HC Deb 06 December 1906 vol 166 cc1273-91

said that the following instruction standing in the name of the hon. Member for Preston was out of order as it was outside the scope of the Bill:—"That it be an instruction to the Committee that they have power to make provision for those children attending public elementary schools who are unable, on account of other causes than the want of food, to profit by the education offered."

Considered in Committee.

(In the Committee.)

[Mr. EMMOTT (Oldham) in the Chair.]

Clause 1:—

*MR. HAROLD COX (Preston) moved an Amendment to substitute the Poor Law guardians in any union for the local education authority as the authority for the administration of this Act. The Poor Law guardians had for over 300 years been the authority for administering relief to the destitute in this country, and he maintained that they were the authority which should continue to discharge this duty. He had received, as many other hon. Members had received, circulars from the Association of Poor Law Unions in England and Wales calling attention to this Bill and urging that it should be amended in the way he suggested. In that circular the Council of the Association of Poor Law Unions pointed out that the boards of guardians alone by their relieving officers had the necessary machinery for making inquiries, granting relief, and following up cases, and that if these duties were handed over to the education authorities who had no experience in dealing with destitution and no proper machinery for investigating cases the business would be badly managed. That was not merely the opinion of the Council of the Poor Law Association. It was also the opinion of Poor Law boards throughout the kingdom. The secretary of the association stated that the circular was sent to 170 Poor Law unions and 134 of them protested against the Bill in its present shape. A discussion was held in November last by the representatives of local unions, and at that discussion, by an overwhelming majority, a resolution was carried protesting against the Bill in its present shape. This procedure would not only create confusion in the Bill, but throughout the whole country. In Clause 2, for instance, it was provided that the local education authority should demand payment twice over for one meal supplied to one child. If hon. Members read the clause it would be clear to them that, in the first place, the local education authority were to demand payment from the board of guardians. Then later on the board of guardians wore to require payment from the parents, and the amount received they were to hand over, in addition to what they had already paid, to the education authority. Another and more serious difficulty was that there were created by this Bill an enormous number of overlapping authorities. According to a circular issued by the guardians of the parish of Fulham, who had gone very carefully into this matter, in the parish of Edmonton, which was in three counties, there would be no less than twelve authorities for this relief—one board of guardians, eight education authorities, and three distress committees. If the Government multiplied authorities in this way and gave to all the power to draw upon the rates to relieve destitution a great waste of money would be caused. Another important reason for the Amendment was that the subject could not be dealt with properly without a careful investigation into each case, and the Poor Law guardians were the only body who had the machinery to do that. There was no machinery for investigation provided under the Bill. He had before him a case so striking that he need not apologise for referring to it again. It was the case of the Johanna Street school to which a visit was paid by his hon. friend the Member for North Camberwell, Sir John Gorst, and the Countess of Warwick. The Lambeth guardians examined into the allegations made by this distinguished trio, and found that they were almost entirely unfounded. Sir Charles Elliott and Mr. Hooper of Birmingham had also made a great study of this subject, and it was interesting to find that both these gentlemen agreed that the plan of the hon. Member for North Camberwell of feeding the children first and compelling the parents to pay after was a chimera. The women inspectors of the Board of Education were almost unanimous in dismissing the idea that what the children suffered from was want of food.


said he did not see what this had to do with the Amendment. The House was now dealing with the question of whether the local education authority or the board of guardians was to be the body which should undertake the feeding of the children. The hon. Member was dealing with the question as to whether the children were to be fed or not.


said his contention was that the subject should be investigated at the homes, and it was only by the Boards of Guardians that that investigation could take place.


said the hon. Gentleman was raising other questions which had nothing to do with that point, and the point itself did not rise on this Amendment.


said that what these children suffered from was not insufficient but improper food, insufficient sleep, and want of cleanliness.


said that the point which he wished to draw attention to was that this Amendment dealt with the body that was to form a committee to provide meals, but that was not the point which the hon. Member was dealing with. He must ask the hon. Member to confine himself to the Amendment.


said there was no other machinery for investigation than the guardians. He did not wish to labour the point, and would only say that when these matters were investigated it was found that it was not food but something else that was wanted. This Bill instead of facilitating the building up of good homes would tend to destroy the home. What they had to find out was how the child became hungry. The cause was to be found in the general problem of poverty, and the guardians were the proper authority to deal with that. [LABOUR cries of "No."] He agreed with hon. Members opposite that the duty of the board of guardians was to confine their attentions to destitution. He hoped the great problem of poverty would be dealt with in another way. At any rate the supporters of the Bill allowed the misery in the home to go on. The other children might be ill, or the mother might be dying, but the supporters of the Bill were content to inflate one little stomach with lentil soup.


