Commons Sitting of 5 August 1904

Preamble
The House met at Twelve of the Clock.
MR. SPEAKER'S INDISPOSITION.
The Clerk at the Table informed the House of the unavoidable absence of Mr. Speaker owing to indisposition. Where-upon Mr. JAMES WILLIAM LOWTHER, the Chairman of Ways and Means, proceeded to the Table, and after Prayers, took the Chair as Deputy Speaker, pursuant to the Standing Order.

UNOPPOSED PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
Bridlington Corporation Bill [Lords]. (King's Consent signified), Bill read the third time, and passed, with Amendments.
Bristol Corporation Bill [Lords]. Read the third time, and passed, with Amendments.
Buxton Urban District Council Bill [Lords] (King's Consent signified). Bill read the third time, and passed, with Amendments.
Trafford Park Bill [Lords]. Read the third time, and passed, with Amendments.
Bristol Tramways (Extensions) Bill [Lords]. As amended. considered; Amendments made; Bill to be read the third time.
Oakengates and Dawley Joint Water Board Bill [Lords]. As amended, considered; a Clause added; an Amendment made; Bill to be read the third time.

PRIVATE BILLS.
Ordered, That Standing Orders 220 and 246, relating to Private Bills, be suspended far the remainder of the Session.
Ordered, That as regards Private Bills to be returned by the House of Lords with Amendments such Amendments (if unopposed) be considered forthwith.
Ordered, That as regards Private Bills returned, or to be returned, by the House of Lords with Amendments such Amendments (if opposed) shall be considered at such times as the Chairman of Ways and Means may determine.
Ordered, That when it is intended to propose any Amendments thereto, a copy of such Amendments shall be deposited in the Private Bill Office, and notice given on the day on which the Bill shall have been returned from the Lords.—(The Chairman of Ways and Means).
Stretford Urban District Council Bill [Lords]. Ordered, That Standing Order 243 be suspended, and that the Bill he now read the third time.—(Mr. Caldwell.)
Bill accordingly read the third time, and passed, with Amendments.
Pier and Harbour Provisional Orders (No. 2) Bill. Lords Amendments considered, and agreed to.
Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No. 2) Bill [Lords]; Tramways Orders Confirmation (No. 2) Bill [Lords]; Water Orders Confirmation Bill [Lords]. Read the third time, and passed, with Amendments.
Aberdeen City Improvements Order Confirmation Bill [Lords]. Considered; to be read the third time upon Monday next.
Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No. 3) Bill [Lords]. As amended, considered; read the third time, and passed, with Amendments.

PETITIONS.
  LICENSING BILL.
  Petition from Blyth, against; to lie upon the Table.
  VALUATION BILL.
  Petition from Bolton, against; to lie upon the Table.
  VALUATION BILL.
  Petition from Honiton, for alteration; to lie upon the Table.
  VOLUNTARY SCHOOLS ACT, 1897.
  Petition from East Ham, for alteration of Law; to lie upon the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS (EXPORTATION) (UNITED KINGDOM AND CONTINENTAL COUNTRIES).
  Return presented, relative thereto [ordered 19th July; Mr. Crombie]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 313.]
  BOARD OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES.
  Copy presented, of Report of the Proceedings at the Fourteenth Annual Meeting of Representatives of Authorities under The Sea Fisheries Regulation Act, 1888, 16th June, 1904 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  TRADE REPORTS (ANNUAL SERIES).
  Copies presented, of Diplomatic and Consular Reports, Annual Series, Nos. 3246 and 3247 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  BRAZIL (No. 1, 1904).
  Copy presented, of Award of His Majesty the King of Italy with regard to the Boundary between the Colony of British Guiana and the United States of Brazil [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS CIRCULATED WITH THE VOTES.

  Disturbances at Temperance Meetings at Dudley.
  MR. J. W. WILSON: To ask the Secretary of State for
  1212
  the Home Department whether his attention has been called to the methods adopted to break up public temperance meetings at Dudley on the 20th and 21st July; and whether he will ascertain if the police are taking any, and, if so, what, steps to prevent a repetition of such conduct.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Akers-Douglas.) I have been in communication in this matter with the chief constable of Worcester, who is the authority responsible for the action taken by the police. It appears, from his report, that the disturbances at the meetings referred to were caused partly by the provocative language of the speakers and partly by the action of two holders of public licences. and he informs me that the Mayor of Dudley has withdrawn his permission for further meetings to be held in the Vegetable Market; and that, if the further inquiries he is making show that it is necessary, he will report the conduct of the licence-holders who took part in causing the disturbance to the licensing justices.

  Compensation to Sorters in East Central Section of General Post Office for Loss of Overcoats.
  CAPTAIN NORTON: To ask the Postmaster-General whether he has received memorials from certain sorters of the East Central section of the General Post Office requesting compensation for the loss of overcoats stolen from the official retiring rooms during November and December, 1903, and February, 1904; and whether a decision has yet been arrived at in the matter.
  (Answered by Lord Stanley.) Complaints were received during the period mentioned from certain sorters in the Eastern Central section of the General Post Office of the loss of articles of private clothing, and special inquiry was made in each case, but unfortunately without result. It is not the practice to give compensation in such cases. I regret that the officers in question were not informed to this effect at the time.

  Payment of Cottagers for Boarded-Out Children.
  SIR JOHN COLOMB: To ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he is aware that the

  1213
  cottagers who receive children boarded out by boards of guardians, through the agencies of committees, require to be paid weekly, while the advances made to the committees are only three-quarters of the total amount required for such purpose for a given period, and that the remaining quarter is often not paid for some weeks after it is wanted by the committees to pay the cottagers; and, if so, whether, in view of the inconvenience resulting to these committees in consequence, he proposes to take any, and, if so, what, steps to provide a remedy.
  (Answered by Mr. Walter Long.) I have received representations on this subject. I propose to make certain amendments in the Boarding-Out Order, and in connection with them I hope to make some provision which will remove the inconvenience referred to by my right hon. friend.

  Care of Orphan Children and Destitute Poor by Egyptian Government.
  MR. WEIR: To ask the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether a report as to the provision made by the Egyptian Government for the care and housing of orphan children and the destitute poor, his yet been received; and, if not, will he state the cause of the delay.
  (Answered by Earl Percy.) Lord Cromer has reported that the Mussulman religious foundations in Egypt dispose of con-siderable revenues for the maintenance of the poor and aged, and large sums are granted yearly by the Mussulman Benevolent Society. There is also a foundling home which receives children irrespective of creed, and the various religious communities have funds devoted to the relief of their poor. There is, at present, no need of any further institutions of this character.

  Parochial Medical Officers (Scotland) Return-Alleged Inaccuracies.
  MR. WEIR: To ask the Secretary for Scotland whether he is aware that the Return, Parochial Medical Officers (Scotland), is inaccurate in stating that the post of medical officer for Harris was vacant only once during the seven years prior to 1903, inasmuch as Dr. Macdonald
  1214
  was appointed to North Harris early in 1897, and during the end of 1898 Dr. Fletcher was appointed, in South Harris a Birmingham doctor was appointed to succeed Dr. Robinson in 1898, and Dr. Fraser was appointed in 1900; and will he take steps to have the accuracy of the Return tested, in so far as Barra and South Uist are concerned.
  (Answered by Mr. A. Graham Murray.) The Local Government Board have communicated with the inspector of poor of Harris in regard to the Return of Medical Officers furnished by him, and they find that, since July, 1896, there has been a change in the medical officership of South Harris five times and in that of North Harris twice. It appears that there has been some misunderstanding as to the meaning of the Return. The inspector explains that he understood the inquiry to mean the number of times that the parish was without a medical officer, and did not regard as vacancies those occasions on which one medical officer succeeded another without an interval of time. The Board are inquiring into the details of the Returns received from Barra and South Uist.

  Fires caused by Sparks from Locomotives.
  MR. TALBOT: To ask the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to the injury caused to vegetation and crops on the sides of railways by the fires proceeding from engine sparks; and, if so, whether he will communicate with the railway companies and urge them to adopt whatever measures may tend to the diminution of such injuries.
  (Answered by Mr. Ailwyn Fellowes.) My right hon. friend has asked the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries to reply to this Question. Our attention has frequently been called to cases in which vegetation and crops have been injured by fire arising from sparks and cinders emitted by railway locomotives. It is clearly the duty of the companies concerned to do everything that is practicable to prevent occurrences of the kind, and our view has always been that it would be in the interest of the companies themselves to deal in a liberal and equitable spirit with any claims for

  1215
  damages which may be presented to them. We have, however, no statutory powers in the matter, and it is doubtful whether any advantage would be gained by our issuing any circular or other communication to the companies at the present time. My noble friend will, however, be happy to give further consideration to the suggestion.

  Rule of the Road at Sea—Single Vessels and Squadrons of Warships.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: To ask the President of the Board of Trade were the Board of Trade advisory circulars of April, 1897, and July, 1900, whereby British mariners are warned that when single ships are approaching a squadron of warships so as to involve risk of a collision, it would be in the interests of safety to keep out of the way of, and avoid passing through, a squadron; do the notices apply to a single ship authorised and enjoined by the rule of the road at sea to hold her course, and do they advise her not to do that in this case; is the rule as to keeping out of the way different for a single ship in a squadron from that for a single ship not in a squadron; and, if not, will the Board of Trade communicate with the Admiralty in order to remove any misunderstanding, and will it issue a further notice to make it clear that the rule of the road at sea applies to all ships alike, whether in squadron or not.
  (Answered by Mr. Gerald Balfour.) (1.) The notices are advisory, and their object is to induce masters of British ships to keep so far from squadrons as to avoid all possibility of collision. (2,) The notices do not in any way alter or modify the regulations, which must be adhered to in any case, in which ships approach each other so as to involve any risk of collision. (3.) The Board of Trade understand that the Admiralty concur in this interpretation of the notice, and they do not think it necessary to take further action.

  Scotch Education—Equivalent Grant.
  MR. MUNRO FERGUSON: To ask the Secretary for Scotland whether, in view of the loss of the Education Bill, he now proposes to utilise
  1216
  the Equivalent Grant (1903) for education instead of the rating relief.
  (Answered by Mr. A. Graham Murray.) I apprehend the hon. Member refers to the General Aid Grant appearing in the Estimates for 1904–5. That grant is already regulated by Minute, of date 25th April, 1904. It is true that payments under the provisions of that Minute will not exhaust the whole grant, it having been intended that the balance should be dealt with under the Bill. That balance will require to be dealt with next session, either by Bill or by Minute lying on the Table of the House, and will be so dealt with according to the legislative progress of next session. But it is not possible to deal with it now, nor can I accept as accurate the statement that the money already disposed of was given in rating relief.

  Government Borrowings—Fall in Consols.
  MR. BRIGHT: To ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer if his attention has been called to the fact that the proposed issue of Exchequer Bonds has occasioned a fall in the price of Consols; and whether any further borrowings, other than those already announced, are in contemplation by the Government.
  (Answered by Mr. Austen Chamberlain.) I have observed the recent fall in the price of Consols. I do not anticipate that it will be necessary to make an issue of Exchequer Bonds under the provisions of the two Bills now before the House before November next, and it is not anticipated that the amount to be raised in this way during the current financial year will exceed six or seven millions. There are no further borrowings now in contemplation beyond those already authorised and the usual temporary borrowings to supply the needs of the Exchequer pending the receipt of revenue.

  Royal Irish Constabulary—Age Limit Retirement.
  MR. SLOAN: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he can state under what circumstances members of the Royal Irish Constabulary holding the rank of head constables and sergeants, stationed

  1217
  in county Down, are permitted to remain in the service for a period extending over the completion of their full service; and whether, in the interest of the public service, he will cause inquiry to be made with the view of having such men to retire forthwith.
  (Answered by Mr. Wyndham.) The power vested in the Inspector-General, by Act of Parliament, to compulsorily retire members of the force under the rank of district inspector after they have completed twenty-five years service, is exercised only in cases of inefficiency or for some other sufficient reason, and not on account of length of service alone.

  Police and Testimony as to Character of Prisoners.
  MR. SLOAN: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to the conviction of a man who was charged recently at Newcastle, county Down, with being drunk and disorderly and assaulting the police, and was fined in £2 with 8s. compensation; and to the fact that Head Constable Smith wrote a letter testifying to the good character of the person convicted; and, if so, will he say if this action is in accordance with police regulations.
  (Answered by Mr. Wyndham.) I am informed that the accused was an entire stranger at Newcastle, and that the head constable, who had known him for sixteen years, wrote a letter to the effect stated. It is the constant practice to examine constables as witnesses to character in criminal Courts, and they are bound to give to the Court the assistance of their testimony if appealed to by the accused. The head constable would have acted more regularly, however, had he attended as a witness for the accused before the magistrates; but such letters as this are often written by others. There is no regulation in the force prohibiting the course taken, and, at worst, the head constable was only guilty of a very trifling indiscretion.

  Religious Denomination of Poor Law Officials in Armagh.
  MR. JOHN O'DONNELL: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-
  1218
  Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that all the officials in Armagh, with one exception, are Protestants, not-withstanding the fact that a majority of the ratepayers and inmates are Catholics; and, if so, whether he will instruct the Local Government Board not to sanction the appointment of any other Protestant until such time as at least half-a-dozen Catholic officials are appointed.
  (Answered by Mr. Wyndham.) The Board has no information in respect of the religious denominations of Poor Law officials, with the exception of chaplains of workhouses and of nuns employed in the capacity of matron, schoolmistress. or nurse in various workhouse infirmaries. Questions of religion are not considered by the Board in determining whether its sanction shall be given or withheld in the case of an appointment other than that of chaplain. The reply to the second inquiry is, therefore in the negative.

  Female Catholic Teacher in Armagh Union.
  MR. JOHN O'DONNELL: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the Armagh Board of Guardians granted a pension of £9 a year to Miss M'Kee, a Catholic assistant teacher, which the Local Government Board refused to sanction: that she was afterwards dismissed without any fault being found; and, if so, whether, seeing that the rules of the workhouse prescribe that prayers should be read to Roman Catholics by a person of their own denomination, and that when Miss M`Kee was dismissed an undertaking was given to the Catholic guardians that the prayers would be read by a pauper inmate pending a fresh appointment, he will state whether the Local Government Board will take steps to have a Catholic female teacher appointed.
  (Answered by Mr. Wyndham.) The Local Government Board did not refuse to sanction a pension to Miss M`Kee. The guardians proposed to abolish the offices of schoolmistress and assistant teacher, and to grant these officers superannuation allowances, it being understood that the workhouse children should be

  1219
  sent to extern schools. The Board pointed out that, in its opinion, the proposed arrangement was objectionable unless it were satisfactorily shown how children were to be superintended before and after school hours. The guardians subsequently dispensed with the services of Miss M'Kee as assistant teacher and catechist. The Board had no power, however, to prevent them from doing this, and has no power to require them to appoint a successor.

