EDUCATION (ENGLAND AND WALES) BILL (PROCEDURE).

HC Deb 18 June 1906 vol 158 cc1391-528

THE PRIME MINISTER AND FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Sir H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN,) Stirling Burghs

In moving the Resolution which stands in my name, I shall endeavour to state frankly, and as succinctly and clearly as possible, the grounds upon which I recommend it to the House. On entering on the e last stage of the ordinary session of Parliament—a period at which we have arrived—it is natural for us to review the progress that has been made and consider not the claims and possibilities of individual Bills—the pruning and thinning and weeding process arises at a later period of the session—but the general position of business. In my opinion, no diagnosis of this sort can be even tolerably accurate which does not recognise and take into account a circumstance which is a powerful factor in the situation—namely, the growing reluctance to continue the sittings of Parliament after the month of July. Some of us who are old Members—and if anyone can say that of himself I can—are no doubt so habituated to the old times and seasons, the old periods into which we have been accustomed to divide the session of Parliament, the old manner of transacting business, that we are apt to continue, from pure habit, the traditional disposition of our time without concerning ourselves to consider whether it is the best disposition possible. But many among these Members of long standing have come to think that a change is both desirable and necessary, and those who hold that opinion have been largely reinforced this year out of the ranks of the new Members. No one who keeps his eyes and ears open can doubt that it is so; and the main feature of this change of view is a growing, and as I believe, a justifiable reluctance to sit through August and September. For my part, I fully accept that view. Indeed, I am not sure that it may not lead to further changes, before we are much older, in the disposition of our time—to the great change whereby the Parlia- mentary year will commence with an autumn session, which will be wound up in July. I remember that many years ago—thirty years ago, I should say—the House of Commons actually passed a Resolution to that effect at the instance of Sir George Trevelyan; but that expression of opinion remains a mere Resolution, because it was found that the administrative difficulties in the way were very great, and from that date to this nothing has been done in that direction. I merely mention it as a further possible development upon which I need not at present enter. What we propose for this year is that there shall be an adjournment over those months which, as far as my observation goes, are regarded as holiday months in every country in Europe, namely, August and September, with a sitting in the autumn to conclude the business of the year. This decision leads, naturally, to a consideration of the business which the House of Commons has at present on hand. That business is of great importance, but not, as it seems to me, excessive; certainly not beyond the desires of the country, and, I believe, of this House, and certainly not beyond the powers of Parliament if the order of business is reasonably and efficiently arranged. The view is sometimes entertained, and even expressed, that we have too much legislation; that legislation is a bad thing, and that Liberal legislation is an especially bad thing. While I would not interfere with those who entertain that opinion, I would say of it this, at least, that it can hardly be put forward on an occasion like this as the standard of our legislative action. If, then, we are to contemplate an autumn session, how can we best dispose of the time which is afforded to us? This has been, in many respects, an extremely active, busy, and useful session already. I refer specially to the work done by Grand Committees— the Merchant Shipping Bill and the Workmen's Compensation Bill, which have occupied an immense amount of time and labour, and it would surely be a monstrous thing if we were to allow all that labour to be thrown away and all that time to be wasted. But, after all, the principal Bill of the session is this Education Bill, which is a measure of first importance, of considerable complexity and difficulty, but not of great extent or great length. The Bill seeks to obtain from Parliament a decision on a problem which for the last four years has been constantly discussed in the country, and has occupied the mind of the country—a question which is ripe—indeed, over-ripe—for settlement. This question of religious teaching in elementary schools has been discussed and re-discussed, and although there may be hesitation as to the particular I modes and methods of applying the principle underlying the Bill, on the principle itself not only have the minds of politicians been for the most part fixed and made up, but it is not too much to say that the country has pronounced its verdict upon it. The House of Commons is, therefore, to an extent most unusual in cases of measures of the kind, equipped and informed, and in all respects competent to give its conclusions without prolonged delay. We can claim, without in the slightest degree disparaging the importance of the Bill, that it is not a measure for which an unlimited amount of discussion would be justified, if we are to have any regard to the efficiency of Parliament in the discharge of the duties for which Parliament, after all, exists. If the discussion on the Bill must inevitably be restricted—and does any one doubt that it must be restricted t—has any one attended the debates during the last few weeks without knowing that such restriction must be applied? If it is to be done I pass to the question—What course must be taken in order to accomplish that restriction? There are two courses open. We might with a fair show of patriotic patience allow the proceedings in Committee to drift along from day to day, and from week to week, unimpeded, while trifling, unimportant details are being exhaustively discussed, and then, at last, we might be forced to interfere and arrest discussion, with the consequence that most important matters are either slurred over or decided upon without being considered at all. The other course is this—that when the Bill has been long enough before the Committee to let us see what the tendency and character of the debates are likely to be, we should take a calm survey of the work which the proper consideration of the Bill involves, and estimating the comparative value of each of its provisions, and the different clauses and the different Amendments as best we may, allot to them and to their discussion and amendment such time as their respective importance would seem to justify. That is the course which we are following; and I venture to claim for it that it is at once the fairest from the point of view of the critics and opponents of the Bill, and also the most likely to redound to the business-like transaction of the work of the Committee on the Bill, and to the production of the most effective measure. I do not disguise that I intensely dislike these irregular interferences with the full liberty of debate, for irregular they are so long as they are on their present footing. I should be very foolish if I were to attempt to disguise that fact, because I should have acts and words of my own thrown at me the moment 1 did so. But, surely, the day has gone by when questions such as this are to be dealt with by mere tu quoque across the floor of the House. [Laughter.] I think that those who laugh will find that, while I objected to the manner in which the thing was done, I never denied that a Government were justified in taking some such course. These interferences are necessary in the absence of any considered and systematic and established method of ordering the course of business. Who can deny that they are necessary? For my part I believe that the difficulty of finding what I call a well-ordered and established course of proceeding in a case such as this is not so great as we have sometimes thought; and as we have begun the discussion and amendment, in many particulars, of the procedure of the House of Commons, I hope that we may be able, when we have dealt with the matters immediately in hand at present, to propose a means of escape from the irregular and somewhat autocratic expedients, an example of which I am now submitting to the House. I prefer that it should not be left to the Government of the day to parcel out the time of discussion in Committee, or estimate the importance of this or that clause, or this or that Amendment, and I look forward to the time when the House will accept some proposal to refer the matter to a tribunal composed of its own Members, of such authority and unquestionable impartiality that its decisions will earn the ready acceptance of all parties and sides in the House. But at present we can only use the instrument we have to hand, we can only follow the course which is open to us; and therefore I submit with confidence to the House that the present is a case in which interference is necessary. If the scheme that we submit in my Resolution is adopted, it will only just permit of this Bill passing to the other House of Parliament in the latter days of July; so that any considerable delay or departure from the scheme, which would involve the expenditure of a larger amount of time, would throw us into August, and thus impair the advantage of the autumn recess: and I trust that, having regard for its own reputation as a business assembly, the House will accept the scheme which it is now my duty to propose.

Motion made and question proposed, "That the Committee stage and Report stage of the Education (England and Wales) Bill, including the Financial Resolution relating thereto, shall be proceeded with in the following manner:—(a) That the remaining part of Clause 2 be proceeded with and the proceedings thereon brought to a conclusion on the first allotted day; (b) That Clause 3 be proceeded with and the proceedings thereon brought to a conclusion on the next allotted day; (c) That three allotted days be given, if required, to Clauses 4 and 5 and the Committee stage of the Financial Resolution, and the proceedings thereon shall, if not previously brought to a conclusion, be brought to a conclusion on the third of these allotted days; (d) That Clauses 6 and 7 and the Report stage of the financial resolution be proceeded with and the proceedings thereon brought to a conclusion on the next-allotted day; (e) That three allotted days be given, if required, to Clauses 8 to 13 and any Motion which may be made to leave out Part II. of the Bill, and the proceedings thereon shall, if not previously brought to a conclusion, be brought to a conclusion on the third of these allotted days; (f) That two allotted days be given, if required, to Part III. of the Bill, and the proceedings thereon shall, if not previously brought to a conclusion, be brought to a conclusion on the second of these allotted days; (g) That Part IV. of the Bill be proceeded with, and the proceedings thereon brought to a conclusion, on the next allotted day; (h) That the remaining Clauses of the Bill and the Schedules, and any new Government Clauses, and any new Government Schedules, and any other matter necessary to bring the Committee stage to a conclusion, be proceeded with and brought to a conclusion on the next allotted day; (i) That three allotted days be given to the Report stage of the Bill, and the proceedings thereon shall, if not previously brought to a conclusion, be brought to a conclusion on the third of these allotted days. After this Order comes into operation, any day shall be considered an allotted day for the purposes of this Order on which the Education (England and Wales) Bill is put down as the first Order of the Day. A Motion may be made by a Minister of the Crown to leave out Part II. of the Bill, or to leave out any Clause of the Bill, before the consideration of any Amendments to that Part or Clause in Committee. The Question on a Motion moved by a Minister of the Crown to leave out Part II. of the Bill or to leave out any Clause of the Bill shall be put forthwith by the Chairman or Speaker without debate. At 10.30 p.m. on any allotted day on which proceedings on any allotted business are to be; brought to a conclusion, or if the day is a Friday, at 4.30 p.m., the Chairman or Speaker shall if those proceedings have not already been brought to a conclusion put forthwith the Question or Questions on any Amendment or Motion already proposed from the Chair and shall next proceed successively to put forthwith the Question on any Amendments moved by the Government of which notice has been given (but no other Amendments), and on every Question necessary to dispose of the allotted business to be concluded, and in the case of Government Amendments or of Government new Clauses or Schedules, he shall put only the Question that the Amendment be made or that the Clause or Schedule be added to the Bill, as the case may be. At 11 p.m. on the day on which the Third Reading of the Bill is put down as first Order, or, if that day is a Friday, at 5 p.m., the Speaker shall put forthwith any Question necessary to conclude the proceedings on that stage of the Bill. Proceedings to which this Order relates shall not on any allotted day on which proceedings on any allotted business are to be brought to a conclusion under this Order, be interrupted under the provisions of any Standing Order relating to the Sittings of the House. After the passing of this Order, on any day on which any proceedings on the Education (England and Wales) Bill stand as the first Order of the day, no dilatory Motion on the Bill nor Motion for Adjournment understanding Order 10, nor Motion to postpone a Clause, shall be received unless moved by a Minister of the Crown, and the Question on any such Motion shall be put forthwith without debate. Any Private Business which is set down for consideration at 8.15 p.m. on any allotted day, or on the day on which the Third Heading of the Bill is put down as first Order, shall, instead of being taken on that day as provided by the Standing Order "Time for taking Private Business," be taken after the conclusion of the proceedings on the Bill for that day, and any Private Business, so taken may be proceeded with though opposed, notwithstanding the Standing Order "Sittings of the House."—(Sir H. Campbell-Bannerman.)

MR. A. J. BALFOUR (City of London)

I think nobody who listened to the speech of the Prime Minister will be disposed to deny that the promise he made in his first sentence has been fully and amply kept. He told us that he meant to be concise, and concise his statement certainly was. But I venture to suggest it was conciseness purchased by the adoption of the simple expedient of never approaching the real matter at issue between the two sides of the House, or justifying in the slightest degree a departure from the practice of this House, which the right hon. Gentleman admits to be in itself regrettable, which he says, to my great surprise, he did not object to in principle, or oppose when it was moved by another Government, and which everybody hitherto has regarded as requiring ample and detailed justification on the part of those who proposed it. What did the right hon. Gentleman say? He made a eulogy of autumn sessions. I do not propose at the present time to discuss whether our Parliamentary labours could be better distributed annually so as to leave clear August, September, and, I hope, part of October —though October was a month wholly ignored by the right hon. Gentleman— all the rest of the year, I presume, being occupied with legislative labours; or whether the traditional method of carrying on our business with all its objections would not be best. The right hon. Gentleman himself is aware that to make the change which Sir George Trevelyan proposed would involve an enormous alteration in our ordinary national machinery of government. It would require a change in a great many statutes, and would, I believe, carry with it of necessity an alteration of the financial year of the country, entailing a fundamental alteration in all our statistics. That may be a good or a bad plan; it has much to recommend it; but it would be very difficult to carry out. It is open to one objection which the right hon. Gentleman is especially in a position to understand. If the Government is never to have any months free from the daily burden of Parliamentary responsibility, the time they can utilise for the quiet and laborious consideration of the very difficult problems which they have taken in hand will be very seriously curtailed. I doubt whether that will conduce to sound legislation. Though that subject occupied quite half of the right hon. Gentleman's speech, it is not the subject we are here to-day to discuss. The question is whether the Government have given adequate time for the Committee, Report, and Third Reading stages of the Education Bill. The fact that the Government mean to ask the House to assemble after August and September seems to me not so much a reason for hurrying on the consideration of this Bill as a reason why decent time should be afforded us for its consideration. When, after thirty-eight days in debate, the Education Bill of 1902 was brought to a termination by a closure resolution, that Resolution was so framed that a House which had sat from February, with brief intervals, should be able to finish its labours before Christmas. That was a motive, not the sole motive, but an adequate motive for asking the House to expedite its business. But to come to us in June and say the Government mean to have an autumn session, and that we must therefore now put on the gag—

SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN

The gag?

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

Well, the closure—that surely is the greatest legislative non sequitur which was ever propounded from the Treasury Bench. The right hon. Gentleman does not appear in the least to appreciate what are the objections to his measure, not based on considerations of Parliamentary tradition, but on the necessities of this Bill. I agree with the right hon. Gentleman both in deprecating the necessity of such closure resolutions as this and in admitting that closure resolutions are occasionally necessary. No Government can allow its principal measure of the session to be defeated merely by lapse of time. The debate might be legitimate, it might run counter to no rule, and yet it might be so prolonged that the Government would find, after months of arduous labour, that they had accomplished nothing, and must begin the task again in the succeeding session. I do not quarrel with the right hon. Gentleman because he thinks that part of our machinery, to be used on rare and exceptional occasions, must consist of closure resolutions. I go further, and say that, looking at the thing as a question of abstract propriety of procedure, I do not lay down as an absolute rule that these closure resolutions should not be moved at a relatively early stage of the Bill under discussion. That carries, however, as a corrollary that in the resolutions thus laid down at an early stage—and we have only been six days in Committee— time should be given by the Government, who have our proceedings in the hollow of their hand, adequately to discuss all the proposals they submit to us. They are bound also to assist our discussions by making those proposals clear and unambiguous. Neither of these conditions is fulfilled on the present occasion. They have not given us adequate time to discuss the various clauses of this Bill. Both the policy which it is intended to advocate and the Amendments which the Government propose to introduce are still obscure and unknown. We are asked to closure, not a Bill we know, but a Bill regarding which as yet the Government, either because they do not know it themselves, or for some other reason, have carefully abstained from giving us adequate information. I want to argue this in a business manner. Consider what the suggestion of the Government is. I will take first a part of the Bill which does not deal with the religious difficulty at all, or only in a very secondary and indirect manner. To Part III. of the Bill two days only are allowed. That part deals with a series of complicated problems in local government which touch the local administration in every area of the country and raise questions of the utmost difficulty. I will mention one or two. The term of borrowing of local authorities is extended by a Government which is horrified at a system of loans, especially at a system of extended loans when they are Imperial in character. Not content with that great change in our local government system, the Government abolish the limitation of the 2d. rate for secondary education. The 2d. rate may possibly have been an improper limitation, but it is a limitation which those interested in local economy regard as of great importance. They know that the amount which an enthusiastic education authority can spend on education is almost unlimited, and, however valuable may be the results of such expenditure, they think the 2d. rate is an important safeguard of public finance, and ought not to be abolished after a discussion of two days, so much of which will be occupied by matters of almost equal importance. As if that were not enough for two days there is the abolition of the register for teachers, the reversing of a policy deliberately adopted by Parliament, which has been carried to great lengths at a cost of great labour on the part of experts. That change, too, ought not to be made except after full discussion. Finally, there is a clause with the intentions of which I personally have the greatest sympathy. It is a clause a subsection of which gives power for the making of such arrangements as may be sanctioned by the Board of Education for attending to the health and physical condition of the children educated in public elementary schools. That, I suppose, includes gratuitous feeding of school-children out of the rates and may include other proposals of a far-reaching character, and about which we have no information concerning what the Government desire. The Government propose to deal with that, along with the other subjects of which I have spoken, in two days. That is derisory. If the Government brought in a separate Bill to deal with the topics touched on in Part III., they would no more dare to say that the the Committee stage of such a measure should be restricted to two days than they would imitate Oliver Cromwell and order that bauble to be removed. That is a non-religious, and therefore relatively uncontroversial, part of the Bill. The same may be said of finance. We know nothing about the Government finance of this measure. The hon. Gentleman the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education made an amiable speech the other night, but he threw no light upon it; and there is not a man in this House who really knows on what principle the Government are going to distribute the million of money, or has the smallest idea of what the policy of the Government, is with regard to a fair rent for voluntary schools. That is a point which the Government must have considered. They must have plenty of typical cases of Church of England, Wesleyan, or Roman Catholic schools which they have considered. They must have considered whether a school bound down by trust deeds to give religious education according to some denomination, which has spent so much on its buildings, whose buildings would take such and such a sum to replace— whether the owners of such schools are not entitled probably to such and such a rent per child in average attendance. They must have considered the point, but they have never given us a hint of what they are going to do. They have protested to their Nonconformist friends that, as these schools are held under trust, the amount of money to be paid must needs be trifling and that they are to be got on the cheap. They have suggested to the Church of England that a full and fair remuneration will be given by the local authority. They have played to each side in turn, but they have not told the House of Commons what their plan is. Can we be asked, or expected, to deal with finance in an hour or two until we know what, in truth, the Government plan is? Then there is Part IV., which, as hon. Members know, gives administrative Home Rule to Wales in educational matters. That subject, which touches not only education, not only the rights of minorities in Wales, but also the very essence of our constitutional practice —that clause is to be dealt with in one day. It is not even as if the clause was, or was intended to be, a complete account of the designs of the Govern- ment. We do not know what the designs of the Government are. We know they mean to amend the clause, because, through one of those un-authorised channels which are the favourite method by which the Government indicate their attentions to the House of Commons, the author of this particular Bill has announced that he is prepared so to modify it that controversial matter may be excluded from the purview of the now administrative and rating authority which it is supposed to create. But nobody knows how that is to be done. I have great doubt if it can be done, and in any case we have nothing but the bare canvas with a few charcoal lines rudely sketched upon it, which the House of Commons is intended to fill up in the course of the single sitting to be devoted to the subject. Can that be regarded as sufficient? The Government have not told us, but they have told the people of Northampton that they mean to drop Part IV. I gather from the Resolution, not only that they do not intend to drop Part IV., but that if the.Resolution is carried, it will prevent them from doing so. It is ludicrous to ask the House to discuss Part IV. in one day. It makes our Parliamentary proceedings an utter absurdity, and I should have thought that the best plan would be to allow Part IV. to follow Part II., and to devote the day that was to be devoted to its discussion to the other parts of the Bill. This clause leaves almost everything to an Order in Council. Are they going to lay that Order in Council before they proceed to consider Part IV 1 If not, we shall be in absolute darkness. We know that it confers on county councils in Wales enormous powers, that it involves three sets of inspectors, and that it removes from Parliament all control over the money the taxpayers of England, Scotland, and Ireland vote. How these enormous powers are limited, how they can be exercised—on all these subjects the Government keep us in darkness, either because they themselves are walking in darkness or because they think that the loss the House of Commons know the greater chance there will be of passing their proposals. I come now to Clauses 3, 4, and 5, for which, I think, in all four days are allowed, in which four days is to be included the consideration of the financial Resolution I would remind the House that these clauses have their analogue in what are now, I think, Clauses 6 and 7 of the Act of 1902. Those were the clauses which arranged for the control of voluntary schools and for the assistance given them out of the rates. They undoubtedly aroused feelings of strong animosity among certain sections of the community; but, after all, they took away nothing from anybody. They might have been right or they might have been wrong—I think they were right—but, at all events, they were not part of a scheme for taking away from a single individual or a section of the community, or any body of trustes, anything they possessed. But these Clauses 3, 4, and 5 are part of a scheme by which you take away from the trustees or managers of every voluntary school and from the parents of every child in every district where there is a voluntary school something which they have always enjoyed and for which, under these clauses, I suppose you mean to give some return. You give less than four days for the discussion of these three clauses. What did the House of Commons do for the corresponding clauses in the Act of 1902? They took nearly twenty days. Day after day, week after week, the house was allowed to discuss—and properly allowed to discuss — those matters which aroused such burning interest in every section of the community; and why, Sir, are those who made the country ring with their denunciations of the tyranny exercised by the late Government in the House of Commons— why are they coming down to this House and, in connection with clauses which, believe me, arouse every bit as much animosity in the country as Clauses 6 and 7 of the Act of 1902 ever did, allowing instead of twenty days only a paltry four days? I cannot imagine the right hon. Gentleman with the memory of his own speeches before him—if he has any memory for his own speeches— coming down and making this proposal to the House. It was after we had been thirty-six days in Committee that he begged us to go over Christmas and allow the Bill of 1902 to go through without any closure Resolution. And now he comes down and suggests a course which the most tyrannical of his predecessors never would have suggested for an instant. I am not sure that the Government fully realise how deeply we on this side of the House feel the difficulties they have gratuitously brought upon us by keeping us in ignorance of the real character of their proposals. In regard to Clause 4, we do not know whether it is to be mandatory or not. The right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Education told my right hon. friend the Member for Oxford University that he was not going to put his new Amendment on the Paper until we had finished with Clause 6, because he did not know what form it would take until we had finished Clauses 3 and 4. But how are we to discuss Clauses 3 and 4 before we know the form of the Amendment? Are we to be perpetually referring to hypothetical propositions and vague suggestions when the right hon. Gentleman has the Amendment in his pocket but will not give it us lest we should discuss Clauses 3 and 4 in the full light of the Government plan? Is not that a bitter aggravation of the limits of debate the Government are imposing on us? Is it justified by Parliamentary practice, by usage, or by common sense? Surely we have a right —surely a minority whom it is proposed thus to bind and restrict, have a right to know what are the proposals which you are going to force them to accept? We do not know them. I do not know that the Prime Minister knows them. I am sure we do not, and how, therefore, can we submit silently to having only three days given to the Report stage, when part of that time will be occupied by the discussion of this new Amendment and all consequential Amendments which flow from it? I am one of those who think that the aim of Ministers in this House should be to give as much latitude as possible on the Committee stage of a Bill; but I should not object so much to the restriction of our liberty on the Report stage, which includes the discussion of some matters already dealt with in Committee. But on the Report stage if we exclude matters already debated three days must be inadequate for any debate which starts from this new proposal of the Government, at present unknown, but which must entirely revolutionise Clause 8, and profoundly affect the Welsh Home Rule clause. It is absurd to expect us to discuss that, with all the matters that must arise on the Report stage, within the limits of three days. How can you justify it? The Government have also put in a sentence in this Resolution which enables them to drop any portion of the Bill at their own will without amendment or debate. I have always held that our existing rules require amendment on this point. I have always held that the arrangement which made it possible for the House to occupy itself for days over a clause which it was intended to drop after a discussion was a very unbusiness like proceeding, and might lead to a great waste of time; but I have never suggested in my wildest moments that any promoter of a Bill or any Government should be allowed to drop any portion of their proposals, and should be enabled to put the question to the vote without any one having a say in the matter. Under the powers taken by the Government they may come down any afternoon and say that they mean to drop Clause 4, requiring the Speaker to put the question from the Chair, and not a single hon. Member would be able to raise a word of protest either on the Committee stage or on the Report stage. He can only make something like a valid protest when the stage of Third Reading is reached. This is a tyrannical and unnecessary procedure. The words in the Resolution which give these enormous powers must be excised if only as a matter of precedent. It would never do for the House to accept a proposition stating not only that the powers of the promoters of a Bill should be enormously extended, but that they might move to drop certain parts of their proposals without a word of objection being heard. I think it is ludicrous, and I hope the Government will reconsider this subject. There is another point connected with the argument let fall by the right hon. Gentleman as to the excuse for this proposal, and which he himself regarded with a great deal more justification than he had time or inclination to devote to it. The right hon. Gentleman says that this Bill has been so much discussed in the country, it is so thoroughly understood, that the House really need not exercise its full rights of debate. We have what is commonly called—though I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman refrained from using the phrase—an implied mandate for it, and the fact that there is a mandate absolves the House from the minute examination of principles which is otherwise obligatory upon it. That is not constitutional law; neither is it constitutional practice nor constitutional wisdom; and besides it is inapplicable. The Government are of opinion that they have been told by the country to bring in a Bill of a certain character. I do not know what that Bill is. After listening to the hon. Member for Mid. Glamorganshire, the character of the Bill he was required to bring in was a measure to give full power to the local authority to decide whether or not denominational education should be given in the area. That is not the view of the right hon. Gentleman, for he has promised an Amendment that destroys that view altogether. There are hon. Members, and there is Dr. Clifford outside, who hold that the country declared that no rates should be applied in support of denominational education. That was one of the mandates given; but it is not accepted by the Government. They have adopted Clause 4, which in plain terms makes it possible for a minority to have to pay these rates in support of denominational education. Which is the mandate? The third mandate of the country was that there should be no test for teachers, and the Government have interpreted that mandate by putting in a clause which forbids certain things with regard to the teachers which have never been done and never will be done. So that according to the Government the mandate of the country was simply a beating of the wings in vacuo. Other persons interpreted the mandate of the country to mean that teachers should not have any question asked with regard to their religious convictions; but the Government say that the question should be asked. With all these ambiguities, therefore, as to what the view of the country was, is it not idle for the right hon. Gentleman to say that the country has so carefully considered this matter, that its opinion has been given so clearly, that the House may absolve itself from the labour which in ordinary circumstances would fall upon it of considering in turn each detail of the Government proposals? I cannot believe that when the right hon. Gentleman considers the arguments which I have marshalled before him, some drawn from the details of the Bill, and some drawn from broader and wider considerations, he will fail to see that his proposal is open to severe condemnation by all those who have the desire of leading the House in the interest of liberty of discussion. I do not wish to quote the right hon. Gentleman's words against him or to drag up any admissions or statements he may have made; but surely I am justified in saying of one speech at all events there might be a common measure of propriety applied to these discussions, whether in Opposition or in power. When the right hon. Gentleman in Opposition implied that the time taken over the Education Act of 1902 was not unduly extended, when he had no word of comment or reproach in connection with the twenty days spent on Clauses 6 and 7, when he remembers how he begged, even after thirty-six days, that the closure we proposed might yet be extended, surely he will feel that more than the ordinary margin of deviation between that which he thinks legitimate when in Opposition and that which he thinks desirable when in power has in this case been overpassed, and that when he has behind him an obedient majority he is requiring the House to adopt principles of practice which he himself vehemently repudiated when he was in a position of less responsibility. He has changed his opinions, and many of us in the course of twenty-five years have been obliged to change our opinions with regard to the rules by which the House is to be governed. Even if in the last three years he has changed his opinions, well and good; but I do not understand that he has. I understand that he professes to stand where he did three years ago; and therefore he ought to apply the same principles now as he applied three years ago. He is requiring of his present opponents a degree of subserviency, an amount of silent acquiescence which he would never have tolerated for himself and his friends. He is applying a wholly different measure of justice, equity, and propriety in our proceedings never before sought to be applied when he was in a position of less responsibility. That does not add to the dignity of our procedure in this House. Many times have I, when I sat on the benches opposite, laid down the rule that no man ought in power to vote for a proposition which in opposition he thought might be inequitable; and I have endeavoured to carry that principle out. I do not discuss the position of the right hon. Gentleman because he thinks that this Bill is one which requires exceptional means to deal with it. It may be that he is right; but he has lost a great opportunity of finding, as he has already found, that on principle the Opposition are not irreconcilably opposed to his views. He might have started a precedent which would show that the majority was not incapable of justice to those who were opposed to them. He might have given us a limit of time which all reasonable men would have felt to be adequate for the discussion even of a Bill of this kind. Has he done so? Has any man seriously held that he has tried to do so? He has talked about the holidays, the autumn session, the glories of the country in August and September. Excellent topics, but there is something more important than these. It is that when the majority set themselves to the delicate and difficult task of limiting the amount of debate which they are going to allow to the minority they should do so in a spirit of justice. They should endeavour to mete out the amount of time not merely to their own momentary convenience but to the necessities of the case. Hon. Members opposite should insist that the Government which they support should make themselves clear as to the character of the measure they are bringing before the House. The Government and the majority have shown themselves, as I think, quite unequal to that great responsibility, because they have deliberately chosen to use the power which numbers give them to oppress and to restrict legitimate debate. I think they must be counted among those who have contributed to the degradation of this House. For no adequate reason, on no principle which they themselves have been able to state, they are preventing those from whom they differ from laying their alternative principles before the House or adequately criticising the proposals of the Government. These are the reasons which seem to me to justify the Amendment. I hope the Government, even if they cannot wholly carry out the policy I recommend, will at all events, admit that a case has been made out for relaxing somewhat the bands by which they have endeavoured to tie us, and will diminish to some extent by such concession the force of criticisms which from any other point of view are wholly unanswerable.

