§ MR. THOMAS O'DONNELL (Kerry, W.)moved an Address to His Majesty praying that the Rules of the Intermediate Board for the year 1907 be disapproved of, and that other Rules be substituted in conformity with the Resolution of the House on 21st May last.† He said this was an exceedingly important Motion which deserved the serious attention of hon. Members who had any regard for the powers of this House. It would be remembered that on 21st May last a Resolution was carried unanimously demanding that the Intermediate Board of Ireland should alter the rules which they first published. The Motion which was then carried had been on paper for a week. The Board refused, however, to adopt the changes which he then suggested, namely, that better facilities should be given for the teaching of the Irish language in the Intermediate Board's programme. Their refusal to grant this demand was based upon the grounds that they were of opinion that for intermediate students the study of French and German was of far greater educational advantage and practical value. That was the reason they then urged for not accepting the suggestions. Some time afterwards they were again asked whether they had decided to adopt the resolution of the House, and the second excuse they made was that they were unable to make the changes because if they did the Rules could not be laid on the Table forty days before the House rose, and consequently there would be no intermediate programme and nothing for the students to go on with. Neither of these excuses was sincere. The only reason why the
† See (4) Debates, clvii., 1072.1540 Board had not done what the House had asked them to do was that they felt that the Irish language was getting better placed in the programme through the action of the House than they were determined it should be. He would ask the Chief Secretary to give them some assurance that they were going to obey the decision of the House. The Board had declared that they were not going to be intimidated by the Gaelic League and that was the kernel of their refusal to adopt the suggestions contained in the Resolution. He would like to ask whether there was any precedent for the condition of affairs in which they found themselves tonight. By the unanimous resolution of this House certain suggestions were made, and without any apology whatsoever the Intermediate Board, one of the forty by which this country governed Ireland, said "No, we spurn, we reject with contempt the unanimous vote of the House of Commons." If the House now voted against the Address to His Majesty it would stultify itself, and say it was powerless when one of these Irish boards came in opposition to it. The Chief Secretary, when the Resolution of 21st May was discussed, said he was hopeful that there would be no difficulty in carrying out the changes which were then suggested. He had sent to the right hon. Gentleman a few circulars showing what the Board did on previous occasions. In September, 1905, when the House was not sitting, and when the school year had begun the Intermediate Board changed their programme. On May 21st when his Motion was brought forward, the Board refused to adopt alterations which were not nearly so radical or so difficult as had been proposed to be brought into operation in the previous October. He maintained that this was one of the old boards, one of the remnants of the old garrison which had destroyed their country and deprived their children of education, which 1541 education it still refused to give when it was afraid its days were numbered.
§ MR. JOHN REDMOND Waterford),in seconding the Motion, said that he rose for the purpose of pressing on the House of Commons the extraordinary character of this Board. Certain boards in Ireland did their work very well, because they were responsible to this House through Ministers who had to answer for their action; but this was a very different kind of board. Not only was it not responsible to the public opinion of Ireland or England, or even this House, but it was absolutely independent, and there was no means of bringing it to book, unless the Chief Secretary were to dismiss it altogether or unless this House were to refuse funds to carry on education in Ireland. Was not that an extraordinary illustration of the system by which the Government of Ireland was carried on? It would not be tolerated in any other country in the world. For instance, what happened the other day? Under the Statute the rules for carrying on intermediate education in Ireland had to be laid on the Table of the House of Commons for forty days, in order that the House might choose to refuse or sanction those rules. The House of Commons decided that those rules should be altered. He asked the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary whether it was true that this Board had passed a resolution immediately after the Resolution adopted by the House of Commons absolutely refusing to carry out the directions of this House? He thought the House of Commons was entitled to ask the Chief Secretary, who was not responsible in this matter, whether it was a fact that this Board had decided to reject the decision of the House of Commons and despised it? Further, he thought the minutes of the Board should be published, together with the names of the gentlemen who overthrew the decision of the House of Commons. The House of Commons was entitled to a frank answer on this matter. He believed that the Board had taken up the attitude that it was too late to carry out the Resolution of the House of Commons in time for the examinations 1542 for next year. He had received a communication from Monsignor Molloy, which he was empowered to quote, that that right rev. gentleman personally approved of the changes which the House of Commons had made, and that, from his long experience in the working of the Board, in his judgment there would have been no difficulty, with the time at their disposal, in carrying out the changes authorised by the Resolution of the House of Commons. He acknowledged that the Chief Secretary's task in Ireland was difficult; but the only chance the right hon. Gentleman had of successful administration was not to permit himself to be bullied by these boards; and if they insisted on ignoring the Resolution passed by the House of Commons he should instantly dismiss them and appoint another body in their place. The effect of that would not only be beneficial on the Intermediate Education Board, but on all the other boards in Ireland.