  POLICE AND SANITARY COMMITTEE.
  Leave to the Committee to make a Special Report.
  Special Report brought up, and read; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 314.]
  Minutes of Proceedings to be printed. [No. 314.]

EDUCATION (LOCAL AUTHORITY DEFAULT) BILL.
MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The Instruction standing on the Paper in the name of the hon. Member for the Barnstaple Division of Devonshire to divide Clause 1 into three clauses is, I am authorised by Mr. Speaker to say, in his opinion, out of order on the ground that it is mandatory.
MR. SOARES: Of course, Sir, I accept your ruling at once, but perhaps I may ask as a point of order when the important point raised by the Instruction can be brought before the House. I presume it would not be in order to bring it up on a Motion to postpone Clause 1, and I really cannot see what opportunity there can be if it is refused now. It involves a constitutional point of the greatest gravity, because if the Government are entitled to roll three clauses into one for the purpose—
*MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Order, order ! The hon. Member is not entitled to argue the Question or to make a speech.
MR. SOARES: Then, Sir, will you answer the Question I have put to you?
* MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I am afraid I can give no other Answer than that the Instruction is out of order because it is mandatory.

EDUCATION (LOCAL AUTHORITY DEFAULT) BILL.
Considered in Committee.
(In the Committee.)
[Mr. J. W. LOWTHER (Cumberland, Penrith) in the Chair.]
Clause 1.
*THE CHAIRMAN: The first Amendment standing in the name of the hon. Member for Anglesey is not admissible. It is not open to him to move to postpone a sub-section; he can move to postpone a clause.
MR. ELLIS GRIFFITH: I will amend my Amendment accordingly.
*THE CHAIRMAN: That means to postpone the whole Bill.
MR. ELLIS GRIFFITHthen moved that the whole of Clause 1 be postponed. His reason for so doing was that three absolutely different matters which ought to have been dealt with in separate clauses were included in the clause. If they were included by mistake it was a serious error, but if they were included by intention it was a scandal. Were all these matters included in one clause in order that Clause 1, which was the whole Bill, might be obtained by one Motion of the closure? (Cheers.) If that were so, it was an abuse of drafting which he thought the Prime Minister, once his attention was called to it, with his sense of fairness would not countenance. He moved the Amendment in order to give the right hon. Gentleman an opportunity even at the twelfth hour to make amends. The first section dealt with transfer of powers; the second with financial matters and the deduction under certain circumstances of money from Parliamentary grants; and third, did what had never been done before—it made the Act retrospective. The right hon. Gentleman in a moment of caution and frankness admitted—
*THE CHAIRMAN: Order, order. The point the hon. Member is now raising is not relevant to his Motion. The Amendment of the hon. Gentleman was not in order. Clause 1 could not be postponed because there was nothing to postpone it to, the clause being the whole Bill. The only other clause, Clause 2, deals with the title of the Bill.
MR. ELLIS GRIFFITH: With great respect I am giving reasons for postponing the clause so that the Prime Minister may put things right.
*THE CHAIRMAN: The Motion cannot be made. The only effect would be to put the Short Title first.
MR. SOARES: Are we to understand this important point cannot be debated at any time?
*THE CHAIRMAN: I can only find instances where it has been done by general consent.
MR. MOSS: The result of your ruling is that when a Bill contains only one clause there can be no Motion to postpone it.
*THE CHAIRMAN: That is perfectly obvious. There is nothing to postpone the clause to. To make the Short Title first and the operative part second would be to invert the usual order of drafting a Bill.
MR. WHITLEYasked whether there was any remedy under the rules of the House. Was there not power in the Chair to protect the House against drastic action of this kind on the cart of the Government?
*THE CHAIRMANsaid that perhaps the object of the hon. Member for Anglesey could be attained by moving to omit Sub-section 1, and if the Amendment were successful the sub-section could be brought up as a new clause.
MR. WHITLEY: But is there no power in the Chair to protect the House against proceedings of this kind?
*THE CHAIRMAN: The draftsman-ship of Bills is a matter which rests with
1222
the Government or hon. Member introducing them. The Chairman has no power to deal with that.
MR. McKENNAsaid it was clear that the clause dealt with three entirely different matters and he ventured to believe that had any private Member proposed to do such a thing, or to add to one clause two entirely different matters the Chairman would have refused permission. He submitted that it was in the power of the Chair—he would go further and say it was the duty of the Chair—to protect the House against this abuse of drafting. Cries of ["Order."] Yes and he made that statement with all respect for the Chair. He had not the least desire to be disrespectful, but he submitted that acting on the principle which had guided his decisions in the past the Chairman ought now to rule that Sub-sections 2 and 3 should be brought up in separate clauses.
*THE CHAIRMAN: As I have already stated the drafting of a Bill rests with the Government who brings it in. The hon. Gentleman wants me to split up Clause 1 into three separate clauses. There is no inherent power in the Chair to do anything of the sort.
MR. McKENNA: Then I ask leave to move that the Chairman do report Progress and ask leave to sit again.
*THE CHAIRMAN: I cannot accept that Motion.
MR. McKENNA: Will you allow me to say one word on the point before you decide not to accept the Motion. Assuming that you have not power to compel the Government to divide this clause into three clauses, may I submit that it is only on a Motion to report Progress that the Opposition can call attention to the abuse of drafting on the part of the Government. Surely that is a sufficient ground why you should accept the Motion.
*THE CHAIRMAN: I cannot accept the Motion. I have already pointed out to the hon. Member for Anglesey that he can raise the question by moving to omit Sub-section 1 with the avowed object of bringing it up again as a new clause.
MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: Could that Motion be put in such a way as not to interfere with the Amendment on the Paper?
*THE CHAIRMAN: I am afraid I cannot say anything as to that.
MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid it surely was the duty of the Chairman to protect the minority in this respect. It was obvious that the object in thus drafting the Bill was so as to be able to closure it in one Motion. He quite accepted the ruling that it was not in the power of the Chair to divide the clause into three clauses, but he submitted that the Committee had the right, by a Motion to report Progress, to protest against this most scandalous abuse of the power of the Government.
MR. BRYNMOR JONESdrew the attention of the Chairman to the marginal notes. These notes were required to be attached to a Bill by the orders of the House so that the Speaker or Chairman should have some guidance in ruling the proceedings of the House. Now this marginal note did not cover all the proposals of the clause, and surely it was open to the Chair to insist that the clause should be divided so that proper marginal notes could be inserted.
*THE CHAIRMAN: I can alter the marginal note, and if the hon. Member will suggest an alteration I will make it.
MR. MOSSinquired whether, if the Motion to omit the sub-section was defeated it would cut out all Amendments to the clause.
*THE CHAIRMAN: We must follow the usual course. I will endeavour so far as I can to save the Amendments which hon. Members have put down on the Paper. There are one or two which would have to be sacrificed under any circumstances.
MR. ELLIS GRIFFITHmoved to omit Sub-section 1, in order to give the Prime Minister an opportunity of justifying so gross a scandal as this. Three substantial matters were crowded into one clause with an object which was per-
1224
fectly transparent. It was clearly done for the purpose of bringing the closure to bear on the clause as a whole. The Welsh Members were anxious to start the proceedings at any rate in a conciliatory spirit, and he appealed to the Prime Minister to meet them. If the right hon. Gentleman refused the opportunity, the responsibility would rest upon him.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 1, line 5, to leave out Sub-section(1)."—(Mr. Ellis Griffith.)
Question proposed, "That the words 'The Board of Education' stand part of the clause."
THE PRIME MINISTER AND FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,)desired to respond to the wish to discuss the Bill in a conciliatory spirit, but if he might be allowed to say so, the theory of drafting which the hon. Member advocated was absolutely novel. If one took up the statutes lying on the Table he would find twenty, forty, or eighty cases in which a larger variety of matter was dealt with in one clause, and in particular he instanced, Clause 7 of the Education Act of last year and Clause 8 of the Local Government Act, 1894. In the latter case, the clause extended to one and a half pages, and the first sub-section alone dealt with such diverse matters as the power of parish councils to acquire land and buildings, to deal with recreation grounds, to utilise wells, springs, and streams, to deal with ponds, open ditches, and drains, to accept and to hold property, and many other subjects. In the drafting of the subsection the Government had not departed by one iota from the traditions handed down to them, and the hon. Member on this occasion had evidently forgotton his great acquaintance with the statute law of the country.
MR. BRYCEwas far from saying they had not gone a long way in recent years in putting matters diversi generis into one clause, but if they looked at the statutes of twenty or thirty years ago it would be seen that this was not an immemorial practice. It was a dangerous practice, and one which had been abused in the present case. As

1225
to the clause in the Act of 1902, to which reference had been made, there were so many objections to be taken to details that it was not to be wondered at if this particular objection was not insisted upon. But, after all, the whole clause dealt with the powers of the managers, and the subjects were such as might very fairly be embodied in one clause. But the practice of putting diverse matters into one clause was a dangerous pratice; it circumscribed the liberties of the House, and ought, therefore, to be resisted.
MR. SOARESexpressed his surprise that the Leader of the House should have adopted such a line upon this great constitutional question. Under the so-called Constitutional Party the liberties of this House were being gradually taken away. [MINISTERIAL laughter.] It was all verb well for hon. Members opposite to laugh, but in course of time the position would change, and then they would strongly object if a measure for, say, the taxation of land values was compressed into one clause and forced through the House.
MR. LLOYD-GEORGEcontended that the argument of the Prime Minister was altogether inadequate, because Clause 7 of the Education Act dealt really with one matter, the powers of the managers. But the procedure here adopted was part and parcel of the whole method of the Prime Minister to dragoon the House of Commons and prevent discussion. He had decided that Wales was to be coerced. Very well; let him try it. It would take greater intelligence than that of the hon. Member for St. Pancras who cheered the idea. All the powers conferred by this Bill would not be sufficient for the purpose. But let the Government proceed; the people of Wales were prepared to meet them. Before it was done, however, the whole thing ought to be fairly discussed in the House of Commons. But the right hon. Gentleman did not think the House of Commons ought to discuss any of his decrees. This was deliberately done in order to prevent discussion. The Prime Minister relied on his authority and influence over the Chair to do it.
SIR FORTESCUE FLANNERY: I rise to order. Is the hon.
1226
Member in order in stating that any Member in this House relies on influence and authority over the Chair?
*THE CHAIRMAN: I do not know whether the insinuation relates to me or the Prime Minister. If it relates to the Prime Minister, I think it is in order; if it is directed against me, I think it is not in order.
MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid he would put himself in order by attributing it to the Prime Minister. There was, as he thought, no doubt about it. It was a matter of common talk in the whole House. Everything had been compressed into a single clause in order that the matter might be rushed through. But it was no use arguing with the Prime Minister; he knew perfectly well why it had been done. He warned the right hon. Gentleman that it was a very dangerous course to pursue. If, in the face of the strong feeling and the state of exasperation which had been aroused, the Prime Minister was going to give the House of Commons no fair opportunity of discussing any of the details of the Bill, he would rush the Government in to a position which he would regret in the course of six months.
THE ATTORNEY - GENERAL (Sir ROBERT FINLAY,)thought the Committee would agree that it was much better drafting that these matters should be dealt with in one clause rather than it should be broken up. This was a clause which dealt essentially with one matter, and if hon. Members would look at the clause they would see that it conferred certain powers upon the Board of Education with regard to deductions from the Parliamentary grant. No doubt it would have been possible with some ingenuity to have manufactured several clauses, but undoubtedly it was much better drafting that it should be dealt with in one clause.
MR. SYDNEY BUXTONsaid the Attorney-General had made out that this was simply a question of draftsmanship. He wished to know if when the clause was drawn, instructions were given to draw

1227
it as shortly as possible and put everything in one clause. It appeared to be the object of the Government to apply the closure and have one division at a certain time in the afternoon when in their opinion the discussion ought to be closed. That was the object of putting all these three questions into one clause. These questions were totally distinct matters to those which had been quoted as precedents by the Prime Minister.
*SIR JOSEPH LEESEsaid that he desired to say just one word about this matter. He would say nothing for the moment about the intention of drafting a Bill like this in one clause, but would rather call attention to the initial object of drafting a Bill in separate clauses. The reason of separate clauses being inserted was that they had in those clauses matters which were clearly distinguishable one from another and therefore must be dealt with separately. That ought to have been the case in the present Bill. But in the first sub-section of this one clause Bill powers were given to the Board of Education to manage education in Wales, and in the second sub-section they had given to them powers to deal with the recovery of the payments so made in respect of such management. The two sub-sections were entirely different, and ought, he submitted, to be dealt with in separate clauses.
MR. McKENNAsaid that with regard to what the Attorney-General had said he would like to call his attention to the actual wording of Sub-section 2. It was not anywhere stated in that clause what the Parliamentary grants referred to, and it must mean all the grants given for education.
SIR ROBERT FINLAYnodded assent.
MR. McKENNA: It is only the Parliamentary gran's for education. The Attorney-General has just admitted our point. Continuing, he said that the local education authority was the county council and therefore this included all Parliamentary grants paid to the county council. [Cries of "No."] The Attorney General would agree with him on the point that the county council being the
1228
local education authority, Parliamentary grants payable to the local education authority meant grants payable to the county council. But a wholly different body was brought in under Sub-clause 2. The sub-clause did not give any power to the Board of Education, after deducting the amount which they had paid for educational purposes, to pay the money over to the Crown, but as the sub-section stood it gave the Local Taxation Commissioners power to deduct the sum of money from the local taxation fund, and although it was not expressly stated, it was implied that that sum should be handed over to the Crown to pay debts incurred under this Bill. He submitted that the powers there given were not powers handed over to the Board of Education at all, but they were powers handed over to the Local Taxation Commissioners. That being so the Attorney-General could hardly deny that Sub-section 2 dealt with a totally different matter from Sub-section 1, and that it ought to be dealt with separately.
MR. BRYNMOR JONESsaid he did not think the Attorney-General had fully considered the effect of Sub-section 2. He admitted that Clause 1 of this Bill was intended to deal with the powers of the Board of Education, and that was in exact accordance with the marginal note. The right hon. Gentleman went on to argue that Sub-sections 2 and 3 were natural corollaries to the main proposition, and ought to be included, according to the rules of good draftsmanship, in Clause 1. He desired to call attention to the fact that under Sub-section 2 no powers were given to the Board of Education, but to some other body, and he did not know exactly what body. The first power given under Sub-section 2 was that—
"Any sums paid by the Board of Education under this Act shall be a debt due to the Crown from the local education authority."
Who was going to sue for a debt due to the Crown? He would not give an off-hand answer, but he apprehended that the Attorney-General would not advise the Board of Education to be the plaintiffs in any action against a local authority. Therefore this power was not given to the Board of Education but to some other authority. Then with regard to the