Amendment proposed— In line 1, to leave out all the words after the word 'That,' and to insert the words' this House objects to a proposal which unduly limits the time allowed for the discussion in the House of Commons of a measure which is burdensome both to the taxpayer and the ratepayer, is unjust to the parents of children attending voluntary schools, and subsidising one form of religious instruction at the expense of the whole community.'"—(Mr. A. J. Balfour.)

Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out, to the end of line 5, stand part of the Question."

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. ASQUITH,) Fifeshire, E.

Those who sat in the last House of Commons must admit there is something ironical in the way in which fortune or political vicissitudes have distributed the parts this afternoon. I have in days gone by used probably as strong language as anybody against this form of proceeding. I entertain quite as fully as others the objections to these recurring inroads by the more or less arbitrary action of the Government of the day upon the freedom of our debates. I entirely share the views expressed by my right hon. friend that if we are to transact our business efficiently there must be a due allotment of time between the different parts of a measure, and that the instrument or organ by which the allocation should be made should not be the Government of the day, but some independent tribunal whose impartial judgment every part of the House would be ready to accept. But I must add that I think that these inroads—and no one has made more than the right hon. Gentleman opposite during the last Parliament—were much more acutely felt inside than outside the walls of this House. I have tried to the best of my ability to arouse from public platforms the popular indignation against these arbitrary proceedings on the part of the right hon. Gentleman; but I always found that even in cases like the Education Bill, where the popular feeling was very strongly engaged against the Government, there was a feeling outside that the time of the House was wasted in dilatory discussion of unimportant matters, and they could not complain if the Government of the day, anxious to push on the business, used its authority from time to time to cut short the flow of speech and to curtail the liberty of debate. The right hon. Gentleman made two admissions which are quite sufficient to carry us to day. In the first place, he admits that under our existing rules a proceeding of this kind must from time to time be resorted to; and next, he made the further admission that it was desirable, if this machinery of closure is to be resorted to, it should be at an earlier stage, in order that something like due proportion should be maintained between those parts which are relatively important and those which are relatively trivial. It is for that reason we have introduced this Motion at this stage, when the Bill has been six days in Committee. The right hon. Gentleman told us that his own Bill of 1902 was thirty-eight days in Committee before he resorted to the closure. But a considerable number of those days were not full days, and a careful analysis will show that we had only been twenty-nine full days in Committee when the right hon. Gentleman proposed his closure Resolution. And what did he propose to do? He proposed to assign for the remainder of the Committee stage six days, and six days only. We are giving thirteen. The right hon. Gentleman is very indignant that we are only giving three days for Report, although he only gave three and a half days. But I demur to any analogy between the proceedings on the Bill of 1902 and the present Bill. The Government of 1902 brought in only two years after the general election of 1900, when there was not an elector in the country ever dreamt of legislation of the kind, a Bill to disestablish the school boards, and to quarter the whole of the denominational schools upon the rates—a most revolutionary proposal. Whatever may be said about the details of the present Bill, there is not a single man who has been engaged in political controversy during the last four years who does not know that as regards the main, fundamental, underlying principles of the Bill, they have been the subject of endless discussion and have received the emphatic endorsement of a large majority of the electorate. It is absolutely impossible to apply the same measure of discussion to the proceedings on two Bills so totally different in their origin and character. The discussions which have already taken place on this Bill have settled important principles. We have established after long debate by Clause 1 that all schools hereafter shall be under popular control. That is the very root and foundation of the whole Bill. We have next established— after debate equally exhaustive—the principle that in all provided schools in future the secular system is not to prevail —that is to say, the local authority is not to be prohibited from giving religious teaching, and that religious teaching in accordance with the Cowper-Temple clause is to be permissive in those schools. Those are two very far-reaching principles established. I do not deny that certain controversial elements remain; but the main points outstanding are in regard to facilities, the terms on which facilities should be granted, the position of the teacher, and the relation of the religious teaching to the curriculum of the school so far as school hours are concerned. These are really the main outstanding controversial points; and I do not think that anyone who has any sense of proportion, and who estimates the amount of time given to the discussion of the two first principles, will deny that we are giving on that basis adequate time for the discussion of those outstanding principles. But there are other precedents than the Bill of 1902. What about the Licensing Bill of 1904? And let me remark that the importance of a Bill and its controversial character is not to be measured by the number of its clauses, by the amount of paper it covers, but by the importance of its provisions and the degree of hostility and criticism which it excites. Judged by that standard, you have rarely had in this House a more controversial measure than the Licensing Bill of 1904. How was it dealt with? The Bill had been in Committee four and a half days when the right hon. Gentleman brought forward his closure Resolution which gave us four days more to the discussion of the whole of the remainder of that Bill. That Bill, which, like the Education Bill of 1902, will necessarily lead to a largo measure of reversal—that Bill, under the right hon. Gentleman's own guidance, was discussed for only eight and a half days, and two days more on Report. Another Bill of equal importance, which gave rise to serious constitutional difficulties in the following year, was the Aliens Bill of 1905. There we were allowed three days in Committee before the guillotine was applied, and then Clauses 1 to 10 and the financial Resolution, practically the whole of the Bill, were allowed two days for discussion, and no more, and the Report one and a half days. I think the House will agree that, when we are allowing thirteen additional days for the Committee stage, three days for Report, and one clay for Third Reading, if we are to be judged by the precedents the right hon. Gentleman has set, we are behaving with a liberality which the late Government did not dream of extending to the House of Commons. These are the main, the governing considerations which have actuated the Government in this matter. We think it is only fair to the House of Commons that at the earliest possible stage it should have an opportunity of calmly considering the relative degrees of importance, and the time that should be given to the different provisions of the Bill. Having regard to the discussion which has taken place in the country and the House, the twenty-eight days which, if our Resolution is carried, this Bill will have occupied in proceeding through the House of Commons will, we think, be adequate to ensure full ventilation and criticism of all its provisions. It will have this additional and most desirable result, that when we reassemble after the adjournment for the autumn recess the House of Lords will be free at leisure to discuss the various provisions of the Bill, while we shall be able to take up the other important matters of legislation which during the present year the Government are fully determined to pass.

MR. LAURENCE HARDY (Kent, Ashford)

said he did not wish to indulge in those recriminations which perhaps more became those sitting on the front benches than one who sat on the back benches. He would give the House one or two reasons why he objected to this Resolution. No charge of obstruction had been made, and if they surveyed the proceedings on this Bill in Committee the Opposition had a clean sheet so far as obstruction was concerned. There had been during the Committee stage two long debates, but they took place upon Motions made by supporters of the Government. One of those debates was a very useful one, but it should not be overlooked that it was carried on largely by Ministerialists, and resulted in considerable concessions being made by the Minister for Education. Therefore so far as obstruction was concerned there was no case at all. The right hon. Gentleman had stated that the main purpose of the Bill of 1902 was not the improvement of education, but the establishment of denominational teaching, that one denomination was to be quartered on the rates for religious purposes and the atmosphere of that one religious sect was to be called national. In this Bill they had an exact replica of those views, because nobody could deny that under Clause 4 the atmosphere of one religious sect was to be maintained, although they did not hear so much about this at the last election. The tu quoque argument was not always acceptable, but it was valuable to the Opposition when they were likely to secure the support of anyone sitting on the Ministerial side of the House. The Under-Secretary for India was not in his place, but in a speech made when the late Prime Minister proposed a similar Closure Resolution he stated that as long as he was a Member of the House of Commons he would never vote for such a Motion. That was a valuable admission, and he hoped to receive the right hon. Gentleman's support upon this occasion. The Government entered upon this session with a large legislative programme fully aware of the limits of Parliamentary time, and in putting forward a scheme of this kind dealing with education they should have consulted not only their own followers, but others as to the proper allocation of time to be given to such a large measure. That certainly would have mitigated the opposition which they felt bound to offer in connection with this particular Resolution. His opinion was that practically the whole of the ground for this Resolution had been whittled away to one particular point, and that was that if the Government allowed for discussion the period that was really necessary there would not be sufficient time before the recess which must commence at the beginning of August. If that was the case there was a very easy method by which the Government could attain their object. Probably there was sufficient time to finish Part I., upon which the Government claimed they had obtained the mandate of the country at the general election. That was the Part which had commanded the attention of the House in the debates on the First Reading, the Second Reading, and during the Committee stage, and if the Government would agree to drop Parts II. III. and IV. there would be ample time to discuss Part I. before the recess. There were some far-reaching questions involved in Part IV., as it broke up the new educational authorities which had only just got to work, and divided others into separate bodies. There were certain delegations of powers to other authorities which involved very important issues, and all these questions were to be settled without any previous discussion and without any knowledge of what was in the mind of the Government, according to this Closure Resolution, in two days. These were not so much matters of controversy, but surely they were questions for amendment and consideration. Hon. Members were under very great disadvantages in the discussions because all through the debates so far they had had conciliatory speeches and gentle words. Nevertheless, they had not had any idea of what actually was to be the policy followed by the Government in reference to the great questions still in dispute. They had been obliged to prolong the debates during the earlier stages because of the impossibility of obtaining the information they desired. Coming events, they were told, cast their shadows before, and by the introduction of this Resolution they might be able to detect that Clause 6 was not so popular, because it was connected with Clause 7, and both clauses were to be dealt with in a comparatively short time. It was very desirable that they should know whether the Government intended to adhere to Clause 6. Could it be that the whole question of the teachers was to be relegated to a second place? Those who were interested in the cause of the teachers would not submit to that decision, and he was quite sure it would very much shorten debate and relieve the Opposition of some anxiety if they could be told the exact position of the Government on this question. They were only now being given slowly and by degrees information which the House ought to have had before entering upon the consideration of these important questions. On Saturday a Return was issued dealing with voluntary school trusts in the county of Kent. They were told that a partial Return with reference to the syllabus had at last been placed with the officers of the House. They were not told who were to form the Commission of three under Clause 8. All these were matters on which it was essential to have information if the Bill before the House was to be properly discussed. He thought, therefore, they were justified in taking exception to the very unusual course of proceedings in this matter, first, the declining to give information, and then the bringing forward of this Resolution, not on account of obstruction, or for any reason by which Governments in the past had proposed closure by compartments, but simply in order that hon. Gentlemen should have that holiday which they used to say was the chief object of the Conservative Party. The fact that there was to be an autumn session did away with the whole argument in regard to that particular difficulty. Having in view the immense importance of the questions raised by the Bill, and the fact that the debate had been carried on without the slightest taint of obstruction, he thought they might justly ask the Government to consider whether it would not ease matters to abandon all except Part I. of the Bill. If the Government were not prepared to do that they might consider whether further time could not be given for the discussion of the important clauses of the Bill.

DR. MACNAMARA (Camberwell, N.)

said the Leader of the Opposition had given a delightful example of Satan reproving sin, in view of what he did in 1902. During the long discussion on the Bill of that year they ambled on for thirty-eight days in Committee on all sorts of trivial matters, and then the right hon. Gentleman came down to the House in a flurry and determined that the rest of the proceedings must be closured by compartments. He gave thirteen days for nine clauses which formed substantially the greater part of the Bill. Those clauses dealt with matters of the greatest educational moment, and there were in addition the schedules and the financial Resolution involving an expenditure of £1,800,000. There were proposed by the Government five new clauses which did not appear on the Paper till the last moment— clauses which dealt with management, endowments, finance, and grouping of schools, and entirely transformed the measure from what was originally proposed. The net result was that from November 11th, 1902, when they had more than half of the Bill still to dispose of, nothing was seriously discussed, and a great many matters of high educational moment were never mentioned at all. Therefore it did not lie with the Leader of the Opposition now to say that he did not know what the Government intended to do. The schedule of the 1902 Act repealed in whole or in part the legislation in regard to education of the previous thirty-two years, but it was never mentioned at all in the debates. He asked the House to compare the headlong manner in which they were compelled to dismiss matters of the greatest importance in 1902 with the businesslike scheme now before them. Two clauses of the present Bill had already been considered in Committee, and the Government, taking time by the forelock, had proposed a time table, the genius of which was to secure, at any rate, that some time should be given to every part of the Bill, though perhaps in the opinion of some hon. Gentlemen opposite the time allowed might not be adequate. He was bound to say that there were two features of the time table which were a little drastic, and he would ask the Prime Minister with great respect for reconsideration of his proposal in regard to these matters. Only one day was proposed to be given for Clauses 6 and 7 and the Report stage of the financial Resolution. The Report stage of the financial Resolution did not matter very much, but he ventured to say that one day was not enough for Clauses 6 and 7 if they were to be dealt with with due regard to the matters of public interest which each involved. Clause 6 introduced a great new principle in educational legislation. It said that no parent of a child attending a public elementary school should be under obligation to cause the child to attend during the time for religious instruction. There would be many opinions on both sides of the House in regard to that clause, and he should be surprised if the whole of the day was not given up to its discussion. Clause 7 provided that a teacher employed in a public elementary school should not give any religious instruction of a special character except under certain conditions. He entirely agreed with that, but it was a great new principle which required discussion. The clause also provided for a teacher who lost his employment by reason of the closing of a voluntary school being entitled to pay contributions to the deferred annuity fund during any time not exceeding one year, and to reckon the time in respect of which contributions were so made as if it were recorded service. That would not be discussed at all if not more than one day were given for Clauses 6 and 7. He asked the Government to make that part of the Resolution more elastic by the addition of another day for those clauses. He entirely associated himself with the remarks of the Leader of the Opposition in regard to Part III., to which two days were to be given. The questions raised by Clauses 25, 26, 34, and 35 in Part III. all required careful consideration. If the Prime Minister would look into Part III. he might be induced to come to the conclusion that more than two days were required for its adequate discussion.

MR. F. E. SMITH (Liverpool, Walton)

said that this proposal was a matter of some interest to many on his side of the House. While they accepted with pleasure the recommendations made by the hon. Member for North Camberwell to the Prime Minister, it was a matter of surprise to hear the hon. Member speak as he had done of the manner in which the Bill of 1902 was dealt with in Committee. The hon. Member, speaking on the Closure Resolution then proposed by the present Leader of the Opposition, said— Clauses 9, 10, and 11 were rushed through Committee in a way that could not be regarded as wise; Clause 9 was taken at one sitting after four applications of the closure; Clauses 10 and 11 were taken at one sitting after the closure had been applied three times. The point he wished to make was that the present debate mist to some extent be an unreal one, for the simple reason that they were discussing for the first time a perfectly novel principle, viz., whether in the future in the case of all important measures of a highly controversial nature they were going to have from the first stages of procedure a mechanical application of the closure. He had hoped that upon consideration of the proposals they would have had a considerable measure of support from hon. Gentlemen opposite. When the clause was first discussed, hon. Gentlemen got up one after another on the Ministerial Benches, and they on the Opposition side of the House had small opportunity of speaking because members of the Government rose and contradicted themselves. He could not help thinking that the right hon. Member the Under - Secretary for India and a large number of hon. Members opposite who had pledged themselves not to support this particular class of Resolution, but who had availed themselves very largely of the discussion hitherto, would support the Amendment now brought forward. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had told them that there were other considerations, and while he agreed with the right hon. Gentleman in deprecating too close an application to that method of reasoning, he would call attention to a striking observation of the Chancellor of the Exchequer made during the debates of 1902. The right hon. Gentleman at that time said that the procedure thon proposed was inconsistent with the elementary rights and privileges of a debating assembly. If that were so in 1902 it must be so in 1906. The right hon. Gentleman then went on to say — That such procedure ought not to be resorted to except in two cases. First, in a case of extreme emergency and in accordance with public order; or, secondly, in a case where the discussion in the country had rendered the question ripe for discussion in Parliament. He did not think any member of the Opposition would say that the present Bill had been thoroughly discussed, or discussed at all, in the country. He did not wish to attempt once again to analyse the hydra-headed abstraction as to a mandate, but if it were discussed in the country he would remind the House of the description which the Prime Minister gave of the general character of the proposal which a Liberal Government would submit to Parliament. The Prime Minister said— We want the children to be brought up in the faith of their fathers. The Liberal Party has but one object, viz., to secure freedom of conscience, equal treatment, and complete public control. That was their mandate; not the present Bill. The Minister for Education, unless there should be any uncertainty, had contributed to a magazine an admirably expressed statement of his own educational views. The right hon. Gentleman had said, writing to the Contemporary Review that Every three years they should consult the parents' wishes and really apply by voluntary effort religious instruction to the children in accordance with their wishes. He would ask the House to mark also what followed— By this means the Church Catechism would find its way into all schools, and board school Christianity would be taught in denominational schools. But what was the mandate which they got from the country? The House would perhaps permit him to relate an experience that he had had. He was visiting a clergyman of the Church of England during the last election soliciting his support, and about whose views ho was not certain. He called the clergyman's attention to the dangerous disparity between speeches delivered by an eminent member of the Liberal Party, viz., the right hon. Member for Stirling Burghs, and another eminent member of the Liberal Party at Bodmin. His discussion on Home Rule appealed to his rev. friend very little. Then he attempted to recall his rev. friend to the subject of voluntary schools. He said— How about your schools. I understand the Liberal Party are threatening them? The clergyman replied— You are mistaken. I have been in communication with the Minister for Education, and you do not know, but I know, his courage and his toleration. He puts down his foot and says 'Thus far and no further,' and all the Dissenters in the world would not make him go further. His clerical friend adjured him to read the speeches of the Minister for Education before he came to canvass for votes. They were now told that the mandate for the Bill need not be discussed in the House because it had been discussed in the country, but he would call their attention to the statements made by the Minister for Education in his speech at Bristol. The right hon. Gentleman said— My desire is, if it be possible, to discover a satisfactory solution of this religious difficulty which will enable the children who attend the elementary schools of the country to receive the religious instruction which their parents wish them to receive, upon the school premises. That would be, if it could be done, a remarkable accession to the freedom of religious teaching. If these rules came into operation they will be at liberty, at the expense of the denomina- tion, to receive on the school premises—though attendance would not be conpulsory — the religious instruction their parents wished them to receive. In the face of that speech was it not idle for the Government to suggest that they had a mandate for this Bill, and that they had had a sufficient discussion on the clause before them? He had not failed to notice that the Minister for Education had been driven and directed by two commanding personalities, viz., the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education and the President of the Board of Trade. He should vote against the Resolution with considerable equanimity because he believed that the Government had taken one more step to make the passing of the measure in its present form impossible. Under the present limitation of time it was impossible that many of the parts of the Bill which were of vital importance to the denominational schools—even in those days when the closure was becoming a recognised part of the Parliamentary machinery —couldjbo placed on the Statute-book when such parts had not received deliberate and detailed examination by Parliament.

*SIR FRANCIS POWELL (Wigan)

said that if the Government had not intimated their intention to withdraw Part II. of the Bill he should have been obliged to draw attention to some of the defects in that portion of the measure. Confining his attention to Part III. he wished to say that it was his privilege some years ago to sit upon a Committee of this House upon the position of teachers. He felt deep regret that, after long and careful consideration of the clause relating to the education of teachers, it would not be possible to place the position of the teachers as to registration on a proper footing under this Bill. He wished to say one word as to Clause 35, which gave power to the Education Department to make arrangements for attending to the physical health and condition of the children. What was the position of this question? They had had a Bill on the subject read a second time, and it was now under the consideration of a Select Committee. That Committee had received evidence of the most valuable and interesting character and were finally deliberating upon the subject. Although their deliberations were not completed, the Government had now brought forward a Bill which dealt with this subject by one drastic clause. He agreed that certain clauses of the Education Bill of 1902 relating to finance were a blot upon it at the time that it was passed and were a blot upon it now, and he was not surprised that the Government should have thought it right to deal with the question of education. He did think, however, that they were not dealing satisfactorily with this particular question. The proposals were not satisfactory, and the question ought to be dealt with at a time when they had ample leisure to consider it and deal with it fully. The subject of devolution had been discussed by the County Councils Association in the country, and the power which it was proposed to confer was a most important one. He thought that some of the areas proposed were far too large to be handled satisfactorily by one authority. There must, he thought, be some provision for separating these great districts into separate areas, so that each area might be satisfactorily managed. This was a great and complicated question which dealt, not only with large areas, but with the character of population. In a former Act they dealt with the character of the population as well as its distribution, and he regretted that the closure was so severe on the present occasion that the questions which naturally arose could not be properly discussed. This clause would be hustled through Parliament without any opportunity of debate having been given. He was addressing the House quite apart from the theological question and upon a question which was purely educational and for the welfare of the people.

*MR. EVELYN CECIL (Aston Manor)

said the Chancellor of the Exchequer had endeavoured to whittle down from thirty-eight days to twenty-nine the period allowed by the Conservative Government for the discussion of the Education Bill of 1902 before the closure was applied, and had said that the closure which they put upon the Aliens Bill extended to only two days. The right hon. Gentleman, however, omitted to inform the House that the Aliens Bill passed its Second Reading without a division; therefore it seemed ridiculous to quote that Bill as a precedent applicable to the present case. The last Home Rule Bill, moreover, was not closured until the discussion upon it had proceeded for twenty-eight days. In this case they were face to face with one of the most important measures of the session, a measure affecting the education of the whole country, and the proposal was that it should be closured after ten or twelve days discussion. He did not think such a course would conduce to the dignity of Parliament or recommend the Government to the country, especially as it was apparent that the closure was being applied to a Bill as to which the House was absolutely ignorant of what many of its most vital provisions were to be. Yet in such a state of things the closure was to be applied. He was sorry that the Prime Minister was not in his place, because the right hon. Gentleman might obtain some useful information from speeches of his own in 1902, when he said— We must certainly contemplate that there may be cases of extreme urgency which demand this somewhat violent interference with the rights of minorities. The Prime Minister would admit that in this case there was a somewhat "violent interference with the rights of minorities." Upon that subject he had only to turn to a few objections which the President of the Board of Trade made on the same occasion. The President of the Board of Trade asked— Is the Education Bill a case of urgency like the Crimes Act? And added— The conditions underlying the Education Bill have been in existence for years and years. Was it not to be said that the conditions underlying the present Bill also had been in existence for many years? The Prime Minister on the same occasion exclaimed— Obstruction! Why I venture to say that never has a Party, regarding a measure as obnoxious, so single-mindedly done so much to improve it. That was the statement of a Prime Minister who, three and a half years later, came forward with the present intensely despotic Resolution. Further, the Prime Minister said— My contention is that a Bill of this character requires the fullest and freest discussion, because it is designed for a permanent settlement which affects closely the daily life of the people; it touches the conscience as well as political principle and opinion. Did not the present Bill touch the conscience and opinion of the people? If that was the case, why were they not allowed the fullest and freest opportunity for discussion such as was contended for by the Prime Minister and the President of the Board of Trade in 1902? To his mind it was absolutely impossible for either of those right hon. Gentleman to justify his present attitude in view of the attitude which he took up in 1902. He thought the real reason why the Government had brought in this Motion was that they were afraid to amend their own Bill. Why did the hon. Member for North Hackney put down a very important Amendment to Clause 3 and subsequently withdraw it? There was much in that Amendment which Members of the Opposition would have supported, and showed that there was a greater feeling of fairness among followers of the Government than in the Government itself. Why did the Government bring pressure to bear upon some of their supporters to take away the only chance there was of coming to a settlement, and then bring in the closure? He protested against this procedure, which was certain to create great feeling in the country and to prevent this Bill becoming a final settlement of the education difficulty.