The hon. Member is disregarding my ruling. He must confine himself to his Amendment.


thought it was surely relevant to the Amendment to point out that unless investigations took place a remedy would be provided for what was not the evil. That investigation could not take place unless the matter were entrusted to the board of guardians.


Strictly, investigation does not arise here, but on a later Amendment. Even if it were in order the hon. Gentleman keeps wandering from it.


said he was only trying to make his point. There was a mass of evidence revealing the fact that in many cases it was not more food that the children wanted. None of these things could be investigated except by the board of guardians.


said he was very sorry to have to keep interrupting the hon. Gentleman, but the hon. Gentleman did not seem to have read the Bill. The question he was dealing with did not arise out of the immediate question before the House.


said he was trying to justify his claim that investigation at the home was necessary. The objection to the board of guardians being employed to do this work was that the parent would be disfranchised. A curious anomaly was at once created by the Bill, because under the existing law parents who applied for relief were disfranchised, but under this Bill if a man sent his child to try and pick up a meal at school he would not be disfranchised. He could see no logical difference. It was giving public relief to the family.


The hon. Member is now dealing with Clause 4. I warn the hon. Member for the last time.


said he was trying to argue that the boards of guardians should undertake this duty, and the only reason he could conceive against it was that the parent would be disfranchised. But if they could argue that at a later stage there was no necessity to argue it now. He would, however, point out, in conclusion, that the Bill shifted the duty of relief from the guardians to another body, and that the receipt of relief under it would not entail disfranchisement. It was in its essence a Socialist proposal, and he could not understand how a Government which sent one Of its members to Huddersfield to make speeches against Socialism could force such a measure in the House. The House ought not to be pressed to deal with such a serious matter so late in the session. He fully recognised the spirit in which hon. Members below the gangway defended this Bill. He acknowledged the perfect sincerity of the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydvil, but he and others who were supporting this Bill were taking a course which would bring no real relief to the children.


The hon. Member is again irrelevant, and I must direct him to resume his seat.

Amendment proposed— In page 1, line 5, to leave out from the beginning to the word 'may,' in line 6, and insert the words 'the poor law guardians in any union.'"—(Mr. Harold Cox.)

Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the clause."


said he thought he had extremely little to answer. The hon. Gentleman asked whether the Government were responsible for the origination of the Bill. He thought the hon. Gentleman knew perfectly well it was a private Member's Bill. There was no feeling in his mind that the report he made had been contemptuously rejected. He had never taken part in a Committee whose proceedings were more harmonious, and on the whole it had produced a very workable and feasible Bill to the House. Most of the questions to which Poor Law guardians took exception would be dealt with later on. One of the largest boards—


I must try to preserve the same rules of order, and I must ask the hon. Member to reply only to what is relevant in the arguments of the hon. Member for Preston.


said he was replying to the argument that all the Poor Law guardians in the country thought the work should be referred to them, and he was saying that one of the great boards of guardians at any rate did not sympathise with that view. The view that it was entirely a work of relief was much too narrow. The idea of the Bill was simply to open refreshment rooms in connection with schools where the local education authority thought such to be necessary. Although there was an interval in the school hours, experience proved that many children could not go to their homes during that interval owing to the distance, whilst others found their homes closed when they went there. In London 300 schools every winter were providing meals. Something like 30,000 children in the Metropolis alone were fed, and about 80,000 meals provided. The idea that the work should be taken in charge by the guardians was contrary to every representation. The hon. Gentleman had not dealt at all with the fact that many of the meals served were paid for by the children. In the case of one experiment that had been tried in London, all the meals supplied to the extent of £14,000 a year had been paid for by the children, and there was no loss to the authority except a small sum not worth mentioning.


asked whether the hon. Member was in order.