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Rules of the Intermediate Board for the year 1907, sealed the 19th day of June, be disapproved of."—(Mr. Thomas O'Donnell.)
§ MR. JAMES CAMPBELL (Dublin University)said that at the outset he begged to say that he entirely sympathised with and supported the strong appeal made by the hon. and learned Member for Waterford to the Chief Secretary that the minutes of the Intermediate Education Board should be made public. He would, however, remind the House as to how this matter had arrived at its present stage. The Board was the creation of this House. It consisted of twelve members, including the present Roman Catholic Archbishop of Dublin, Father Finlay and Monsignor Molloy; and when the rules came before the House on May 23rd last, the Chief Secretary who threw them over forgot that they had received the approval and signature of the Lord-Lieutenant, who was the chief of the Irish Government. The Chief Secretary voted in favour of the Resolution of the hon. Member for Kerry on May 23rd which was an unprecedented action, on the part of the 1543 Chief Secretary. He was sure that the right hon. Gentleman on that occasion made a great mistake in throwing over with a light heart the rules which had been ratified by the Lord-Lieutenant. The hon. Member for Waterford said the House of Commons decided by a certain vote a certain thing, and that the Board had defied the action of the House, and from the information he had received the Board had passed a resolution not to comply with the decision of the House. He had understood the right hon. Gentleman to say on June 20th† that the Board had not refused to carry out the decision of the House of Commons.
§ MR. JAMES CAMPBELLwas ready to accept the accuracy of the right hon. Gentleman's statement, but he thought in justice to the Board the right hon. Gentleman ought to lay the resolution of the Board on the Table of the House.
MR. BRYCEI never refused. What I said was that there was a correspondence going on, and that, at that time, I could not do so.
§ MR. JAMES CAMPBELLsaid the Board wished the minutes to be submitted, and the time was surely come when the Chief Secretary should do what was asked by everyone interested. He thought the right hon. Gentleman had got himself into a difficult position in this matter, but the exact position should be known to Members of that House. The Resolution of the hon. Member for Kerry was brought up and passed by this House in the ignorance of most of the Members that these rules had already received the consent of the Lord-Lieutenant and of the Irish Executive. He could only agree and sympathise with the demand that had been made on the right, hon. Gentleman.