*MR. LEIF JONES (Westmoreland, Appleby)

said he hoped right hon. Gentlemen on both Front Benches, for whose powers, experience and eloquence he had the profoundest respect, would forgive him if he confessed he had not been greatly impressed by the speeches on either side that day, for what they said was too much influenced by where they sat. He quite recognised the difficulty which any Government found in trying to pass great measures through the House. Sitting as he did however on the back benches he had an advantage over those on the Front Bench in being able to be consistent. He opposed the closure in the Aliens Bill, and he had seen no reason to change his view that closure by compartments was a thoroughly mischievous way of carrying legislation through the House. He was in a difficult position. He could not vote for the Amendment moved by the right hon. Gentlemen the Leader of the Opposition, but on the other hand he had made up his mind, as far as any one could do that in political life, that he would not vote for the closure by compartments The effect of this closure by compartments had been uniformly bad. It was designed to keep his Irish friends in order, and it had never done that.

MR. T. W. RUSSELL (Tyrone, S.)

No, no.

*MR. LEIF JONES

said he was not imputing anything to his Irish friends, but it had failed in its purpose if that was its object. The effect also of the closure on the Minister in charge of the Bill was injurious. Up till now the right hon. Gentleman the Minister for Education had been, in the House, a courteous, learned Gentleman, with a broad outlook on all the problems of education presented to him. But when this Closure Resolution was carried he would be changed. He would no longer watch the progress of the Bill with the intention to improve it. He would sit with his eye on the clock waiting for the hands to go round for him to secure automatically the particular clause under discussion. He (Mr. Leif Jones) believed it to be pernicious to lay it down that at a given hour on a given day any particular clause or any particular stage of the Bill should be passed, and nothing had been said that day which had in the least changed his opinion. What was the effect of the closure on a Bill? It ceased to be amended. In the case of the Aliens Bill from the moment the Closure Resolution was passed there was an end to improvements in it. The Bill passed in the shape in which it was presented to the House by the Minister. The House of Commons were no longer giving to the country the best legislation they could. They were giving it the particular sort of legislation which the Government felt it could afford the time to pass. That was not their duty. When they took in hand an alteration of the education law they ought to make the new Education Bill the best Bill the House of Commons could produce. To do less than that was to fail in their duty to their constituents. Though they might not discuss measures in this House they would be discussed in the country. He remembered his hon. friend the Member for Cockermouth, who had been his political teacher in a good many ways— saying the House of Commons had its faults, but it was the only place he knew in the country where a question was thoroughly thrashed out from top to bottom. Who would say that of the House of Commons of the last twenty years? They had sacrificed their reputation and they no longer discussed fully all the clauses of the Bills they carried. What was the result of it? Time was not saved. They were closuring the Education Bill this session because the late Government closured their Education Bill in 1902; and next session, when they dealt with the licensing question, that Bill would be closured because the late Government closured their Licensing Bill. This new system, devised in the last twenty-five years, had utterly failed in its purpose, and ho appealed to the Government to devise a better method of passing their legislation than by Closure Resolutions. He should vote against the Prime Minister's Motion. He did it with pain. He hated going into the "wrong" lobby, but at any rate he would keep a clear conscience in the matter and do what he could to pass the Education Bill in its very best shape.

*MR. HART-DAVIES, (Hackney, N.)

said that when he entered the House a few moments previously he heard the hon. Member for Aston Manor say that he (Mr. Hart Davies) had withdrawn his Amendment on Clause 3 from the Paper under the pressure of the Government. He wished to say he did nothing of the kind. He withdrew it because he had altered his opinion with regard to the masters giving religious education to the children. He had thought that the masters ought to have nothing to do with the religious education of the children. That was one reason for his withdrawing that Amendment. Another was that the whole matter had been thoroughly discussed on the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham. He had always been in favour of the State favouring no religion at all. He thought it was the business of the Churches and the ministers of the Churches, and not of the State, to teach the children religion, and it was for that reason that he thought there ought to be only secular religion given by the State. It was for those reasons that he withdrew his Amendment and for no other. He should vote for the proposal of the Government. He thought seventeen days was quite sufficient for the discussion of this Bill, because when it came back from another place they would only have all the discussion over again.

*MR. T. W. RUSSELL

said the answer to his hon. friend the Member for the Appleby Division was simple. He had heard the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition say some years ago that it was absolutely impossible for this House in one session to pass more than one great contested measure. That was the truth, and unless the House was content to limit its legislation there must be resort to something of this kind. Did the country really care whether the debates of this House were closured or not? In all his perigrinations through the country, on all the platforms on which he had spoken, he never got an atom of sympathy when he complained of these Closure Resolutions. The general opinion in the country was that it was a good thing that hon. Members of this House wore shut up— that they talked too much and did too little. He thought the debates on Resolutions of this character were thoroughly unreal. He had voted on both sides. He voted long ago for the closure on the Crimes Bill, and he voted against the closure on the Home Rule Bill. He voted against the closure on the Education Act of 1902. In fact he had voted so often on both sides that it was very difficult to remember how he voted on each occasion. He had voted on both sides, but so had all old Members of the House. It depended upon which side of the House they sat, whether they voted for or against. The Leader of the House having brought in this Resolution, those sitting on the Opposition side would vote against it; but if it was brought in by the Leader of the Opposition they would support it. It was in his opinion very little use their wasting any further time discussing it.

LORD R. CECIL (Marylebone, E.)

expressed surprise at some of the observations of the hon. Member for South Tyrone. The hon. Member would find himself quite mistaken if he thought the country was indifferent to this Motion. He should vote for the Amendment in respect to which, if there was any complaint, it was that it was not strong enough. He would have preferred that it should forth what he believed to be the true objection to this Bill, namely, that it offended the consciences of thousands of our fellow countrymen. He could not help feeling that hon. Members opposite had throughout these discussions under-estimated the importance of the Bill they intended to pass. It was a common observation that it had re-united the Church of England in opposition to this Bill. It had had an even more remarkable effect: it had re-united the Unionist Party. Hon. Members on the Ministerial Benches had been fond of indulging in observations about the disunion of the Unionist Party, but so far as he was concerned he should be prepared to assist the return of any tariff reformer who was opposed to the provisions of this Bill. He believed that the tariff reformers were as sincere in their opposition to this Bill as he was himself, and would, if necessary, sink their most cherished convictions in order to secure its rejection. At any rate, he should continue to believe that was the fact until something had convinced him it was not so. The truth was the Government had throughout misunderstood the character of the opposition to the Bill. He did not think they realised that some of the controversies which were raised by it were controversies which had agitated the whole of the civilised nations of the earth more or less for the last 500 years. Denominationalists were really the same as those who believed that it was only by membership of a definite community that the great ideals of Christian faith and conduct could in any degree be realised, and some at any rate of those who were opposed to the denominationalists were the same in essence as those who had fastened their attentions more upon what they considered to be the errors of the various churches than upon the great idea of membership of a community. In addition there were those who considered that religion was not part of the duty of the State and who would divorce all religious effort from State interference. Those three classes who all hoped or feared something from the provisions of the present Bill were the three classes between which the Government had undertaken, not indeed to find some settlement, but to find at any rate some modus vivendi; and in order to accomplish that Herculean task not six months or six years would have been improperly expended. Of course, he did not suggest that they could allow a Bill to last six years; but he did suggest that there should be free, full, and complete discussion upon the provisions of this Bill, and that everyone who represented the various schools of thought to which he had alluded should feel at the end of the discussion that their views had been properly set forth and properly considered. He did not regard the time spent on the Bill as having been in any way wasted. He gathered that the hon. Member for South Tyrone was one of those who regarded this House as a kind of gigantic sausage machine, into which so many Bills were put at one end by the Government, and so much legislation was turned out at the other. He did not, however, regard that as the function of the House. He believed that its deliberations and discussions were certainly not less important than its actual enactments; and it was because he took that view that he regarded the full and free discussion of so difficult a subject as the education question as a matter of such vast importance. It was the only way in which to find out the real objections and the possible answers. An example was furnished on the consideration of Clause 2. It was only after the discussion had been going on for some time that it was realised by some hon. Gentlemen that a very important principle was at stake. The discussion proceeded, and no satisfactory conclusion was arrived at that evening; but the next day a proposal was made by the Government which, though he could not regard it as satisfactory in all respects, undoubtedly showed that the Government had been impressed by the discussion the night before and felt it to be their duty to do something to meet the wishes of the Committee. That could not have happened under the Closure Resolution, and he could not think that the present proposal was satisfactory, or would lead to the settlement of tins very difficult and thorny question. The only chance of ultimate agreement between the different parties was by very complete discussion. He believed a very large measure of agreement might be reached. He did not mean to say that an agreement was probable between those who thought that religious education was of little importance and those who thought it was of the vastest possible importance, and indeed, the only form of education that really mattered in the least; but between all those who really believed in religious education he confessed he did not despair of an ultimate agreement. It was profoundly to be regretted that owing to one of those miserable misunderstandings which had done so much harm in the world, those who ought to be fighting side by side against those who despised and resisted religion should be divided; and he could not help thinking that if as the result of discussion in this House and elsewhere they arrived at some definite and lasting agreement no amount of time, however great, which might be spent on it would be wasted or thrown away. For that reason he should vote very heartily against the Resolution, and support the Amendment, which he wished had been more strongly worded.

*SIR PHILIP MAGNUS (London University)

said he should certainly support the Amendment for the reasons advanced by the Leader of the Opposition, and also for other reasons to which sufficient attention had not been given. He did not propose to follow the noble Lord on the religious question, great as he considered its importance; but he desired to point out that in the Resolutions proposed by the Prime Minister wholly insufficient time was given to the highly important and controversial questions which were raised by Part III. of this Bill. Part III. might be regarded perhaps as the part which was more educational than any other, and which best justified the title of the Bill. He was not certain whether hon. Members had sufficiently considered the highly important matters which were referred to in that part under the heading of Miscellaneous Amendments. Many of those Amendments were of sufficient importance to be embodied in separate Bills, and certainly required a longer time for discussion than two days. In Part III. was Clause 25 which would entrust higher education to smaller areas than those at present permitted to take charge of it. Then there was the highly important Clause 29 which proposed to remove the existing twopenny limit for higher education. He might be disposed to vote in favour of that clause as it would afford further facilities for improving secondary and, if necessary, even university education by grants from local authorities; but if he had to consider that clause in connection with Clause 25, which diminished the size of the area to be entrusted with higher education, then his opinion on Clause 29 might be changed. This showed how necessary it was if this part of the Bill was to be discussed that they should have sufficient time for the consideration of two such important clauses which bore one upon the other so closely. Then as to Clause 33, which referred to the decision of certain educational questions by the Board of Education. According to that clause the forms of apprenticeship might be regarded as educational, and therefore all trusts rotating to apprenticeship would have to be considered. The clause might be a useful one, but it certainly required much longer consideration than could be given to it if two days only were allotted to Part III. Clause 35 dealt with matters upon which, as the Loader of the Opposition had already said, many hon. Members on both sides of the House were in agreement with the framers of the Bill, but they could not agree to adopt the clause without adequate discussion. Clause 36 was of a most controversial character, for it proposed that the register of teachers should be discontinued. Having regard to its great importance it would be a matter of very serious consequence if no opportunity was afforded for the discussion of that very difficult question, and he was sure that all the associations of schoolmasters and teachers would regret it if the clause were passed without ample discussion. He hoped that not only Part II. but also Part III. would be withdrawn because of the insufficiency of time available for discussion, and because it would allow longer time for the consideration of matters arising out of the religious difficulty which had such an important bearing upon elementary education in this country.

MR. ARTHUR HENDERSON (Durham, Barnard Castle)

congratulated the Government upon adopting a measure for facilitating the progress of business. He and the Labour Members associated with him were interested in several other important measures, and, unless the Education Bill were disposed of in a reasonable time, some of those measures dealing with great social questions affecting the industrial life of the people of the country would be delayed, and might be found amongst the slaughtered innocents at the end of the session. Needless to say the Labour Members were prepared to support the Government in any measure which it adopted to prevent such a disaster as that overtaking the important measures introduced this session. The noble Lord the Member for Marylebone had suggested that the religious question was so important that almost any amount of time would be valuably spent if the House could arrive at a solution of the difficulty. [" Hear, hear."] That suggestion was applauded, but did any Member who had listened to the discussions which had taken place on the religious difficulty I think for a moment that they were now I any nearer bringing to an agreement the; parties representing sectarian teaching, undenominational teaching at the expense of the State, and those who, like himself, believed that the function of the State should terminate with the teaching of: secular instruction? Did any hon. Member believe that, after all the discussion that had taken place, these three great sections were any nearer agreement at the close than they were before the discussions took place? His humble opinion was that they were no nearer a settlement that would be satisfactory to all sections. He had risen mainly in order to make an appeal to the Government, to consider whether it was wise to give four days to Clauses 3, 4 and 5, when any agreement upon the religious difficulty was well nigh impossible, and give only two days to Part III. which dealt with most vital questions affecting the well being of child life. There was one provision in Clause 35 which appealed very strongly to the Labour Members, and that was in regard to vacation schools and the health of school children. There were such matters as medical inspection, the feeding of necessitous children, and other important subjects, which he feared might not have been reached when the closure came into operation. For these reasons he considered that he was justified in supporting the appeal made by the hon. Member for North Camberwell for further time for the discussion of Part III. If it were impossible to settle the religious question in three or four days why should four days be given to it at the sacrifice of time that could be better devoted to important questions involving the health of the children and the hygienic conditions that ought to apply to the schools?

MR. WYNDHAM (Dover)

felt it would be impossible for the House to consider at all adequately the matters contained in Part III. of the Bill in the time mentioned in the Resolution. Whilst the hon. Member for the Barnard Castle Division was quite prepared to put the religious question on one side in favour of other questions, he could assure him that that opinion was not shared very widely in the House, and his suggestion to give less than four days to the consideration of Clauses 3, 4, and 5, did not appear to him to be a reasonable one. The hon. Member had said that the three Parties would never agree. The question then came to be which was the best of the three plans proposed. The plan which the House was asked to accept was one which gave all the advantages to one section. A little more argument might not unreasonably be expected to convince the Government that they could not follow that course. The Government had scarcely argued in favour of their proposal. They had put forward only one plea which had the semblance of plausibility. It was advanced first by the Prime Minister, and then reinforced by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. It was that throughout the country the principle of popular control had been thoroughly discussed, and that the mandate which they had received was carried out in Clause 1 of the Bill. He was not arguing now as to whether popular control of religious instruction was right or wrong. It existed in Scotland, and something might be said for it. But Clause 1 did not give popular control over religious instruction. There were many areas in England where if they did allow popular control to have free play the existing institutions would be carried on without any alteration. He knew one area where there was a large majority of denominational schools, but there was no exclusion practised towards them in favour of undenominational schools. The right of entry was allowed to nonconformists, and the local authority had gone out of its way to establish two undenominational schools, although it need not have done so. There was no popular control over religious instruction, except in a negative form. Supposing that the Bill dealt with lighting instead of religious education, what would be said of a Government that provided that no local authority need light their area, but that, if they did, they must use a method of lighting known to he unpopular with the larger part of the population. The Government's Motion was directed against their own supporters rather than against the Opposition; for on Clauses 3, 4, and 5 there was no agreement on the Ministerial side of the House This was a case in which free discussion might have discovered a way of doing justice to all sections of opinion.

SIR FRANCIS LOWE (Birmingham, Edgbaston)

asked what were the grounds upon which the closure should be applied to this measure at the present stage of proceedings in Committee. He understood that the reason for applying the closure to any measure before the House was that there had been too prolonged discussion upon it, and that there had been something like obstruction on the part of one or other of the political; parties. It could not be alleged that

there had been anything which could be called obstruction with regard to the Bill. It had only been discussed in the Committee for six days. In 1902 the Education Bill was discussed for about forty days before any proposal was made by the Government of the day to apply the closure. It was now proposed to apply the closure in a most arbitrary manner. It looked very much as if the Government were afraid to have the Bill adequately discussed. He was perfectly certain that if like treatment had been given to the Opposition in regard to the 1902 Act, hon. Gentlemen now on the Ministerial side would have marched out of the House and taken no further part in the proceedings, as a protest against such a very high handed course being adopted. There was absolutely no reason for applying the closure at the present time.

Question put.

The House divided:—Ayes, 341; Noes, 171. (Division List No. 125.)

Fiennes, Hon. Eustace	Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich	Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)
Findlay, Alexander	Lever, W. H. (Cheshire, Wirral)	Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)
Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter	Levy, Maurice	Robertson, Rt. Hn. E.(Dundee
Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry	Lewis, John Herbert	Robertson, Sir G. Scott(Bradfrd
Fuller, John Michael F.	Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David	Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)
Fullerton, Hugh	Lough, Thomas	Robinson, S.
Gibb, James (Harrow)	Luttrell, Hugh Fownes	Robson, Sir William Snowdon
Gill, A. H.	Lynch, H. B.	Roe, Sir Thomas
Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert J.	Macdonald, J. R. Leicester)	Rogers, F. E. Newman
Glendinning, R. G.	Macdonald, J.M(Falkirk B'ghs	Rose, Charles Day
Goddard, Daniel Ford	Mackarness, Frederic C.	Rowlands, J.
Gooch, George Peabody	Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.	Russell, T. W.
Grant, Corrie	Macpherson, J. T.	Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)
Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)	M'Arthur, William	Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland
Greenwood, Hamar (York)	M'Callum, John M.	Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)
Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward	M'Crae, George	Scarisbrick, T. T. L.
Grove, Archibald	M'Kenna, Reginald	Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)
Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill	M'Laren, Sir C. B. (Leicester)	Schwann, Chas. E. (Manchester
Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton	M'Micking, Major G.	Scott, A.H.(Ashton under Lyne
Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B	Maddison, Frederick	Sears, J. E.
Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis	Manfield, Harry (Northants)	Seaverns. J. H.
Hardie, J.Keir (Merthyr Tydvil	Mansfield, H. Rendall(Lincoln)	Seddon, J.
Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)	Marks, G. Croydon(Launceston)	Shackleton, David James
Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worc'r.)	Marnham, F. J.	Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)
Harmsworth, R.L.(Caithn'ss-sh	Mason, A. E. W. (Coventry)	Shaw, Rt. Hn. T. (Hawick B.)
Harwood, George	Massie, J.	Shipman, Dr. John G.
Haslam, James (Derbyshire)	Masterman, C. F. G.	Silcock, Thomas Ball
Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)	Menzies, Walter	Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John
Haworth, Arthur A.	Micklem, Nathaniel	Sloan, Thomas Henry
Hedges, A. Paget	Molteno, Percy Alport	Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie
Helme, Norval Watson	Mond, A.	Snowden, P.
Henderson, Arthur (Durham)	Money, L. G. Chioozza	Soares, Ernest J.
Henderson, J. M.(Aberdeen, W.	Montagu, E. S.	Stanger, H. Y.
Henry, Charles S.	Montgomery, H. H.	Stanley, Hn. A. Lyulph(Chesh.
Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe	Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)	Steadman, W. C.
Hobart, Sir Robert	Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen	Stewart, Halley (Greenock)
Hodge, John	Morley, Rt. Hon. John	Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)
Holden, E. Hopkinson	Morrell, Philip	Strachey, Sir Edward
Holland, Sir William Henry	Morse, L. L.	Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)
Hooper, A. G.	Morton, Alpheus Cleophas	Stuart, James (Sunderland)
Hope, W. Bateman(Somerset,N	Myer, Horatio	Summerbell, T.
Horniman, Emslie John	Napier, T. B.	Sutherland, J. E.
Horridge, Thomas Gardner	Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw)	Taylor, John W. (Durham)
Howard, Hon. Geoffrey	Newnes, Sir George (Swansea)	Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)
Hudson, Walter	Nicholson, Chas. N.(Doncaster)	Tennant, Sir Edw. (Salisbury)
Hyde, Clarendon	Norman, Henry	Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)
Illingworth, Percy H.	Norton, Capt. Cecil William	Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)
Isaacs, Rufus Daniel	O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)	Thomas, Sir A (Glamorgan, E.)
Jackson, R. S.	Partington, Oswald	Thomas, David A. (Merthyr)
Jacoby, James Alfred	Paul, Herbert	Thomasson, Franklin
Jardine, Sir J.	Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)	Thompson, J. H.W.(Somerset, E
Johnson, John (Gateshead)	Pearce, William (Limehouse)	Tomkinson, James
Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)	Pearson, W. H. M.(Suffolk, Eye	Torrance, A. M.
Jones, David B. (Swansea)	Perks, Robert William	Toulmin, George
Jones, Leif (Appleby)	Philipps, Col. Ivor (S'thampton	Trevelyan, Charles Philips
Jones, William (Carnarvonsh.)	Philipps, J. Wynford(Pembroke	Ure, Alexander
Jowett, F. W.	Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)	Verney, F. W.
Kearley, Hudson E.	Pickersgill, Edward Hare	Vivian, Henry
Kekewich, Sir George	Pirie, Duncan V.	Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)
Kelley, George D.	Price, Robert J. (Norfolk, E.)	Wallace Robert
Kincaid-Smith, Captain	Priestley, W. E. B.(Bradford, E.	Walters, John Tudor
King, Alfred John (Knutsford)	Radford, G. H.	Walton, Sir J. L. (Leeds, S.)
Laidlaw, Robert	Rainy, A. Rolland	Ward, W. D. (Southampton)
Lamb, Edmund G.(Leominster)	Raphael, Herbert H.	Wardle, George J.
Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)	Rea, Russell (Gloucester)	Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)
Lambert, George	Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro'	Wason, John Catheart(Orkney)
Lamont, Norman	Rees, J. D.	Waterlow, D. S.
Lawson, Sir Wilfrid	Rendall, Athelstan	Watt, H. Anderson
Layland-Barratt, Francis	Richards, T. F. (Wolverh'mt'n	Wedgwood. Josiah C.
Lea, Hugh Cecil(St. Pancras, E.)	Richardson, A.	Weir, James Galloway
Leese, Sir J. F. (Accrington)	Ridsdale, E. A.	Whitbread, Howard
Lehmann, R. C.	Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)	White, George (Norfolk)

White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire	Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)	Wodehouse, Lord (Norfolk, Mid
White, Luke (York, E.R,)	Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarth'n	Wood, T. M'Kinnon
Whitehead, Rowland	Wills, Arthur Walters	Woodhouse, Sir J.T(Huddersf'd
Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)	Wilson, Henry J. (York, W.R.	Yoxall, James Henry
Whittaker, Thomas Palmer	Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)
Wiles, Thomas	Wilson, J.W.(Worcestersh. N.)	TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr. Whiteley and Mr. J. A. Pease.
Wilkie, Alexander	Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.)
Williams, J. (Glamorgan)	Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

NOES.
Abraham, William (Cork, N.E.)	Ffrench, Peter	Morpeth, Viscount
Ambrose, Robert	Field, William	Muntz, Sir Philip A.
Anson, Sir William Reynell	Finch. Rt. Hon. George H.	Murphy, John
Anstruther-Gray, Major	Fletcher. J. S.	Nield, Herbert
Arkwright, John Stanhope	Flynn, James Christopher	Nolan, Joseph
Arnold-Forster, Rt. Hn. H. O.	Forster, Henry William	O'Brien, K. (Tipperary, Mid.)
Ashley, W. W.	Gardner, Ernest (Berks, East)	O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)
Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hn. Sir H.	Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)	O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.
Balcarres, Lord	Ginnell, L.	O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)
Baldwin, Alfred	Haddock, George R.	O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)
Balfour, Rt. Hn. A. J.(City Lond.)	Halpin, J.	O'Doherty, Philip
Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey)	Hamilton, Marquess of	O'Dowd, John
Banbury, Sir Frederick George	Hammond, John	O'Hare, Patrick
Baring, Hon. Guy (Winchester	Hardy, L. (Kent, Ashford)	O' Kelly, James(Roscommon, N
Barry, E (Cork, S.	Harrison- Broadley, Col. H. B.	O'Malley, William
Beach, Hn. Michael Hugh H.	Hay, Hon. Claude George	O'Mara, James
Beckett, Hon. Gervase	Hayden, John Patrick	O'Neill, Hn. Robert Torrens
Bignold, Sir Arthur	Hazleton, Richard	O'Shaughnessy, P. J.
Blake, Edward	Heaton, John Henniker	Parkes, Ebenezer
Boland, John	Helmsley, Viscount	Pease, Herbert P. (Darlington)
Bowles, G. Stewart	Hervey, F.W.F.(BurySEdm'ds	Percy, Earl
Boyle, Sir Edward	Hill, Sir Clement (Shrewsbury)	Powell, Sir Francis Sharp
Bridgeman, W. Clive	Hill, Henry Staveley(Staff'sh.)	Power, Patrick Joseph
Brotherton, Edward Allen	Hills, J. W.	Ratcliff, Major R. F.
Bull, Sir William James	Hogan, Michael	Rawlinson, John Frederick P.
Burdett-Coutts, W.	Hornby, Sir William Henry	Redmond, John E. (Waterford
Burke, E. Haviland-	Houston, Robert Paterson	Redmond, William (Clare)
Butcher, Samuel Henry	Joyce, Michael	Remnant, James Farquharson
Carlile, E. Hildrcd	Kennaway, Rt. Hn. Sir John H	Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall
Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.	Kennedy, Vincent Paul	Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert
Castlereagh, Viscount	Kenyon-Slaney, Rt. Hn. Col.	Rutherford, John (Lancashire)
Cave, George	Keswick, William	Sheehan, Daniel Daniel
Cavendish, Rt. Hn. Victor C.W.	King, Sir Henry Seymour(Hull	Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East
Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)	Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.	Smith, Hn. W. F. D. (Strand)
Cecil, Lord John P. Joicey-	Lane-Fox, G. R.	Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.
Cecil, Lord R.(Marylebone, E.)	Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich)	Stanley, Hn. Arthur (Ormskirk
Clancy, John Joseph	Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.)	Starkey, John R.
Coates, E. Feetham(Lewisham)	Lee, A. H. (Hants., Fareham)	Stone, Sir Benjamin
Cochrane, Hn. Thos. H. A. E.	Liddell, Henry	Sullivan, Donal
Condon, Thomas Joseph	Lockwood, Rt. Hn. Lt.-Col. A.R.	Talbot, Rt. Hn. J.G.(Oxf'd Univ
Courthope, G. Loyd	Long, Col. Chas. W. (Evesham)	Thomson, W. Mitchell-(Lanark
Craig, Chas. Curtis (Antrim, S.)	Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (DublinS	Thornton, Percy M
Craig, Captain Jas. (Down, E.)	Lowe, Sir Francis William	Turnour, Viscount
Craik, Sir Henry	Lundon, W.	Walker, Col. W.H. (Lancashire)
Cross, Alexander	Lyttelton, Rt. Hn. Alfred	Walrond, Hon. Lionel
Dairymple, Viscount	MacIver, David (Liverpool)	Warde, Col. C. E. (Kent, Wid.)
Delany, William	MacVeigh, Chas. (Donegal, E.)	White, Patrick (Meath, North)
Dillon, John	M'Calmont, Colonel James	Williams, Col. R. (Dorset, W.)
Dixon-Hartland,Sir FredDixon	M'Hugh, Patrick A.	Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E.R.
Dolan, Charles Joseph	M'Killop, W.	Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm
Donelan, Captain A.	Magnus, Sir Philip	Wortley, Rt. Hn. C. B. Stuart-
Doughty, Sir George	Marks, H. H. (Kent)	Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George
Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-	Mason, James F. (Windsor)	Younger, George
Du Cros, Harvey	Meagher, Michael
Duncan, R. (Lanark, Govan)	Meehan, Patrick A.	TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Sir Alexander Acland-Hood and Viscount Valentia.
Faber, George Denison (York)	Meysey-Thompson, E. C.
Faber, Capt. W. V. (Hants, W.)	Middlemore, John Throgmorton
Fardell, Sir T. George	Mildmay, Francis Bingham
Fell, Arthur	Mooney, J. J.