1229
deduction from any sums payable to that authority who was going to deduct that? The powers to deduct were given to some other body. Having regard to the logical evolution of this measure, and according to the principles of sound draftsmanship, the matters dealt with in these three sub-sections were distinctly different and ought to have been dealt with in separate clauses.
MR. LOUGHreminded hon. Members that it might be necessary to apply a similar Bill to London next year. The first sub-section raised a great difficulty, because the education authority had got no money and no resources, and had no Parliamentary authority to make these payments. Where was the money to come from? These were all totally different matters, and ought to have been dealt with in entirely separate clauses. The Prime Minister had failed entirely in the precedents he had quoted. Their complaint was that the matters dealt with in this clause were three absolutely different subjects, and ought to be dealt with in entirely different clauses.
SIR JOHN GORSTsaid that in order to find out the meaning of the term "Parliamentary grant" it was necessary to refer to Section 24 of the 1902 Act, and to previous statutes. So far as he could gather the term "Parliamentary grant" meant a grant in aid of an elementary school, either annual or otherwise, out of moneys provided by Parliament.
MR. EDWARDSsaid that was not a Parliamentary grant within the meaning of Clause 7 of the Act of 1902.
MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid he observed that the Attorney-General nodded assent to the exposition of the law given by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Cambridge University. But the hon. and learned Gentleman had not said so.
SIR ROBERT FINLAYsaid the sub-section was really absolutely clear
MR. WINSTON CHURCHILLjoined with the Welsh Members in protesting against the manner in which the
1230
Government were attempting to force the Bill through the House of Commons. He said that nothing could be clearer than the object of the Government in drafting the Bill and placing in the clause three distinctly divergent questions. It had no doubt been done to interfere with the liberties and convenience of the House. The attacks on their liberties had been made by various methods and lines. They had had blocking Notices, very late hours, all sorts of important subjects brought on at late hours, and closure by guillotine. This was the first time in this session they had had an attempt to curtail discussion, not by previous methods, but by an entirely new invention—through the method of drafting a Bill, and lumping together conflicting ideas in a particular clause in order to get a simultaneous closure on the whole clause. This was an entirely new departure on the part of the Prime Minister, and did great credit to his Parliamentary ingenuity, though whether it reflected equal credit upon his Parliamentary reputation was quite another question. Was either the Prime Minister or the Attorney-General prepared to say on his
honour—[laughter] was the honour of either Gentleman to be laughed at?—[renewed laughter]—was either prepared to give a personal assurance that he had no idea in his mind when the clause was drafted, except the convenient and excellent methods of drafting, and that there was no sort of consideration that this was a convenient method of curtailing discussion?
MR. MOSSsaid they had now in the Bill under discussion evidence of the, disastrous effect of attempting to legislate in a panic. The Act of 1902 was forced through the House, and it was being interpreted differently from whit was understood at the time.
*THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is now dealing with the Bill as a whole. He must confine himself to the particular Amendment before the Committee.
MR. MOSSsaid he would bow to the ruling. The Attorney-General had said that the whole clause dealt with the powers of the Board of Education. That might be correct in regard to Sub-clause

1231
(a), but how the hon. and learned Gentleman could suggest that the other sub-clauses dealt with these powers passed his comprehension. These sub-clauses introduced entirely new legislation, and he certainly thought the Prime Minister should give Members of the House an opportunity for the discussion of the proposals. They did not wish to obstruct the measure, but they were entitled to demand that the various sub-sections should be threshed out
on their merits. He moved that the clause be divided into three separate clauses.
Mr. A. J. BALFOURrose in his place and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."
Question put, "That the Question be now put."
The Committee divided:—Ayes, 146; Noes, 74. (Division List No. 311.)

AYES.

Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

Gore, Hon. S. F. Ormsby-

Percy, Earl

Anson, Sir William Reynell

Gorst, Rt. Hn. Sir John Eldon

Pierpoint, Robert

Arkwright, John Stanhope

Greene, Henry D.(Shrewsbury)

Platt-Higgins, Frederick

Arnold-Forster, Rt. Hn. Hugh O

Gretton, John

Plummer, Sir Walter R.

Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

Greville, Hon. Ronald

Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

Bailey, James (Walworth)

Halsey, Rt. Hon. Thomas F.

Pretyman, Ernest George

Bain, Colonel James Robert

Hamilton, Marq. of (L'nd'derry

Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

Baird, John George Alexander

Hare, Thomas Leigh

Purvis, Robert

Balcarres, Lord

Harris, F. Leverton(Tynem'th

Pym, C. Guy

Baldwin, Alfred

Haslett, Sir James Horner

Randles, John S.

Balfour, Rt. Hn. A. J. (Manch'r

Heath, James (Staffords. N.W.

Rankin, Sir James

Balfour, Rt Hn Gerald W.(Leeds

Helder, Augustus

Reid, James (Greenock)

Balfour, Kenneth R.(Christch.

Hope, J. F. (Sheffield, Brightside

Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

Banbury, Sir Frederick George

Horner, Frederick William

Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye

Bartley, Sir George C. T.

Hoult, Joseph

Round, Rt Hon. James

Blundell, Colonel Henry.

Houston, Robert Paterson

Royds, Clement Molyneux

Bond, Edward

Howard, John(Kent, Favers'm

Rutherford, John (Lancashire)

Bousfield, William Robert

Howard, J. (Midd., Tottenham

Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford

Bowles,T. Gibson (King'sLynn

Hozier, Hon. James Henry Cecil

Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander

Brassey, Albert

Hunt, Rowland

Sharpe, William Edward T.

Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

Jeffreys,Rt. Hon. Arthur Fred.

Sinclair, Louis (Romford)

Burdett-Coutts, W.

Jessel,Captain Herbert Merton

skewes-Cox, Thomas

Campbell,Rt.Hn.J.A.(Glasgow

Johnstone, Heywood (Sussex)

Sloan, Thomas Henry

Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

Kenyon, Hn. Geo. T.(Denbigh)

Smith, Hon. W. F. D.(Strand)

Cazendish, V. C. W. (Derbyshire

Keswick, William

Stanley, Hon. Arthur (Ormskirk

Cayzer, Sir Charles William

Kimber, Sir Henry

Stanley, Rt. Hn. Lord (Lancs.)

Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

Knowles, Sir Lees

Stone, Sir Benjamin

Chamberlain, RtHnJ. A.(Worc

Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)

Stroyan, John

Chapman, Edward

Lee, Arthur H.(Hants.,Fareham

Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

Charrington, Spencer

Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

Thornton, Percy M.

Clive, Captain Percy A.

Llewellyn, Evan Henry

Tomlinson, Sir Win. Edw. M.

Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E.

Loder. Gerald Walter Erskine

Tufnell, Lieut.-Col. Edward

Coghill, Douglas Harry

Long, Col. Charles W.(Evesham

Tully, Jasper

Cohen, Benjamin Louis

Long, Rt Hn. Walter(Bristol,S)

Valentia, Viscount

Crossley, Rt. Hon. Sir Savile

Lonsdale, John Brownlee

Walker, Col. William Hall

Dalkeith, Earl of

Lucas, Reginald J.(Portsmouth)

Warde, Colonel C. E.

Davenport, William Bromley

Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

Whiteley, H. (Ashton und. Lyne

Davies, Sir HoratioD(Chatham

Majendie, James A. H.

Whitmore, Charles Algernon

Dickson, Charles Scott

Melville, Beresford Valentine

Wills, Sir Frederick

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)

Wilson-Todd, Sir W. H.(Yorks)

Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

Morrell, George Herbert

Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

Fergusson, Rt. Hn. Sir J(Manc'r

Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer

Wrightson, Sir Thomas

Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

Mount, William Arthur

Wylie, Alexander

Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

Murray, Rt Hn. A. Graham (Bute

Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

Fitz Gerald, Sir Robert Penrose-

Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

Fitzroy, Hon. Edward Algernon

Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

Flannery, Sir Fortesque

Nolan, Col. John P. (Galway,

Sir Alexander Acland Hood and Mr. Ailwyn Fellowes.

Flower, Sir Ernest

O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

Forster, Henry William

Palmer, Sir Walter (Salisbury)

Gardner, Ernest

Parker, Sir Gilbert

Gordon, J. (Londonderry, S.)

Parkes, Ebenezer

NOES.

Abraham, William (Rhondda)

Brigg, John

Broadhurst, Henry

Ainsworth, John Stirling

Bright, Allan Heywood

Brown, George M. (Edinburgh)

Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

Higham, John Sharpe

Philipps, John Wynford

Burns, John

Holland, Sir William Henry

Rea, Russell

Buxton, Sydney Charles

Horniman, Frederick John

Reckitt, Harold James

Caldwell, James

Humphreys-Owen, Arthur C.

Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

Cameron, Robert

Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley)

Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

Channing, Francis Allston

Jacoby, James Alfred

Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

Churchill, Winston Spencer

Jones, David Brymnor(Swansea

Shipman Dr. John G.

Crooks, William

Jones, William (Carnarvronshire

Slack, John Bamford

Cullinan, J.

Joyce, Michael

Sullivan, Donal

Davies Alfred (Carmarthen)

Kennedy, Vincent P.(Cavvan, W.

Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan

Lambert, George

Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.

Delany, William

Layland-Barratt, Francis

Thomas,David Alfred(Merthyr

Donelan, Captain A.

Leese,Sir Joseph F (Accrington

Tomkinson, James

Edwards, Frank

Levy, Maurice

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

Elibank, Master of

Lewis, John Herbert

Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney

Ellice, Capt. E C (S.Andrw's Bghs

Lloyd-George, David

White, George (Norfolk)

Evans, Sir Francis H (Maidstone

Lough, Thomas

White, Luke (York, E. R.)

Fuller, J. M. F.

Lundon, W.

Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

Gladstone, Rt Hn Herbert John

Lyell, Charles Henry

Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)

Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill

M`Hugh, Patrick A

Yoxall, James Henry

Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

M Kenna, Reginald

Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

Morley, Charles (Breconshire)

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

Harcourt, Lewis V.(Rossendale

Moss, Samuel

Mr. Ellis Griffith and Mr. Soares.

Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H.

O'Dowd, John

Question put accordingly, "That the words 'Board of Education' stand part of the clause"
The Committee divided:—Ayes, 150; Noes, 68. (Division List No. 312.)

AYES.

Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

Devlin, Joseph (Kilkenny, N.)

Keswick, William

Anson, Sir William Reynell

Dickson, Charles Scott

Kimber, Sir Henry

Arkwright, John Stanhope

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Knowles, Sir Lees

Arnold-Forster,Rt Hn Hugh O.

Dinning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)

Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

Fergusson,Rt Hn Sir Manc'r

Lee, Arthur H (Hants., Fareham

Bailey, James (Walworth)

Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

Legge, Col. Hon. Henry

Bain, Colonel James Robert

Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

Llewellyn, Evan Henry

Baird, John George Alexander

Fitz Gerald, Sir Robert Penrose

Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

Balcarres, Lord

Fitzroy, Hon. EdwardAlgernon

Long,Col. Charles W. (Evesham

Baldwin, Alfred

Flannery, Sir Fortescue

Long, Rt Hn Walter(Bristol, S)

Balfour, Rt. Hn. A. J. (Manch'r

Flower, Sir Ernest

Lonsdale, John Brownlee

Balfour, Rt Hn. Gerald W.(Leeds

Forster, Henry William

Lowe, Francis William

Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christch.

Gardner, Ernest

Lucas, Reginald J. (Portstm'rh)

Banbury, Sir Frederick George

Gordon, J. (Londonderry, S.)

Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

Bartley, Sir George C. T.

Gore, Hon. S. F. Ormsby-

Majendie, James A. H.

Blundell, Colonel Henry

Gorst, Rt. Hn. Sir John Eldon

Mel ille, Beresford Valentine

Boland, John

Goschen, Hon. George Joachim

Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)

Bond, Edward

Greene, Henry D.(Shrewsbury)

Morrell, George Herbert

Bousfield, William Robert

Gretton, John

Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer

Bowles, T. Gibson(King'sLynn

Greville, Hon. Ronald

Mount, William Arthur

Brassey, Albert

Halsey, Rt. Hon. Thomas F.

Murray, Rt. Hn.A.Graham(Bute

Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

Hamilton,Marq of(L'nd'nderry

Murray, Charles J.(Coventry)

Burdett-Coutts, W.

Hare, Thomas Leigh

Murray, Col. Wyndham(Bath)

Campbell, Rt. Hn. J. A (Glasgow

Harris, F. Leverton (Tynem'th)

Nolan, Col. John P. (Galway, N

Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

Heath, James (Staffords. N. W.

O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

Helder, Augustus

Palmer, Sir Walter (Salisbury).

Cavendish, V. C. W.(Derbyshire

Hope, J. F.(Sheffield, Brightside

Parkes, Ebenezer

Cayzer, Sir Charles William

Horner, Frederick William

Percy, Earl

Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

Hoult, Joseph

Pierpoint, Robert

Chamberlain, Rt Hn J. A.(Worc.

Houston, Robert Paterson

Platt-Higgins, Frederick

Chapman, Edward

Howard, John(Kent, Faversham

Plummer, Sir Walter R.

Charrington, Spencer

Howard, J. (Midd., Tottenham

Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

Clive, Captain Percy A.

Hozier, Hon. JamesHenryCecil

Pretyman, Ernest George

Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E.

Hunt, Rowland

Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

Coghill, Douglas Harry

Jeffreys, Rt. Hon. Arthur Fred.

Purvis, Robert

Cohen, Benjamin Louis

Jessel, Captain Herbert Merton

Pym, C. Guy

Crossley, Rt. Hon. Sir Savile

Johnstone, Heywood (Sussex)

Randles, John S.

Dalkeith, Earl of

Joyce, Michael

Rankin, Sir James

Davenport, William Bromley

Kennedy,Vincent P(Cavan, W.

Reid, James (Greenock)

Davies, Sir Horatio D.(Chatham

Kenyon, Hon. Geo. T (Denbigh)

Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye

Stone, Sir Benjamin

Wills, Sir Frederick.

Round, Rt. Hon. James

Stroyan, John

Wilson-Todd, Sir W. H. (Yorks.

Royds, Clement Molyneux

Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

Rutherford, John (Lancashire)

Thornton, Percy M.

Wrightson, Sir Thomas

Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford

Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.

Wylie, Alexander

Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander

Tufnell, Lieut.-Col. Edward

Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

Sharpe, William Edward T.