I understand that the hon. Gentleman is arguing that since work of this kind is being done by the school authorities now, there is no need to change the authorities.


said no argument had been adduced for handing over the work to the poor law guardians, and he questioned whether under their constitution it would be possible for them to deal with it. Many kindly disposed people found money in order that these meals should be given. Why should not these voluntary funds be encouraged in the future as in the past and some facility be given for their expenditure in the schools? There were grave administrative difficulties in the way of handing this work over to the guardians who did not work in areas coterminous with those of the school authorities. There were 670 poor law authorities, and only 327 local education authorities and their areas were not the same. He thought the House should pause before consenting to a proposal which would allow the guardians to interfere with the work of the schools. It was desired that this work should be not a work of relief, but a work of education. They desired this part of the work to be as carefully considered as the other part of education. They wanted wholesome food given to the children and they wanted the children taught how to eat it, which was a most useful lesson. Four Royal Commissions and several Parliamentary Committees had expressed opinions adverse to this work being undertaken by the boards of guardians. The hon. Member for Preston seemed to think the question had been discovered since he came into the House, but he would like to remind him that the last Parliament, by a majority of 164, decided that the work should not be done in that way, although a member of the Government had advocated it. The present Parliament arrived at the same decision in passing the Second Reading of this Bill, and he hoped that as the Bill went through the Committee such references to the guardians as the measure contained would be so modified as to remove this work still more completely from them and give it more into the hands of the local education authority. It was impossible to entertain the Amendment.

COLONEL KENYON SLANEY (Shropshire, Newport)

said he did not approach this question on account of any hostility to the general principle of the Bill. They were now discussing whether the poor law guardians or the local education authorities would be the best body to administer this Bill. He thought it was the duty of the House to consider carefully whether in confiding this measure to the local education authorities they were putting it into the best hands. He was afraid that, as the measure stood, it must produce friction between two authorities. The local education authority would have to organise the provision of meals and make the charge on the parents whose children received them. But in the event of any parent not paying, it was through the guardians that he was to be forced to pay. If the education authorities acted they should do so by machinery of their own and take proceedings on their own account.


The right hon. and gallant Member is now discussing Clause 2. The question of investigation does not come in at all on this Amendment.


said he was dealing with the question whether the poor law guardians or the local education authorities were the best authorities, and he was under the impression that he had confined his remarks to that point. He was anxious that the Committee should have placed before it reasons why the boards of guardians were the best authorities for carrying out the provisions of the Bill If the administration of the Bill was placed in the hands of the local education authorities it would necessitate friction.


said the right hon. Gentleman was disregarding his ruling. The question of expense, the question of investigation, and the question of who was to pay would come on later.


said the power of the local education authority was not limited to Clause 1. It extended to other clauses in the Bill, and therefore if they desired to leave out the local education authority, and to put in another, it was absolutely necessary to prove that the substituted authority would take its place not in one clause but in all the clauses.


Under those circumstances we might have a Second Reading debate on many of the early Amendments. That would be entirely out of order, and I have given my ruling.


said he thought what he was saying was pertinent to the discussion. Of course the ruling which had been given limited him to the narrowest possible ground, and he did not know that he could do more than emphasise what he had already stated. The clause said that the local authority "shall not incur any expense in respect of the purchase of food to be supplied at such meals." The local authority was to have the power of initiating certain proceedings, and then of asking another body to carry out the unpleasant and invidious part of work which they had initiated. If the education authorities acted they should do so by machinery of their own and take proceedings on their own account.


said the Government had Amendments to propose on that point.


said they were accustomed to a procedure which left doubt as to what a Government Bill meant. There wore substantial reasons on grounds of good management, economy, and general public interest for the Amendment.

DR. MACNAMARA (Camberwell, N.)

opposed the Amendment. He pointed out that the Local Government Board Order issued last year, which invested the guardians with power to deal with hungry children, had been inoperative. He did not suppose that there had boon a dozen cases assisted in London, not because there was no necessity, but because the guardians did not want to carry it out. In one case where it had been largely operative it was carried out in a thoroughly vicious way in order that the parents might not come a second time. That was at Bradford, where the Local Government Board Order had been put in operation and meals provided. What was the result?


Is it not the custom on the discussion of the first clause of a Bill in Committee to have something in the nature of a Second Reading debate?


Certainly not.


said the Bradford Board of Guardians had been compelled by popular opinion to put the order in operation. It was a matter of test at an election. The guardians immediately followed the matter up by suing the parent of each child who was assisted for threepence for every meal. A working man's wife was sometimes glad to have threepence for the whole family. It was a preposterous charge, and was solely intended to prevent parents from coming again to get assistance from the guardians for their hungry children. In these circumstances the Committee would not be justified in handing over these powers to the boards of guardians.