*MR. JOHN RUTHERFORD (Lancashire, Darwen)

said that Clause 3 was one of the most important in the Bill, and he did not think it was right that only one day should be given to it. The Minister for Education had said in his speech that he was in favour of full liberty of debate; but they were beginning to see what liberty of discussion meant in the eyes of the Government. There were a number of most important Amendments on the paper to Clause 3, in which he himself was particularly interested, representing as he did a division in Lancashire in which there were a large number of voluntary schools, and he thought one day was far too little for the discussion of such an important clause. He therefore moved to extend the time to two days.

Amendment proposed— In line 6, after the word 'that' to insert the words 'two days to be allotted to.

Question proposed, '' That those words be there inserted."

THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF EDUCATION (Mr. BIRRELL,) Bristol, N.

said he could not deny that hon. Members might easily occupy two days in discussing Clause 3. It was, however, obvious that if the House devoted a whole day to the discussion of that clause ample Parliamentary time would have been given to do it full justice. He could not see his way to give two days to the clause, and if hon. Gentlemen directed their attention to its substance and were content to make short speeches upon it, one day would be found to be perfectly adequate to dispose of it.

MR. SAMUEL ROBERTS (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

said that Clause 3 might, and probably would, catch the Roman Catholic and the Jewish vote, but it was a vital clause for the Church of England schools. As one who represented a large number of Church of England schools, who wished to continue the very excellent religious teaching there given, he hoped that the Government would see that there was a real reason for giving more time to the discussion of that clause.

*SIR WILLIAM ANSON (Oxford University)

hoped that the right hon. Gentleman would reconsider his decision on this matter in view of the answer which he had given at an earlier hour of the sitting. He had asked the right hon. Gentleman a question as to when he would formulate the concession which during the discussion last week he promised to make on this clause, and from the answer of the right hon. Gentleman they assumed with tolerable confidence that there would be some modification of Clause 3 made later on in Committee, which would allow full discussion, so as to bring the clause into a form that would be satisfactory to the whole House. This clause affected denominational religious teaching which they on the Opposition side of the House cared for very deeply, and about which he believed the country felt far more deeply than the Government and the right hon. Gentleman were disposed to think; and it deserved a fuller discussion than could be given to it in one day. If the views of the hon. Member for Mid. Glamorganshire were supported by hon. Gentlemen opposite to any considerable extent the Government would find their forces divided. Why should they not be allowed more than one day for the discussion of this important question? If there was to be any change made in the structure of the clause it could only take place after a lively debate in which hon. Members sitting on the Ministerial side as well as hon. Members on the Opposition side would take part. He could not help thinking that the short period of discussion allowed for this clause was intended to preclude a possible division of opinion amongst the supporters of the Government. That appeared to him to be the reason why the Government had determined to allow the least possible opportunity for the expression of opinion. It would be a great misfortune if the Bill emerged from the Committee with this clause in its present indefinite form, or in such a shape that it would not carry out the wishes of a great majority of the Members of the House.

MR. CARLILE (Hertfordshire, St. Albans)

desired to support this Amendment, because he realised that in this matter there was a trembling in the balance in regard to the interests of the schools. Those who were interested in denominational schools, and especially those interested in Church of England schools, realised that if this clause became law the greatest and highest interest in those schools would be destroyed. Therefore they felt when they were asked to allow this clause to be rushed through the House after only one day's discussion that they were placed with their backs to the wall and that they must fight such a proposition with all their power. They realised that under this clause the religious teaching which they had hitherto been able to give to the children would come to an end except in a sort of hole-and-corner fashion. Hon. Members must realise that under this clause they would not have that kind of atmosphere which they felt to be of the highest importance for the spiritual welfare of the children. On three days a week teachers of any sort were to be allowed to give simple Bible teaching. The teacher might belong to any sect or to no sect at all; he might be a Christian or a heathen, and yet he might be appointed to a Church school and be instructed by the local authority to give simple Bible teaching. Men who were perhaps sceptics, or atheists, or Buddhists or Mahommedans, or Roman Catholics, or Methodists, in fact any kind of teacher might be placed in their schools, and under Clause 3 they were to give religious instruction on three mornings of the week. The children would soon detect that the teachers did not believe in the instruction they were giving, and religious faith in the children would be destroyed. It seemed to him to be an outrage that such a request as was contained in this Resolution should be made by a responsible Minister. It was not too much to say that they were opposed lock, stock, and barrel to every part of Clause 3, and when hon. Members pleaded that the Bill should be rushed through in order that some other measures might be dealt with, he thought they were taking up an attitude which could only redound later on to their disadvantage. It was because they were deeply devoted to their schools that Churchmen were asking for a reasonable opportunity to enter some protest with the view of bringing the Government to change their line and of making them realise that the Opposition were pledged to the depths of their nature, and were bound up in the interests of the children. He hoped, therefore, that the right hon. Gentleman would give more time for the consideration of this clause.

MR. WALTER LONG (Dublin, S.)

said the Minister for Education had made two statements in the House—one that he desired to see denominational schools maintained in the country, and the other that he desired the Bill to become an Act in as friendly a way as possible. The right hon. Gentleman had failed to realise in adhering so closely to the proposals of the Government that Clause 3 was the only clause of the Bill to which the great mass of the rural schools in the country could look for any hope or assistance whatever. The clause was for them the Education Bill. The right hon. Gentleman did not realise the depth of feeling on the subject. If Clause 4 was adhered to, Clause 3 would not carry out the declarations of the right hon. Gentleman. They certainly thought that the Bill would secure in voluntary schools the religious teaching which parents desired, but as the clause stood it would do nothing of the kind. If Clause 4 was confined to districts with a population of over 5,000, an injustice would be done to the rural districts, which it would be very difficult to defend when Members were brought face to face with individual cases. There would be plenty of cases on the outskirts of small towns where denominational schools would be preserved under Clause 4 if the local authority so desired, while schools, exactly similarly situated, would be brought to an end simply because they were just outside an urban area. He ventured to say that when these matters were brought before hon. Members in their constituencies they would not find it very easy to defend their support of them in this House. The Minister for Education had said that he wanted the Bill to be received in as friendly a spirit as possible. Did anyone believe that, if the Government ran Clause 3 through in one day, it was possible to expect the people in the rural districts to consider that their case had been fairly treated? Under Clause 3 was their only hope of any relief from what they regarded as unjust to the rural schools. If the right hon. Gentleman insisted on forcing the clause through in one day he would create a feeling of soreness and bitterness which would do more to injure his Bill than anything else he could do, and it would arouse amongst the supporters of voluntary schools a strong feeling of indignation. Clause 3 had attracted more attention in the country than any other, and he protested against such treatment being meted out to the rural districts which deserved better consideration at the hands of the Government.

MR. BIRRELL

rose to reply.

*MR. SPEAKER

The right hon. Gentleman has already spoken.

LORD R. CECIL

Is there no other right hon. Gentleman who can answer my right hon. friend?

Question put.

The House divided:—Ayes, 124; Noes, 281. (Division List 126.)

AYES.
Abraham, William (Rhondda)	Billson, Alfred	Coats, Sir T. Glen (Renfrew, W.
Acland, Francis Dyke	Birrell, Rt. Hn. Augustine	Cobbold, Felix Thornley
Adkins, W. Ryland	Black, A. W. (Bedfordshire)	Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)
Agnew, George William	Bolton, T. D. (Derbyshire, N.E	Collins, Sir Wm. J.(S. Pancras, W.
Alden, Percy	Boulton, A. C. F. (Ramsey)	Corbett, C.H.(Sussex, E Grinst'd
Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)	Brace, William	Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.
Armitage, R.	Bramsdon, T. A.	Cory, Clifford John
Armstrong, W. C. Heaton	Branch, James	Cotton, Sir H. J. S.
Ashton, Thomas Gair	Brigg, John	Cowan, W. H.
Asquith, Rt. Hn. Herbert H.	Brocklehurst, W. D.	Cremer, William Randal
Astbury, John Meir	Brodie, H. C.	Crombie, John William
Atherley-Jones, L.	Brooke, Stopford	Crooks, William
Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)	Brunner, J.F.L. (Lancs,Leigh)	Crossley, William J.
Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.	Bryce, Rt. Hn. Jas. (Aberdeen)	Dalziel, James Henry
Balfour, Robert (Lanark)	Bryce, J. A. (Inverness Burghs	Davies, David(Montgomery Co.
Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)	Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn	Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)
Barker, John	Buckmaster, Stanley O.	Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan
Barlow, John E. (Somerset)	Burns, Rt. Hon. John	Davies, Timothy (Fulham)
Barlow, Percy (Bedford)	Burnyeat, J. D. W.	Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh
Barnard, E. B.	Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas	Dickinson, W. H.(St. Pancras, N.
Barnes, G. N.	Buxton, Rt. Hn. Sydney Chas.	Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.
Barran, Rowland Hirst	Byles, William Pollard	Dobson, Thomas W.
Beale, W. P.	Cairns, Thomas	Duckworth, James
Beauchamp, E.	Caldwell, James	Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness
Beaumont, H. (Eastbourne)	Carr-Gomm, H. W.	Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)
Beaumont, W. C. B. (Hexham)	Causton, Rt. Hn. Richard K.	Dunne, Major E. M. (Walsall)
Beck, A. Cecil	Cawley, Frederick	Edwards, Clement (Denbigh)
Bell, Richard	Chance, Frederick William	Ellis, Rt. Hon. John Edward
Bellairs, Carylon	Cheetham, John Frederick	Erskine, David C.
Benn, John W. (Devonport)	Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.	Essex, R, W.
Benn, W.(T'wrHamlets,S. Geo	Churchill, Winston Spencer	Eve, Harry Trelawney
Berridge, T. H. D.	Clarke, C. Goddard	Everett, R. Lacey
Bertram, Julius	Cleland, J. W.	Faber, G. H. (Boston)
Bethell, J.H.(Essex, Romford)	Clough, W.	Fenwick, Charles
Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon	Clynes, J. R.	Ferens, T.R.
Fiennes, Hon. Eustace	Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich	Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)
Findlay, Alexander	Lever, W. H. (Cheshire, Wirral)	Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)
Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter	Levy, Maurice	Robertson, Rt. Hn. E.(Dundee
Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry	Lewis, John Herbert	Robertson, Sir G. Scott(Bradfrd
Fuller, John Michael F.	Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David	Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)
Fullerton, Hugh	Lough, Thomas	Robinson, S.
Gibb, James (Harrow)	Luttrell, Hugh Fownes	Robson, Sir William Snowdon
Gill, A. H.	Lynch, H. B.	Roe, Sir Thomas
Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert J.	Macdonald, J. R. Leicester)	Rogers, F. E. Newman
Glendinning, R. G.	Macdonald, J.M(Falkirk B'ghs	Rose, Charles Day
Goddard, Daniel Ford	Mackarness, Frederic C.	Rowlands, J.
Gooch, George Peabody	Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.	Russell, T. W.
Grant, Corrie	Macpherson, J. T.	Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)
Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)	M'Arthur, William	Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland
Greenwood, Hamar (York)	M'Callum, John M.	Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)
Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward	M'Crae, George	Scarisbrick, T. T. L.
Grove, Archibald	M'Kenna, Reginald	Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)
Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill	M'Laren, Sir C. B. (Leicester)	Schwann, Chas. E. (Manchester
Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton	M'Micking, Major G.	Scott, A.H.(Ashton under Lyne
Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B	Maddison, Frederick	Sears, J. E.
Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis	Manfield, Harry (Northants)	Seaverns. J. H.
Hardie, J.Keir (Merthyr Tydvil	Mansfield, H. Rendall(Lincoln)	Seddon, J.
Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)	Marks, G. Croydon(Launceston)	Shackleton, David James
Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worc'r.)	Marnham, F. J.	Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)
Harmsworth, R.L.(Caithn'ss-sh	Mason, A. E. W. (Coventry)	Shaw, Rt. Hn. T. (Hawick B.)
Harwood, George	Massie, J.	Shipman, Dr. John G.
Haslam, James (Derbyshire)	Masterman, C. F. G.	Silcock, Thomas Ball
Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)	Menzies, Walter	Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John
Haworth, Arthur A.	Micklem, Nathaniel	Sloan, Thomas Henry
Hedges, A. Paget	Molteno, Percy Alport	Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie
Helme, Norval Watson	Mond, A.	Snowden, P.
Henderson, Arthur (Durham)	Money, L. G. Chioozza	Soares, Ernest J.
Henderson, J. M.(Aberdeen, W.	Montagu, E. S.	Stanger, H. Y.
Henry, Charles S.	Montgomery, H. H.	Stanley, Hn. A. Lyulph(Chesh.
Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe	Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)	Steadman, W. C.
Hobart, Sir Robert	Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen	Stewart, Halley (Greenock)
Hodge, John	Morley, Rt. Hon. John	Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)
Holden, E. Hopkinson	Morrell, Philip	Strachey, Sir Edward
Holland, Sir William Henry	Morse, L. L.	Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)
Hooper, A. G.	Morton, Alpheus Cleophas	Stuart, James (Sunderland)
Hope, W. Bateman(Somerset,N	Myer, Horatio	Summerbell, T.
Horniman, Emslie John	Napier, T. B.	Sutherland, J. E.
Horridge, Thomas Gardner	Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw)	Taylor, John W. (Durham)
Howard, Hon. Geoffrey	Newnes, Sir George (Swansea)	Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)
Hudson, Walter	Nicholson, Chas. N.(Doncaster)	Tennant, Sir Edw. (Salisbury)
Hyde, Clarendon	Norman, Henry	Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)
Illingworth, Percy H.	Norton, Capt. Cecil William	Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)
Isaacs, Rufus Daniel	O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)	Thomas, Sir A (Glamorgan, E.)
Jackson, R. S.	Partington, Oswald	Thomas, David A. (Merthyr)
Jacoby, James Alfred	Paul, Herbert	Thomasson, Franklin
Jardine, Sir J.	Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)	Thompson, J. H.W.(Somerset, E
Johnson, John (Gateshead)	Pearce, William (Limehouse)	Tomkinson, James
Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)	Pearson, W. H. M.(Suffolk, Eye	Torrance, A. M.
Jones, David B. (Swansea)	Perks, Robert William	Toulmin, George
Jones, Leif (Appleby)	Philipps, Col. Ivor (S'thampton	Trevelyan, Charles Philips
Jones, William (Carnarvonsh.)	Philipps, J. Wynford(Pembroke	Ure, Alexander
Jowett, F. W.	Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)	Verney, F. W.
Kearley, Hudson E.	Pickersgill, Edward Hare	Vivian, Henry
Kekewich, Sir George	Pirie, Duncan V.	Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)
Kelley, George D.	Price, Robert J. (Norfolk, E.)	Wallace Robert
Kincaid-Smith, Captain	Priestley, W. E. B.(Bradford, E.	Walters, John Tudor
King, Alfred John (Knutsford)	Radford, G. H.	Walton, Sir J. L. (Leeds, S.)
Laidlaw, Robert	Rainy, A. Rolland	Ward, W. D. (Southampton)
Lamb, Edmund G.(Leominster)	Raphael, Herbert H.	Wardle, George J.
Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)	Rea, Russell (Gloucester)	Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)
Lambert, George	Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro'	Wason, John Catheart(Orkney)
Lamont, Norman	Rees, J. D.	Waterlow, D. S.
Lawson, Sir Wilfrid	Rendall, Athelstan	Watt, H. Anderson
Layland-Barratt, Francis	Richards, T. F. (Wolverh'mt'n	Wedgwood. Josiah C.
Lea, Hugh Cecil(St. Pancras, E.)	Richardson, A.	Weir, James Galloway
Leese, Sir J. F. (Accrington)	Ridsdale, E. A.	Whitbread, Howard
Lehmann, R. C.	Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)	White, George (Norfolk)