MR. BRYCEsaid he was sorry that he would have to detain the House rather longer than he intended. The matter
† See col. 178, et seq.1544 was very simple, but so much extraneous matter had been introduced, particularly by the hon. Member for the Dublin University, that he was obliged to give the House the facts of the case. This House passed a Resolution on the May 21st last expressing dissent from many points in these rules. He did not dissent from them all. He expressed an opinion on one of them. The Motion was made by the hon. Member for West Kerry, and he then gave the House all the details that the Board had given to him, and no statement could be more inaccurate than the statement just made by the hon. Member for the Dublin University when he said that he (Mr. Bryce) had not defended the Board by giving this statement to the House. The rules had received the formal sanction of the Board itself. It was a purely formal sanction, and was not accompanied by any suggestion as to the facts that influenced its decision in changing the rules. There was nothing to call the attention to the Lord-Lieutenant to the fact that this was likely to become the subject of controversy. There had been cases where similar sanction had been given by a department to rules and schemes where the Government of the day after the rules had been brought up had refused to alter them. Those were English precedents which amply justified him in the action he took when he made his statement to the House. On this matter he was careful to guard himself from answering the question as to what the Board had done, and merely stated the case which was put to him by the Board that they were not then declining to comply with the Resolution of the House. He did that in order to give them an opportunity to retreat from what he held to be an untenable position. He said it was impossible to make a full statement, because correspondence was passing between the Government and the Board and that it would be impossible to quote letters or give the effect of the communications until the whole of the letters were given and the whole matter was put before the House. Everything he said was literally and actually true, and he conceived it would be an injury to the Board to go beyond what he said. He had no objection to produce the correspondence, but the minutes of the Board were not under his control.
§ MR. JOHN REDMONDWill the right hon. Gentleman ask the Board for them?
MR. BRYCEsaid certainly. If the Board chose to send in their minutes he had no objection to produce them. It was, however, an unusual course, and he hoped it would not be taken as a precedent. He had no objection to ask the Board for the minutes, but he would not press for them. As to the singular system under which the Board administered education, he might say it was not the fault of the Board but of legislation in this House. As the matter stood at present it was inevitable that the House should refuse the Motion of the hon. Member, but that was not due to the merits of the rules but to the position in which they found themselves. He had no power whatever over this Board.
MR. BRYCEAnd this was purely a matter of time. On May 21st the House disapproved of these rules and the effect of the disapproval was not, lie thought, what hon. Members opposite intended. Its effect was to extinguish them.
§ MR. JAMES CAMPBELLWas not that all the House could do?
MR. BRYCEThe Government advised the Intermediate Board that the effect of the Resolution was to extinguish the rules altogether. The Board declined to alter its rules in any way, but when the effect of the Resolution was intimated to them the Board reconsidered their position and proceeded to consider two alternatives. One was to formulate a new set of Rules in accordance with the Resolution of the House. That course they appeared to have dismissed because of the lack of time at their disposal. The hon. and learned Member for Waterford said that he 1546 was told by a member of the Board that it could be easily done. That, at any rate, was not a view in which the Board as a whole could concur. He certainly thought the question was more complicated than the hon. and learned Member was disposed to believe, and that there were real difficulties in making a new scheme which, while affording a satisfactory plan for intermediate education, would comply with the decision of this House. These difficulties, however, he hoped might be surmounted. The Board arrived at the conclusion that they could not amend their rules in the time allowed, and they came to the further conclusion that the only course possible for them was to submit the old rules framed in 1905, and which had been in operation during the present year. They said that after all those rules had been approved by the House, and therefore at any rate there could be no great objection to them That course accordingly was taken and was communicated to the Lord Lieutenant, who, in giving his sanction, of course expressed no opinions whatever as to the intrinsic merits of these rules, and he was perfectly free for the future as to any action that might be taken. He would tell the House exactly how the matter stood. It was necessary for the purpose of Intermediate Examinations that there should be rules which it was certain would be in force by the beginning of August. That was the latest time at which these schools could begin to prepare for the examinations of 1907. It was also necessary that the rules should lie for forty days upon the Table of this House. In other words, the rules had to be submitted by the end of June if they were to be in force by the month of August; otherwise the whole machinery of intermediate education would come to a dead stop. Under these circumstances there was no course open to the Lord Lieutenant but to accept the rules. The matter would have to come 1547 up again and the House would have ample opportunity of considering the whole matter, which was not prejudiced in any way by the action which they were asked to take to-night. In the interests of the teachers and pupils the hon. Member would be very ill advised if he stopped the machinery and deprived them of their fees and opportunities.