* SIR WILLIAM ANSON (Oxford University)

said he understood that the purport of the Amendment was that for the purposes of the Bill the guardians of the poor were a better authority to deal with the matter than the local education authority. It was very difficult to discuss this question as to whether the board of guardians were the better authority without looking up and down the Bill and considering the proposals of the Government. For instance, Clause 3 allowed the local education authority to provide food without associating itself with the voluntary committees, but only in cases of exceptional distress. He had never committed himself to the view that the guardians were the better authority; on the contrary, he had never regarded this question as one of outdoor relief. His hon. friend the Member for Preston ignored the case of a large number of children whose parents were capable and willing to provide food for them, but could not because they were away from home at work at the children's dinner hour, or if they did give them food to take with them it was not of a palatable or wholesome quality. On the other hand, if they gave money to the children to buy their dinner, the children often spent it in sweetmeats or cigarettes or other things which gave no nutrition. It would be a very great boom to a large number of children, whether ill or well fed at home, if they got food supplied to them by a committee working under the direction of the local education authority. Therefore he said that this was emphatically a question for the local education authority; but he was disposed to say that some security ought to be taken that the guardians of the poor should be represented on any committee with which the local education authority associated itself. He agreed with the hon. Member for Preston as to the great importance of investigation. He took it that the committee with which the local education authority associated itself should be in a position to make the fullest inquiry before they undertook the work. It was for the interest of all that these voluntary associations or committees should earnestly take up this question of child life in our great towns, not merely the condition in which the children came to school, but their life in their homes. It was from that point of view that he, for one, looked on some portions of this Bill with approbation. But while he cordially supported the Government against the Amendment, he felt that there were many points which would call for a good deal of criticism at a later stage.


said that the hon. Member for North Camberwell had appealed to him in his official capacity as to the operations of an Order, which the Local Government Board issued to the boards of guardians some time ago. Subject to the qualification that it dealt with a somewhat different class of child from that dealt with by this Bill, the Order issued to the boards of guardians in reference to the provision of meals might be described as a relative failure. His reasons for making that statement were, briefly, that in July, 1906, there were only 151 children in England and Wales, and these were included in only five unions, who were' receiving meals from the boards of guardians under that Order of the Local Government Board; and of these l5l children, 121 were at Bradford. Some hon. Members might object that that was in summer, when there was not much distress; but in January in twelve unions the boards of guardians had granted this form of relief to 563 children, and of these 340 were in one union, viz., Salford. As to whether the Order was successful or not. The House itself could draw its own inference from these figures. That brought him to the precise question before the Committee, which was as to whether the board of guardians should be substituted for the local education authority. All the authorities that Parliament had appointed to consider this subject, whether Royal Commissions or Departmental Committees, had pronounced unmistakably in favour of the local education authority rather than of the boards of guardians. The right hon. and gallant Member had argued that the local education authority should provide the meals and then call upon the board of guardians to distrain. The Board of Education had decided to eliminate the boards of guardians from the process of providing these meals, and to that view the Local Government Board agreed. In his judgment this was a question of principle, and he was unmistakably in favour of the local education authority's working the measure. It was not fair to assume that the local education authority did not possess the means of investigation necessary for the provision of the meals. On the contrary, he believed that the local education authority, plus the voluntary agencies which they would have at their disposal, and the experience which they would get from the board of guardians and from a broad and general point of view, had ample means of acquiring the information necessary to carry out the Bill properly. It seemed to him that the local education authority should be the nucleus around which members of the boards of guardians and members of voluntary agencies would gather. This was not merely a question of providing the meals; it was also one of teaching better habits and manners and of utilising the opportunity thus afforded for other purposes. If the boards of guardians had to do this work a number of persons would not so willingly co-operate with them as they would with the local education authority. This latter body would attract, in a way which boards of guardians would not, the services of voluntary agencies of leisured people who had the time and means to do this work, and of managers and teachers, whose assistance was absolutely essential to the successful carrying out of the plan. The final and most conclusive answer to the Amendment was that the Local Government Board did not want this particular duty.