White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire	Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)	Wodehouse, Lord (Norfolk, Mid
White, Luke (York, E.R,)	Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarth'n	Wood, T. M'Kinnon
Whitehead, Rowland	Wills, Arthur Walters	Woodhouse, Sir J.T(Huddersf'd
Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)	Wilson, Henry J. (York, W.R.	Yoxall, James Henry
Whittaker, Thomas Palmer	Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)
Wiles, Thomas	Wilson, J.W.(Worcestersh. N.)	TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr. Whiteley and Mr. J. A. Pease.
Wilkie, Alexander	Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.)
Williams, J. (Glamorgan)	Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)
NOES.
Abraham, William (Cork, N.E.)	Ffrench, Peter	Morpeth, Viscount
Ambrose, Robert	Field, William	Muntz, Sir Philip A.
Anson, Sir William Reynell	Finch. Rt. Hon. George H.	Murphy, John
Anstruther-Gray, Major	Fletcher. J. S.	Nield, Herbert
Arkwright, John Stanhope	Flynn, James Christopher	Nolan, Joseph
Arnold-Forster, Rt. Hn. H. O.	Forster, Henry William	O'Brien, K. (Tipperary, Mid.)
Ashley, W. W.	Gardner, Ernest (Berks, East)	O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)
Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hn. Sir H.	Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)	O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.
Balcarres, Lord	Ginnell, L.	O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)
Baldwin, Alfred	Haddock, George R.	O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)
Balfour, Rt. Hn. A. J.(City Lond.)	Halpin, J.	O'Doherty, Philip
Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey)	Hamilton, Marquess of	O'Dowd, John
Banbury, Sir Frederick George	Hammond, John	O'Hare, Patrick
Baring, Hon. Guy (Winchester	Hardy, L. (Kent, Ashford)	O' Kelly, James(Roscommon, N
Barry, E (Cork, S.	Harrison- Broadley, Col. H. B.	O'Malley, William
Beach, Hn. Michael Hugh H.	Hay, Hon. Claude George	O'Mara, James
Beckett, Hon. Gervase	Hayden, John Patrick	O'Neill, Hn. Robert Torrens
Bignold, Sir Arthur	Hazleton, Richard	O'Shaughnessy, P. J.
Blake, Edward	Heaton, John Henniker	Parkes, Ebenezer
Boland, John	Helmsley, Viscount	Pease, Herbert P. (Darlington)
Bowles, G. Stewart	Hervey, F.W.F.(BurySEdm'ds	Percy, Earl
Boyle, Sir Edward	Hill, Sir Clement (Shrewsbury)	Powell, Sir Francis Sharp
Bridgeman, W. Clive	Hill, Henry Staveley(Staff'sh.)	Power, Patrick Joseph
Brotherton, Edward Allen	Hills, J. W.	Ratcliff, Major R. F.
Bull, Sir William James	Hogan, Michael	Rawlinson, John Frederick P.
Burdett-Coutts, W.	Hornby, Sir William Henry	Redmond, John E. (Waterford
Burke, E. Haviland-	Houston, Robert Paterson	Redmond, William (Clare)
Butcher, Samuel Henry	Joyce, Michael	Remnant, James Farquharson
Carlile, E. Hildrcd	Kennaway, Rt. Hn. Sir John H	Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall
Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.	Kennedy, Vincent Paul	Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert
Castlereagh, Viscount	Kenyon-Slaney, Rt. Hn. Col.	Rutherford, John (Lancashire)
Cave, George	Keswick, William	Sheehan, Daniel Daniel
Cavendish, Rt. Hn. Victor C.W.	King, Sir Henry Seymour(Hull	Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East
Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)	Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.	Smith, Hn. W. F. D. (Strand)
Cecil, Lord John P. Joicey-	Lane-Fox, G. R.	Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.
Cecil, Lord R.(Marylebone, E.)	Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich)	Stanley, Hn. Arthur (Ormskirk
Clancy, John Joseph	Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.)	Starkey, John R.
Coates, E. Feetham(Lewisham)	Lee, A. H. (Hants., Fareham)	Stone, Sir Benjamin
Cochrane, Hn. Thos. H. A. E.	Liddell, Henry	Sullivan, Donal
Condon, Thomas Joseph	Lockwood, Rt. Hn. Lt.-Col. A.R.	Talbot, Rt. Hn. J.G.(Oxf'd Univ
Courthope, G. Loyd	Long, Col. Chas. W. (Evesham)	Thomson, W. Mitchell-(Lanark
Craig, Chas. Curtis (Antrim, S.)	Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (DublinS	Thornton, Percy M
Craig, Captain Jas. (Down, E.)	Lowe, Sir Francis William	Turnour, Viscount
Craik, Sir Henry	Lundon, W.	Walker, Col. W.H. (Lancashire)
Cross, Alexander	Lyttelton, Rt. Hn. Alfred	Walrond, Hon. Lionel
Dairymple, Viscount	MacIver, David (Liverpool)	Warde, Col. C. E. (Kent, Wid.)
Delany, William	MacVeigh, Chas. (Donegal, E.)	White, Patrick (Meath, North)
Dillon, John	M'Calmont, Colonel James	Williams, Col. R. (Dorset, W.)
Dixon-Hartland,Sir FredDixon	M'Hugh, Patrick A.	Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E.R.
Dolan, Charles Joseph	M'Killop, W.	Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm
Donelan, Captain A.	Magnus, Sir Philip	Wortley, Rt. Hn. C. B. Stuart-
Doughty, Sir George	Marks, H. H. (Kent)	Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George
Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-	Mason, James F. (Windsor)	Younger, George
Du Cros, Harvey	Meagher, Michael
Duncan, R. (Lanark, Govan)	Meehan, Patrick A.	TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Sir Alexander Acland-Hood and Viscount Valentia.
Faber, George Denison (York)	Meysey-Thompson, E. C.
Faber, Capt. W. V. (Hants, W.)	Middlemore, John Throgmorton
Fardell, Sir T. George	Mildmay, Francis Bingham
Fell, Arthur	Mooney, J. J.
Abraham, William (Cork, N.E.)	Fell, Arthur	Murphy, John
Acland-Hood, Rt Hn. Sir Alex. F.	Ffrench, Peter	Nield, Herbert
Ambrose, Robert	Field, William	Nolan, Joseph
Anson, Sir William Reynell	Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.	O'Brien, Kendal(Tipperary, Mid
Arkwright, John Stanhope	Fletcher, J. S.	O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)
Ashley, W. W.	Flynn, James Christopher	O'Connor, James(Wicklow, W.)
Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hon. Sir H.	Forster, Henry William	O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)
Balcarres, Lord	Gardner, Ernest (Berks, East)	O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)
Balfour Rt. Hn. A.J.(City Lond.)	Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)	O'Doherty, Philip
Baring, Hon. Guy (Winchester)	Ginnell, L.	O'Dowd, John
Barry, E. (Cork, S.)	Haddock, George R.	O'Hare, Patrick
Beach, Hn. Michael Hugh Hicks	Halpin, J.	O'Kelly, James(Roscommon, N.
Beckett, Hon. Gervase	Hamilton, Marquess of	O'Malley, William
Bignold, Sir Arthur	Hammond, John	O'Mara, James
Blake, Edward	Hardy, Laurence(Kent, Ashford	O'Shaughnessy, P. J.
Boland, John	Hayden, John Patrick	Pease, Herbert Pike(Darlington)
Boyle, Sir Edward	Hazelton, Richard	Powell, Sir Francis Sharp
Bridgeman, W. Clive	Helmsley, Viscount	Power, Patrick Joseph
Bull, Sir William James	Hill, Sir Clement (Shrewsbury)	Ratcliff, Major R. F.
Burke, E. Haviland-	Hill, Henry Staveley(Staff'sh.)	Redmond, John K. (Waterford)
Butcher, Samuel Henry	Hogan, Michael	Redmond, William (Clare)
Carlile, E. Hildred	Houston, Robert Paterson	Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)
Castlereagh, Viscount	Joyce, Michael	Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert
Cave, George	Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir John H.	Sheehan, Daniel Daniel
Cavendish, Rt. Hon. Victor C.W.	Kennedy, Vincent Paul	Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand)
Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)	Kenyon-Slaney, Rt. Hn. Col. W.	Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)
Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)	King, Sir Henry Seymour (Hull)	Starkey, John R.
Clancy, John Joseph	Lane-Fox, G. R.	Stone, Sir Benjamin
Coates, E. Feetham(Lewisham)	Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich)	Sullivan, Donal
Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E.	Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.)	Thomson, W. Mitchell-(Lanark)
Condon, Thomas Joseph	Lockwood, Rt. Hn. Lt.-Col. A.R.	Valentia, Viscount
Courthope, G. Loyd	Long, Rt. Hn. Walter(Dublin, S.)	Walrond, Hon. Lionel
Craig, Capt. James (Down, E.)	Lowe, Sir Francis William	White, Patrick (Meath, North)
Craik, Sir Henry	Lundon, W.	Williams, Col. R. (Dorset, W.)
Cross, Alexander	Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred	Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E.R.)
Delany, William	MacVeigh, Charles(Donegal, E.)	Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm
Dillon, John	M'Calmont, Colonel James	Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart-
Dolan, Charles Joseph	M'Hugh, Patrick A.	Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George
Donelan, Captain A.	M'Killop, W.
Doughty, Sir George	Magnus, Sir Philip	TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr. John Rutherford and Mr. Rawlinson.
Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-	Meagher, Michael
Du Cros, Harvey	Meehan, Patrick A.
Faber, George Denison (York)	Mooney, J. J.
NOES.
Abraham, William (Rhondda)	Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)	Barran, Row land Hirst
Acland, Francis Dyke	Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury. E.)	Beauchamp, E.
Adkins, W. Ryland	Balfour, Robert (Lanark)	Beaumont, Hubert Eastbourne
Agnew, George William	Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)	Beaumont, W. C. B. (Hexham)
Alden, Percy	Barker, John	Beck, A. Cecil
Allen, A. Acland(Christchurch)	Barlow, John Emmott(Somerset	Bell, Richard
Armitage, R.	Barlow, Percy (Bedford)	Bellairs, Carlyon
Astbury, John Meir	Barnard, E. B.	Belloc, Hilaire Joseph Peter R
Atherley-Jones, L.	Barnes, G. N.	Benn, John Williams(Devonp'rt
Benn, W.(T'w'rHamlets, S. Geo.	Goddard Daniel Ford	Massie, J.
Berridge, T. H. D.	Gooch, George Peabody	Menzies, Walter
Bertram, Julius	Grant, Corrie	Micklem, Nathaniel
Bethell, J. H. (Essex, Romford)	Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)	Molteno, Percy Alport
Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)	Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward	Mond, A.
Billson, Alfred	Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill	Money, L. G. Chiozza
Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine	Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton	Montagu, E. S.
Black, Arthur W. (Bedfordshire)	Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis	Montgomery, H. H.
Bolton, T.D.(Derbyshire, N. E.)	Hardie, J. Keir(Merthyr Tydvil)	Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)
Brace, William	Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)	Morley, Rt. Hon. John
Bramsdon, T. A.	Harmsworth, Cecil B.(Worc'r)	Morrell, Philip
Branch, James	Harmsworth, R.L.(Caithn'ss-sh	Morse, L. L.
Brigg, John	Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)	Morton, Alpheus Cleophas
Brocklehurst, W. D.	Haslam, James (Derbyshire)	Myer, Horatio
Brodie, H. C.	Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)	Napier, T. B.
Brooke, Stopford	Haworth, Arthur A.	Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw)
Brunner, J. F. L. (Lanes., Leigh)	Hedges, A. Paget	Nicholson, Charles N.(Doncast'r
Bryce, J.A. (Inverness Burghs)	Helme, Norval Watson	Norman, Henry
Buckmaster, Stanley O.	Henderson, Arthur (Durham)	Norton, Capt. Cecil William
Burns, Rt. Hon. John	Herbert, Col. Ivor (Mon., S.)	Nuttall, Harry
Burnyeat, J. D. W.	Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe	Parker, James (Halifax)
Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas	Hobart, Sir Robert	Partington, Oswald
Buxton, Rt. Hn. Sydney Charles	Hodge, John	Paul, Herbert
Byles, William Pollard	Holden, E. Hopkinson	Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)
Cairns, Thomas	Holland, Sir William Henry	Pearce, William (Limehouse)
Caldwell, James	Hooper, A. G.	Pearson, Sir W.D. (Colchester)
Carr-Gomm, H. W.	Hope, W. Bateman(Somerset, N)	Perks, Robert William
Causton. Rt. Hn. Richard Knight	Horniman, Emslie John	Phillips, Col. Ivor(S'thampton)
Cawley, Frederick	Horridge, Thomas Gardner	Philipps, J. Wynford(Pembroke
Chance, Frederick William	Hudson, Walter	Pickersgill, Edward Hare
Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.	Hyde, Clarendon	Pirie, Duncan V.
Churchill, Winston Spencer	Illingworth, Percy H.	Priestley, W.E.B.(Bradford, E.)
Clarke, C. Goddard	Jackson, R. S.	Radford, G. H.
Cleland, J. W.	Jacoby, James Alfred	Raphael, Herbert H.
Clough, W.	Jardine, Sir J.	Rea, Russell (Gloucester)
Clynes, J. R.	Johnson, John (Gateshead)	Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro'
Coats, Sir T. Glen(Renfrew, W.)	Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)	Rendall, Athelstan
Collins, Sir Wm. J.(S.Pancras, W.	Jones, David Brynmor (Swansea	Richards, T. F. (Wolverh'mptn
Corbett, CH(Sussex, E. Grinst'd)	Jones, Leif (Appleby)	Richardson, A.
Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.	Jones, William(Carnarvonshire	Ridsdale, E. A.
Cory, Clifford John	Jowett, F. W.	Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)
Cotton, Sir H. J. S.	Kekewich, Sir George	Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)
Cowan, W. H.	Kelley, George D.	Robertson, Rt. Hn. E.(Dundee)
Cremer, William Randal	Kincaid-Smith, Captain	Robertson, Sir G. Scott(Bradf'rd
Crooks, William	King, Alfred John (Knutsford)	Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)
Crossley, William J.	Laidlaw, Robert	Robinson, S.
Davies, David(Montgomery Co.)	Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)	Roe, Sir Thomas
Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)	Lambert, George	Rose, Charles Day
Davies, Timothy (Fulham)	Lamont, Norman	Rowlands, J.
Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh.)	Layland-Barratt, Francis	Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)
Dickinson, W.H. (St. Pancras. N.	Lea, Hugh Cecil(St. Pancras, E.)	Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)
Dobson, Thomas W.	Leese, Sir Joseph F.(Accrington)	Samuel, S. M. (White chapel)
Duncan, C.(Barrow-in-Furness)	Lehmann, R. C.	Scarisbrick, T. T. L.
Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)	Lever, A. Levy(Essex, Harwich)	Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)
Edwards, Clement (Denbigh)	Lever, W. H.(Cheshire, Wirral)	Scott, A.H.(Ashton under Lyne)
Ellis, Rt. Hon. John Edward	Levy, Maurice	Sears, J. E.
Essex, R. W.	Lewis, John Herbert	Seaverns, J. H.
Eve, Harry Trelawney	Lough, Thomas	Seddon, J.
Everett, R. Lacey	Luttrell, Hugh Fownes	Shackleton, David James
Faber, G. H. (Boston)	Lynch, H. B.	Shipman, Dr. John G.
Fenwick, Charles	Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)	Silcock, Thomas Ball
Ferens, T. R.	Macdonald, J.M.(FalkirkB'ghs)	Sloan, Thomas Henry
Fiennes, Hon. Eustace	Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.	Sematon, Donald Mackenzie
Findlay, Alexander	M'Arthur, William	Snowden, P.
Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter	M'Callum, John M.	Soares, Ernest J.
Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry	M'Crace, George	Stanley Hn A. Lyulph (Chesh.)
Fuller, John Michael F.	M'Micking, Major G.
Fullerton, Hugh	Maddison, Frederick	Steadman, W. C.
Gibb, James (Harrow)	Manfield, Harry (Northants)	Stewart, Halley (Greenock)
Gill, A. H.	Mansfield, H. Rendall (Lincoln	Stewart-Smith D. (Kendal)
Gladstone Rt. Hn. Herbert John.	Marks, G. Croydon(Launceston)	Strachey, Sir Edward
Glendinning, R. G.	Marnham, F. J.	Stuart, James (Sunderland)

Summerbell, T.	Ward, W. Dudley(Southampton	Wills, Arthur Walters
Sutherland, J. E.	Wason, John Cathcart(Orkney)	Wilson, Henry J. (York, W.R.)
Taylor, John W. (Durham)	Waterlow, D. S.	Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)
Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)	Watt, H. Anderson	Wilson, P, W. (St. Pancras, S.)
Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)	Weir, James Galloway	Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)
Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)	White, George (Norfolk)	Winfrey, R.
Thomas, David Alfred(Merthyr	White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)	Wodehouse, Lord(Norfolk, Mid)
Thompson, J.W.H.(Somerset, E.	White, Luke (York, E.R.)	Wood, T. M'Kinnon
Torrance, A. M.	Whitehead, Rowland	Yoxall, James Henry
Ure, Alexander	Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)
Verney, F. W.	Wiles, Thomas	TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr. Whiteley and Mr. J. A. Pease.
Vivian, Henry	Wilkie, Alexander
Walker, H. De R, (Leicester)	Williams, J. (Glamorgan)
Wallace, Robert	Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)
Walters, John Tudor	Williams, Llewelyn(Carmarth'n

*MR. LANE-FOX (Yorkshire, W.R., Barkston Ash)

said in moving the Amendment which stood in his name he might claim that the clauses to which it referred were clauses of great importance. There was a very strong reason why they should discuss this question with a hope of solving it. It was that so far they were absolutely in the dark as to what Clause 4 meant. The Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer had both told the House they did not think any extra time was required, because it had been devoted to unimportant details and unnecessary speeches in the past. Nobody who had studied Clause 4 would say it was unimportant. It was infinitely more important than any other clause in the Bill. The Prime Minister had said that this question had been thrashed out, but, if so, what was the meaning of the great feeling that had arisen among the Nonconformists and the appeals that had been made by deputation and in other ways? Beyond the replies to those deputations there was absolutely nothing to indicate to the House what the intentions of the Government were or how this clause would emerge from the Committee. It was a clause of which amendment was demanded from all parts of the House, and sooner or later the President of the Board of Education would have to make up his mind. The right hon. Gentleman had for a long time been shivering on the brink like the bather on the edge of a cold pool, but the time would come when he would have to enter the pool, and the Committee would insist on a far clearer definition of what the clause meant. Clause 4 was the keystone of the Bill. If it were amended in the direction of giving a fairer chance to the religious denomination and a more complete teaching of religious truth, then it would go a very long way towards removing a great part of the objection which was felt towards the Bill by those who sat on the Opposition side and by some, at any rate, who sat on the Ministerial Benches. If the amendment took that form then the right hon. Gentleman might expect some lasting settlement. But if the clause remained as at present, or was amended in a contrary direction, then there would be a continuance of the strife which they had been deploring for many years, and which would never be settled until this question was dealt with on principles of equity to every denomination and creed in the country. In view of the great issues involved, the divergence of opinion on both sides, and the many possibilities as to amending the clause, it was only reasonable that more than three days should be given to its consideration, and that the financial Resolution should be relegated to another time. If the clause were not thoroughly amended in the direction of the pledges and promises given to the representatives of various denominations, a feeling of soreness would arise which the right hon. Gentleman would deplore perhaps more than any other Member of the House, because they recognised that if the right hon. Gentleman were only left alone by his Party there would be a fair chance of receiving just and fair treatment. The great injustice which would be done to denominational schools under the clause as it stood would leave a permanent unrest and a lasting settlement would be further off than it had ever been. In Clause 4 alone was recognised the right of the denominations to give their own religious teaching in their own schools at the hands of their own teachers. It only partly recognised the right, it was true, but it did recognise it, and that was a great point. It was a very amazing thing, however, that a great Nonconformist majority in this House should be bent on giving a considerable advantage to the Roman Catholic body at the expense of their Protestant brethren. He did not complain of the rights which were given under this clause to the Roman Catholics, but he would complain bitterly if those rights were not extended to the Church of England. As the clause stood there could be no question that the Roman Catholics and the Jews would have advantages which members of the Church of England and Church of England schools would not have.

*MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKER

said the hon. Gentleman was now discussing the merits of the clauses, and he must confine his remarks to the objects of the Amendment.

*ME. LANE-FOX

said the point he desired to make was that the questions involved in Clause 4 were so far reaching that it was absolutely necessary that they should have more than three days for their discussion. In 1902 considerable time was given to Clauses 6 and 7, and ten days to Clause 8 of the Act of that year. At least they ought now to be allowed half as long for a clause very much of the same kind in the questions it raised and in its length, as Clause 8 of the Act of 1902. There was the great question as to whether the clause should be mandatory or not. On that point there was a good deal of controversy, not only in the House, but in the country. Another important question which arose was as to whether there was to be complete equality between town and country. The present disparity was bound to give rise to considerable debate, and he hoped at any rate that those who represented rural districts would have much to say as to the possibility of extending these facilities in rural districts. These and other questions which would arise would occasion very considerable discussion, and he hoped they would be thoroughly and efficiently debated, because unless a complete solution was discovered there could be no lasting settlement in the country. Another question which arose was as to the limit of four-fifths. He did not know how the right hon. Gentleman had arrived at that limit. He agreed that it was very hard on the right hon. Gentle man that an innocent remark as to minorities suffering should have been quoted so freely all over the country, but if he was determined to lay down this rule it was going rather contrary to it to introduce a clause by which twenty-one persons could coerce seventy-nine, and that would be the effect of the four-fifths clause. He wanted to know why this majority should be established and why there should not be a certain right to those schools which could not obtain the recognised majority. He commended those points to the right hon. Gentleman as matters well worth consideration. If it was possible to give alternative religious, instruction of a definite character—

*MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKER

The hon. Member is now asking questions which will arise on the clauses but which do not arise now.

MR. LANE-FOX

said he was trying to show the different questions which would arise, and necessitate a very full and complete debate when this clause came before the Committee. It was absolutely necessary that there should be a full discussion of all these important points. He wished to know whether some hopes could be not held out to them that these matters would be fully discussed. There was the great question of the teachers giving religious instruction in the schools and the restrictions to be imposed and what form they should take. That was a matter to which they attached very great importance. There were other extremely important matters about which discussion was bound to rage hotly. Upon this question he trusted they would have a more definite indication of sympathy and support from those hon. Members opposite who up to the present moment had done so little co justify their name as Liberal Churchmen. He hoped the Minister for Education would give them time to express their opinion. The right hon. Gentleman would have to take sides soon upon this question, and tell the House plainly whether he was going to adopt the view of Dr. Clifford or the view of those who favoured denominational teaching. When the Unionist Party demanded to have the session brought to a close early in the last Parliament they were told that it was done because they wanted to go away shooting grouse. What was sauce for the Unionists was also sauce for the Liberals, and why could the great Liberal Party not wait a few days longer to shoot their grouse? There was no clause in the Bill which required so much discussion and in regard to which they were so absolutely in the dark as Clause 4, and he felt sure there were no subjects upon which there was so much divergence of opinion as those therein dealt with. He begged to move.

LORD R. CECIL

seconded the Amendment. As the Resolution stood an enormous mass of subjects would have to be dealt with in these three days, Clause 4 was not only of great length, but the Amendments to it on the Paper already covered eleven pages, and no fewer then fifty of those Amendments were in the names of hon. Members on the Ministerial side of the House. Clause 5 was less contentious, but must occupy p certain amount of time, and then there was the Committee stage of the financial Resolution. It was impossible to discuss all this in three days. Many of the proposals in Clause 4 were plainly indefensible when dealt with as matter of logic. He would suggest to the right hon. Gentleman opposite that if he would only definitely drop Part IV. of the Bill, he would have an extra day at his disposal. He thought they were fully justified in asking for an extension of one day, considering the widespread interest which Clause 4 excited.

Amendment proposed— In line 8, to leave out the word 'three,' and insert the word 'five.' "—(Mr. Lane-Fox.)

Question proposed, "That the word 'three' stand part of the Question."

MR. BIRRELL

said he was not the man who was likely to dispute the importance of Clause 4, for hardly a day had passed since the Bill had appeared without his receiving a communication from somebody in relation to it. For weeks and months past more thought and attention had been given to Clause 4 than had ever been received by any clause in any Bill of any Government for a considerable time. There was a tendency to underrate the value of Parliamentary time, and the amount of work that could really be done in it. The noble Lord seemed to suggest that if they could have one other day that would make all the difference. He had no doubt that this Bill raised questions which the noble Lord would like to discuss for ten years, and he did not think they would come to a final solution of them even then. He did not really think that if the Amendment were accepted they would have made much progress on the subject. If hon. Members spoke in the amiable and delightful way in which the hon. Member for. Barkston Ash had addressed: the House, six days might be occupied, particularly if there was no great desire to proceed faster. He had no desire to stifle discussion, but with concentration and a will to get on the time allotted to these clauses would be sufficient. A somewhat sarcastic reference had been made to Liberal Churchmen, and the hon. Member had expressed the hope that they would justify their existence by taking part in the discussion. He himself hoped that by arrangement all views on this particularly well defined subject might be accurately expressed. He admitted that it could only be done by concentration. He had enough experience of Parliament to know how difficult it was to induce people to concentrate their arguments, but he thought three days on Clauses 4 and 5 should be sufficient. Clause 5 was supplementary, and he did not think it ought to take very much time.

LORD BALCARRES (Lancashire, Chorley)

referred to the time it had taken to impress the points made by the Opposition in regard to Clause 2 on the Minister for Education and to secure concessions from him, and stated that the important questions involved in Clauses 4 and 5 and the financial Resolution required all the time claimed by the Amendment. He submitted that an extra day might be of material value in the discussion of the matters raised in those two clauses. If the discussion on Clause 2 had ended on the first day they would never have obtained from the President of the Board of Education the admission that his Bill was not in accord with, his election pledges.

MR. BIRRELL

I never made any such statement.

LORD BALCARRES

The right hon. Gentleman admitted frankly that there was a gap between Clauses 3 and 4.

MR. BIRRELL

I never said in my introductory speech that there was not a gap. There is a gap.

LORD BALCARRES

said the right hon. Gentleman had stated that the facilities under Clause 2 were compulsory. They proved to him that they were not compulsory. It was the fact that they had sufficient time that enabled them to prove their case, and if this Closure Resolution had been moved at an earlier stage a great injustice would have been done to the Church of England, which was that portion of the religious community most closely affected by Clause 2. Clause 4 was, he supposed, the most controversial in the Bill, with one exception. It dealt with the extended facilities, but the right hon. Gentleman had never told the House what the extended facilities were. When he introduced the Bill the right hon. Gentleman said it was a clause which would require very grave consideration from all parts of the House. Had it received adequate consideration? He submitted that it would be virtually impossible to discuss this far-reaching clause in the time allotted to it along with other matters. The Minister for Education had described Clause 5 as supplementary, but he did not know that the right hon. Gentleman quite appreciated the position taken up with, regard to religious teaching in the schools. The clause dealt with the future of schools in which distinctive religious teaching was to be given and, so far from being supplementary, it was one of vital moment and importance to which full attention and care should be given. He thought that three days for the discussion of Clause 3 alone would be a very moderate allocation of time. It was all very well for the right hon. Gentleman to tell them to concentrate their arguments. They would undertake to concentrate their questions if the right hon. Gentleman would undertake to give specific replies. The right hon. Gentleman's replies had not been wholly relevant to the questions put. No explanation had been received on the question of teachers. As to tests, were they or were they not to be abolished under this Bill? These were matters which required discussion. They required explanation by the right hon. Gentleman which had not yet been given. He submitted that the question which would arise on Clause 4 was more than adequate to supply businesslike and concrete discussion for three days. Then, when they came to Clause 5, he assured the right hon. Gentleman that a very large body of English Roman Catholics, whom he represented, considered it a very vital clause.

MR. BIRRELL

Do you object to Clause 5?

LORD BALCARRES

said he should have a good deal to say about Clause 5, and he hoped that it would not turn out to be illusory and a sham. As to the Committee stage of the financial Resolution, the right hon. Gentleman had said that the discussion on the expenditure of the million pounds would be purely formal.

MR. BIRRELL

At that stage.

LORD BALCARRES

said that the Committee stage was the fittest on which any question of finance could be I discussed. If the right hon. Gentleman thought that the expenditure of a £1,000,000 was a purely formal affair, he differed very widely from his colleagues, who attached considerable importance to economy and the adequate discussion, of finance. He maintained that on this financial question the House had not had a satisfactory Answer. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education and the right hon. Gentleman had given wholly inconsistent versions as to the object for which this million of money was to be paid. One said that the money was to be given for the purpose of providing rents for the voluntary schools, and the other that it was to be given in relief of the rates. He did not consider that these were the same objects. The right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Education had assured the House that this million had been specially measured out to meet the proper requirements under the Bill, and that the particular figure had been determined by the amount the Chancellor of the Exchequer would be able to provide out of the Budget next year.

*SIR HENRY FOWLER

said that when the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Education brought in the Bill, he then said that steps would have to be taken on the passage of the Bill which would throw a heavy additional burden on the rates, and that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had agreed to a grant from the Exchequer in order to relieve the rates. No doubt that grant would be applied in payment of rent for the voluntary schools. There was no mystery about that.

LORD BALCARRES

said there was no mystery, and no difficulty; but there was no information.

MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKER

said he hoped the noble Lord would keep to a discussion of the question before the House.

LORD BALCARRES

said he was not going to discuss the question of the merits or demerits of the grant; but while he accepted the statement of the right hon. Gentleman as very important indeed, it only showed that it was necessary that they should have more discussion on the point. He hoped the Government would give way and allow the extra time to be devoted to the discussion of this particular group of clauses.

COLONEL WILLIAMS (Dorsetshire, W.)

said he would like to ask the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Education which of the clauses in the Bill he considered the most important. Judging by the way in which he had been bombarded with Questions as to Clause 4, that seemed to be most important. Nobody whatever had risen to say that there had been any obstruction on the part of the Opposition to this Bill.

MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKER

said that the hon. and gallant Gentleman was not in order. The question before the House was whether three or five days' discussion should be given to Clauses 4 and 5 and the Committee stage of the financial Resolution.

COLONEL WILLIAMS

said he was just going to argue that Clauses 4 and 5 were much more important than Clauses 1 and 2, to the discussion of which six days had been given. They could not get the million of money without passing a Resolution, and, in his opinion, it could not be supposed that Clauses 4 and 5 and the Resolution to spend a million would be passed on the same day. It was strange to find that the Minister for Education had not realised the deep feeling which the proposals in Clause 4 had stirred in the minds of thinking men throughout the country. People were feeling very deeply that the great question of religious education was not being treated very fairly, and he thought that the Government were trying to force this Bill through Parliament without having regard to that deep feeling.

