordon, Hn. J. E. (Elgin & Nairn) M'Kean, John Skewes-Cox. Thomas
Gordon. J. (Londonderry, S.) M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire Smith, Abel H.(Hertford, East
Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon Manners. Lord Cecil Smith, James Parker(Lanarks.
Goulding, Edward Alfied Martin, Richard Biddulph Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand)
Gray, Ernest (West Ham) Maxwell, W J H (Dumfriesshire Spear, John Ward
Green, Walford D (Wednesb'ry Middlemore, John Throgmort'n Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)
Greene, Henry D. (Shrewsbury) Mildmay, Francis Bingham Stewart, Sir Mark J. M'Taggart
Greene, W. Raymond-(Cambs.) Milvain, Thomos Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M.
Greville, Hon. Ronald Molesworth, Sir Lewis Sturt, Hon. Humphry Napier
Groves, James Grimble Montagu, G. (Huntington) Sullivan, Donal
Hain, Edward Moon, Edward Robert Pacy Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)
Hall, Edward Marshall More, Robert Jasper (Shropsh're Talbot Rt. Hn. J. G (Oxf'd Univ
Halsey, Rt. Hon. Thomas F. Morgan, David J. (Walth'mst'w Thornton, Percy M.
Hamilton, Rt Hn Lord G (Middx Morrell, George Herbert Tomlinson, Wm. Edw. Murray
Hamilton, Marq. of (L'nd'nd'rry Morton, Arthur H. A. (Deptford Tufnell, Lieut.-Col. Edward
Hanbury, Rt. Hon. Robert Wm. Mount, William Arthur Tuke, Sir John Batty
Harris. Frederick Leverton Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C. Tully, Jasper
Haslett, Sir James Horner Murphy, John Valentia, Viscount
Hatch, Ernest Frederick Geo. Murray. Rt. Hn A Graham (Bute Warde, Colonel C. E.
Hay, Hon. Claude George Murray, Charles J. (Coventry) Warr, Augustus Frederick
Hayden, John Patrick Nannetti, Joseph P. Webb, Colonel William George
Heath, Arthur Howard (Hanley Newdigate, Francis Alexander Welby, Lt-Col. A. C. E (Taunton
Henderson, Alexander Nicol, Donald Ninian Wentworth, Bruce C. Vernon-
Hermon-Hodge, Robt. Trotter Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South) Whiteley, H (Ashton und. Lyne
Higginbottom, S. W. O'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary, M. Whitmore, Charles Algernon
Hobhonse, Henry (Somerset, E. O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny) Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)
Hogg, Lindsay O'Brien, P. J. (Tipperary, N.) Willoughby de Eresbv, Lord
Hope. J. F (Sheffield, Brightside O'Connor, James(Wicklow, W. Willox, Sir John Archibald
Hornby, Sir William Henry O'Dowd, John Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E. R.
Hoult, Joseph O'Malley, William Wilson, John (Falkirk)
Hutton, John (Yorks. N. R.) O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens Wilson, John (Glasgow)
Jebb, Sir Richard Claver house O'Shaughnessy, P. J. Wilson, J. W. (Worcestersh. N.
Jessel, Captain Herbert Merton Palmer, Walter (Salisbury) Wilson-Todd, Wm. H. (Yorks.)
Johnston, William (Belfast) Parkes, Ebenezer Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart-
Johnstone, Hey wood (Sussex) Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlingtn Wrightson, Sir Thomas
Jordan, Jeremiah Peel, Hn. Wm. Robert Wellesl'y Wylie, Alexander
Joyce, Michael Penn, John Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George
Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W. (Salop Percy, Earl Yerburgh, Robert Armstrong
Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm. Platt-Higgins, Frederick TELLERS FOR THE NOES—
Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool) Powell, Sir Francis Sharp Sir William Walrond and
Lawson, John Grant Pretyman, Ernest George Mr. Anstruther.

Committee report progress; to sit again Tomorrow.