SIR HENRY CRAIK (Glasgow and Aberdeen Universities)

said that, as a member of the Royal Commission and of the Select Committee which considered this question, he could not give a silent vote upon it. He was in the greater difficulty in regard to it because he was afraid he must dissociate himself to some extent from the cordial acceptance of the Bill given to it by his hon. friend the Member for the University of Oxford. He felt very great difficulty in regard to the Bill, although he fully reciprocated the good feeling of the hon. Member for North Camberwell. He cordially agreed with the remarks of the President of the Local Government Board that the less they allowed poor law guardians to interfere with education the better it was for our educational system. It was for that reason very largely that the Royal Com- mission and the Select Committee desired to leave this power in the hands of the local education authority. They desired at the same time, however, to restrict those powers so that the Act should be properly administered by the local education authority. So long as they had the direction and organisation of the provision of school meals as part of the school organisation, so long as they gave meals the food for which was not paid for by charity but by school fees, he agreed that they ought not to allow the poor law guardians to intervene. But surely it was a different thing when they added to those powers of organisation and direction association with charitable bodies or any other bodies which provided food; if they added to that the actual provision of food by those means, that was poor law relief or it was nothing. There was no use mincing words. If they gave actual food, although they might call the process by different names, they were committing to the local education authority something which did not appertain to it, something which had nothing to do with the carrying on of the school, something which was a mixing up of charity with school organisation and which degraded the school. If the Government were prepared to foist upon the managers by this Bill the actual provision of food, they ought to hand the duty over to the authority which dealt with poor law relief. On the whole he opposed the Amendment, although he did not oppose the Bill generally. He opposed the Amendment, but at the same time he must point out that this was only a particular item in the general objection to the Bill as a whole. He thought the Bill a mistake, because by it they wore touching only a small and comparatively insignificant cause of physical degeneracy. This Amendment made the Bill still worse.


said that after reading the revelations as to the proceedings of the Poplar Guardians he had some doubt in his mind as to whether he should support the Amendment, but he had come to the conclusion that the guardians were the bettor body to deal with this matter. The hon. Member for North Camber-well had stated that a particular board of guardians charged 3d. per meal and that that was a prohibitive price. But if the hon. Member had looked at the evidence given before the Departmental Committee he would have seen that the cost was 2½d. The Financial Secretary had said that this was a harmonious Bill, and had advanced that reason for not accepting the Amendment. But if his recollection was correct the hon. Gentleman's own Report was summarily rejected by the Committee. Another argument used was that this was a sort of refreshment department. If that was to be the object of the clause he could only say he did not believe any local education authority had had any experience in providing refreshments. He further believed a great number of the teachers had refused to undertake the work on the ground that their duties would not enable them to do so. On those grounds he would support this Amendment if it went to a division.


rose to correct a statement of the Financial Secretary but—


said he could not, on this occasion, allow him to speak again.

MR. TALBOT (Oxford University)

asked whether the hon. Member would not be in order in speaking twice in Committee. The Chairman had refused to allow him to speak.


said he did not think he had laid down any rule of the kind. The right hon. Gentleman was probably not present when he had to call upon the hon. Member to resume his seat for irrelevancy.


said the Question before the Com-

mittee was as to the body to give these meals to the children, and he only rose because having been a member of the local education authority in his district from its start he would like to say a few words. No one could doubt for a moment that the local education authority was the best body for this purpose. They were more in touch with the children and better acquainted with the parents than the board of guardians could be, and they were the only persons who could administer this Act in a proper manner.

* MR. CLAUDE HAY (Shoreditch, Hoxton)

said that as one of those who did not think this Bill went far enough he should resist to the utmost the Amendment. It sought to put into the hands of the boards of guardians a duty which only the local education authority could perform, and because he thought that boards of guardians ought to be abolished, the House, in his opinion, ought not to entrust any further powers to them. There were many thousands of parents in London now who were unable to give their children meals, not through want of means, but because there were no facilities and no accommodation at their homes to enable them to do so. He thought the House should give the local education authority power to give to these children the meals which the rich and well-to-do could always have; and it must always be remembered that school meals were part and parcel of a national system of education and must not be regarded as charity.

Question put.

The Committee divided:—Ayes, 290; Noes, 36. (Division List No. 466.)