MR. DILLON (Mayo, E.)

said that if the House could come some agreement on Clauses 3 and 4 he believed they would be doing a greater service to the cause of education than had been done for the last fifty years. He confessed he had been deeply impressed by remarks of the noble Lord the Member for East Maryle-bone, who had said, with great truth, that on the question of religious education there was a certain underlying principle of union between all sections in the House except amongst the sixty Members who had voted for the entire exclusion of religious instruction. The noble Lord had adopted a tone which was quite different from that which had hitherto been displayed upon the Opposition Benches, and had expressed the opinion that some concordat could be arrived at between all those Members of the House who still desired to see the Christian religion maintained as an integral part of the primary education of the country. This was one of the most important questions which could be discussed in Parliament, as he knew that one of the most deeply rooted ideas of some Members of the House was a desire to see the principles of the Christian religion maintained in the schools. Unless they came to some sort of friendly agreement, however, he feared that ultimately they would have a secular system forced upon them. The country would become saturated with that idea of secular education and that ultimately would, he feared, prevail, and this quarrel would go on. Therefore, he said it was desirable that hon. Members who were desirous of preserving religion and the Bible in the schools should endeavour to arrive at a concordat. There were two ways of dealing with the matter. One was a larger hearted proclamation by the Government that they did not wish to deprive the country of religious education, and the other was the alternative of secular education. Nationalists had never adopted the view that Ministers, or the Minister for Education, desired to deprive the country of religious education. They did not believe that it was the wish of the Government or of the Minister for Education to abolish religious instruction from the schools. Therefore he welcomed the admission of the noble Lord that he found himself to some extent in sympathy with the desire of many of the Nonconformists on the other side of the House. The noble Lord had expressed himself in most eloquent and powerful language, and he had said, with truth, what would be the result if they were to carry on this quarrel to the bitter end. If they were to carry on the quarrel over what he believed to be non-essentials they would, he thought, lose the essentials. Therefore, he appealed to the Government to give on these two great contentious Clauses 3 and 4 greater liberty of discussion. After all it should be remembered that liberty of discussion, even when it had amounted to license, bad resulted in making discussion profitable. He remembered a debate on a very memorable Bill which was a monument of honour to the great statesman who proposed it. He alluded to the Budget Bill of 1894. That was made the subject of the bitterest opposition which he had ever known, and it was obstructed for night after night.

MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKER

said that he thought the hon. Member was going at great length into the discussion of Clauses 3 and 4, upon an Amendment which only dealt with the length of time which was to be occupied in their discussion.

MR. DILLON

said that, of course, he bowed to the ruling of the Chair, though as a very old Member of the House he must say that he had thought he was in order in referring to the importance of the clauses in order to justify a demand for a longer period of discussion. He would say, however, from his experience, which had extended over twenty-five years, during as stormy a time as the House of Commons had ever known, that it was a dangerous thing to shorten discussion in cases where deep feeling and passion were aroused. When they shortened discussions they were liable to accentuate passion and feeling, and when subjects which aroused that feeling were forced through without discussion the House had not settled the matter, and in the end they forced the discussion on the country. Therefore, if the discussion on Clauses 3 and 4 were unduly shortened, instead of settling the question, the Government would be only continuing the quarrel. Whether the Committee looked at the matter from the point of view of secular education or from the point of view of religious education, it was of supreme importance that in our struggle with the other nations of the world in regard to the efficient education of our children they should consider the question free from this religious struggle. They could not do that except by coming to some concordat or some agreement on the religious question, and the reason why he pressed for some further time for the discussion of Clauses 3 and 4 was that he was deeply convinced that if they had more time for discussion they might come to an agreement He could not bring himself to believe that, given adequate time for discussion, hon. Gentlemen opposite who were Liberals would bind themselves to the principle in the Bill, As the Bill now stood it appeared that hon. Gentlemen opposite were determined to force Roman Catholics and the representatives of the Church of England to pay rates for the purposes of religious instruction to which they were opposed, without giving any security that their religious convictions would be respected. The system of refusing to pay rates could be practised on both sides. Nationalists had paid rates for years for religious instruction to which they were entirely opposed, but English Liberals had set them the example of passive resistance, and could not they also resist passively and perhaps actively too? Did the Government think that they were going to settle this question by setting up as great and perhaps a greater injustice than that against which they had protested at the last election? No one could accuse him of being a friend or partisan of either the Church of England or of Nonconformity. Therefore, he was more fitted to speak on this subject than some others, and he said that if the Government forced these clauses through without adequate discussion—clauses which every Member must admit would strike deeply and fundamentally the consciences of the vast masses of people in this country— they would inevitably strengthen the hands of another section of the Legislature with whom they would have to deal. Let the Government take care that they did not lose their Bill, because the time might come when they would be face to face with a General Election on this matter. Unless they gave full time for the consideration of these questions it would be urged with great force against them that they had not allowed their opponents to urge their objections to their proposals. When the Government were dealing with a Bill which touched the convictions of the people they ought to he not only just, but even generous, and he might say that they ought to go fur beyond what they considered even to be reasonable. He did not think it was at all impossible to arrive at a reasonable agreement in regard to Clauses 3, 4 and 5. If Clauses 3 and 4 were modified so as to embody the declarations of the Government the Nationalist Members would support the Bill. He did not share in the complaint against the Government that they did not put their Amendment on the Paper in regard to Clause 2, because until they knew into what shape Clauses 3 and 4 were going to be cast they would themselves be unable to say what their attitude would be towards Clause 2. He earnestly urged hon. Members on both sides to approach the consideration of Clauses 3 and 4 with a reasonable attitude of mind. If they did not do so, and arrive at some settlement, they must carry on the war; but let not the Government, if this quarrel were continued, lay the flattering unction to their soul that they were going to force the country to accept Clauses 3 and 4 without some arrangement such as he had indicated having been come to. It was true that the Second Reading of the Bill was carried by a large majority, but so also was the Bill of 1902. The Government had carried the Second Reading of the Bill by a large majority, but the late Government carried theirs with a much larger. That was only four years ago, and what was their position to-day? Was there no lesson for the Government in that experience? Were they prepared to go back to the country on this question alone with all their promises unfulfilled? That was what they might have to do.

MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKER

Order, order. The hon. Member is digressing a little beyond the Amendment, which is that five days be given to these particular clauses.

MR. DILLON

said this question might be involved. He merely wished to point out that it was not for the purposes of controversy that he had I spoken as he had done, but with an earnest and sincere desire that peace might prevail.

MR. T. W. RUSSSELL

said he thought there was the strongest case for the Government's reconsidering this part of the Resolution. After all, Clause 4 was a great part of the Bill. He could hardly understand how the Government came to arrange that only three days should be given to these two most important clauses. There was a very strong body of Nonconformists bitterly hostile to Clause 4, and they would probably move its exclusion. Once the debate was started did anyone tell him that it would be possible to get rid of it in less than a day? Then there was the point that the clause should be made mandatory. The Minister for Education had stated that he desired that it should not be an illusory clause. He meant it to work. There were a large number of Members —he was one—who believed that the clause would not work unless it was made mandatory. Would that question be disposed of in a day? Then again, once they got into the "four - fifths" question all sorts of other questions would arise. It was absurd to suppose that three days would suffice for Clause 4. On that part of the Bill the debate should not be cribbed, cabined and confined. He voted in every division against the Bill of 1902. He hated it. Small concessions in that Bill would have saved them all the trouble they were having now. He did not want to have all this work to do again. He was willing to remove all the legitimate grievances of the Nonconformists, but he would not be a party to putting a grievous burden upon other people.

MR. WYNDHAM

said he was impelled to rise to support the arguments of the hon. Member for South Tyrone. It seemed proper to listen with great attention and deference to those arguments which came from hon. Members behind the Government and from Nationlist Members, although those which came from the Opposition might in the eyes of the Government seem less worthy of attention. The very structure of the Bill made it incumbent on them to urge their Amendments with heat and almost with passion when they had Clause 1 before them, and they were perilously near going out of order. When they pressed their arguments on Clause 1 they were told that their objections would be met when they came to this part of the Bill. It was admitted that six days was not too much for the discussion of Clauses 1 and 2. They could not have got through Clause 1 and part of Clause 2 but for the statements of the Minister for Education, and almost every member of the Government, who said that when they came to Clause 4 their doubts would be solved, their fears dissipated, and all their objections met. If it took six days to adjourn the discussions on those points was it proper now to say that they could be discussed in three? The Government might dispose of the Bill, but it could, not dispose of the question, and if the Government disposed of the Bill and did not dispose of the question, so far from meeting the views of hon. Members below the gangway, so far from curing the ill, they would leave a festering sore. If there was a chance of meeting the objections that had been urged by giving more time to the discussion of Clause 4 then he said in all earnestness and sincerity the Government would be made to adhere to this time limit and refuse to listen to the arguments now addressed to them. The debate on Clause 1 lasted six days, but that debate would stand as a delusion and a snare unless at least an equal amount of time was given for the discussion of the most important questions raised by Clause 4.

MR. J. W. WILSON (Worcestershire, N.)

said that if the Government were not pressed for a day or two, and they were to have an autumn session, he could not see that there was any reason why they should be unwilling to give something more than three days to this long and important clause. Besides points in the clause, there were many which were not in it, such as contracting out, which had a great many supporters in the House. The discussions which had been going on in the country had been most declamatory, but there was no reason to suppose that the discussions in the House would not be practical, and he hoped that the practical discussion which was to be looked for on Clauses 4 and 5 would not be limited to three days. When they had the rest of the session and the autumn session he thought, as the hon. Member for East Mayo had said, the chances of the Bill could not be injured, but might be helped by a free, and, if they liked, exhausting discussion.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

said he was surprised that no one had risen from the Treasury Bench to answer the appeal not merely of his hon. friends behind him, who being the regular Opposition, deserved, perhaps, no particular attention or consideration, but of supporters of the Government on both sides of the House. He was bound to say that the Minister for Education was in a difficult position. The point was a matter not for the right hon. Gentleman, but for the Leader of the House. The Prime Minister was absent for reasons which they all profoundly deplored, but he thought the House had reason to complain that there was no second-in-command present to give a decision on this question, which was not immediately connected with the Education Bill, but had to do with the general conduct of Parliamentary business. The Minister for Education had exhausted his right of speaking, and no other Member of Cabinet rank had been on the Front Bench during the greater part of the discussion. The result was that they were not in a position to make an appeal to those who alone could answer it. Might he, for the benefit of the Secretary of State for India, who had just come into the House, briefly recapitulate the main points which had been put from all quarters of the House? He would begin with the least important, though much more important than the Minister for Education appeared to suppose, and they were the financial provisions which were thrust in at the end of this particular portion of the Resolution. The right hon. Gentleman had said that the Committee stage of the financial Resolution was formal, and the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education cheered that observation. He would undertake to say that when the hon. Gentleman was a member of the Opposition he never allowed that stage to pass without giving the Committee the benefit of a long speech. At the present moment the financial plans of the Government were absolutely obscured, and relatively unimportant as was the financial Resolution compared with the other points now brought before them, it was one which could not be ignored. The main point, however, were the religious controversies raised by Clauses 3, 4, and 5. He himself had been accused of unduly curtailing debate. The hon. Member for South Tyrone had asserted that if he had made a very small concession upon the religious clauses of the Bill of 1902, this Bill need not have been introduced. Therefore his conduct as Leader of the House and Minister in charge of the Bill of 1902 might be regarded as representing the high-water mark of wickedness in the way of restricting debate upon this religious question. Then let the Government, follow his example or rather better it. For Clause 2 of the Bill of 1902 he allowed, not three days, but nineteen-and-a-half days. Were this Government, who came in largely to restore the liberties of Parliament, going to allow only three days, when their predecessors—the tyrants, the bullies, the oppressors of minorities—gave nineteen-and-a-half days? He agreed with much that had fallen from the hon. Member for East Mayo and from his noble friend behind him as to the large measure of agreement which might be arrived at by those who were genuinely anxious for religious education in the schools. He did not know that he was as sanguine as they were, but he was certainly not going to chill their enthusiasm by expressing any doubts of his own. At all events, let the House be given the chance to hammer out this difference. What would the Government lose by giving such a chance? If the Bill left this House with every religious passion aroused and every controversy unsettled, it would give those in another place an opportunity of dealing with the measure in their own way—it would give them a chance which, as a Party politician, he might rejoice at, but which, as a Member of the House of Commons, he personally would regret. He wished that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had heard the persuasive appeal of the hon. Member for East Mayo. The Opposition might be under suspicion, but the hon. Member could be under none. His avowed object was to smooth the path of the Government, if possible. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer had heard that speech he did not think he could have resisted it, and he thought that if the right hon. Gentleman would consult the opinion of hon. Members sitting behind him he would find that they felt as the members of the Opposition felt upon this subject. [" No."] He had had considerable practice in gauging the unexpressed feeling of the House, and he believed that the majority of Members opposite really desired to see a large and generous concession in this matter. He wished to emphasise the appeal which had been made by other speakers, and if the Chancellor of the Exchequer would make inquiries he would find that he had made no error, and had given no incorrect view as to the feelings which animated hon. Members on both sides of the House in regard to this question. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would be able to make an important modification in this proposal, and if he had that authority this was the proper time to exercise it.

MR. BIRRELL

said that if he stood alone, and there were no other consideration but the Education Bill to think of, he should very much deprecate the resort to the closure. But other Ministers and Members had rights. The scheme of closure had been made out so as to allot every day of the time between now and the proposed autumn adjournment, and it was only possible to give another day to this most important clause. On the understanding that the House was willing to sit not only on Saturday, August 4th, but also on Saturday, July 28th, the Government would give another day to the discussion of Clause 4.

MR. ASQUITH

Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that offer?

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

said that he must honestly say that he was unable to understand the basis of this compromise, if it could be called a compromise. The right hon. Gentleman had got an autumn session before him, and it was not reasonable to ask the House to deal with this most critical of all questions on a Saturday in the dog-days. For the Government to believe that it was meeting the wishes of the House to give two Saturdays for discussion when there was an autumn session before them was surely a most unreasonable proposal. But though the Opposition were a helpless minority, he hoped that the Government would not ask it to receive this suggestion now made either with acceptance or with gratitude.

Question put.

The House Divided:—Ayes, 335; Noes, 169. (Division List No. 127.)

AYES.
Abraham, William (Rhondda)	Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)	Collins, Sir Wm. J.(S. Pancras, W.
Acland, Francis Dyke	Billson, Alfred	Cooper, G. J.
Adkins, W. Ryland	Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine	Corbett, C.H.(Sussex, E Grinst'd
Agnew, George William	Black, Arthur W.(Bedfordshire)	Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.
Alden, Percy	Bolton, T.D. (Derbyshire, N. E.)	Cory, Clifford John
Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)	Boulton, A. C. F. (Ramsey)	Cotton, Sir H. J. S.
Armitage, R.	Brace, William	Cowan, W. H.
Armstrong, W. C. Heaton	Bramsdon, T. A.	Cremer, William Randal
Ashton, Thomas Gair	Branch, James	Crooks, William
Asquith, Rt. Hn. Herbert Henry	Brigg, John	Crosfield, A. H.
Astbury, John Meir	Brocklehurst, W. D.	Crossley, William J.
Atherley-Jones, L.	Brodie, H. C.	Dalziel, James Henry
Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)	Brooke, Stopford	Davies, David(Montgomery Co.)
Baker, Joseph A.(Finsbury, E.)	Brunner, J.F.L. (Lancs., Leigh)	Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)
Balfour, Robert (Lanark)	Bryce, J. A.(Inverness Burghs)	Davies, Timothy (Fulham)
Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)	Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn	Davies, W. Howell (Bristol, S
Barker, John	Buckmaster, Stanley O.	Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh.)
Barlow, John Emmott(Somerset	Burnyeat, J. D. W.	Dickinson, W. H. (St. Pancras. N.
Barlow, Percy (Bedford	Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas	Dobson, Thomas W.
Barnard, E. B.	Buxton, Rt. Hn. Sydney Charles	Duckworth, James
Barnes, G. N.	Byles, William Pollard	Duncan, C.(Barrow-in-Fumes
Barran, Rowland Hirst	Cairns, Thomas	Duncan, J. H. (York, Otley)
Beale, W. P.	Caldwell, James	Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne
Beauchamp, E.	Carr-Gomm, H. W.	Dunne, Major E. M. (Walsall)
Beaumont, Hubert (Eastbourne	Causton, Rt. Hn. Richard Knight	Edwards, Clement (Denbigh)
Beaumont, W. C. B. (Hexham)	Cawley, Frederick	Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)
Beck, A. Cecil	Cherry, Rt. Hon.R. R.	Ellis, Rt. Hon. John Edward
Bell, Richard	Churchill, Winston Spencer	Essex, R. W.
Belloc, Hilaire Joseph Peter R.	Clarke, C. Goddard	Eve, Harry Trelawney
Benn, John Williams(Devonp'rt	Cleland, J. W.	Everett, R. Lacey
Benn, W.(T'w'rHamlets, S. Geo.	Clough, J. W.	Faber, G. H. (Boston)
Berridge, T. H. D.	Coats, Sir T. Glen(Renfrew, W.)	Fenwick, Charles
Bertram, Julius	Cobbold, Felix Thornley	Ferens, T. R.
Bethell, J. H. (Essex, Romford)	Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)	Fiennes, Hon. Eustace
Findlay, Alexander	Layland-Barratt, Francis	Rickett, J. Compton
Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter	Lea, Hugh Cecil (St. Pancras, E.	Ridsdale, E. A.
Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry	Leese, Sir J. F. (Accrington)	Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)
Fuller, John Michael F.	Lehmann, R. C.	Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)
Fullerton, Hugh	Lever, A. Levy(Essex, Harwich)	Robertson, Rt. Hn. E. (Dundee
Furness, Sir Christopher	Lever, W. H. (Cheshire, Wirral)	Robertson, Sir G. Scott(Bradf'rd
Gardner, Col. Alan(Hereford, S.)	Levy, Maurice	Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)
Gibb, James (Harrow)	Lewis, John Herbert	Robinson, S.
Gill, A. H.	Lough, Thomas	Robson, Sir William Snowdon.
Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John	Lupton, Arnold	Roe, Sir Thomas
Glendinning, R. G.	Luttrell, Hugh Fownes	Rogers, F. E. Newman
Glover, Thomas	Lynch, H. B.	Rose, Charles Day
Goddard, Daniel Ford	Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)	Rowlands, J.
Grant, Corrie	Macdonald, J.M.(FalkirkB'ghs.	Runciman, Walter
Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)	Maclean, Donald	Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)
Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward	Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.	Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)
Grove, Archibald	Macpherson, J. T.	Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)
Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill	M'Arthur, William	Scarisbrick, T. T. L.
Gulland, John W.	M'Callum, John M.	Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)
Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton	M'Crae, George	Schwann, Chas. E. (Manchester
Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis	M'Micking, Major G.	Scott, A. H. (Ashtonunder Lyne)
Hardie, J. Keir(Merthyr Tydvil)	Manfield, Harry (Northants)	Sears, J. E.
Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)	Mansfield, H. Rendall (Lincoln)	Seaverns, J. H.
Harmsworth, R.L.(Caithness-sh	Marks, G. Croydon(Launceston)	Seddon, J.
Hart-Davies, T.	Mason, A. E. W. (Coventry)	Shackleton, David James
Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)	Massie, J.	Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)
Harwood, George	Menzies, Walter	Shipman, Dr. John G.
Haslam, James (Derbyshire)	Micklem, Nathaniel	Silcock, Thomas Ball
Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)	Molteno, Percy Alport	Simon, John Allsebrook
Haworth, Arthur A.	Mond, A.	Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John
Hazel, Dr. A. E.	Money, L. G. Chiozza	Sloan, Thomas Henry
Hedges, A. Paget	Montagu, E. S.	Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie
Helme, Norval Watson	Montgomery, H. H.	Snowden, P.
Henderson, Arthur (Durham)	Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)	Soames, Arthur Wellesley
Henderson, J. M. (Aberdeen, W.)	Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)	Soares, Ernest J.
Henry, Charles S.	Morley, Rt. Hon. John	Stanger, H. Y.
Herbert, Col. Ivor (Mon., S.)	Morrell, Philip	Steadman, W. C.
Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe)	Morse, L. L.	Stewart, Halley (Greenock)
Higham, John Sharp	Morton, Alpheus Cleophas	Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)
Hobart, Sir Robert	Myer, Horatio	Strachey, Sir Edward
Hodge, John	Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw)	Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)
Holden, E. Hopkinson	Newnes, Sir George (Swansea)	Stuart, James (Sunderland)
Holland, Sir William Henry	Nicholson, Chas. H. (Doncaster	Summerbell, T.
Hooper, A. G.	Norman, Henry	Taylor, John W. (Durham)
Hope, W. Bateman(Somerset, N.	Norton, Capt. Cecil William	Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)
Horniman, Emslie John	Nuttall, Harry	Tennant, Sir Edw. (Salisbury)
Horridge, Thomas Gardner	Parker, James (Halifax)	Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)
Howard, Hon. Geoffrey	Partington, Oswald	Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)
Hudson, Walter	Paul, Herbert	Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr)
Hyde, Clarendon	Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)	Thompson, J.W.H. (Somerset, E
Illingworth, Percy H.	Pearce, William (Limehouse)	Tomkinson, James
Isaacs, Rufus Daniel	Pearson, Sir W. D. (Colchester)	Toulmin, George
Jackson, R. S.	Perks, Robert William	Trevelyan, Charles Philips
Jacoby, James Alfred	Philipps, Col. Ivor(S'thampton	Ure, Alexander
Jardine, Sir J.	Philipps, J. Wynford (Pembroke	Verney, F. W.
Johnson, John (Gateshead)	Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)	Vivian, Henry
Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)	Pickersgill, Edward Hare	Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)
Jones, David Brynmor(Swansea	Pirie, Duncan V.	Wallace, Robert
Jones, Leif (Appleby)	Pollard, Dr.	Walters, John Tudor
Jones, Wm. (Carnarvonshire)	Price, C. E. (Edinb'gh,Central)	Walton, Sir John L. (Leeds, S.)
Jowett, F. W.	Price, Robert J. (Norfolk, E.)	Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)
Kearley, Hudson E.	Priestley, Arthur (Grantham)	Ward, John ((Stoke upon Trent
Kekewich, Sir George	Priestley, W.E.B.(Bradford,E.)	Ward, W. Dudley (Southa'pt'n
Kelley, George D.	Radford, G. H.	Wardle, George J.
Kincaid-Smith, Captain	Rainy, A. Rolland	Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)
King, Alfred John (Knutsford)	Raphael, Herbert H.	Wason, John Cathcart(Orkney)
Laidlaw, Robert	Rea, Russell (Gloucester)	Waterlow, D. S.
Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominster)	Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro'	Weir, James Galloway
Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)	Rees, J. D.	Whitbread, Howard
Lambert, George	Rendall, Athelstan	White, George (Norfolk)
Lamont, Norman	Richards, T. F. (Wolverh'mptn	White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)
Lawson, Sir Wilfrid	Richardson, A.	White, Luke (York, E.R.)

Whitehead, Rowland	Williams, L. (Carmarthen)	Wodehouse, Lord (Norfolk, Mid
Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)	Williamson, A.(Elgin andNairn)	Wood, T. M'Kinnon
Whittaker, Thomas Palmer	Wills, Arthur Walters	Woodhouse, Sir J. T. (Huddersf 'd
Wiles, Thomas	Wilson, Henry J. (York. W.R.)
Wilkie, Alexander	Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)	TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr. Whiteley and Mr. J. A. Pease.
Williams, J. (Glamorgan)	Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)
Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)	Winfrey, R.
NOES.
Abraham, Wm. (Cork, N.E.)	Ffrench, Peter	Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)
Ambrose, Robert	Field, William	Nield, Herbert
Anson, Sir William Reynell	Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.	Nolan, Joseph
Anstruther-Gray, Major	Fletcher, J. S.	O'Brien, K. (Tipperary, Mid.)
Arkwright, John Stanhope	Flynn, James Christopher	O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)
Arnold- Forster,Rt.Hn. Hugh O.	Forster, Henry William	O'Connor, Jas. (Wicklow, W.)
Ashley, W. W.	Gardner, Ernest (Berks, East)	O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)
Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hn. Sir H.	Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)	O'Connor T. P. (Liverpool)
Balcarres, Lord	Ginnell, L.	O'Doherty, Philip
Baldwin, Alfred	Haddock, George R,	O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)
Balfour, Rt. Hn. A.J.(CityLond.)	Halpin, J.	O'Dowd, John W
Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey)	Hamilton Marquess of	O'Hare, Patrick
Banbury, Sir Frederick George	Hammond, John	O'Kelly, Jas. (Roscommon, N.)
Banner, John S. Harmood-	Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashf'd)	O'Malloy, William
Baring, Hon. Guy (Winchester)	Harrison-Broadley, Col. H. B.	O'Mara, James
Barry, E. (Cork, S.)	Hayden, John Patrick	O'Shaughnessy, P. J.
Beach, Hn. Michael Hugh Hicks	Hazleton, Richard	Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend)
Beckett, Hn. Gervase	Heaton, John Henniker	Pease, Herbert Pike(Darlington)
Bignold, Sir Arthur	Helmsley, Viscount	Percy, Earl
Blake, Edward	Hervey, F.W.F.(BurySEdm'ds	Powell, Sir Francis Sharp
Boland, John	Hill, Sir Clement (Shrewsbury)	Power, Patrick Joseph
Bowles, G. Stewart	Hill, Henry Staveley (Staff'sh.	Ratcliff, Major R. F.
Boyle, Sir Edward	Hogan, Michael	Rawlinson, John Frederick P.
Brotherton, Edward Allen	Hornby, Sir William Henry	Redmond, John E.(Waterford)
Bull, Sir William James	Houston, Robert Paterson	Redmond, William (Clare)
Burdett-Coutts, VV.	Joyce, Michael	Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)
Burke, E. Haviland-	Kennaway, Rt. Hn. Sir John H.	Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert
Butcher, Samuel Henry	Kennedy, Vincent Paul	Russell, T. W.
Carlile, E. Hildred	Kenyon-Slaney, Rt. Hn. Col. W.	Rutherford, John (Lancashire)
Castlereagh, Viscount	Keswick, William	Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)
Cave, George	King, Sir Henry Seymour (Hull)	Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert
Cavendish, Rt. Hn. Victor C. W.	Lambton, Hn. Frederick Win.	Sheehan, Daniel Daniel
Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)	Lane-Fox, G. R.	Smith, F.E. (Liverpool, Walton
Cecil, Lord John P. Joicey-	Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich)	Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand)
Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)	Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.)	Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)
Chance, Frederick William	Lee, Arthur H.(Hants, Fareham	Stanley, Hn. A. Lyulph (Chesh.
Clancy, John Joseph	Lockwood, Rt. Hn., Lt. -Col. A. R.	Starkey, John R.
Coates, E. Feetham (Lewisham)	Long, Col. Chas. W. (Evesham)	Sullivan, Donal
Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E.	Long, Rt. Hn. Walter(Dublin, S.	Sutherland, J. E.
Cogan, Denis J.	Lowe, Sir Francis William	Talbot, Rt. Hn. J.G.(Oxf'd Univ
Condon, Thomas Joseph	Lundon, W.	Thomson, W. Mitchell (Lanark
Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)	MacIver, David (Liverpool)	Thornton, Percy M.
Courthope, G. Loyd	MacVeigh, Chas. (Donegal, E.)	Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancash.)
Craig, Captain Jas. (Down, E.)	M'Calmont, Colonel James	Walrond, Hn. Lionel
Craik, Sir Henry	M'Hugh, Patrick A.	Watt, H. Anderson
Cross, Alexander	M'Killop, W.	White, Patrick (Meath, North)
Dairymple, Viscount	Magnus, Sir Philip	Williams, Col. R. (Dorset, W.)
Delany, William	Marks, H. H. (Kent)	Wilson, A.Stanley (York, E.R.)
Devlin, Chas. Ramsay (Galway	Marnham, F. J.	Wilson, J. W. (Worcestersh. N)
Dillon, John	Mason, James F. (Windsor)	Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm
Dixon-Hartland, Sir Fred Dixon	Meagher, Michael	Wortley, Rt. Hn. C. B. Stuart-
Dolan, Charles Joseph	Meehan, Patrick A.	Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George
Donelan, Captain A.	Meysey-Thompson, E. C.	Younger, George
Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-	Mildmay, Francis Bingham
Du Cros, Harvey	Mooney, J. J.	TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Sir Alexander Acland - Hood and Viscount Valentia.
Duncan, Robert (Lanark, Govan	Morpeth, Viscount
Faber, George Denison (York)	Muntz, Sir Philip A.
Fell, Arthur	Murphy, John

MR. LAURENCE HARDY

said that after the debate which they had just had he did not think it necessary to make any lengthened remarks on the Amendment standing in his name, because the President of the Board of Education had admitted the whole of its principle. It was almost inevitable that some time should be taken up in the discussion of the financial Resolution after the decision of the Government in regard to Clause 13.