§ MR. DILLONsaid the Intermediate Education Board of Ireland, who were appointed by the British Government, had set the Minister of the Government at defiance. After delaying the matter for five weeks, the Board took a course which absolutely defied the will of the House of Commons, and deliberately abstained from putting forward the old rules until it was too late for the House of Commons to alter them. They held a sword over the heads of Members of this House by threatening to paralyse the whole system of intermediate education in Ireland if they dared to interfere. It might be imagined from the remarks of the Chief Secretary that the Board had yielded in some way to the House of Commons. They had deliberately delayed the matter until it was too late to make any alterations in either the new or the old rules, and then they put forward the old rules which were far worse than those to which objection was taken in certain particulars by the House on the last occasion. That was the way in which this intelligent Irish Board proposed to carry out the will of the House of Commons! The right hon. Gentleman was surprised that the matter should have got into the Irish newspapers. Within five days after the House of Commons passed the Resolution there appeared in the Irish Times of Dublin a most insolent article, written by one of the members of the Board, in which the whole of the information which the right hon. Gentleman had been refusing to give the House of Commons was 1548 disclosed, accompanied by every form of insult, in which the right hon. Gentleman was told that he would soon find out that he had tackled a body which would not tolerate his dictation of that of the House of Commons. The Board had triumphed so far and had persisted in their defiance. They had performed a flank movement, defeated the Chief Secretary, and made fools of the House of Commons at whom they were now laughing. Their threat that unless the House of Commons swallowed the rules they would paralyse the whole intermediate education of Ireland was simply a piece of bluff, and he trusted the House would not sit down tamely under it. Last year, when the House of Commons had adjourned, there were three alterations at least as important as those made on the rules, and they were never tabled at all. Nevertheless the whole system of examinations was carried on last winter. By voting for the Resolution they would not be voting against the Chief Secretary in any way, but would be vindicating the right hon. Gentleman against the grossest piece of insolence on the part of this Board.
§ MR. T. W. RUSSELL (Tyrone, S.)said he was present when the Amendments were made, and he had doubts in his mind at the time as to whether the right hon. Gentleman ought not to have asked for time to consider the matter. But now that the thing was done he would be no party to allowing this Board to dictate to the House. He knew the Board, and if the House took this matter lying down it would have to take a great deal more. If his hon. friends went to a division he should certainly vote against the Board.
§ MR. GORDON (Londonderry, S.)said it was hardly reasonable that there should be a deliberate attack made upon a highly honourable body of men who were appointed to do a particular work. They were men of the highest standing 1549 and character. The Chief Secretary himself had admitted that this matter was not one which could be dealt with at once, but that there were great difficulties in the way. Before accepting any alterations in the rules, the right hon. Gentleman would have been wise to have ascertained whether it was possible to give effect to the alterations or not. The Board had done the only thing that was open to them, and that was to take up the rules which had been approved by the Lord-Lieutenant. These were the rules which were to be in operation for next year, and it would be most unfortunate, no matter who had blundered when the Resolution of 21st May was passed, if they were to be altered now. The Motion should be negatived in order that the work of the Intermediate Board should not be brought to a stand still.
§ MR. MORTON (Sutherlandshire)said it could not be doubted that the Intermediate Board tad delayed dealing with the suggestions until it could be pleaded that there was not the necessary time to include them in the programme for this year. After the disclosures which had been made to-night it appeared that what was called government in Ireland, even in the hands of a Liberal Government, was a travesty of good government. He was not surprised that the representatives of Ireland should ask for Home Rule.