Tully, Jasper

Sinclair, Louis (Romford)

Valentia, Viscount

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

Skewes-Cox, Thomas

Walker, Col. William Hall

Sir Alexander AclandHood and Mr. Ailwyn Fellowes.

Smith, Hon. W. F. D.(Strand)

Warde, Colonel C. E.

Stanley,Hon Arthur (Ormskirk

Whiteley, H.(Ashton undLyne

Stanley,Rt. Hon. Lord (Lancs.)

Whitmore, Charles Algernon

NOES.

Abraham, William (Rhondda)

Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

Philipps, John Wynford

Ainsworth, John Stirling

Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

Rea, Russell

Brigg, John

Harcourt, Lewis V.(Rossendale

Reckitt, Harold James

Bright, Allan Heywood

Hayter. Rt. Hn. Sir Arthur D.

Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

Broadhurst, Henry

Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H.

Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

Brown, George M. (Edinburgh)

Higham, John Sharpe

Samuel, Herbert L.(Cleveland)

Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

Holland, Sir William Henry

Shipman, Dr. John G.

Burns, John

Horniman, Frederick John

Slack, John Bamford

Buxton, Sydney Charles

Humphreys-Owen, Arthur C.

Sullivan, Donal

Caldwell, James

Hatton, Alfred E. (Morley)

Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

Cameron, Robert

Jacoby, James Alfred

Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.

Channing, Francis Allston

Jones, David Brymnor (Swansea

Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr

Churchill, Winston Spencer

Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

Tomkinson, James

Crooks, William

Lambert, George

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)

Layland-Barratt, Francis

Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney

Davies, M. Vaughan (Cardigan

Leese, Sir Joseph F.(Accrington

White, George(Norfolk)

Delany William

Levy, Maurice

White, Luke (York, E. R.)

Edwards, Frank

Lewis, John Herbert

Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

Elibank, Master of

Lloyd-George, David

Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)

Ellice, Capt E. C.(SAndrw'sBghs

Lough, Thomas

Yoxall, James Henry

Evans, Sir Francis H (Maidstone

Lyell, Charles Henry

Fuller, J. M. F.

M'Kenna, Reginald

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

Gladstone, Rt Hn Herbert John

Morley, Charles (Breconshire)

Mr. Ellis Griffith and Mr. Soares.

Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill

Moss, Samuel

MR. J. H. LEWISsaid that he had an Amendment on the Paper to leave out "Board of Education" and insert "Treasury." He thought that under the circumstances he might be allowed to move it.
*THE CHAIRMANsaid that the hon. Member was too late in asking to move his Amendment, but in any event the same point could be raised under Sub-section 1.
MR. J. H. LEWISsaid that under these circumstances he would withdraw his Amendment.
MR. WHITLEYsaid he wished to move the Amendment standing in his name. This Bill was a Bill which did not affect Wales alone; they in Yorkshire were quite as much interested in it. If it went through unamended, it would enable the Board of Education to condemn local authorities without inquiry
1236
and without any process of law. Could anything be more un-English than that? Why, they would not treat the commonest beggar in that way. The entire matter was to he withdrawn from a Court of law and public inquiry and put into the hands of the Board of Education. The hon. Baronet the Secretary to the Board of Education was not, however, the kind of stuff of which dictators were made, yet he wanted to set aside the law of the land, and say that he, and he alone, should decide that a borough council or a county council was in default. He did not think the House of Commons would pass such a Bill without the most drastic amendment. Section 16 of the Act of 1902 provided that if a local authority failed to carry out its duties, the Board of Education might, after holding a public inquiry, make such Order as they thought fit. The Board had not tried the remedy provided by the Act of 1902; and vet they now proposed to abolish the right of inquiry

1237
and any process at law, and put what he would call Russian power into its hands. Speaking for Yorkshire, he said that they would not trust the Board of Education in this matter. If they did wrong, let them be brought before a Court of law, and let them have the rights of Englishmen, as provided by the Act of 1902. There might be a great many circumstances connected with a case which could only be brought out properly by a public inquiry. Under this Bill, a manager or a clergyman might creep round the corner to the Education Office in Whitehall, and say that he could not get this or that, and that he wanted the local authority punished. All they asked was that these people should come out into the open; they did not want any backstairs business going on in the Education Department, and they had sufficient confidence in their case to lay it before a public inquiry or a Court of law. He moved the Amendment, confident of the support of those who believed in the common right of the individual to justice.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 1, line 5, at beginning, to insert the words 'After holding a public inquiry at which all persons interested have been heard.'"—(Mr. Whitley.)
Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
MR. HALDANEsaid that the Amendmen traised rather an important principle. As the Secretary to the Board of Education knew, he was not one of those who had taken a hostile view of the foundations of the Bill of 1902. He always looked upon it as capable of being built upon and improved; and as containing the germ of what might be made a very good system. The main principle was that education should be put in the hands of the local authorities, under, it was true, restrictions, the removal of which he had always looked forward to with confidence. This Bill, however, cut into the foundations of the Act of 1902. It provided that, if the Board of Education were not satisfied with what the local authorities were doing, they should be at liberty to take the matter into
1238
their own hands. That was quite inconsistent with the foundations of the Act of 1902; and was a confession of failure on the part of the Government. It might have been that there was friction which could have been avoided; but what he wished to insist upon was that they should not cut down the power of the local authority without the gravest reason; and, certainly, no such step should be taken without some kind of judicial inquiry, unless they intended to throw overboard altogether the main principle of the Act of 1902.
* THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY TO THE BOARD OF EDUCATION (Sir WILLIAM ANSON,)said that the right hon. Gentleman appeared to regard this Bill as a confession on the part of the Government of the failure of the Act of 1902. He did not agree with him. If the Committee bore in mind that the Act had been submitted to the closest criticism, that it had now been for many months in operation, and, if they considered the large area over which it extended, they would agree that, on the whole, the Act was working very smoothly and satisfactorily in the interests of education. He denied that the Act had been anything but a success. The right hon. Gentleman said that the Bill would cut down the power of the local authorities; they did not propose anything of the kind. They had been in constant communication with the local authorities, which was conducted on the most friendly terms; and it was to the interest of the Board, as well as to the interest of the local authorities, that such friendly relations should continue. His own belief and hope was that the Bill would affect comparatively few areas; and that it would be to the general interest that when it was brought into operation it should operate as speedily as possible. Teachers in certain areas were anxious to leave for their holidays, and their salaries had not been paid not merely up to date, but for the preceding quarter. In the winter the Board had complaints that schools were kept without fuel and without school-books. Was procedure by mandamus, the appropriate remedy for lapses of that sort on the part of the local

1239
authority; obviously they wanted something speedier, and something which would interfere as little as possible with the general action of the local authority.
MR. HALDANE: If you have to choose between two evils, is it not the greater evil to alter the basis of your Act for the whole of England, where, on your own showing it is not necessary?
* SIR WILLIAM ANSONdid not admit that they were altering the basis of the Act. They were anxious to maintain every power which the local education authority had. But in individual cases of pressing hardship the Board of Education ought to have the power to step in and administer a prompt and effectual remedy. Would they under a system of public inquiry have anything like that prompt remedy which common humanity demanded in such cases?
MR. WHITLEY: Do you accept camplaints without proof?
MR. TREVELYAN: Yes; provided they come from the clergy.
* SIR WILLIAM ANSONchallenged hon. Members to produce any case in which the Board of Education had acted without reference to the local authority on the complaint of a clergyman. The hon. Member for Carnarvon had pointed out in a speech delivered last year what endless opportunities for delay the requirement of a public inquiry offered. And yet these remedies were necessary to meet cases of pressing hardship. The Bill merely proposed that the Board of Education should have power to step in and do one particular thing in one particular school if by chance the local authority had left it undone. To proceed by mandamus would be a penal proceeding.
MR. GIBSON BOWLES: The powers given to the Board are all penal powers.
* SIR WILLIAM ANSONsaid this remedy would not interfere with the action of the local authority over a great part of
1240
its area, and it would certainly not interfere a moment longer than that interference was necessary. The Board of Education did its utmost to be fair to both sides, and he repudiated with contempt the suggestion that it had ever departed from rigorous impartiality in the very wearisome and troublesome business of carrying the Education Act into operation.
MR. BRYCEsaid the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education had taken the opportunity afforded by the Amendment for pronouncing a panegyric upon the Act of 1902, but he should like to ask him, as a student of English history and the English Constitution, whether any Act had been a greater failure than that which failed to carry with it the sentiment of the people. The severest condemnation to be passed upon a piece of legislation was that it excited the general disapproval of the people and that it created unprecedented difficulty in working. The hon. Gentleman said the Act had worked very smoothly and satisfactorily. Where had he been living since the Act was passed? He supposed, like the Prime Minister, he never read the newspapers.
*SIR WILLIAM ANSON: The greater part of the time I have been at the Board of Education.
MR. BRYCEsaid this was exactly his case. The Board of Education, he supposed, as was said of another place, had been up in a balloon. The Board of Education had never heard of passive resistance. It thought this Act had worked smoothly and satisfactorily, and did not take account of what was said in the country, and what happened in the Police Courts where cases of passive resistance were brought up.
*SIR WILLIAM ANSON: Every complaint of anybody as to the working of the Act, and all newspapers containing complaints, come to the Board of Education, the latter regularly and the others when they arise.
MR. BRYCEcontinuing, said they knew from a very remarkable example that documents sometimes went to an

1241
office without being read. The reports of the Intelligence Department, for instance, went to the Secretary of State for War, but they were never read nor was any action taken upon them. He was not up in the latest statistics, and he did not know whether passive resisters were numbered by the 10,000 or by the 50,000, but at any rate they were numerous, and he was very much surprised, considering what had happened in regard to this movement and in regard to the resistance of local authorities, that the hon. Baronet should be able to say that the Act was working very smoothly and satisfactorily. He said they were not going by this Bill to cut down the powers of the local authorities, but what were those powers? This Bill gave power to the Board of Education by its own fiat to determine all questions of dispute at the expense of the local authority. There were a great many points in the Act of 1902 which were open to the greatest possible doubt, and the Board of Education was to come in in an autocratic manner and say that its view was the only right one. Were the local authorities not to be heard? Were they to be the only people to be debarred from going into Courts of law and asking whether their interpretation or that of the Government Department was the correct interpretation? The hon. Baronet said that it was in the interest of his office that its power should be applied considerately and in as small a number of cases as possible. But it would not rest with the Board entirely to say how it would exercise this power. Supposing the Board began to interfere with local authorities, was it not possible the local authorities might say, "We are not going to do this thing by halves; if the Board supersedes us at all they must supersede us altogether, we are not going to be parties to doing things imperfectly." It was possible that other authorities which hitherto had been trying to carry out the Act would sympathise with neighbouring authorities in what they considered to be the oppression that was practised upon them, and would refuse to do even what they were doing now. He was not at all sure that the Board would not be raising up for itself a far greater difficulty, and bringing
1242
a far larger number of local authorities into the field than they had any idea of.
The only argument that the Secretary of the Board had advanced in favour of this provision and against the Amendment, was that it would result in delay, but there was one thing more important than promptitude, and that was justice. They wanted some security and safeguard. which nothing less than the decision of a Court of law or public inquiry could give. The right hon. Gentleman wanted to be able to act promptly and at once; he wanted a naked sword, and did not want to wait to see what a Court of law thought. He was satisfied with his own judgment. He (Mr. Bryce) was satisfied that the right hon. Gentleman would endeavour to administer the Act fairly, but he was not the only person at the Board of Education. He did not know what the view of the permanent officials at the head of the Department might be, and all his confidence in the fairness and judgment of the right hon. Gentleman was not going to induce him to put the local authorities at the mercy of the Board. They must have some safeguard for the exercise of this power, and it could only be found either in requiring the Board to take the case before a Court of law to show and prove to the satisfaction of that Court that there had been default, or to make good its case by public inquiry, where all persons would have an opportunity of being heard. They would then be able to judge the Board of Education and to call the attention of the country to the circumstances under which the Board proceeded. He conceived, therefore, that the Amendment could he justified, and that the House would, by its rejection, create a new and very dangerous departure in all established principles of legislation.
MR. GIBSON BOWLESsaid he had been induced to rise not so much by the merits of the Amendment as by the arguments with which it had been resisted, and the amazing pretensions set up on behalf of the Board of Education. The hon. Baronet had spoken as though the holding of a public inquiry before the extraordinary and almots unparalleled powers conferred by this Bill were exercised was a procedure monstrous and unknown.