Amendment proposed—

In line 8, to leave out the words "Clauses 4 and 5 and the Committee stage of the financial Resolution "and insert the word" Clause 4. "—(Mr. Laurence Hardy.)

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

MR. RAWLINSON

said that in regard to the financial arrangements differences might arise in view of the Answer which had been given by the President of the Board of Education to a Question put by the noble Lord the Member for East Marylebone. That Answer was that the new grant would be distributed in accordance with regulations to be shortly issued; but those regulations had not yet been issued, and the grants in aid might not be given necessarily to the voluntary schools, but to others.

*THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY TO THE BOARD OF EDUCATION (Mr. LOUGH,) Islington, W.

thought it would show the spirit in which these Amendments were being moved if he pointed out that there was not a single Amendment down to Clause 5 from the other side of the House. In regard to the financial Resolution, he had got into trouble for applauding the Leader of the Opposition when the right hon. Gentleman expressed the opinion that this ought to be taken in Committee as an entirely formal stage.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

denied that he had said so. What he had said was that this was one of the peculiar safeguards which were erected b our remote ancestors, and he went on to say that the Opposition in the late Parliament entirely adopted that view. He also pointed out that there never was an Amendment in regard to this matter which the Parliamentary Secretary did not speak about. That statement was, he believed, uncontradicted, but he had said that however short the discussion on the Committee stage of the Financial Resolution might be, it was upon that that the Government should explain their plan. The Government in this case had never explained their plan in regard to finance, and when one came to explain an elaborate financial proposition, it was obvious that some time must be taken up in doing so. That was the point he made.

*MR. LOUGH

said he would leave the matter where the right hon. Gentleman had left it. The financial Resolution was, as he understood the right hon. Gentleman, a formal stage which had been bequeathed to us by our ancestors. There was no need for a discussion then and it could more conveniently take place later.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

remarked that he had never wished to abolish it.

*MR. LOUGH

said the right hon. Gentleman probably would abolish it. He himself had secured a reform of their procedure in this respect. For many years this stage was regarded as being so purely formal that the terms of the Resolution were not even placed upon the Paper, and the House were asked to pass the stage without knowing the terms of the Motion. Owing to the lucid exposition which he and others gave of the matter a most valuable reform was carried out under which the House had occasionally enjoyed the advantage of seeing the terms of the Resolution. If anybody now wanted information they had only to look at page 20 of the Order Paper that day and they would find every reasonable explanation of it that they could expect. There were no less than four stages of the Resolution—the Committee stage a purely formal one, with a Report stage to follow; then the clause, to be again followed by a report. There was no reason whatever for adopting the Amendment and he hoped that the mover would withdraw it.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

said he did not want to traverse the field in which the hon. Member had described his Paliamentary triumph in regard to this Resolution. In his view the Committee stage of the Resolution corresponded with the Second Reading of a Bill. He was sorry to hear that the Government had adopted this most unorthodox and heretical practice, and he did not think it should relieve them of the necessity of explaining the proposals which they made. The fact that they had not explained their proposals made the Committee stage far more important than it otherwise would be. What were the calculations as to time which made the Government so reluctant to give an additional day? The Prime Minister evidently had the figures in his possession, but he had given no precise dates in explaining the arrangements for the session. He had talked vaguely about holidays and about the House rising at the end of July or the beginning of August and meeting in October; but he gave no dates, although he apparently had them, because it was evidently only consistent with their plan that the Government could on no account give them another day without two Saturday sittings. Why two Saturday sittings should be equivalent to one weekday passed his Parliamentary arithmetic. If Clause 5 with regard to transferred voluntary schools were not proceeded with, it would give more time for the consideration of Clause 4, and he thought that the House would agree with him that they were discussing matters of such importance that the least the Government could do would be to take them into their confidence, and tell them why it was that two additional days could not be given to them without upsetting the Government arrangements. What were the arrangements so delicately poised that the balance of a few hours on one side or the other would precipitate the Government into the abyss?

MR. ASQUITH

If possible we should separate on August 4th.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

What does the right hon. Gentleman expect us to do before this fateful August 4th.

MR. ASQUITH

Pass the Education Bill.

LORD R. CECIL

said that of all the answers ever given to a request made to a Minister from the Front Opposition Bench the answer just given by the Chancellor of the Exchequer was the most unsatisfactory. Because the Opposition were in a small minority, the Chancellor of the Exchequer thought it right to reply in what he could not but describe as a grossly insolent manner. ["Order."]

MR. SPEAKER

said he did not think the words "grossly insolent" were in order.

LORD R. CECIL

withdrew the expression, and said he extremely regretted that in the heat of the moment he should have been betrayed into an expression, which he asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer not to believe to have been an intentional insult, but merely rather a hasty summary of his feelings. A Paper was at that moment circulating on the Treasury Bench evidently containing a schedule of dates. He thought the Government would see that it would be only courteous to give the information for which the Opposition had asked. He moved the adjournment of the debate in order to give the Government an opportunity of giving further information.

*MR. SPEAKER

reminded the noble Lord that it had been decided that the House should sit beyond eleven o'clock, and said he could not accept the Motion.

MR. WALTER LONG

thought the position in which they found themselves was one for which old Members of the House, to whom he especially appealed, would find it difficult to discover a precedent. They had been told in a single sentence that the object of the Government was simply and solely to terminate this portion of the session on August 4th. It was the constitutional right of the Opposition to ask the Leader of the House of Commons, or his representative, what business the Government proposed to take. That question had been asked, and the answer was that it was intended to adjourn on August 4th. No statement as to business had been made or as to what the House would be asked to do on the two Saturday sittings it was proposed to take. So far as they know it was proposed that those two sittings should be extra days for the discussion of this Bill.

MR. ASQUITH

Oh, no.

MR. WALTER LONG

said it was all very well for the right hon. Gentleman to say "Oh, no"; he should give the information in a little longer Answer. All he could say was that according to the information in the possession of the Opposition, it might be that these two extra Saturdays were to be given to the Education Bill. The Government were taking the worst possible step to make that Bill a message of peace. They were consoling themselves with the reflection that the opposition came from a few people who, it was said, had a vested interest in the question. It was nothing of the kind. It was a genuine opposition. The demand that was made upon the Government was a reasonable one, but the Chancellor of the Exchequer had not treated the Opposition fairly, or with that consideration which it was accustomed to have.

MR. ASQUITH

said that nothing was further from his thoughts than to be guilty of anything in the nature of

discourtesy. The view of the Government was that the work of this part of the session should be concluded on Saturday, August 4th. In order to conclude the necessary financial business of the session they were prepared to ask the House to sit on that Saturday. With that exception, and with the exception of three Fridays, they were prepared to give the whole time between now and then to the Education Bill and the necessary business of Supply. Two of the Fridays were private Members' Fridays. The third Friday would be devoted, it might be, to the Trades Disputes Bill or some other Bill—he was not in a position to say; but he said quite frankly that the object of the Government was that the House should rise on August 4th. They would take on that Saturday the final stage of the Appropriation Bill. If it was necessary to devote more time to the Education Bill, they would devote a Saturday sitting to it.

Question put.

The House divided:—Ayes, 362; Noes, 175. (Division List No. 128.)

AYES.
Abraham, William (Rhondda	Bertram, Julius	Cleland, J. W.
Acland, Francis Dyke	Bethell, J.H. (Essex. Romford)	Clough, W.
Adkins, W. Ryland	Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)	Coats, SirT.Glen(Renfrew, W.)
Agnew, George William	Billson, Alfred	Cobbold, Felix Thornley
Ainsworth, John Stirling	Black, Arthur W(Bedfordshire)	Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)
Alden, Percy	Bolton, T.D.(Derbyshire, N.E.)	Collins, Sir Wm. J(S Pancras W.
Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch	Boulton, A. C. F. (Ramsey)	Cooper, G. J.
Armitage, R.	Brace, William	Corbett, CH(Sussex, EGrinst'd
Armstrong, W. C. Heaton	Bramsdon, T. A.	Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.
Ashton, Thomas Gair	Branch, James	Cory, Clifford John
Asquith, Rt. Hn. Herbert H.	Brigg, John	Cotton, Sir H. J. S.
Astbury, John Meir	Bright, J. A.	Cowan, W. H.
Atherley-Jones, L.	Brocklehurst, W. D.	Cremer, William Randal
Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)	Brodie, H. C.	Crombie, John William
Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.	Brooke, Stopford	Crooks, William
Balfour, Robert (Lanark)	Brunner, J.F.L.(Lancs., Leigh)	Crosfield, A. H.
Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)	Bryce, Rt. Hn. Jas. (Aberdeen)	Crossley, William J.
Barker, John	Bryce, J. A. (Inverness Burghs)	Dalziel, James Henry
Barlow, John E. (Son erset)	Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn	Davies, D. (Montgomery Co.
Barlow, Percy (Bedford)	Buckmaster, Stanley O.	Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)
Barnard, E. B.	Burnyeat, J. D. W.	Davies, M. Yaughan-(Cardigan
Barran, Rowland Hirst	Burt, Rt. Hn. Thomas	Davies, Timothy (Fulham)
Beale, W. P.	Buxton, Rt. Hn. Sydney Chas.	Davies, W. Howell (Bristol, S.)
Beauchamp, E.	Byles, William Pollard	Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh.)
Beaumont, Hubert(Eastbourne	Cairns, Thomas	Dickinson, WH(St. Pancras, N.
Beaumont, W. C. B. (Hexham)	Caldwell, James	Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.
Beck, A. Cecil	Carr-Gomm, H. W.	Dobson, Thomas W.
Bell, Richard	Causton, Rt Hn Richard Knight	Duckworth, James
Bellairs, Carlyon	Cawley, Frederick	Duncan, J. H. (York, Otley)
Belloc, Hilaire Joseph Peter R.	Chance, Frederick William	Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)
Benn, John Williams(Devo'p't	Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.	Dunne, Major E. M. (Walsall)
Benn, W.(T'wr Hamlets, S. Geo.)	Churchill, Winston Spencer	Edwards, Clement (Denbigh)
Berridge T. H. D.	Clarke, C. Goddard	Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)
Ellis, Rt. Hon. John Edward	Jowett, F. W.	Perks, Robert William
Erskine, David C.	Kearley, Hudson E.	Philipps, Col. Ivor(S'thampton
Essex, R. W.	Kekewich, Sir George	Philipps, J. Wynford(Pembroke
Eve, Harry Trelawney	Kelley, George D.	Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)
Everett, R. Lacey	Kincaid-Smith, Captain	Pickersgill, Edward Hare
Faber, G. H. (Boston)	King, Alfred John (Knutsford)	Pirie, Duncan V.
Fenwick, Charles	Kitson, Sir James	Pollard, Dr.
Ferens, T. R.	Laidlaw, Robert	Price, C. E. (Edinb'gh, Central)
Fiennes, Hon. Eustace	Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominster	Price, Robert J. (Norfolk, E.)
Findlay, Alexander	Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)	Priestley, Arthur (Grantham)
Foster, Rt. Hn. Sir Walter	Lambert, George	Priestley, W.E.B.(Bradford, E.
Fowler, Rt. Hn. Sir Henry	Lamont, Norman	Radford, G. H.
Fuller, John Michael F.	Lawson, Sir Wilfrid	Rainy, A. Holland
Fullerton, Hugh	Layland-Barratt, Francis	Raphael, Herbert H.
Furness, Sir Christopher	Lea, Hugh Cecil (St. Pancras, E.	Rea, Russell (Gloucester)
Gardner, Col. Alan (Hereford, S	Leese, Sir J. F. (Accrington)	Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro')
Gibb, James (Harrow)	Lehmann, R. C.	Rees, J. D.
Gill, A. H.	Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich	Rendall, Athelstan
Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert J.	Lever, W. H. (Cheshire, Wirral)	Richard, Thos. (W. Monm'th)
Glendinning, R. G.	Levy, Maurice	Richards, T. F. (Wolverh'm't'n
Glover, Thomas	Lewis, John Herbert	Richardson, A.
Goddard, Daniel Ford	Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David	Rickett, J. Compton
Gooch, George Peabody	Lough, Thomas	Ridsdale, E. A.
Grant, Corrie	Lupton, Arnold	Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)
Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)	Luttrell, Hugh Fownes	Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)
Grey Rt. Hon. Sir Edward	Lynch, H. B.	Robertson, Rt. Hn. E (Dundee
Grove, Archibald	Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)	Robertson, Sir G. Scott(Bradf'rd
Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill	Macdonald, JM(Falkirk B'ghs.)	Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)
Gulland John W.	Mackarness, Frederic C.	Robinson, S.
Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton	Maclean, Donald	Robson, Sir William Snowdon
Haldane, Rt. Hn. Richard B.	Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.	Roe, Sir Thomas
Hall, Frederick	Macpherson, J. T.	Rogers, F. E. Newman
Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis	M'Arthur, William	Rose, Charles Day
Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil	M'Callum, John M.	Rowlands, J.
Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)	M'Crae, George	Runciman, Walter
Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worc'r.)	M'Micking, Major G.	Rutherford, V.H. (Brentford)
Harmsworth, R.L.(Caithn'sssh	Maddison, Frederick	Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland
Hart-Davies, T.	Manfield, Harry (Northants)	Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)
Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)	Mansfield, H. Rendall (Lincoln	Scarisbrick, T. T. L.
Harwood, George	Marks, G. Croydon(Launceston	Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)
Haslam, James (Derbyshire)	Marnham, F. J.	Schwann, Chas. E. (Manchester
Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)	Mason, A. E. W. (Coventry)	Scott, A.H.(Ashton under Lyne
Haworth, Arthur A.	Massie, J.	Sears, J. E.
Hazel, Dr. A. E.	Masterman, C. F. G.	Seaverns, J. H.
Hedges, A. Paget	Menzies, Walter	Seddon, J.
Helme, Norval Watson	Micklem, Nathaniel	Shackleton, David James
Henderson, Arthur (Durham)	Molteno, Percy Alport	Shaw, Chas. Edw. (Stafford)
Henderson, J.M.(Aberdeen, W.)	Mond, A.	Shaw, Rt. Hon. T. (Hawick B.)
Henry, Charles S.	Money, L. G. Chiozza	Shipman, Dr. John G.
Herbert, Colonel Ivor (Hon., S.	Montagu, E. S.	Silcock, Thomas Ball
Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe)	Montgomery, H. H.	Simon, John Allsebrook
Higham, John Sharp	Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)	Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John
Hobart, Sir Robert	Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)	Sloan, Thomas Henry
Hodge, John	Morrell, Philip	Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie
Holden, E. Hopkinson	Morse, L. L.	Soames, Arthur Wellesley
Holland, Sir William Henry	Morton, Alpheus Cleophas	Soares, Ernest J.
Hooper, A. G.	Murray, James	Stanger, H. Y.
Hope, W. Bateman(Somerset, N.	Myer, Horatio	Stanley, Hn. A. Lyulph(Chesh).
Horniman, Emslie John	Napier, T. B.	Steadman, W. C.
Horridge, Thomas Gardner	Newnes, F. (Notts. Bassetlaw)	Stewart, Halley (Greenock)
Howard, Hn. Geoffrey	Newnes, Sir George(Swansea)	Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)
Hudson, Walter	Nicholson, Chas. N. (Doncaster	Strachey, Sir Edward
Hyde, Clarendon	Norman, Henry	Straus, B. S. (Mile End)
Illingworth, Percy H.	Norton, Capt. Cecil William	Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)
Isaacs, Rufus Daniel	Nuttall, Harry	Stuart, James (Sunderland)
Jackson, R. S.	O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)	Summerbell, T.
Jacoby, James Alfred	Parker, James (Halifax)	Sutherland, J. E.
Johnson, John (Gateshead)	Partington, Oswald	Taylor, John W. (Durham)
Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)	Paul, Herbert	Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)
Jones, David B. (Swansea)	Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)	Tennant, Sir Edw. (Salisbury)
Jones, Leif (Appleby)	Pearce, William (Limehouse)	Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)
Jones, William (Carnarvonsh.	Pearson, Sir W. D. (Colchester	Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.

Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.	Wardle, George J.	Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)
Thomas, David Alfred(Merthyr	Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan	Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarth'n
Thomasson, Franklin	Wason, John (Cathcart, Orkney	Williamson, A. (Elgin & Nairn)
Thompson, JWH (Somerset, E.	Waterlow, D. S.	Wills, Arthur Walters
Tomkinson, James	Watt, H. Anderson	Wilson, Henry J. (York, W.R.)
Toulmin, George	Wedgwood, Josiah C,	Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)
Trevelyan, Charles Philips	Weir, James Galloway	Wilson, J. W.(Worcestersh. N.
Ure, Alexander	Whitbread, Howard	Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)
Verney, F. W.	White, George (Norfolk)	Winfrey, W.
Villiers, Ernest Amherst	White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)	Wodehouse, Lord(Norfolk, Mid)
Vivian, Henry	White, Luke (York, E.R.)	Wood, T. M'Kinnon
Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)	Whitehead, Rowland	Woodhouse, Sir J. T. (Huddersf'd
Wallace, Robert	Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)	Yoxall, James Henry
Walters, John Tudor	Whittaker, Thomas Palmer
Walton, Sir J. L. (Leeds, S.)	Wiles, Thomas	TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr. Whiteley and Mr. J. A. Pease.
Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)	Wilkie, Alexander
Ward, John (Stoke upon Trent	Williams, J. (Glamorgan)
NOES.
Abraham, William (Cork, N.E.)	Dillon, John	Lundon, W.
Acland-Hood, Rt. Hn. Sir Alex. F	Dixon-Hartland, Sir Fred Dixon	Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred
Ambrose, Robert	Dolan, Charles Joseph	Maclver, David (Liverpool)
Anson, Sir William Reynell	Donelan, Captain A.	MacVeigh, Chas. (Donegal, E.)
Anstruther-Gray, Major	Doughty, Sir George	M'Calmont, Colonel James
Arkwright, John Stanhope	Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-	M'Hugh, Patrick A.
Arnold-Forster, Rt Hn. HughO	Du Cros, Harvey	M'Killop, W.
Ashley, W. W.	Duncan, Robert(Lanark, Govan	Magnus, Sir Philip
Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hon. Sir H.	Faber, George Denison (York)	Marks, H. H. (Kent)
Balcarres, Lord	Faber, Capt. W. V. (Hants, W.	Mason, James F. (Windsor)
Baldwin, Alfred	Fardell, Sir T. George	Meagher, Michael
Balfour, Rt. Hn. A.J.(City Lond.	Fell, Arthur	Meehan, Patrick A.
Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey)	Ffrench, Peter	Meysey-Thompson, E. C.
Banbury, Sir Frederick George	Field, William	Mildmay, Francis Bingham
Banner, John S. Harwood-	Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.	Mooney, J. J.
Baring, Hon. Guy (Winchester)	Fletcher, J. S.	Morpeth, Viscount
Barry, E. (Cork, S.)	Flynn, James Christopher	Muntz, Sir Philip A.
Beach, Hn. Michael Hugh Hicks	Forster, Henry William	Murphy, John
Beckett, Hon. Gervase	Gardner, Ernest (Berks, East)	Nicholson, Wm. G. (Peters field
Bignold, Sir Arthur	Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)	Nield, Herbert
Blake, Edward	Ginnell, L.	Nolan, Joseph
Boland, John	Gordon, Sir W. Evans-(T'rHam.)	O' Brien, Kendal(Tipperary, Mid
Bowles, G. Stewart	Haddock, George R.	O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)
Boyle, Sir Edward	Halpin, J.	O'Connor, James(Wicklow, W.)
Bridgeman, W. Clive	Hamilton, Marquess of	O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)
Brotherton, Edward Allen	Hammond, John	O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)
Bull, Sir William James	Harrison-Broadley, Col. H. B.	O'Doherty, Philip
Burdett-Coutts, W.	Hay, Hon. Claude George	O'Dowd, John
Burke, E. Haviland-	Hayden, John Patrick	O'Hare, Patrick
Butcher, Samuel Henry	Hazleton, Richard	O'Kelly, James(Roscommon, N.
Carlile, E. Hildred	Helmsley, Viscount	O'Malley, William
Castlereagh, Viscount	Hervey, F.W.F.(Bury S. Edm'ds	O'Mara, James
Cave, George	Hill, Sir Clement (Shrewsbury)	O'Shaughnessy, P. J.
Cavendish, Rt. Hon. Victor C.W.	Hill, Henry Staveley(Staff'sh.)	Parker, Sir Gilbert(Gravesend)
Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)	Hogan, Michael	Parkes, Ebenezer
Cecil, Lord John P. Joicey-	Hornby, Sir William Henry	Pease, Herbert Pike(Darlington)
Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)	Houston, Robert Paterson	Percy, Earl
Cheetham, John Frederick	Joyce, Michael	Powell, Sir Francis Sharp
Clancy, John Joseph	Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir JohnH.	Power, Patrick Joseph
Coates, E. Feetham (Lewisham	Kennedy, Vincent Paul	Ratcliff, Major R. F.
Cochrane, Hon. Thos.H. A. E.	Kenyon-Slaney, Rt. Hon. Col. W	Redmond, John E. Waterford
Cogan, Denis J.	Keswick, William	Redmond, William (Clare)
Condon, Thomas Joseph	King, Sir Henry Seymour(Hull)	Remnant, James Farquharson
Corbett, T. L. (Down, North))	Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.	Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)
Courthope, G. Loyd	Lane-Fox, G. R.	Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert
Craig, Charles Curtis(Antrim, S.	Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich)	Russell, T. W.
Craig, Captain James(Down,E.	Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.)	Rutherford, John (Lancashire)
Craik, Sir Henry	Lee, Arthur H. (Hants., Fareham	Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)
Cross, Alexander	Lockwood, Rt. Hn. Lt.-Col. A.R.	Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert
Dairymple, Viscount	Long, Col. Charles W.(Evesham	Sheehan, Daniel Daniel
Delany, William	Long, Rt. Hn. Walter(Dublin, S.)	Smith, Abel H.(Hertford, East)
Devlin, Chas. Ramsay (Galway	Lowe, Sir Francis William	Smith, F.E.(Liverpool, Walton)

Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand)	Valentia, Viscount	Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B.Stuart-
Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)	Vincent, Col. Sir C. E. Howard	Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George
Snowden, P.	Walker, Col. W.H. (Lancashire)	Younger, George
Starkey, John R.	Walrond, Hon. Lionel
Sullivan, Donal	White, Patrick (Meath, North)	TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr. Laurence Hardy and Mr. Rawlinson.
Talbot, Rt. Hn. J.G.(OxfnUniv.	Williams, Col. R. (Dorset, W.)
Thomson, W. Mitchell-(Lanark)	Wilson, A. Stanley (York. E.R.)
Thornton, Percy M.	Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

MR. LOUGH

said the Government were prepared to accept the following Amendment— That two days he given, if required, to Clauses 6 and 7 and the Report Stage of the financial Resolution, and the proceedings thereon shall, if not previously brought to a conclusion, be brought to a conclusion on the second of these allotted days. Amendment proposed— In line 12, to leave out from the word 'That,' to the end of line 14, and insert the words 'two days be given, if required, to Clauses 6 and 7, and the Report Stage of the financial Resolution, and the proceedings thereon shall, if not previously brought to a conclusion, be brought to a conclusion on the second of these allotted days.' "—(Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman.)