§ MR. T. M. HEALYsaid an attempt had been made to throw blame on the Chief Secretary. Whoever was to blame, it was not the right hon. Gentleman. If there was blame in the matter it must be shared by every Irish Member. What interest had the right hon. Gentleman in getting Liberal Members to vote 1550 for maintaining these rules? There were a number of friendly Englishmen below the Gangway who would be only too happy to join the Irish Members in expressing their detestation on this matter. Let the right hon. Gentleman remember that those gentlemen in Dublin Castle had no more regard for him than they had for the door porter outside. Their one idea would be all through the right hon. Gentleman's regimé at every step he took to trip him up, to thwart him, and to baffle him. By the strong pressure which he was at present putting on his supporters he was giving these men a triumph over the Irish representatives, and, what was more, a triumph over himself. He fully appreciated the point that if the rules were disapproved of again these men would take the bit between their teeth and refuse any rules by which money could be taken. They would thereby inflict a grievous wrong on every school and college in Ireland, and their names would stink in the nostrils of the people. Was not that a consummation which the right hon. Gentleman desired as strongly as the Irish Members? A better lesson could not be taught to young Irishmen as to the way in which their country was governed than to show them, when they had been grinding up for examinations for twelve months, that they would be deprived of their just reward by the action of this Board. He asked that the Government should in this matter leave the responsibility with the Irish Members. They would take the responsibility.
§ MR. DODD (Tyrone, N.)said that if the House passed the Motion as it stood they would merely be repeating the declaration which they made on May 21st. The ruling by which the Motion had 1551 had to be put in its present form seemed to suggest that any alterations in the rules were not competent. The Chief Secretary, in asking the House not to pass this Motion, expressed the hope that alterations might be made in the rules. If alterations could not competently be made, he should like to know from the Chief Secretary how he suggested that alterations might be made. The House of Commons presumably had power over these rules, or else they would not be laid on the Table.
MR. BRYCEsaid that if those rules were included in the Amendment of the hon. Member for Kerry no pupils would have been able to get their exhibitions this year. [NATIONALIST cries of "No."] He had been instructed that that was so. He could assure his hon. friend that the Lord-Lieutenant had power to deal with any rules sent up to him by the Intermediate Education Board, that they would be carefully considered, and that every attempt would be made to comply with the Resolution of the House of Commons.
§ MR. DODDsaid that the eminent judges and distinguished men who were on the Intermediate Board insisted on obedience to their orders and they ought to have complied with the wishes of the House of Commons.
§ MR. T. P. O'CONNOR (Liverpool, Scotland)believed the Chief Secretary was mistaken. The Board had time enough to deal with the matter. The Irish Members who had children in the schools would take the responsibility, if this Motion were acceded to, and he hoped the House would teach the Board a much-needed lesson.
§ MR. DILLONagain appealed to the Chief Secretary to leave this matter to the House of Commons.
§ MR. HELMEsaid there had evidently been a misunderstanding, and he moved the adjournment of the debate.
§ MR. T. M. HEALYsuggested that the Motion for the adjournment had been inspired by the Government Whips, and protested against the matter being decided by a fresh House when the Members for Ireland who had already spoken were effectually silenced.
§ MR. T. M. HEALYaccepted the hon. Member's statement, but suggested that the Motion should be withdrawn.
§ MR. DILLONalso hoped the hon. Member would withdraw his Motion in view of the powerful argument brought forward by the hon. Member for North Louth that hon. Members who had presented their case to the House against the Board could not speak again. But for that argument he should have been in favour of an adjournment.
§ MR. JAMES CAMPBELLurged that the House was not in a position to decide the case, although that was not the fault of the Irish Members, because they had asked to have the correspondence and papers laid upon the Table. In justice to the Board, however, he must say that he did not think the House was in a position to act.
§ ME. THOMAS O'DONNELLhoped the right hon. Gentleman Secre- 1553 would not hesitate to take strong steps with this Board, which had insulted the House of Commons and the Irish Members for the last twenty years.
§ MR. W. REDMONDsaid that if they went to a division it would not be against the Chief Secretary, because the Irish Members were in sympathy with him. The Board had, however, offered no answer to the charge made against them.
MR. BRYCEsaid the responsibility of carrying out the system of education was upon the Executive Government [NATIONALIST cries of "We ought to be the Executive Government."] Perhaps hon. Gentlemen ought to be, but at present the responsibility of keeping the educational machinery going was on the Irish Executive. He was obliged to make this a matter of Government and executive duty. [NATIONALIST cries of "The same old thing]. He asked hon. Members not to support him or to support this Board, but to do their duty by the teachers and pupils in Irish schools, who ought not to be deprived of their privileges.