1243
But it was most common for such inquiries to be held before action was taken by public Departments. A public inquiry was always held before any action was taken under the Fisheries Acts, and such inquiries often produced great results, and taught the Departments concerned something they did not before know. Managers and local authorities probably knew many things about education of which the hon. Baronet had not yet dreamed, and inquiries might prove of the greatest possible value not only as regarded the knowledge they would impart, but also as regarded the difference of tempesr they might import. He had been throughout a friend of the Act of 1902, but he recognised that there had been regrettable and surprising occurrences since the passage of that Act. One would hardly have believed that so many people would break the law for conscientious reasons, and he was strongly of opinion that sooner or later some compromise would have to be arrived at. At first sight he could not see why such animosity should be shown by the hon. Baronet to this harmless and ordinary Amendment. Everybody recognised the impartiality of the hon. Baronet, and no one would question his devotion to the public service or the cause of education. But while they recognised his personal qualities, his arguments against this Amendment were pitiable, and suggested most alarming views as to the functions of the Board of Education. The hon. Baronet said the Act had been completely successful.
*SIR WILLIAM ANSON: I said that we always heard of the cases in which it was not successful, and that as they were so few and extended over so limited an area, we might regard the Act as having been, on the whole, successful.
MR. GIBSON BOWLESasked why, if that were so, this Bill was required? The Bill was to remedy the cases in which the Act of 1902 had not been successful, and those cases, according to the hon. Baronet, were few and insigificant.
*SIR WILLIAM ANSON: Not insignificant.
MR. GIBSON BOWLESsubmitted that if the cases were few but significant they ought to be dealt with under the orginal Bill. Every private citizen who was aggrieved had to go to the Courts and submit to the law's delay. Why should the Board of Education be superior to all the incidents and proceedings of the Courts? The fact that the cases were significant made it the more necessary that they should be settled by the Courts. The assertion by the hon. Baronet that the local authorities had, or would, put obstacles in the way of the carrying out of the Act of 1902 was a serious condemnation of that measure. The local authorities were the basis of the Act, but they were now practically to be abolished and the Board of Education substituted. Notwithstanding the remarks of the hon. Baronet, the provision was penal in the respect the local authorities would most feel. The ninnies paid out by the Board of Education were to be, debts due to the Crown, and, as such, were given a peculiarly sacred character. They could not be forgiven to the defaulting authority except by an Act of Parliament, preceeded by a money Committee of the whole House. The Bill gave to the Board an absolute and overriding power. Year by year the ambition of Departments had been growing until it had now reached the most inordinate dimensions. They had grasped after more work, because work had meant power, and power importance. He would not object so much if the power was in the hands of the hon. Baronet, but the authority of the Department was usually exercised by a second or third-class clerk. He begged the hon. Baronet not to follow the course pursued with the latter part of the Act of 1902, and closure the whole thing, not to make himself the mere mouthpiece of the Department or to lend himself to its aggrandisement, but to accept as far as he could any reasonable Amendments that might be proposed.
MR. EMMOTTthought the genesis of this Bill was that some ingenious person in the Board of Education, desirous of getting round a very real difficulty, had tried to devise a method of, so to speak, painless dentistry by which the Act might be remedied with

1245
the least possible trouble. He believed, however, that the whole scheme would be too clever by half. He could not see what possible effect the Bill would have upon the real difficulty presented by the problem in Wales and elsewhere. The local authorities would probably be able to carry out their wishes in spite of the Bill. The fact of the matter was that the Government in 1902 committed a gross political blunder in asking local authorities to carry out an Act which was fundamentally in some respects antipathetic to their views. When such a course was adopted, trouble was bound to arise. With regard to the Amendment, he thought if the hon. Baronet gave way on this point he would do much to help the working of his Bill. Personally he did not want the Bill; he did not think it was the proper way to deal with the matter at issue; but from the hon. Baronet's point of view the Bill would act infinitely better if he gave way to this demand for a public inquiry. In the long run he would probably find that the other local authorities would fall into line with Wales rather than Wales with the other local authorities. If a public inquiry were allowed, any real grievance would be discussed, and the opinion of the locality thereby affected; but if the inquiries were merely conducted by the Board without any publicity the local authorities would have no confidence in them, and would be hostile to the conclusions, whatever they were. Thus matters would go from bad to worse, and therefore, because he thought something might be done by this Amendment to soften the effect upon the local authorities, he should support his hon. friend.
Ma. LLOYD - GEORGEsaid the hon. Baronet had overlooked the fact that under the Act of 1902, with regard to a Mandamus the first step was an inquiry, so that the Government by their present proposal were simply worsening the original Act. He fully admitted that an inquiry would take time. Personally, he would use every possible weapon to frustrate both the Act of 1902 and the present Bill, and the hon. Baronet had better not be too sure that he was not making matters
1246
worse. Upon that point they would probably have another talk about six months hence. The hon. Baronet was very likely doing a great disservice to the schools he wished to protect by insisting on these arbitrary powers being put into operation without even a preliminary inquiry. The Welsh county councils refused to be parties to oppressing their fellow religionists and forcing them by means of legal procedure to teach doctrines to which they conscientiously objected, or to allow the expenditure of public money on education without public control. If the Board of Education insisted on administering a part of the Act themselves the county councils would say, "You must also administer the rest of it." As to the question whether fuel was provided or not for the schools, that could easily be inquired into; and as to whether a school was under- staffed or not, the local education authorities might say it was as good as it was before the Act came into operation. When the burden was upon the parson, wonderful was the indulgence of the Board of Education; but the moment the burden was cast upon the ratepayers their zeal was marvellous to behold. The local education authorities might say, "Before we do anything, let us see what the other schools are doing, and therefore let us have an inquiry into the whole of the circumstances of the county;" but without any inquiry the Board of Education would proceed to act probably upon letters they had received, not altogether from parsons, but from Bishops. He was not saying that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education was doing anything that was deliberately unfair. No doubt he had a great sense of justice, but he was taking his case from the parsons instead of acting according to his own mind. This Act was, in fact, the result of Episcopal pressure.
Of course, the object of the Government was to get the Bill through without amendment in order to save a Report stage. It was not a question with them of the best methods of draftsmanship or of improving the Bill. They had always their eyes upon the political situation; they were always looking at the clock and at the thermometer. But all these things were irrelevant to an Act

1247
of Parliament. When once the Bill was passed, he was quite sure that the thermometer would be in a much worse condition. The method of the Government was arbitrary and unknown in English law. It was borrowed from Siam—it was Oriental and ought not to be introduce into a free community like this. He had brought forward cases which the Parliamentary Secretary had never heard of. Inquiry followed and was conducted in a very judicial manner. Then it was found that the facts were very much understated. Suppose there had been no inquiry the Parliamentary Secretary would have been guilty of a gross act of injustice quite unconsciously. The moment the Parliamentary Secretary went into the facts he would see there was an equity behind. Were the brewers to be the only people to have an equity in that Parliament? There was only equity for brewers but not for Nonconformists. The Government had got into all these troubles from lack of thought. They must not be led away by the parsons and certainly not by the Bishops. They had muddled everything they had taken up. All the prophecies uttered about what would happen when the Education Bill was passed had come true. The Government by the present Bill virtually admitted that, but what could they say of a Government that could neither rule nor resign? Welsh Members had done their best to keep pease in Wales. If they had not done so there would be worse trouble over the Education Act than there was now. If the present Bill passed the responsibility would be off the hands of the Welsh Members. The Government did not quite realise what they were doing and therefore he urged them to make inquiry.
SIR ROBERT FINLAYsaid the hon. Gentleman had stated that the difficulties which existed now were nothing to the difficulties which would arise when the present Bill came into operation. If the hon. Gentleman took that view of the effect of the Act, he would have expected him to help it to become law as speedily as possible.
MR. EMMOTT: Did you do that with Home Rule?
SIR ROBERT FINLAYsaid that he thought the remark he had made was a fair comment to make upon the observations of the hon. Member for Carnarvon. He had found fault with the statement that some of the county councils had taken a course which had borne very hardly upon children and teachers. In Montgomeryshire there were fifteen schools in which the teachers had not received any salary since the beginning of April. The Parliamentary Secretary had stated that there were schools in which it had not been possible to provide fuel or books and apparatus. The prosecution of the war against the Act clearly compelled the county councils to be indifferent to the sufferings entailed on teachers and children. The Board of Education would take no step under this Act without the most careful inquiry. What the Opposition wanted was a public inquiry which would involve endless delays. Would any one tell him that one did not often get at the truth most thoroughly by sifting statements made and making inquiries in private?[An HON. MEMBER: A Star Chamber.] The hon. Member for King's Lynn had insisted that the second sub-section was a penal section. Surely it was not penal to ask that a man should pay the money was tine from him. The hon. Member for Carnarvon said this clause was unexampled and must have been borrowed from Siam. It was not, however, necessary to seek an example further away than the Education Act of 1870, under the 66th Section of which the Department had the power, if they were of opinion that there had been default on the part of a school board, to suspend all the members. There was no provision for inquiry. And yet the hon. Member for Carnarvon told the House that they had to go to Siam for a parallel case. As a matter of fact all they needed to do was to go to the Act of Parliament passed by a Liberal Government in 1870.
MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid that was simply a provision for suspension. It was without precedent to find that a debt was due from an individual or local authority without first examining the evidence.
SIR ROBERT FINLAYcontended that if there was a difference it was that the procedure under Section 66 was much more penal than in the other case, because they could order that the members should vacate their seats.
MR. WILLIAM JONESasked if the Attorney-General could give them an instance where a board was suspended without an inquiry.
SIR ROBERT FINLAYsaid that what he was pointing out was that, in addition, Section 63 empowered the Education Department to supersede the school board and appoint another board, and these drastic powers were to be exercised after such inquiry as the Department thought sufficient. The whole thing was left to the discretion of the Education Department, and it was well known that they would not proceed to exercise these powers without adequate inquiry. He thought a considerable number of instances of this kind could be found. The question, however, before them was not in how many cases this power had been exercised, but whether it was necessary to go to Siam to find a precedent. The hon. Member for Carnarvon demanded a public inquiry, but no doubt he would recollect that the ultimate resort in case of a mandamus was that the members of the council who refused would have to go to prison.
MR. WHITLEY: Yes, after a trial.
SIR ROBERT FINLAYsaid that here there was no question of going to gaol at all. [An HON MEMBER: Nor of a trial.] The only proposal in the Bill was that these expenses which ought to have been borne by the county council should be defrayed, with power of recovery, and in case of default should be made good. Was it even tolerable to contemplate that they should have a separate public inquiry every time a teacher's salary got into arrears, or when coals or school books were required. He asked the Committee to look at this matter not so much in the interests of the teachers or education generally but in the interests of the children.
*MR. WILLIAM JONESsaid he wondered whether the Attorney-General
1250
would dare to make a speech like that in Scotland. Wales had done more for education comparatively than either Scotland or England. He could not understand the Attorney-General saying that this provision was necessary in the interests of the children, as if the Welsh nation could be charged with any disposition to neglect the education of its children. What they wanted was simply a moderate form of public inquiry. How could they expect cases to be fairly dealt with unless there had been a fair inquiry. He would mention one out of two or three that might be cited. Under Section II of the Education Act of 1902 the Board of Education in December last issued a series of Draft Final Orders providing for the appointment of four "foundation managers" for each non-provided school in Wales. The County Council of Carnarvonshire thereupon served formal notices of objection, and departmental inquiries were held by a most competent commissioner on behalf of the Board of Education. There were some astounding results. In one case the Board of Education had been informed that religious instruction distinctive of the Church of England had been given for thirty years past. It transpired that nothing but simple biblical teaching had been given. There was also an instance in which the functions of the Acting Managers had been usurped on the appointed day by the clergyman. This gentleman, in conjunction with other churchmen, had appointed interim foundation managers—a privilege belonging really to the Acting Managers, who, in this case happened to be, with one single exception, noncomformists. What happened? Why, the Board of Education cancelled the Draft Final Order in each of these instances. Surely what was wanted was a system of full and impartial investigation throughout Wales, otherwise how could the people be expected to have confidence in the action of the Department? The Welsh people who had sacrificed so much for their educational system were determined to direct and conduct that system in accordance with their national genius and conviction.
MR. WALLACEsaid this discussion seemed a most extraordinary one.

1251
The House could not find time to pass an Education Bill for Scotland which was approved by every Scotch Member on either side, but it was asked to pass a so-called Education Bill for Wales to which almost every Welsh Member was opposed. This proposal to override the judgment of the county councils without inquiry was one of the worst attacks on local government they had yet seen. How could the Board of Education be satisfied that a county council was in default unless there was a public inquiry? The Government admitted that there must be some inquiry, but the inquiry they favoured was a backstairs inquiry in which the Department was informed through gossip and letters from persons whose names were not disclosed. The Attorney-General in his calmer moments would be the last to suggest that that was a method by which the truth could really be arrived at. The hon. and learned Gentleman had stated that there was a precedent for what was now proposed in the action of the House in the past in connection with the Education Act of 1870, and he referred to two clauses of that Act. He did not think that bon. Members from Wales would much object to what these clauses laid down. What was prescribed was not that the Education Department should act on its own initiative after a school board had been dissolved, but that it should have the power in certain circumstances to declare that a school board was dissolved, and that in its stead a new school board should be elected. What was the true construction of that? The section went on to state that the position was to be the same as if a member had died. What was the position of a member of a school board who died. (Laughter). He had no desire in discussing this Education Bill to enter into the merits of theology at all. What became of the seat of a member of a school board when it was vacated by death? He ventured to say that the invariable practice was that where a school board was in default it was not by appointment from the Education Department that the vacancy was in fact filled up.
SIR ROBERT FINLAYsaid the 63rd section of the Act of 1870 prescribed the procedure in such cases,
MR. WALLACEdid not admit that the Attorney General's view was the right one; but assuming that it was, what was the action of the Education Department in dealing with them? It was dealing with school boards elected specifically to deal with the education question only. What was proposed by this Bill was not to deal with small obscure school boards in different parts of the country, but to deal with the regularly elected county councils in Wales, overriding their judgment and insisting on their carrying out whatever the Education Department prescribed. What they were asking for in this connection was that a complaint should be verified by a public inquiry and that an opportunity should be given for hearing evidence on the other side. They did not ask that in the event of default the penalties should not be imposed. He could not understand the position the Government had taken up. The hon. and learned Gentleman had said that local inquiry would lead to great delay. Would the private inquiry take less time than a public one? Would it take less time to send an inspector down to hear evidence at one place than to have day by day letters dribbling into the Education Department from different persons in the county? If it was a question of delay the proposal of the Government was the worst that could possibly be made.
SIR JOHN GORSTsaid that what was, asked was not that the county councils should have an opportunity of putting their case before the Board of Education, but that the Board in every case should be under an obligation to send an official down to the spot to hold a local public inquiry. He could assure the Committee that in the past there never had been any idea on the part of the Education Department of avoiding the most careful inquiry into the facts and the most careful attempt to induce the local authority to perform their duty before any interference took place. He did not think a single school board had been declared in default until the whole circumstances were most accurately known at headquarters. In the present case there was no dispute about the facts; the local authorities simply declined to administer the law. There was, therefore, no need for a local public inquiry. He was not a defender of the arbitrary power of bureaux in

1253
London. But in a case of this kind he did not believe the House would incur the slightest danger in entrusting these powers to the Board of Education, who would certainly never use them in any case where there was the slightest doubt about the facts.
MR. PHILIPSstrongly supported the claim for a local inquiry. In such a question as education they got in the country districts strong sectarian prejudices, and excellent men with the best intentions thought they were absolutely right, while the other side thought they were absolutely wrong and it was impossible to get a reliable fact or figure, people took such opposite views. The point was vividly illustrated some time ago in a controversy on the disestablishment question, in which the hon. Member for Carnarvon Borourghs took one side and the Bishop of St. Asaph was on the other. Someone summed up the controversy by saying that the Bishop of St. Asaph was the biggest liar in Wales, but that the hon. Member for Carnarvon was more than his match. The hon. Member was wondering even yet whether it was intended as a compliment. Of all the questions which demanded a public inquiry, this question demanded it most. This Bill, after all, was a financial Bill. It was a Bill which was going to lead to the expenditure of
large sums of money. It was a commonplace that one of the great abuses of the day was the reckless expenditure of local authorities. What encouragement would this Bill give the local authorities con-concerned to be accurate in their accounts? They might make estimates, but if the grants were stopped how could they reckon what they would have to spend? If a county council had an inquiry and knew that they were going to have some of their money stopped, they would know what rate they had to levy. But if it was done in a hole-and-corner way by some person writing to London, then it was obvious that the county council finance was going to be upset. If their money was going to be taken away and they had to have heavier rates in consequence, they should have a chance of representing their point of view at a local inquiry.
Several Members rose to continue the discussion.
Mr. A. J. BALFOURrose in his place and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."
Question put, "That the Question be now put."
The Committee divided:—Ayes, 153; Noes, 89. (Division List No. 313.)