Acland, Francis Dyke Beauchamp, E. Bramsdon, T. A.
Adkins, W. Ryland D. Beaumont,Hn. H. (Eastbourne) Branch, James
Alden, Percy Beaumont, Hn. W. C. B. (H'xh'm) Brigg, John.
Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch) Beck, A. Cecil Bright, J. A.
Allen, Charles P. (Stroud) Bell, Richard Brocklehurst, W. B.
Anson, Sir William Reynell Bellairs, Carlyon Brodie, H. C.
Anstruther-Gray, Major Benn, Sir J. Williams (D'v'np'rt) Brooke, Stopford
Astbury, John Meir Benn, W. (T'w'r Hamlets, S. Geo) Brunner, J. E. L. (Lancs., Leigh)
Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth) Bennett, E. N. Brunner, Rt. Hn. Sir J. T. (Ches.)
Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.) Berridge, T. H. D. Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn
Balfour, Robert (Lanark) Bethell, Sir J. H. (Essex, R'mf'd) Burns, Rt. Hon. John
Banner, John S. Harmood- Billson, Alfred Burnyeat, W. J. D.
Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight) Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas
Barlow, Percy (Bedford) Black, Arthur W. (Bedfordsh.) Butcher, Samuel Henry
Barnard, E. B. Boland, John Buxton, Rt. Hn. Sydney Charles
Barnes, G. X. Bottomley, Horatio Byles, William Pollard
Beale, W. P. Bowerman, C. W. Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.
Carr-Gomm, H. W. Haslam, James (Derbyshire) O'Brien, Kendal (Tipp'rary Mid)
Causton, Rt. Hn. Richard Knight Hay, Hon. Claude George O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)
Cawley, Sir Frederick Hayden, John Patrick O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)
Cecil, Lord John P. Joicey- Hazel, Dr. A. E. O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)
Chance, Frederick William Hemmerde, Edward George O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)
Channing, Sir Francis Allston Henry, Charles S. O'Grady, J.
Cheetham, John Frederick Higham, John Sharp O'Hare, Patrick
Clarke, C. Goddard Hobart, Sir Robert O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.)
Cleland, J. W. Hodge, John O'Malley, William
Clough, William Hogan, Michael O'Shaughnessy, P. J.
Coats, Sir T. Glen (Renfrew, W.) Holland, Sir William Henry Parker, James (Halifax)
Cobbold, Felix Thornley Hooper, A. G. Paul, Herbert
Cogan, Denis J. Horniman, Emslie John Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)
Collins, Stephen (Lambeth) Howard, Hon. Geoffrey Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlingt'n)
Collins, Sir Wm. J. (SPancr's, W) Hyde, Clarendon Philipps, Col. Ivor (S'th'mpton)
Condon, Thomas Joseph Idris, T. H. W. Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)
Cooper, G. J. Illingworth, Percy H. Pickersgill, Edward Hare
Corbett, C. H. (Sussex, E. Gr'st'd) Jacoby, Sir James Alfred Powell, Sir Francis Sharp
Corbett, T. L. (Down, North) Jenkins, J. Power, Patrick Joseph
Cornwall, Sir Edwin A. Johnson, John (Gateshead) Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Centr'l)
Cory, Clifford John Jones, Leif (Appleby) Priestley, W. E. B. (Bradford, E.)
Cotton, Sir H. J. S. Jowett, F. W. Radford, G. H.
Cowan, W. H. Kearley, Hudson E. Randles, Sir John Scurrah
Crean, Eugene Kekewich, Sir George Raphael, Herbert H.
Cremer, William Rendal Kelley, George D. Rea, Russell (Gloucester)
Crooks, William Kennaway, Rt. Hn. Sir John H. Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro')
Crossley, William J. Kennedy, Vincent Paul Redmond, John E. (Waterford)
Davies, Ellis William (Eifion) Keswick, William Redmond, William (Clare)
Davies, Timothy (Fulham) Kincaid-Smith, Captain Rees, J. D.
Davies, W. Howell (Bristol, S.) Laidlaw, Robert Richards, Thomas (W. Mon'th)
Delany, William Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester) Richards, T. F. (Wolverh'm't'n)
Dickinson, W. H. (St. Panc'rs, N.) Lambert, George Rickett, J. Compton
Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P. Lamont, Norman Ridsdale, E. A.
Dobson, Thomas W. Lewis, John Herbert Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)
Dolan, Charles Joseph Lockwood, Rt. Hn. Lt. -Col. A. R. Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)
Doughty, Sir George Lough, Thomas Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)
Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furn's) Lundon, W. Robertson, Rt. Hn. E. (Dundee)
Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne) Lupton, Arnold Robinson, S.
Dunne, Major E. Martin (Wals'l) Luttrell, Hugh Fownes Rogers, F. E. Newman