§ Motion for the adjournment of the debate, by leave, withdrawn.
§ MR. T. L. CORBETT (Down, N.),criticising the speech of the hon. Member for South Tyrone, said he was a disappointed man. He advised the Chief
§ tary to stand to his guns and he would then overcome the bitter opposition of the hon. Member for South Tyrone, who was animated by personal motives.
§ MR. T. W. RUSSELLsaid it was not the first time he had been attacked by the hon. Member in this way. Was the hon. Member in order in imputing personal motives to him?
§ MR. SPEAKERsaid he understood the hon. Gentleman to say that the hon. Member was not actuated by personal motives.
§ MR. T. W. RUSSELLrepeated that the hon. Member had accused him of being actuated by personal motives.
§ MR. T. L. CORBETTsaid he was bound to admit that he had said that the hon. Member for South Tyrone might possibly have been actuated by personal motives.
§ MR. SPEAKERIf the hon. Member said that, it was certainly disorderly.
§ MR. T. L. CORBETTThen I withdraw it.
§ Original Question put.
§ The House divided:—Ayes, 72; Noes,. 118. (Division List No: 180.)
1555| AYES. | ||
| Abraham, William (Cork, N.E.) | Dillon, John | Gill, A. H. |
| Ainsworth, John Stirling | Dodd, W. H. | Ginnell, L. |
| Brace, William | Dolan, Charles Joseph. | Halpin, J. |
| Byles, William Pollard | Duffy, William J. | Hardie, J. Keir(Merthyr Tydvil) |
| Condon, Thomas Joseph | Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness | Hayden, John Patrick |
| Crean, Eugene | Farrell, James Patrick | Hazelton, Richard |
| Cullinan, J. | Ffrench, Peter | Healy, Timothy Michael |
| Delany, William | Field, William | Henderson, Arthur (Durham) |
| Devlin, Chas. Ramsay (Galway) | Flavin, Michael Joseph | Hogan, Michael |
| Jowett, F. W. | O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool) | Scott, A.H.(Ashton under Lyne) |
| Joyce, Michael | O'Doherty, Philip | Seddon, J. |
| Kelley, George D. | O'Donnell, T. (Kerry, W.) | Shackleton, David James |
| Kennedy, Vincent Paul | O'Dowd, John | Sheehan, Daniel Daniel |
| Kilbride, Denis | O'Grady, J. | Silcock, Thomas Ball |
| Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.) | O'Hare, Patrick | Smyth, Thos. F. (Leitrim, S.) |
| Lundon, W. | O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.) | Sullivan, Donal |
| Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester) | O'Malley, William | Watt, H. Anderson |
| Macpherson, J. T. | Power, Patrick Joseph | Weir, James Galloway |
| MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S. | Reddy, M. | White, Patrick (Meath, North) |
| MacVeigh, Chas. (Donegal, E.) | Redmond, John E. (Waterford) | Williams, J. (Glamorgan) |
| M'Killop, W. | Redmond, William (Clare) | |
| Meagher, Michael | Richards, Thomas (W. Monm'th | TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr. |
| Mooney, J. J. | Richards, T.F. (Wolverh'mpt'n | Patrick O'Brien and Mr. |
| Morton, Alpheus Cleophas | Roche, John (Galway, East) | Boland. |
| Murphy, John | Russell, T. W. | |
| O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.) | Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool) | |
| NOES. | ||
| Acland, Francis Dyke | Essex, R. W. | Morse, L. L. |
| Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch) | Eve, Harry Trelawney | Nicholls, George |
| Astbury, John Meir | Ferens, T. R. | Nicholson, Chas. N. (Doncast'r |
| Balfour, Robert (Lanark) | Fiennes, Hon. Eustace | Norton, Capt. Cecil William |
| Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight) | Fuller, John Michael F. | Nuttall, Harry |
| Barker, John | Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West) | Paul, Herbert |
| Barlow, Percy (Bedford) | Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John | Pearce, Robert (Staffs. Leek) |
| Beale, W. P. | Goddard, Daniel Ford | Pollard, Dr. |
| Beaumont, Hubert (Eastbourne | Gooch, George Peabody | Price, C. E. (Edinb'gh, Central) |
| Beaumont, W. C. B. (Hexham) | Gordon, J. (Londonderry, S.) | Radford, G. H. |
| Beck, A. Cecil | Greenwood, G. (Peterborough) | Raphael, Herbert H. |
| Benn, W.(T'w'r Hamlets, S. Geo. | Gulland, John W. | Rees, J. D. |
| Black, Arthur W.(Bedfordshire) | Hardy, George A. (Suffolk) | Ridsdale, E. A. |
| Brooke, Stopford | Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worc'r) | Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln) |
| Brunner, J.F.L.(Lanes., Leigh) | Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale) | Robinson, S. |
| Bryce, Rt. Hn. James (Aberdeen | Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth) | Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleve'and) |
| Bryce, J.A. (Inverness Burghs) | Haworth, Arthur A. | Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel) |
| Burns, Rt. Hon John | Helme, Norval Watson | Seaverns, J. H. |
| Burnyeat, J. D. W. | Herbert, Col. Ivor (Mon., S.) | Shaw, Rt. Hon. T. (Hawick B.) |
| Buxton, Rt. Hn. Sydney Charles | Higham, John Sharp | Shipman, Dr. John G. |
| Campbell, Rt. Hon. J. H. M. | Hill, Henry Staveley (Staff'sh.) | Simon, John Allsebrook |
| Carlile, E. Hildred | Horniman, Emslie John | Sloan, Thomas Henry |
| Carr-Gomm, H. W. | Hyde, Clarendon | Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal) |
| Causton, Rt. Hn. Richard Knight | Jardine, Sir J. | Strass, B. S. (Mile End) |
| Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R. | Jenkins, J. | Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon) |
| Clarke, C. Goddard | Johnson, W. (Nuneaton) | Sutherland, J. E. |
| Clough, W. | Jones, Leif (Appleby) | Thompson, J. W. H. (Somerset, E |
| Collins, Stephen (Lambeth) | Jones, William (Carnarvonshire | Vivian, Henry |
| Collins, Sir Wm. J (St Pancras, W. | Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester) | Walrond, Hon. Lionel |
| Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow) | Lamont, Norman | Wedgwood, Josiah C. |
| Corbett, C.H.(Sussex, E. Grinstd | Levy, Maurice | White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire) |
| Corbett, T. L. (Down, North) | Lewis, John Herbert | Whitehead, Rowland) |
| Cornwall, Sir Edwin A. | Lonsdale, John Brownlee | Whitley, J. H. (Halifax) |
| Courthops, J. Loyd | Lough, Thomas | Wilkie, Alexander |
| Craig, Capt. James (Down, E.) | M'Micking, Major G. | Williamson, A. |
| Dalrymple, Viscount | Maddison, Frederick | Wodehouse, Lord(Norfolk, Mid) |
| Davies, W. Howell (Bristol, S.) | Manfield, Harry (Northants) | |
| Duckworth, James | Mansfield, H. Rendall (Lincoln) | TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr. |
| Dunne, Major E. Martin(Walsall) | Mond, A. | Whiteley and Mr. J. A. |
| Edwards, Clement (Denbigh) | Montagu, E. S. | Pease. |
| Edwards, Enoch (Hanley) | Montgomery, H. H. |
§ MR. WILLIAM REDMONDIt is an insult to the Irish representatives in this House.
And, it being after half-past Eleven of the clock on Monday evening, Mr. 1556 SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to Standing Order.
§ Adjourned at twenty-seven minutes after Two o'clock.