AYES.

Agg-Gardner,James Tynte

Cecil, Evelyn(Aston Manor)

Flower, Sir Ernest

Anson,Sir William Reynell

Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

Forster, Henry William

Arkwright,John Stanhope

Chamberlain Rt Hn. J. A. (Worc,

Gardner, Ernest

Arnold-Forster, Rt Hn. Hugh O.

Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

Gordon, J.(Londonderry,S.)

Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

Chapman, Edward

Gore, Hon. S. F. Ormsby-

Bagot, Capt. Josceline Fitz Roy

Charrington, Spencer

Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon

Bailey, James (Walworth)

Coates, Edward Feetham

Greene, Henry D.(Shrewsbury)

Bain. Colonel James Robert

Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E.

Greenc, W. Raymond (Cambs.)

Baird, John George Alexander

Coghill, Douglas Harry

Grenfell, William Hemy

Balcarres, Lord

Cohen, Benjamin Louis

Gretton, John

Baldwin, Alfred

Colomb, Rt. Hon Sir John C. R.

Greville, Hon. Ronald

Balfour, Rt. Hon A. J. (Manch'r

Cox, Irwin Edward Bainbridge

Halsey, Rt. Hon. Thomas F.

Balfour Rt Hn Gerald W.(Leeds

Crossley, Rt. Hon. Sir Savile

HamiltonMarq. of(L'nd'nderry

Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christch.

Davenport, William Bromley

Hare, Thomas Leigh

Banbury, Sir Frederick George

Davies, Sir HoratioD(Chatham

Heath, James (Staffords, N.W.

Bartley, Sir George C. T.

Dickson, Charles Scott

Helder, Augustus

Bill, Charles

Dixon-Hartland, Sir Fred Dixon

Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T.

Blundell, Colonel Henry

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Hope, J. F.(Sheffield, Brightside

Bond, Edward

Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

Hoult, Joseph

Brassey, Albert

Dyke, Rt Hon. Sir William Hart

Howard John(Kent Faversham

Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas

Howard, J. (Midd., Tottenham

Brown, Sir Alex. H. (Shropsh.)

Fetgusson Rt Hn. Sir J.(Manch'r

Hozier, Hon James Henry Cecil

Burdett-Coutts, W.

Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

Hunt, Rowland.

Campbell Rt. Hn. J. A.(Glasgow

Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatvne

Jeffreys, Rt. Hon. Arthur Fred.

Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

Fitzroy, Hon. Edward Algernon

Jessel, Captain Herbert Merton

Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbyshire

Flannery, Sir Forteseue

Johnstone, Heywood (Sussex)

Kenyon, Hon. Geo. T.(Denbigh)

Nicholson, William Graham

Skewes-Cox, Thomas

Kimber, Sir Henry

Nolan, Col. John P (Galway, N.)

Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand)

Knowles, Sir Lees

O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

Stanley, Hn. Arthur (Ormskirk)

Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)

Palmer, Sir Walter (Salisbury)

Stanley, Rt. Hn. Lord (Lancs.)

Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool)

Parkes, Ebenezer

Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M.

Lee, Arthur H(Hants, Fareham

Pease, Herbert Pike(Darlington

Stone, Sir Benjamin

Legge, Col. Hon. Hercage

Percy, Earl

Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

Leveson-Gower FrederickN S.

Pierpoint, Robert

Talbot, Rt. Hn J G (Oxf'd Univ.)

Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

Platt-Higgins, Frederick

Thornton, Percy M.

Long, Col. Charles W (Evesham

Plummer, Sir Walter R.

Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.

Long Rt. Hn. Walter (Bristol,S)

Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

Tufnell, Lieut-Col. Edward

Lonsdale, John Brownlee

Pretyman, Ernest George

Valentia, Viscount

Lowe, Francis William

Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

Vincent, Sir Edgar (Exeter)

Lowther, C. (Climb., Eskdale)

Pym, C. Guy

Warde, Colonel C. E.

Lucas Reginald J.(Portsmouth

Randles, John S.

Whiteley, H (Ashton und.Lyne

Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

Rankin, Sir James

Whitmore, Charles Algernon

Maconochie, A. W.

Reid, James (Greenock)

Wills, Sir Frederick

Majendie, James A. H.

Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

Wilson-Todd, Sir W.H.(Yorks.

Melville, Beresford Valentine

Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye

Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

Milvain, Thomas

Round, Rt. Hon. James

Wrightson, Sir Thomas

Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)

Royds, Clement Molyneux

Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

Morrell, George Herbert

Rutherford, John (Lancashire)

Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer

Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Sir Alexander Acland-Hood and Mr. Ailwyn Fellowes.

Mount, William Arthur

Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander

Murray, Rt Hn A. Graham(Bute

Scoett, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.

Murray, Charles J. (Coventry

Sharpe, William Edward T.

Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath

Shaw-Stewart, Sir H. (Renfrew)

NOES.

Abraham, William (Rhondda)

Harcourt, Lewis V (Rossendale)

Rickett, J. Compton

Ainsworth, John Stirling

Harwood, George

Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

Asher, Alexander

Hayter, Rt. Hn. Sir Arthur D.

Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

Asquith, Rt. Hn. Herbert Henry

Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H.

Roe, Sir Thomas

Barran, Rowland Hirst

Higham, John Sharpe

Runciman, Walter

Boland, John

Holland, Sir William Henry

Samuel, Herbert L(Cleveland)

Brigg, John

Horniman, Frederick John

Shipman, Dr. John G.

Bright, Allan Heywood

Humphreys-Owen, Arthur C.

Slack, John Bamford

Broadhurst, Henry

Hutton. Alfred E. (Morley)

Sloan, Thomas Henry

Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

Jacoby, James

Alfred Soares, Ernest J.

Burns, John

Jones, David Brynmor (Swansea

Stanhope, Hon. Philip James

Buxton, Sydney Charles

Jones, William (Carnarvonsh.)

Sullivan, Donal

Caldwell, James

Labouchere, Henry

Taylor, Theodore C.(Radcliffe)

Cameron, Robert

Lambert, George

Tennant, Harold John

Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

Layland-Barratt, Francis

Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

Causton, Richard Knight

Leese, Sir Joseph F(Accrington)

Thomas, David A. (Merthyr)

Channing, Francis Allston

Levy, Maurice

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

Churchill, Winston Spencer

Lewis, John Herbert

Wallace, Robert

Crooks, William

Lloyd-George, David

Wason, John C. (Orkney)

Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)

MacVeagh, Jeremiah

Weir, James Galloway

Davies, M. Vaughan(Cardigan)

M'Kenna, Reginald

White, George (Norfolk)

Devlinn, Charles R. (Galway)

Morley, Charles (Breconshire)

White, Luke (York, E. R.)

Edwards, Frank

Moss, Samuel

Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

Elibank, Master of

Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)

Ellice, Capt E C (S.Andrw'sBghs

Norman, Henry

Wilson, Henry J. (York, W. R.)

Emmott, Alfred

O'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary,Mid

Woodhouse, Sir J T (Huddersf'd.

Fuller, J. M. F.

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

Yoxall, James Henry

Griffith, Ellis J.

O'Dowd, John

Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill

O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr. Herbert Gladstone and Mr. William M'Arthur.

Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

Partington, Oswald

Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

Philipps, John Wynford

Question put accordingly, "That those words be there inserted."
The Committee divided:—Ayes, 82, Noes, 166. (Division List No. 314.)

AYES.

Abraham, William (Rhondda)

Barran, Rowland Hirst

Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

Ainsworth, John Stirling

Brigg, John

Burns, John

Asher, Alexander

Bright, Allan Heywood

Buxton, Sydney Charles

Asquith, Rt. Hn. Herbert Henry

Broadhurst, Henry

Caldwell, James

Cameron, Robert

Humphreys-Owen, Arthur C.

Shipman, Dr. John G.

Causton, Richard Knight

Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley)

Slack, John Bamford

Channing, Francis Allston

Jacoby, James Alfred

Sloan, Thomas Henry

Churchill, Winston Spencer

Jones, D. Brynmor (Swansea)

Soares, Ernest J.

Cremer, William Randal

Labouchere, Henry

Stanhope, Hon. Philip James

Crooks, William

Lambert, George

Sullivan, Donal

Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)

Layland-Barratt, Francis

Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

Davies, M. Vaughan (Cardigan)

Leese, Sir Joseph F.(Accrington

Tennant, Harold John

Edwards, Frank

Levy, Maurice

Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorg,an, E.)

Elibank, Master of

Lewis, John Herbert

Thomas, David A. (Merthyr)

Ellice, Capt E C(S.Andr'w's Bghs

Lloyd-George, David

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

Emmott, Alfred

M'Arthur, William (Cornwall)

Wason, John C. (Orkney)

Fuller, J. M. F.

M'Kenna, Reginald

Weir, James Galloway

Gladstone, Rt Hn Herbert John

Morley, Charles (Breconshire)

White, George(Norfolk)

Griffith, Ellis J.

Moss, Samuel

White, Luke (York, E.R.)

Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill

Norman, Henry

Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

Gordon, Sir W. Brampton

Partington, Oswald

Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)

Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

Philipps, John Wynford

Wilson, Henry J. (York, W.R.)

Harecourt, Lewis V (Rossendale)

Rea, Russell

Woodhouse, Sir J T(Huddersf'd

Harwood, George

Rickell, J. Compton

Yoxall, James Henry

Hayter, Rt. Hn. Sir Arthur D.

Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

Hemphill, Rt. Hn. Charles H.

Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr. Whitley and Mr. Wallace.

Higham, John Sharpe

Roe, Sir Thomas

Holland, Sir William Henry

Runciman, Walter

Horniman, Frederiek John

Samuel, Herbert L.(Cleveland)

NOES.

Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.

Davenport, William Bromley

Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool)

Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

Davies, Sir Horatio D. (Chathm)

Lee, Arthur H (Hants.,Fareham

Anson, Sir William Reynell

Devlin, Charles RamsayGalw'y

Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

Arkwright, John Stanhope

Dickson, Charles Scott

Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

Arnold-Forster, Rt Hn Hugh O

Dixon-Hartland, Sir F. Dixon

Long, Col. Charles W.(Evesham

Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (Bristol,S.

Bagot, Capt. JoscelineFitzRoy

Darning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

Lonsdale, John Brownlee

Bailey, James (Walworth)

Dyke, Rt. Hn. Sir William Hart

Lowe, Francis William

Bain, Colonel James Robert

Elliot, Hn. A. Ralph Douglas

Lowther, C. (Cumb., Eskdale)

Baird, John George Alexander

Fergusson, Rt. Rn. Sir J(Manc'r

Lucas, Reginald J (Portsmouth

Balcarres, Lord

Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

Baldwin, Alfred

Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

Maconoehie, A. W.

Balfour, Ht. Hn. A J. (Manch'r)

FitzGerald, Sir Robt. Penrose-

MacVeagh, Jeremiah

Balfour, Rt Hn Gerald W(Leeds

Fitzroy, Hon. Edw. Algernon

Majendie, James A. H.

Balfour, Kenneth R.(Christch.

Flannery, Sir Fortescue

Melville, Beresford Valentine

Banbury, Sir Frederick George

Flower, Sir Ernest

Milvain, Thomas

Bartley, Sir George C. T.

Forster, Henry William

Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)

Bill, Charles

Gardner, Ernest

Morrell, George Herbert

Blundell, Colonel Henry

Gore, Hon. S. F. Ormsby-

Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer

Boland, John

Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon

Mount, William Arthur

Bond, Edward

Greene, Henry D.(Shrewsbury)

Murray, Rt Hn A. Graham(Bute

Brassey, Albert

Greene, W. Raymond (Cambs.

Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

Grenfell, William Henry

Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)

Brown, Sir Alex. H. (Shropsh.)

Gretton, John

Nicholson, William Graham

Bull, William James

Greville, Hon. Ronald

Nolan, Col. John P.(Galway, N.

Burdett-Coutts, W.

Halsey, Rt. Hon. Thomas F.

Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

Campbell, Rt. Hn. J. A(Glasgow)

Hamilton, Marq of(L'nd'nderry

O'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary Mid

Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

Hare, Thomas Leigh

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

Heath, James (Staffords. N. W.

O'Dowd, John

Cavendish, V.C.W.(Derbyshire

Helder, Augustus

O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T.

O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

Hope, J. F(Sheffield, Brightside)

Palmer, Sir Walter (Salisbury)

Chamberlain, Rt Hn. J A (Worc.

Hoult, Joseph

Parker, Sir Gilbert

Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

Howard. J. (Kent, Faversham)

Parkes, Ebenezer

Chapman, Edward

Howard, J. (Midd.,Tottenham)

Pease, Herbert P. (Darlington)

Charrington, Spencer

Hozier, Hn. James Henry Cecil

Percy, Earl

Clare, Octavius Leigh

Hunt, Rowland

Pierpoint, Robert

Coates, Edward Feetham

Jeffreys, Rt. Hon. Arthur Fred.

Platt-Higgins, Frederick

Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E.

Jessel, Capt. Herbert Merton

Plummer, Sir Walter R.

Coghill, Douglas Hairy

Johnstone, Heywood (Sussex)

Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

Cohen, Benjamin Louis

Kenyon, Hon. Geo. T (Denbigh)

Pretyman, Ernest George

Colomb, Rt. Hon. Sir John C. R.

Kimber, Sir Henry

Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

Cox, Irwin Edward Bainbridge

Knowles, Sir Lees

Pym. C. Guy

Crossley, Rt. Hn. Sir Savile

Law, Andrew Bonar(Glasgow)

Randles, John S.

1258

1259

Rankin, Sir James

Smith, Hon. W. F.D. (Strand)

Warde, Colonel C. E.

Reid, James (Greenock)

Stanley,Hn. Arthur (Ormskirk

Whiteley, H.(Ashton und. Lyne

Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Lancs.

Whitmore, Charles Algernon

Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye

Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M.

Wills, Sir Frederick

Round, Rt. Hon. James

Stone, Sir Benjamin

Wilson-Todd, Sir W.H (Yorks.)

Royds, Clement Molyneux

Stroyan, John

Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

Rutherford, John (Lancashire)

Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

Wrightson, Sir Thomas

Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-

Talbot, Rt. Hn. J. G (Oxf'd Univ.

Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander

Thornton, Percy M.

Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Sir Alexander Acland - Hood and Mr. Ailwyn Fellowes.

Sharpe, William Edward T.

Tufnell, Lieut.-Col. Edward

Shaw-Stewart, Sir H(Renfrew)

Valentia, Viscount

Skewes-Cox, Thomas

Vincent, Sir Edgar (Exeter)

Question put, and agreed to.