Edwards, Enoch (Hanley,) Lynch, H. B. Rowlands, J.
Elibank, Master of Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk B'ghs) Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)
Erskine, David C. Maclean, Donald Salter, Arthur Clavell
Essex, R. W. Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J. Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)
Eve, Harry Trelawney MacNeill, John Gordon Swift Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)
Everett, R. Lacey Macpherson, J. T. Sears, J. E.
Farrell, James Patrick. MacVeigh, Jeremiah (Down, S.) Seaverns, J. H.
Fenwick, Charles MacVeigh, Charles (Donegal, E.) Seddon, J.
Ferens, T. R. M'Crae, George Shackleton, David James
Ferguson, R. C. Munro M'Kenna, Reginald Shaw, Rt. Hon. T. (Hawick, B.)
Ffrench, Peter M'Killop, W. Sherwell, Arthur James
Fiennes, Hon. Eustace M'Laren, Sir C. B. (Leicester) Shipman, Dr. John G.
Fuller, John Michael F. M'Laren, H. D. (Stafford, W.) Silcock, Thomas Ball
Fullerton, Hugh M'Micking, Major G. Simon, John Allsebrook
Gibb, James (Harrow) Mallet, Charles E. Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John
Gill, A. H. Manfield, Harry (Northants) Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie
Ginnell, L. Masterman, C. F. G. Smith, F. E. (Liverpool, Walton)
Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert J. Meagher, Michael Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)
Glover, Thomas Menzies, Walter Snowden, P.
Goddard, Daniel Ford Molteno, Percy Alport Spicer, Sir Albert
Gooch, George Peabody Money, L. G. Chiozza Steadman, W. C.
Greenwood, G. (Peterborough) Mooney, J. J. Stewart, Halley (Greenock)
Greenwood, Hamer (York) Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall) Straus, B. S. (Mile End)
Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward Morpeth, Viscount Sullivan, Donal
Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton Morrell, Philip Summerbell, T.
Gwynn, Stephen Lucius Morton, Alpheus Cleophas Taylor, John W. (Durham)
Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B. Murphy, John Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)
Hall, Frederick Murray, James Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)
Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil) Myer, Horatio Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr)
Hardy, George A. (Suffolk) Napier, T. B. Thomasson, Franklin
Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worc'r) Nicholls, George Tomkinson, James
Harrison-Broadley, Col. H. B. Nolan, Joseph Toulmin, George
Hart-Davies, T. Norton, Capt. Cecil William Trevelyan, Charles Philips
Harwood, George Nuttall, Harry Verney, F. W.
Vivian, Henry Whitbread, Howard Williamson, A.
Walsh, Stephen White, George (Norfolk) Wills, Arthur Walters
Walters, John Tudor White, Luke (York, E. R.) Wilson, Henry J. (York, W. R.
Walton, Joseph (Barnsley) White, Patrick (Meath, North) Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)
Ward, John (Stoke upon Trent Whitehead, Rowland
Wardle, George J. Whitley, J. H. (Halifax) TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr. Whiteley and Mr. J. A. Pease.
Waterlow, D. S. Wiles, Thomas
Wedgwood, Josiah C. Williams, Col. R. (Dorset, W.)
Acland-Hood Rt. Hn. Sir Alex F. Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel
Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hn. Sir H Finch, Rt. Hon. George H. Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert
Balcarres, Lord Fletcher, J. S. Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)
Balfour, Rt. Hn. A. J. (City Lond Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West) Talbot, Rt. Hn. J. G. (Oxf'd Univ.
Beach, Hn. Michael Hugh Hicks Hamilton, Marquess of Valentia, Viscount
Beckett, Hon. Gervase Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashfd) Walrond, Hon. Lionel
Bertram, Julius Hills, J. W. Wortley, Rt. Hn. C. B. Stuart
Bowles, G. Stewart Hope, W. Bateman (Somerset, N Younger, George
Boyle, Sir Edward Hunt, Rowland
Bridgeman, W. Clive Lonsdale, John Brownlee TELLERS FOR THE NOES
Carlile, E. Hildred Magnus, Sir Philip Mr. Harold Cox and Sir Frederick Ban bury.
Cavendish, Rt. Hn. Victor C. W. Meysey-Thompson E. C.
Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.) Mildmay, Francis Bingham
Craik, Sir Henry Nield, Herbert

And, it being Eleven of the clock, the Chairman left the Chair to make his Report to the House.

Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.

Forward to