Whereupon Mr. A. J. BALFOUR claimed to move, "That the Question 'That the words of the clause to the word "make," inclusive, in line 10, stand part of the clause' be now put.'"
Question put, "That the Question 'That the words of the clause to the word "make," inclusive, in line 10 stand part of the clause' be now put.'"
The CHAIRMANnamed the Tellers.
Tellers for the Ayes, Sir Alexander Acland-Hood and Mr. Adwyn Fellowes. Tellers for the Noes, Mr. Herbert Gladstone and Mr. William M'Arthur.
The Division bells were rung, and the Members sitting on the Ministerial Benches left their seats, entered the Division Lobby, ready to record their votes. A number of Members gathered behind the Bar and at the doors leading into the Division Lobbies, evidently in anticipation of a demonstration by the fifty or sixty hon. Members on the Opposition Benches above and below the Gangway, who persistently kept their seats. There was an almost dead silence for some minutes, when,
THE CHAIRMANinvited hon. Members to leave the House and enter the Division Lobbies.
MR. LLOYD-GEORGEseated, and with his hat on, said: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, I ask you whether under the Standing Orders a wholesale closure of this character can be applied as long as there is a substantial Amendment on the Paper to be discussed. I call your attention to one Amendment amongst others. This
1260
is the Amendment, standing in the name of the hon. Member for Dewsbury—
"To insert after 'satisfied' in line 6 of page 1,'that all the requirements of the local authority in regard to ventilation, lighting, sanitary arrangements and cubical space have been complied with, and.'"
I ask if that is not a substantial Amendment which ought to be discussed in the interests of the children about whose care we have heard so much? Are we only to be allowed to discuss questions connected with catechisms, and not points as to the provision of decent air for the children? I say that under the Standing Order the closure ought not to be applied when an Amendment of that character is on the Paper. It is a disgraceful thing that the closure should be applied in this way. [MINISTERIAL cries of "Order," and OPPOSITION cheers.]
*THE CHAIRMAN: In reply to the hon. Member, I have to state that the Standing Order does not say anything with regard to that. But it says—
"When a clause is under consideration, Motion may be made (the assent of the Chair as aforesaid not having being withheld) that the Question that certain words of the clause defined in the Motion stand part of the clause, or that the clause stand part of, or be added to, the Bill, be now put."
With regard to the substance of the Amendment to which the hon. Member has called my attention. I am not now in a position to say whether it is a substantial Amendment or not; but it seems to me that the matters referred to are governed by the general law.
MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: On that point it is a question whether the law has been carried out. I submit that if the law be enforced against the country councils to compel them to pay rates, why should not

1261
the law be enforced against persons in order to secure pure air for the children?
*THE CHAIRMAN: I should say most certainly.
MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: Then why should one side be discussed, and not the other?
*THE CHAIRMAN: It is for the Board of Education to see that the law is being properly carried out. [OPPOSITION cries of "They do not."]
MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: But they do not.
*THE CHAIRMAN: You must not blame me for it.
MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: I am blaming you for not giving us an opportunity of discussing a question of this sort.
*THE CHAIRMAN: It is a question of general law.
MR. ELLIS GRIFFITH: May I ask whether we are to understand from your ruling that the substantiality of the Amendments did not affect your judgment in accepting the closure, and whether it is not the case that you are aware that your ruling accepting the closure rules out four-fifths of the Amendments on the Order Paper?
*THE CHAIRMAN: I have to regard the substantiality of the Amendments in deciding whether I would accept the closure or not, and also other circumstances.
MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: What circumstances? The exigencies of the Government ! [MINISTERIAL cries "Obstruction."] The exigencies of Cecil family ! [MINISTERIAL cries of "Order, order !"]
MR. WHITLEY: Are you aware, Mr. Chairman, that we have only discussed one
1262
Amendment out of four pages on the Paper? [MINISTERIAL, cries of "Too much."]
*THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is not quite correct. We have only discussed two Amendments in four hours. The Question is "That the Question that the words of Clause 1 after 'Board of Education' down to 'make' stand part of the clause, be now put."
HON. MEMBERS on the MINISTERIALBenches proceeded to the division lobby. The Welsh Members and other Members on the Opposition Benches above and below the Gangway, however, retained their seats. After an interval.
*THE CHAIRMAN: I must ask hon. Members to be good enough to proceed to the division lobbies.
MR. WHITLEY: What ! After this !
MR. LLOYD - GEORGE: I do not see any object in taking part in a farce of this kind—absolutely none. It is a perfect farce that we should not be allowed to discuss a question of light and air for the children. I think it is monstrous.
MR. WHITLEY: These are the local authorities who are to be entrusted with the education of the children !
MR. GUEST: What are the general principles, you, Mr. Chairman, have given for the application of the closure in this case?
*THE CHAIRMAN: I will not enter into any argument with the hon. Member. I ask hon. Members to be kind enough to follow the usual course, and to proceed to the division lobbies. If they decline to do that, I must take other steps. Hon. Members have made their protest.
MR. WILLIAM ABRAHAM: You have shut out the most important Amendments on

1263
the Paper, Mr. Chairman, why not put the whole Bill?
MR. EMMOTT: I consider it grossly unfair that we are not allowed to discuss these questions.
MR. BRYNMOR JONES: You have, I think, shut out the, most important Amendment on the Paper, which stands in my name, by your ruling.
MR. McKENNA: If you accept the closure on the Motion of t he Prime Minister there is nothing more to be said; but if you tell us that you have exercised an independent discretion, that you have decided in going through the Amendments, not to exclude the Amendments, which ought to he discussed, by accepting this closure Motion—if you tell us that on your authority, it will be a different matter.
*THE CHAIRMAN: I have exercised the best discretion I possess. It is extremely difficult, as the hon. Member will see, to make up one's mind with regard to every Amendment which appears on the Paper as to the different degrees of substantiality. I can assure hon. Members that I have exercised the best of my discretion in accepting the Motion, and I consider that in accepting that Motion I have not excluded any Amendments which were really of a substantial character. I would ask hon. Members who have now made their protest, and made it, if I may say so, in a dignified way, whether they will not allow the usual course to be followed and take a division in the ordinary way.
AN HON. MEMBER: I am not going to divide. I ant bound to make a protest.
*MR. WILLIAM JONES: We are most unwilling to disobey your ruling, Mr. Chairman, hut in the interests of education in Wales we think these Amendments ought to be discussed, and not be sacrificed in the interests of a week-end holiday.
*THE CHAIRMAN: I can assure hon. Members that I quite recognise the feelings which actuate them. I can assure them of that; but I am placed in a very difficult situation. It is my duty, as far as possible, to safeguard the rights of the minority.
MR. EMMOTT: May I respectfully ask you, Mr. Chairman if you think it is a proper and reasonable thing that a Bill like this should be rushed through at a Friday sitting?
MR. WHITLEY: May I ask whether that would have been done if it had not been at the end of the session?
MR. HARWOOD: Why should not the same course of procedure be taken with the remaining stages of any English Bill?
MR. GUEST: Why should we have any discussion at all?
*THE CHAIRMAN: The rules of the House are well known to hon. Members, and I am afraid that this is not the first occasion on which a Bill has been dealt with in this way. I can only hope that, under the circumstances, those hon. Members who protest will follow the usual course.
MR. MOSS: Do you think it fair, Mr. Chairman, to block out 50 per cent. of the Amendments at this time of the afternoon?
MR. BRIGHT: This is in the interest of liberty, and a protest should be made. I beg of you, Mr. Chairman, to re-consider your decision.
*THE CHAIRMAN: I repeat my request to hon. Members that they now consent to go into the lobby. Otherwise I shall have to take such steps as are provided. for under the Standing Orders.
MR. GUEST: Will you give us any undertaking that we shall be allowed

1265
to discuss the further stages of the Bill at reasonable length?
*THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member must see that it is impossible for me to enter into bargains of that kind. I have said that I will do my best to secure such discussion as is reasonable.
MR. GUEST: We have discussed only two Amendments out of four pages.
*THE CHAIRMAN: Do I understand that hon. Members decline to proceed to the division lobbies?
MR. GEORGE WHITE: I refuse distinctly; I have had no opportunity of discussing the Bill.
MR. WINSTON CHURCHILL: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, may I direct your attention to Standing Order 162a, which provides that in case of grave disorder arising in the House the Speaker may adjourn the House without Question put. I submit that a deadlock has arisen leading to the possibility of grave disorder, and that the power under the Standing Order should be put into operation.
*THE CHAIRMAN: That rests with the discretion of the Chairman entirely. I am compelled to name certain hon. Members for disregarding the authority of the Chair. I name Mr. Guest, Mr. McKenna, Mr. Harwood, Mr. Alfred Davies, and Mr. Lloyd-George. I shall have to report these hon. Members and others to the House for having disregarded the authority of the Chair.
MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: Why pick and choose? You did that once before.
MR. ALFRED DAVIES: Will you tell the reason why we refused to obey your order?
MR. WINSTON CHURCHILL: Are you going to ask the House to suspend from the service of the House all the
1266
Members who are taking part in the discussion of this Bill, and so practically disfranchise Wales?
*THE CHAIRMAN: Hon. Members, must conform to the rules of the House.
The House resumed.
*MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: In the unavoidable absence of Mr. Speaker, through illness, I have to take the Chair as Deputy-Speaker. I have to report to the House that during the division that was recently called in Committee a number of hon. Members refused to leave the House when called upon by me, as Chairman of Committees, to do so. The names of the hon. Members who refused to leave when I called upon them to do so are as follows:—Mr. Guest, Mr. McKenna, Mr. Harwood, Mr. Alfred Davies, Mr. Lloyd-George, Sir Alfred Thomas, Mr. Moss, Mr, Herbert Lewis, Dr. Shipman, Mr. Levy, Mr. H. J. Wilson, Mr. Whitley, Mr. Ellis Griffith, Mr. Edwards, Mr. Abraham (Rhondda), Mr. George White, Mr. Philips, Mr. Ainsworth, Mr. Brynmor Jones, Mr. William Jones, and Mr. Herbert Roberts. As regards those Members whom I have just mentioned I have now again to ask them to leave the House.
MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: We are exceedingly sorry to disobey the rulings of the Chair. But we are doing it from a keen sense of public obligation. Does any hon. Member really suppose that we would do this unless we were compelled? I am sure there is not a single man who does not do this with deep regret. But this has gone too far. We must make a most emphatic protest against the action which you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, have taken at the instigation of the Prime Minister. We consider that you ruled out questions of vital importance to our constituents, and we cannot, consistently with our sense of duty, take any further part in this farce of a Parliamentary session.
*MR. WILLIAM JONES: There is not a man in this House who would less wish to show any discourtesy to the

1267
Chair or to the House than I would. But I am interested in the education of my country. I have consistently supported the main lines of the policy of the Education Act; and it is only because this Bill is directed to coercing Wales and because it will practically paralyse education and cause a deadlock in our great work that I am taking this course.
MR WILLIAM ABRAHAM: I have been in this House nearly twenty years, and this is the first time in my history as a Member of Parliament that I have felt compelled by the exigencies of the case to defy the Chair in the interests of education. Sorry as I am, in the interests of education—[HON. MEMBERS laughed]—if hon. Members had come here without having been educated they would not laugh. If they had known what it was to start work in a colliery at ten years of age without education they would not laugh. I am now becoming one of the oldest Members of the House, but I will protest even though I have to be carried out.
*MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Hon. Members have always treated me with the greatest courtesy, and I feel that they are deeply moved in the action which they are taking. They have made a protest, and I have said that it is a dignified protest and worthy of them in the difficult circumstances in which they are placed. But I appeal to them not to compel me to have recourse to the enforcement of the rule. I therefore submit to hon. Members that I should resume my place at the Table as Chairman of Committees; that the Question should be again put; and that a division should take place in the ordinary way. I only wish to make a suggestion. If hon members will not, take that course then I shall be compelled to ask them to leave the House for disregarding the authority of the Chair.
MR. GUEST: Do I understand that we are to leave the House for a division or as being suspended from the service of the House, because I may say that I desire to make this protest against your decision in the interests of Parliamentary discussion. I do not desire to offer any
1268
personal violence, but I wish to make my protest against the decision you have given as Chairman of Committees, for in my view that decision was entirely subversive of Parliamentary discussion. But, having made that protest, if you suspend me I am prepared to leave the House at your bidding.
MR. EMMOTT: The situation may be relieved if the Prime Minister will give an undertaking that he is not going to push this Bill through the House to-day. Personally I have not felt, able to go as far as my hon. friends and to refuse to leave the House; but we do think that this thing ought not to have been done.
MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: I feel that we cannot take any further part in a discussion of this character. I and my hon. friends do not want to appear to defy the rulings of the Chair; but we shall absolutely refuse to take any further part in the proceedings. We shall walk out and wash our hands of the whole business.
*MR. ASQUITH: I do not know that we are strictly in order; but I am quite certain that, we all feel that it would be desirable to avoid any of the unseemly scenes which we have witnessed in the past. Therefore. I am glad to hear what my hon. friend said. I entirely sympathise with him and those who are associated with him in the protest he has made, and if my hon. friend takes the course he has suggested, we on these Benches shall leave the House also and take no further part in the discussion.
And then the House again resolved itself into the Committee.
(In the Committe.)
[Mr. J. W. LOWTHER (Cumberland, Penrith) in the Chair.]
Clause agreed to.
Clause 2 agreed to.
Bill reported, without Amendment; to be read the third time upon Monday next.

SHOP HOURS BILL.
As amended (by the Standing Committee) considered.
MR. WINSTON CHURCHILL: I wish to ask leave to move the adjournment of the House. I venture to think that after what has taken place it would be quite impossible to go on taking other business this afternoon. It is true that the measure now called on is one over which no very controversial feelings are entertained, but the scene we have just witnessed is one which renders it quite impossible for the House of Commons to proceed with the discussion. I would ask the Prime Minister whether he himself really desires that we should go on. Surely after a scene like this the right hon. Gentleman does not want to snatch the paltry advantage of getting a few Bills smuggled through. I am sure that it would not be a dignified thing for the right hon. Gentleman to do, and therefore I beg to move that the House do now adjourn.
*MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I am afraid the Motion of the hon. Member is not in order, because it is not according to the Standing Order as there is no Motion now before the House. If the hon. Member will allow an Amendment to be moved, it will then be open to move the adjournment of the debate.
SIR FREDERICK BANBURY: I move the new clause standing in my name.
A clause (Exemption of Shopkeeper.)—(Sir Frederick. Banbury.) Brought up, and read the first time.
Motion made. and Question proposed, "That the clause be read a second time."
MR. WINSTON CHURCHILL: I will not repeat my arguments; but will simply move that the debate be now adjourned.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the debate be now adjourned."—(Mr. Winston Churchill.)
THE PRIME MINISTER AND FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Ma. A. J. BALFOUR,): I do not quite follow the reasoning of the hon. Gentleman. The Shop Hours Bill is one which, I think, is generally desired by the House, and if it has critics at all those are to be found on this side of the House rather than on the other. In these circumstances I should have said that this occasion, however unfortunate in its inception—everyone knows what my views on that will naturally be—is an occasion or proceeding with the Bill.
MR. ASQUITH: I should be very sorry myself if the Shop Hours Bill did not pass into law, and, although it does not go so far as some of us wish, it is no doubt a valuable measure. But of course we are placed in very unusual and unexpected circumstances, and I think, if the right hon. Gentleman assures us that when this Bill has been disposed of no other business. will be taken, we might come to a conclusion.
MR. HERBERT SAMUEL: An undertaking was given that this Bill should not be taken to-day. I am very anxious that the Bill should pass, but a relative of mine, a member of the House, as representing the Jewish community, had an Amendment which he was very anxious to move, and which he would be prevented from moving if the Bill were taken now. He understood from the Patronage Secretary that the Bill would not in any circumstances be taken to-day.
MR. LOUGH: I think we may be able to secure our object

1271
by giving the Government an effective promise, so far as the Opposition is concerned, that when the Bill is taken again we will facilitate its
passage into law. But, as far as the present situation is concerned, it would be utterly beyond all precedent to ask the House to proceed with any business, however important. The House is not in any condition to do so now. If hon. Members opposite would try to put themselves into the position of the Opposition they would find that the most reasonable thing was to accept the Motion.
MR. J. H. LEWIS: I hope that the Government will accede to this Motion. We on this side have received repeated appeals from the Chair to take a certain course, and we have done our best, at any rate, to maintain the traditions of the House. I think that some hon. Gentlemen opposite, at all events, will accept my view in that respect. In the circumstances I would appeal to the Prime Minister to treat us in a manner more befitting the office he holds in the exceptional position which we occupy this afternoon. The debate on the Bill which we have just been discussing would in ordinary circumstances have undoubtedly lasted for the whole of the rest of the evening, and in these circumstances the Prime Minister might, I think, meet us by adjourning now.
MR. CHAPLIN: How has the position in which we are placed arisen? It has arisen solely and entirely because a certain number of Members, after full warning, chose deliberately to set at defiance the ruling of the Chair. If they are placed in a position of difficulty in consequence, they have no one but themselves to blame.
MR. CALDWELL: Is the right hon. Gentleman in order in referring to a debate which has been closed?
*MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I do not think the right hon. Gentleman is out of order for doing so, for the reason that the adjournment has been moved by reason
1272
of those circumstances. At the same time I am sure he will exercise great discretion in the way he treats the matter.
MR. CHAPLIN: I hope that I have not in any way exceeded expressions which are courteous. If I have exceeded the limits of discretion I am quite willing to withdraw; but as an old Member of the House it is my opinion that to accede to a request of this kind would be to offer nothing but a premium on disorder.
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY (Sir A. ACLAND-HOOD,): I saw late last night a prominent Member of the Opposition, who asked me not to take this Bill to-day. I promised him that the Bill should not be taken. I think that the debate might now be adjourned, and that the House might go on with the next business.
MR. McKENNAsaid he agreed with a great deal of what the right hon. Gentleman opposite had said, and if the right hon. Gentleman wished to discuss this Bill he was quite willing to stay as long as the right hon. Gentleman pleased. The only thing he would say with regard to the right hon. Gentlemen himself was that he was not at all sure that he had not procured an early pair, and that when he had made his protest he would not go off comfortably to his dinner and leave the House to discuss the measure without him. It was easy under those circumstances to come down and deliver Phillippics against the debate being adjourned. He did not think the suggestion made by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury ought to be accepted. If this Bill were put down first on the Paper it ought to be taken first. If they were going to take this Bill, and the discussion upon it was to be adjourned then he thought they should take no other business. They came down to the House prepared to discuss certain questions. They went through the Paper, and the Bills that stood first on the Paper were the Bills the House was ready to discuss. It was not for the Government to press the House for this and the other Bills, and offer to the House for discussion a

1273
measure which in ordinary course would not be taken. He, for one, was quite ready to discuss any measure, but he did not think it was right to ask the House to pass to this other business. If the Government insisted upon going on with the business, they ought to go on with this Bill, but having regard to what had taken place, and the feeling of irritation roused by the Prime Minister, he did not think it was desirable for the House to continue sitting.
MR. GUESTasked whether, in the event of this debate being adjourned, it was possible to go on with other business. They were now discussing the adjournment of the debate on the Shop Hours Bill, and in the event of the debate being adjourned he submitted other business could not be proceeded with.
*THE CHAIRMANsaid that the only possible course, if the House adjourned this debate, would be to proceed with the other orders.
MR. GIBSON BOWLESsaid that, as one to whom the rights of the House were very dear and to whom the rights of every Member were equally dear, he might perhaps be allowed to say a few words. In the first place he regretted to see that a large number of Members of the House had left. They had taken the weakest course. When one had one horse killed under him he should at once get another and continue the fight.
AN HON. MEMBER: We did not ask your opinion.
MR. GIBSON BOWLES: Possibly not, but I venture to give it. The hon. Member, continuing, said: The question before the House was the adjournment of the debate, and the Patronage Secretary to the Treasury had admitted that what had been alleged on the opposite side of the House was well founded and he stated that he had agreed not to take this particular Bill on this particular occasion. He had agreed with the other side to adjourn
1274
this debate. As the Chairman had ruled, that would not preclude the continuance of the debate on all other Government business until it was concluded. After this Question had been disposed of, and the debate adjourned on this particular Bill, all the rest of the Government business had to be taken, and when that was concluded Mr. Speaker would leave the Chair. But under the circumstances he would suggest to his right hon. friend the Prime Minister that, inasmuch as it was clearly only intended to deal with the Education Bill, and inasmuch as it had been completely and amply proved by the Patronage Secretary to the Treasury that he did not intend to take this Bill, the purpose of the Government had been fulfilled. They had got their first Bill, and inasmuch as they had not seriously intended to take the second, he suggested to the right hon. Gentleman that he might now agree to the adjournment of the House.
MR. BROADHURSTsaid that if the Shop Hours Bill were finally withdrawn for that day he was very sorry, because it would have gone through with very little debate. But if it was really withdrawn he appealed to the Prime Minister to adjourn the sitting. A feeling of a very undesirable nature had been roused in the House, and in the interest of Parliamentary proceedings it would be wise of the Prime Minister to allow the House now to adjourn.
Debate to be resumed on Monday next.

POST OFFICE SITES (EXPENSES).
Order for Commiteee thereupon read. and discharged.

POST OFFICE SITES BILL.
Considered in Committee.
(In the Committee.)
MR. TREVELYANsaid he thought it was very unfortunate that the Government should

1275
treat the House in this manner. It was thought that after dropping the Shop Hours Bill the Government would not have attempted to do any more business. A good many Members who had occasioned the trouble just now had not been in the Chamber since that unfortunate occurence took place, and he thought if this debate were to continue now and those Gentlemen were to return, and a little more excitement such as was shown by hen. Members opposite during that debate took place, the right hon. Gentleman would see what an unfortunate step he was taking in continuing the sitting. He trusted that in the interests of the peace and dignity of the House the Government would be content with the business already done, and would accept the Motion which he now moved, to report Progress.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. Trevelryan.)
THE POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Lord STANLEY,)hoped he might make an appeal for this Bill.
MR. J. H. LEWIS: Why should we grant the appeal? We made an appeal, and it was not listened to.
LORD STANLEY: As soon as the Prime Minister returns we can discuss it.
MR.J. H. LEWIS: Why is he not in his place?
LORD STANLEYsaid the Bill was purely uncontroversial, and it was necessary that it should go up to the other place as soon as possible.
THE PRIME MINISTER AND FIRST LORD OR THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,)said he had not been able to speak twice on the Motion for the adjournment of the Debate. He had not the least desire to press upon the
1276
House in the somewhat exceptional circumstances in which they found themselves anything in the nature of a controversial measure. Hon. Members would observe that he had mentioned a future day for the discussion of those Bills which he thought would rouse any feeling. These were interests which all had in common, which really raised no question at all, and he thought perhaps the House would allow this Bill to be considered [OPPOSITION cries of "No"] for which there was a peculiar public reason. If they would consent to that he would immediately move the adjournment of the House.
MR. SOARES: Surely the Prime Minister understands, that every Bill is controversial after what has taken place.
MR. RUNCIMANsaid the Government had made it totally impossible for a large section of the House to assent to any further business being transacted during the present sitting. He suggested that if this Bill had to go to another place, the other place as well as they would have to sit a little longer. Under the circumstances the Government would be well advised to withdraw this Bill like the others.
MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid he would not press this Bill.
Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Monday next.

ISLE OF MAN (CUSTOMS) BILL.

  SECOND READING.
  Order for the Second Reading read.
  MR. McKENNAexpressed the hope that the right hon. Gentleman was not prepared to press on this Bill. It was a Bill that raised most controversial questions. It was a curious

  1277
  fact that for years and years the Isle of Man Customs had been almost identical, but this year they varied. This Bill raised a most important question in connection with the tobacco duties. He moved the adjournment of the debate.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the debate be now adjourned."—(Mr. McKenna.)
  MR. BRYCEhoped that in the interests of peace the Motion would be accepted.
  MR. TREVELYANpointed out that the hon. Member for North-West Lanark had a Motion down on the Paper that this Bill should be read a second time this day three months. Under these circumstances, as it raised most controversial matters, he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would not press the Bill.
  MR. WINSTON CHURCHILLsaid that if these Bills were not controversial they could slip through at any time. It was not the question of imperilling the fortunes of any particular Bill. The question was whether they ought to proceed further that day after the feelings of the House had been so stirred, and he warned the Prime Minister that after the way in which the feelings of the House had been outraged no Bill would be regarded as non-controversial. He appealed to the right hon. Gentleman not to take advantage of the feelings of the House after what had been so deeply felt and so deeply resented.
  MR. J. H. LEWISsaid this Bill was as controversial a Bill as any that could be put before the House. The tobacco duties had been debated at considerable length in this House, and surely in the application of these duties to the Isle of Man this Muse had a right to express it views. However that might be, it was impossible, after what had occurred that afternoon, to go on with any legis-
  1278
  lation. The right hon. Gentleman had forced the Welsh Bill through in a very cowardly way and he should be content with that.
  MR. RUNCIMANsaid this Bill raised matters of great controversy, re-opening, as it did, the whole of the discussion on the question of stripped and unstripped tobacco.
  *MR. H. J. WILSONsaid he had been in the House for twenty years and had witnessed many of these scenes, and everybody who had any experience in these matters knew that no good ever came of any business that was attempted after such a scene. After the way in which the House had been treated by the Prime Minister during the last few weeks, culminating in the scandalous scene that day, it was ridiculous for the Prime Minister to adopt his dulcet tone and ask them to go on as if nothing had happened. To-day nothing could be regarded as uncontroversial. No prowess whatever would be made, as the right hon. Gentleman must know.
  MR. WALLACEsaid he desired to join in the appeal that had been made to the Prime Minister. He was not naturally obstructive but he could not help feeling that after what had taken place no further business should be done that day. If the right hon. Gentleman realised the strength of feeling shown by those who had been always regarded as moderate men he would not proceed further. They had been treated in a manner in which they did not think they ought to the treated in the House of Commons, and feeling as they din they could give no facilities. It was with the bitterest pain and grief that they refused to the Postmaster-General the facilities which he desired, but they did so because they felt it was necessary to make the protest they now made.
  THE PRIME MINISTER AND FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,)said he did not

  1279
  think hon. Gentlemen were treating him in a very reasonable spirit. He did not desire to ask the House to proceed with controversial measures. [An HON. MEMBER: This is a controversial Bill.] Now it was alleged that the scene they had just passed through was of so irritating a description that it was impossible for the House to treat even the most uncontroversial Bill in an uncontroversial spirit. There was a certain amount of business to be got through before the end of the session. If these measures were to be treated as controversial, not only now but on every day, then they had better go on with them in daylight. But if it was understood that these formal Bills were to be treated as such on future occasions, he would be quite ready to come to an arrangement not to take them that afternoon. If, however, it was to be a fight always, then let them fight now. He could assure the House that such scenes as they had had were probably quite as painful to him as to hon. Gentlemen opposite.
  MR. BLAKEpointed out that the Prime Minister wanted something more to be done as if no scene had occurred. All that had been said by the Opposition was that the state of feeling was such that no further business could be taken that day.
  MR. CROOKSasked the Prime Minister for one moment to consider the position. He had secured his Bill, although had it been discussed in the ordinary way he would not have got it until three or four o'clock the next morning. Then even his own supporters would have refused to do any more business. Surely the right hon. Gentleman ought to be satisfied with the victory he had gained in obtaining his Bill, though it was gained at the expense of an injury to a highly-strung nation. If the right hon. Gentleman went on with business they would oppose everything through pure cussedness. He admitted his vocabulary was limited, but he did not know any better word. Let the Prime Minister be content with what he had already secured.
  MR. CALDWELpointed out as an additional reason for not taking this particular Bill that it embodied a proposal with regard to the tobacco duty which differentiated it from the rest of the United Kingdom.
  MR. EMMOTTsaid it was clear from what had fallen from the hon. Member for Mid-Lanark that this could not be treated as an entirely uncontroversial measure. It was not the intention of the Opposition to obstruct night and day in order to prevent anything getting through. All they said was that their nerves and tempers were not in a state to transact business that evening and the Prime Minister must have sufficient knowledge of human nature to realise that that was the case.
  MR. A. J. BALFOURadmitted there was something in the contention of hon. Gentlemen opposite that the action of the Government looked like taking advantage of an accident which the Government regretted deeply, though it had had the corollary advantage of allowing the House to rise earlier than it could otherwise do. His object in pressing that business should go on was that he supposed the Opposition for the remainder of the session intended to regard every Bill in its most controversial form. But he understood from the remarks of hon. Gentlemen who had last spoken that he had been mistaken in his general diagnosis. If he might refer to the English of the hon. Member for Woolwich, he would say that his word was very appropriate. "Cussedness" exactly described the situation. He did not wish to press the matter further and in the circumstances he would agree to the adjournment of the debate.
  Whereupon, in pursuance of the Order of the House of the 2nd day of August, Mr. Deputy Speaker adjourned the House without Question put.
  Adjourned at twenty minutes before Six o'clock till Monday next.