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

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

said he did not rise to resist the Amendment or to criticise it. But it was far more important to have an additional day for the discussion of Clause 4 than for the discussion of Clauses 6 and 7. He did not know why the Government had made this concession while refusing to make the other. The points at issue in Clauses 6 and 7 were not comparable in importance with the points at issue in Clause 4. The more they saw of the Government's method of carrying out this Closure Resolution, the more astonishing it seemed to be. The Government had refused to give them an additional day upon something which was universally agreed to be a vital matter [Cries of "No, no."] What did the offer mean? It was that if the Government gave them a day the Opposition were to give two Saturdays to business unspecified. So important did they think it to get into the country on Saturday, August 4th rather than on Monday, the 6th, or Tuesday, the 7th, that this Government, who reproached the late Government with being luxurious, with sacrificing the business of the country to their own personal ease and comfort, would not even trench on their August holidays by two days in order that this vital part of the Bill might be considered. The Government had tossed them this day. They accepted it, but the mere fact that the Government had given it on Clauses 6 and 7 rather than on Clause 4 showed the spirit in which they were approaching the discussion on the Bill and how utterly they misunderstood not merely the temper of the House, but, what was far more important, the temper of the country.

MR. DILLON

said he strongly sympathised with the view expressed by the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition. He could not conceive what ideas were in the mind of the Government when they thought it was a fair and reasonable allocation of time to give two whole days to the consideration of Clauses 6 and 7, and only three days to the consideration of Clauses 4 and 5. That was a most amazing declaration on the part of the Government as to the comparative value they attached to the clauses of the Bill. Clauses 6 and 7 might be to some extent contentious, but Clauses 4 and 5 were in the highest degree contentious. He thought that the allocation of two days to Clauses 6 and 7 was, as compared with three days for Clauses 4 and 5, a most preposterous allocation.

MR. ASQUITH

said the Government had offered an additional day for Clause 4, but the Leader of the Opposition was so anxious to have two additional days that he would not accept one.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

said that no such offer on behalf of the Government reached the Opposition. What was said was that the Government would give an additional day if the Opposition consented to sit on two Saturdays. The right hon. Gentleman came to him personally and made the offer, and he had asked, "What are the two days for?"

MR. ASQUITH

said that meant that the right hon. Gentleman, rather than assent to the House sitting on two Saturdays, refused to accept one additional day.

MR. WALTER LONG

said the Chancellor of the Exchequer persisted in putting the case in regard to the Opposition in an unfair manner. The offer made was that one extra day would be given on the understanding that the House agreed to sit on two Saturdays. The offer of the extra day was conditional, and the Opposition did not assent to the condition.

SIR FRANCIS LOWE

asked whether it was too late now to accept the conditional offer.

Question put and negatived. Proposed words inserted.

LORD BALCARRES

said that the effect of the Amendment on Clause 2 proposed by the Government would make it necessary to recast Clause 8, which would add enormously to the duties of the Board of Education, and that would necessitate considerable discussion. He certainly did not quarrel with the Government that they had been driven to leave out Part II. of the Bill, and therefore he contented himself with moving the Amendment standing in his name.

Amendment proposed— In line 15, to leave out the word 'three' and to insert the word 'five.' "—(Lord Balcarres.)

Question proposed, "That the word 'three' stand part of the Question."

MR. BIRRELL

said it was perfectly impossible for the Government to accede to this Amendment. If hon. Gentlemen would concentrate their attention on the really important subjects under consideration, there would be ample time for their consideration. He admitted that the school endowments of this country should be placed upon a proper footing, and Part II might reappear at some future time. He believed that it was perfectly possible for the Committee to consider these questions seriously without making Second Reading speeches on every possible occasion.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

said he wished to ask the right hon. Gentleman, or one of his colleagues, whether it was not obvious that, after the promised Amendment to Clause 2, great alterations would have to be made on Clause 8. They had not the least conception of the alterations which were to be made on Clause 8, which necessarily would be of a far-reaching character. Therefore, they were discussing this question in the dark, because it was impossible to forecast what the discussions would be when these alterations were proposed.

MR. BIRRELL

said he would make a statement on the subject afterwards. A great deal of play had been made unfairly and unnecessarily, as he thought, with regard to this concession. According to the Bill, as it now lay on the Table of the House, nobody doubted as to what schools the local authorities would adopt. These schools were to be open to the inspection of anybody, and there was no obligation on the local education authority to acquire any voluntary school whatever, or to refuse it. The right hon. Member for Oxford University moved an Amendment which made it obligatory on every local authority to acquire every voluntary school that was assumed to be a fit and proper school to be taken over. His reply to that was that it was impossible to impose on any local authority an obligation to take over every voluntary school; but he maintained that if the private owners or trustees, whatever their trust might be, would be willing to incur a corresponding obligation to hand over every one of their schools irrespective of their trust, and if the local authority were prepared to take them, he was willing, having regard to the saving of time, trouble, and expense, to consider that proposal. He certainly received no assurance from right hon. Gentlemen opposite as to their willingness to do anything of the kind, though he did receive from the hon. Member for Waterford a modified consent to that obligation, which was to be dependant on the terms of Clause 4 being satisfactory to his Party. He did not see, therefore, in what sense it could be truthfully or honestly said that this proposal of his had complicated in any way the consideration of the questions with which it dealt. If there could be an agreement arrived at between the two sides as to a corresponding obligation, Clause 8 might be considerably modified, but until he received some assurance from right hon. Gentlemen opposite that they were willing to acquiesce in that proposal he really did not think that they were treating him quite fairly in this matter.

MR. WYNDHAM

thought that the right hon. Gentleman had made an unjustifiable accusation against the Opposition. They could not be expected to pronounce an opinion upon this question until they knew the form which Clause 4 as well as Clause 3 was to assume. Clause 3 attacked their interests far more severely than Clause 4 attacked the interests of the Party led by the hon. and learned Member for Waterford. They reserved their judgment until Clauses 3 and 4 were settled, and they could not judge till they saw it whether the concession which was to be made was any concession at all. In view of the attitude of the Government in withholding what their concession was to be there was good ground for asking for ample time for the consideration of the Amendment.

MAJOR SEELY (Liverpool, Abercromby)

did not think the right hon. Gentleman's statement tallied with what he had said in a previous debate. [An HON. MEMBER: "There was a promise."] Perhaps "promise" was the better word. He understood that the attitude of the Opposition was not going to determine what his right hon. friend was going to do, but he understood him as making a promise that the right of appeal should be bilateral. That was a definite undertaking, and he thought the Government should make it plain exactly how the matter stood.

MR. LUPTON (Lincolnshire, Sleaford)

said his recollection was that his right hon. friend the President of the Board of

Education made a suggestion, and a suggestion only, which was not accepted by anybody.

MR. DILLON

said he had no doubt as to what had happened. The right hon. Gentleman had made an offer to bring in a modifying Amendment, and after considerable discussion he gave an undertaking to put the Government Amendment on the paper at a subsequent stage. The ultimate fate of that Amendment would depend upon the reception which it met with from the Opposition.

MR. WALTER LONG

who was received with cries of "Agreed," said that it was all very well for hon. Members to cry out "Agreed," but the right hon. Gentleman had made a statement which differed from one he had previously made.

MR. BIRRELL

said he had already stated at Question time that as soon as Clause 4 had been disposed of he would put on the Paper the bilateral obligation which he contemplated.

*SIR WILLIAM ANSON

said the right hon. Gentleman, when pressed in the previous debate, said he would put this obligation on the Paper, but that he could not fix the date when that should be done. The right hon. Gentleman, in answer to a Question to-day had said that his clause must depend on the shape that Clause 3, Clause 4, and Clause 6 might ultimately assume. It was on those grounds that earlier in the day be had ventured to ask the right hon. Gentleman for a little longer time for the consideration of the clause which would ultimately determine what form this clause would take.

Question put.

The House divided:—Ayes, 354 Noes, 158. (Division List No 129.)

AYES.
Abraham, William (Rhondda)	Armstrong, W. C. Heaton	Barlow, Percy (Bedford)
Acland, Francis Dyke	Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry	Barnard, E. B.
Adkins, W. Ryland	Astbury, John Meir	Barnes, G. N.
Agnew, George William	Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)	Barran, Rowland Hirst
Ainsworth, John Stirling	Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)	Beale, W. P.
Alden, Percy	Balfour, Robert (Lanark)	Beauchamp, E.
Allen, A. Acland(Christchurch)	Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)	Beaumont, Hubert (Eastbourne
Armitage, R.	Barker, John	Beaumont, W. C. B. (Hexham)
Beck, A. Cecil	Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)	Kincaid-Smith, Captain
Bellairs, Carlyon	Ellis, Rt. Hon. John Edward	King, Alfred John (Knutsford
Benn, John Williams(Devonp'rt	Erskine, David C.	Kitson, Sir James
Benn, W.(T'w'rHamlets, S. Geo.	Essex, R. W.	Laidlaw, Robert
Berridge, T. H. D.	Eve, Harry Trelawney	Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominster)
Bertram, Julius	Everett, R. Lacey	Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)
Bethell, J. H. (Essex, Romford)	Fenwick, Charles	Lambert, George
Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)	Ferens, T. R.	Lamont, Norman
Billson, Alfred	Fiennes, Hon. Eustace	Lawson, Sir Wilfrid
Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine	Findlay, Alexander	Layland-Barratt, Francis
Black, Arthur W. (Bedfordshire)	Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter	Lea, Hugh Cecil(St. Pancras, E.)
Bolton, T.D.(Derbyshire, N.E.)	Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry	Leese, Sir Joseph F.(Accrington)
Boulton, A. C. F. (Ramsey)	Fuller, John Michael F.	Lehmann, R. C.
Brace, William	Fullerton, Hugh	Lever, A. Levy,(Essex Harwich
Bramsdon, T. A.	Gardner, Col. Alan(Hereford, S.	Lever, W. H. (Cheshire, Wirral)
Branch, James	Gill, A. H.	Levy, Maurice
Brigg, John	Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John	Lewis, John Herbert
Bright, J. A.	Glendinning, R. G.	Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David
Brocklehurst, W. D.	Glover, Thomas	Lough, Thomas
Brodie, H. C.	Goddard, Daniel Ford	Lupton, Arnold
Brooke, Stopford	Grant, Corrie	Lyell, Charles Henry
Brunner, J.F. L. (Lancs., Leigh)	Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)	Lynch, H. B.
Bryce, Rt. Hn. James(Aberdeen)	Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward	Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)
Bryce, J. A. (Inverness Burghs)	Grove, Archibald	Macdonald, J.M.(FalkirkB'ghs)
Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn	Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill	Mackarness, Frederic C.
Buckmaster, Stanley O.	Gulland, John W.	Maclean, Donald
Burnyeat, J. D. W.	Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton	Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.
Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas	Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.	Macpherson, J, T.
Buxton, Rt. Hon. Sydney Charles	Hall, Frederick	M'Arthur, William
Byles, William Pollard	Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis	M'Callum, John M.
Cairns, Thomas	Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)	M'Crae, George
Caldwell, James	Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)	M'Laren, Sir C. B. (Leicester)
Carr-Gomm, H. W.	Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worc'r)	M'Laren, H. D. (Stafford, W.)
Causton, Rt. Hn. Richard Knight	Harmsworth, R.L.(Caithn'ss-sh	M'Micking, Major G.
Cawley, Frederick	Hart-Davies, T.	Maddison, Frederick
Chance, Frederick William	Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)	Mallet, Charles E.
Cheetham, John Frederick	Harwood, George	Manfield, Harry (Northants)
Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.	Haslam, James (Derbyshire)	Mansfield, H. Rendall (Lincoln)
Churchill, Winston Spencer	Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)	Marks, G. Croydon(Launceston)
Clarke, C. Goddard	Haworth, Arthur A.	Marnham, F. J.
Cleland, J. W.	Hazel, Dr. A. E.	Mason, A. E. W. (Coventry)
Clough, W.	Hedges, A. Paget	Massie, J.
Cobbold, Felix Thornley	Helme, Norval Watson	Masterman, C. F. G.
Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)	Henderson, Arthur (Durham)	Menzies, Walter
Collins, Sir Wm. J.(S. Pancras, W.	Henderson, J.M.(Aberdeen, W.	Micklem, Nathaniel
Cooper, G. J.	Henry, Charles S.	Molteno, Percy Alport
Corbett, C.H(Sussex. E. Grints'd	Herbert, Col. Ivor (Mon., S.)	Mond, A.
Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.	Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe)	Montagu, E. S.
Cory, Clifford John	Higham, John Sharp	Montgomery, H. H.
Cotton, Sir H. J. S.	Hobart, Sir Robert	Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)
Cowan, W. H.	Hodge, John	Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)
Cremer, William Randal	Holden,; E. Hopkinson	Morrell, Philip
Crombie, John William	Holland, Sir William Henry	Morse, L. L.
Crooks, William	Hooper, A. G.	Morton, Alpheus Cleophas
Crosfield, A. H.	Hope, W. Bateman(Somerset, N.	Murray, James
Crossley, William J.	Horniman, Emslie John	Myer, Horatio
Dalziel, James Henry	Horridge, Thomas Gardner	Napier, T. B.
Davies, David(Montgomery Co.	Howard, Hon Geoffrey	Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw)
Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)	Hudson, Walter	Newnes, Sir George (Swansea)
Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan)	Hyde, Clarendon	Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncast'r
Davies, Timothy (Fulham)	Illingworth, Percy H.	Norman, Henry
Davies, W. Howell (Bristol, S.)	Jackson, R. S.	Norton, Capt. Cecil William
Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh.)	Jacoby, James Alfred	Nuttall, Harry
Dickinson, W.H.(St. Pancras, N.	Johnson, John (Gateshead)	O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)
Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.	Johnson, W (Nuneaton)	Parker, James (Halifax)
Dobson, Thomas W.	Jones, David Brynmor(Swansea	Paul, Herbert
Duckworth, James	Jones, Leif (Appleby)	Pearce, Robert (Staffs. Leek)
Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness	Jones, William(Carnarvonshire)	Pearce, William (Limehouse)
Duncan, J. H. (York, Otley)	Jowett, F. W.	Pearson, Sir W. D. (Colchester)
Dunne, A. Edward (Camborne)	Kearley, Hudson E.	Pearson, W. H. M.(Suffolk, Eye
Dunne, Major E. M. (Walsall)	Kekewich, Sir George	Philipps, Col. Ivor(S'thampton)
Edwards, Clement (Denbigh)	Kelley, George D.	Philipps, J. Wynford(Pembroke

Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)	Seaverns, J. H.	Walters, John Tudor
Pickersgill, Edward Hare	Seddon, J.	Walton, Sir John L. (Leeds, S.)
Pirie, Duncan V.	Seely, Major J. B.	Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)
Pollard, Dr.	Shackleton, David James	Ward, John(Stoke upon Trent)
Price, C. E. (Edinb'gh, Central)	Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)	Ward, W. Dudley(Southampt'n
Price, Robert John(Norfolk, E.)	Shaw, Rt. Hn. T. (Hawick B.)	Wardle, George J.
Priestley, Arthur (Grantham)	Shipman, Dr. John G.	Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)
Priestley, W.E.B.(Bradford,E.)	Silcock, Thomas Ball	Wason, John. Cathcart(Orkney
Radford, G. H.	Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John	Waterlow, D. S.
Rainy, A. Rolland	Sloan, Thomas Henry	Watt, H. Anderson
Raphael, Herbert H.	Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie	Wedgwood, Josiah C.
Rea, Russell (Gloucester)	Soaraes, Arthur Wellesley	Weir, James Galloway
Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro'	Soares, Ernest J.	Whitbread, Howard
Rees, J. D.	Stanger, H. Y.	White, George (Norfolk)
Rendall, Athelstan	Stanley, Hn. A. Lyulph(Chesh.)	White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)
Renton, Major Leslie	Steadman, W. C.	White, Luke (York, E. R.)
Richards, Thomas (W. Monm'th	Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)	Whitehead, Rowland
Richards, T.F.(Wolverh'mpt'n)	Strachey, Sir Edward	Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)
Richardson, A.	Straus, B. S. (Mile End)	Whittaker, Thomas Palmer
Rickett, J. Compton	Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)	Wiles, Thomas
Ridsdale, E. A.	Stuart, James (Sunderland)	Wilkie, Alexander
Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)	Summerbell, T.	Williams, J. (Glamorgan)
Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)	Sutherland, J. E.	Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)
Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)	Taylor, John W. (Durham)	Williams, L (Garmarthen
Robertson, Sir G. Scott(Bradf'rd	Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)	Wills, Arthur Walters
Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)	Tennant, Sir Edward(Salisbury	Wilson, H. J. (York, W.R.)
Robinson, S.	Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)	Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)
Robson, Sir William Snowdon	Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)	Wilson, J. W. (Worcestersh, N.
Roe, Sir Thomas	Thomas, Sir A.(Glamorgan, E.)	Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)
Rogers, F. E. Newman	Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr)	Winfrey, R.
Rose, Charles Day	Thomasson, Franklin	Wodehouse, Lord(Norfolk, Mid.
Rowlands, J.	Thompson, J.W.H.(Somerset, E.	Wood, T. M'Kinnon
Runciman, Walter	Tomkinson, James	Woodhouse, Sir J.T.(Huddersf'd
Russell, T. W.	Toulmin, George	Yoxall, James Henry
Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)	Trevelyan, Charles Philips
Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)	Verney, F. W.	TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr. Whiteley and Mr. J. A. Pease.
Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)	Villiers, Ernest Amherst
Scarisbrick, T. T. L.	Vivian, Henry
Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)	Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)
Scott, A.H.(AshtonunderLyne)	Wallace, Robert
NOES.
Abraham, Wm. (Cork, N.E.)	Cave, George	Fardell, Sir T. George
Ambrose, Robert	Cavendish, Rt. Hn. Victor C.W.	Fell, Arthur
Anson, Sir William Reynell	Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)	Ffrench, Peter
Anstruther-Gray, Major	Cecil, Lord John P. Joicey-	Field, William
Arkwright, John Stanhope	Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)	Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.
Arnold-Forster, Rt. Hn. H. O.	Clancy, John Joseph	Flynn, James Christopher
Ashley, W. W.	Coates, E. Feetham(Lewisham)	Forster, Henry William
Balcarres, Lord	Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E.	Gardner, Ernest (Berks, East)
Balfour, Rt. Hn. A.J(City Lond.)	Cogan, Denis J.	Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)
Balfour, Capt, C. B. (Hornsey)	Condon, Thomas Joseph	Ginnell, L.
Banbury, Sir Frederick George	Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)	Haddock, George R.
Banner, John S. Harmood-	Courthope, G. Loyd	Halpin, J.
Baring, Hon. Guy(Winchester)	Craig, Chas. Curtis (Antrim, S)	Hambro, Charles Eric
Barry, E. (Cork. S	Craig, Captain Jas. (Down, E.	Hammond, John
Beach, Hn. Michael Hugh H.	Craik, Sir Henry	Hardy, L. (Kent, Ashford)
Beckett, Hon. Gervase	Cross, Alexander	Harrison-Broadley, Col. H. B.
Bignold, Sir Arthur	Dalrymple, Viscount	Hay, Hon. Claude George
Boland, John	Delany, William	Hayden, John Patrick
Bowles, G. Stewart	Devlin, Chas. Ramsay (Galway	Hazleton, Richard
Boyle, Sir Edward	Dillon, John	Helmsley, Viscount
Bridgeman, W. Clive	Dixon-Hartland, Sir Fred D.	Hervey, FW.F.(Bury SEdm'ds.)
Brotherton, Edward Allen	Dolan, Chas. Joseph	Hill, Sir Clement (Shrewsbury)
Bull, Sir William James	Donelan, Captain A.	Hill, Henry Staveley (Staff'sh.)
Burdett-Coutts, W.	Douglas, Rt. Hn. A. Akers-	Hogan, Michael
Burke, E. Haviland-	Du Cros, Harvey	Houston, Robert Paterson
Butcher, Samuel Henry	Duncan, Robert(Lanark Govan	Joyce, Michael
Carlile, E. Hildred	Faber, George Denison (York)	Kennedy, Vincent Paul
Castlereagh, Viscount	Faber, Capt. W. V. (Hants, W.	Kenyon-Slaney, Rt. Hn. Col. W

Keswick, William	Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield	Salter, Arthur Clavell
Lambton, Hn. Frederick Wm.	Nield, Herbert	Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert
Lane-Fox, G. R.	Nolan, Joseph	Sheehan. Daniel Daniel
Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich)	O'Brien, K. (Tipperarry Mid.)	Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East
Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.)	O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)	Smith, F.E.(Liverpool. Walton)
Lee, Arthur H. (Hants Fareham	O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.	Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.
Lockwood, Rt. Hn. Lt-Col. A.R.	O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)	Starkey, John R.
Long, Rt. Hn. Walter(Dublin, S.	O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)	Sullivan, Donal
Lowe, Sir Francis William	O'Doherty, Philip	Talbot, Rt. Hn. J.G.(Oxf'd Univ.
Lundon, W.	O'Dowd, John	Thomson, W. Mitchell-(Lanark
Lyttellton, Rt. Hon. Alfred	O'Hare, Patrick	Thornton, Percy M.
MacVeigh, Chas. (Donegal, E.	O'Kelly, Jas. (Roscommon, N.)	Turnour, Viscount
M'Calmont, Colonel James	O'Malley, William	Vincent, Col. Sir C. E. Howard
M'Hugh, Patrick A.	O'Mara, James	Walker, Col. W. H.(Lancashire)
M'Killop, W.	O'Shaughnessy, P. J.	Walrond, Hon. Lionel
Magnus, Sir Philip	Pease, Herbert P. (Darlington)	Warde, Col. C. E. (Kent, Mid.)
Marks, H. H. (Kent)	Percy, Earl	White, Patrick (Meath, North)
Mason, James F. (Windsor)	Powell, Sir Francis Sharp	Williams, Col. R. (Dorset, W.)
Meagher, Michael	Power, Patrick Joseph	Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E.R.)
Meehan, Patrick A.	Rawlinson, John Frederick P.	Wortley, Rt. Hn. C. B. Stuart-
Meysey-Thompson, E. C.	Redmond, John E. (Waterford	Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George
Mildmay, Francis Bingham	Redmond, William (Clare)	Younger, George
Mooney, J. J.	Remnant, James Farquharson
Morpeth, Viscount	Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall	TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr. Alexander Acland-Hood and Viscount Valentia.
Muntz, Sir Philip A.	Rutherford, John (Lancashire)
Murphy, John	Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

MR. LOUGH

said that early in the afternoon the hon. Member for the Barnard Castle Division appealed to the Government to secure some time for the discussion of Clause 35. The Government had considered the matter and were prepared to do what the hon. Member asked He therefore moved to leave out all the words after "that" in subhead (f) in order to insert, "Clauses 25 to 34 be proceeded with and the proceedings thereon brought to a conclusion on the next allotted day, and that Clauses 35 and 36 be proceeded with and the proceedings thereon brought to a conclusion on the next allotted day." This did not increase the number of allotted days.

Amendment proposed— In line 19, to leave out from the word 'That,' to the end of line 22, and insert the words 'Clauses 25 to 34 lie proceeded with and the proceedings thereon brought to a conclusion on the next allotted day, that Clauses 35 and 36 be proceeded with and the proceedings thereon brought to a conclusion on the next allotted day.' "—(Mr. Lough.)

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

MR. LAURENCE HARDY

thought they might very well ask for some explanation of the Amendment which had been suddenly sprung upon them in lieu of the Amendment in his name, and in which they asked for further time for this clause. They now found that Clauses 25 to 34, which dealt with a vast number of extremely difficult subjects, were now relegated to one allotted day. Some further information was certainly called for as to why the Government should suddenly have come to this conclusion. He suggested that pressure had been put upon the Government from their own side, and that some of the clauses were to be dropped. He did not think that this was a satisfactory way of settling the difficulty.

MR. LANE-FOX

protested against a clause which contained matters of extreme importance to rural parishes, such as delegation of powers, the 2d. rate, and capital expenditure, being given such a small amount of time for discussion.

DR. MACNAMARA

supported the proposition of the Government, and said he would not press for the throe days he asked for earlier. In the interests of individual Members who were so often forgotten in these debates he should support this proposal.

*MR. BRIDGEMAN (Shropshire, Oswestry)

pointed out that the clauses included in Part III. were the only clauses in the Bill which could be called educational, and urged that it was impossible adequately to discuss the several important questions which they raised in he time proposed. A simple way out of the difficulty was to give them another week to discuss the whole matter. He did not know why this sudden alteration had been sprung upon them, or why it had been found necessary to give so much time to Clauses 35 and 36, which were not even mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman in his speech when he introduced the Bill. The only conclusion he could come to was that he intended to graft on to this clause the conclusion of the Select Committee upon the provision of meals for children.

MR. LOUGH

That proposal is not in the clause.

*MR. BRIDGEMAN

asked if the Secretary to the Board of Education was prepared to say that the words 'power to make such arrangements as may be sanctioned by the Board of Education for attending to the health and physical condition of the children "could not be interpreted as covering the whole question as to whether the children were underfed or not?

MR. LOUGH

It is not intended to cover that.

*MR. BRIDGEMAN

said that if that was not the reason, he would like to know why this division in the time had been made. The only other reason he could see for the proposal was that the Government intended to drop one or more of the previous clauses. The Radical Association in his constituency had passed a resolution welcoming Clause 26, but declaring that the management of public elementary schools, where delegated, should be exercised by a body directly elected for that purpose with powers of administration within adequate areas. [Cheers.] From the cheers with which that resolution was greeted it was obvious that it expressed the opinion of a considerable body of hon. Members on the subject. If that was so, it was perfectly absurd to imagine that it could be discussed in the tenth part of a day. Another important point was that Clause 26 was the only one on which the question of London could be raised at all in connection with the Bill. An enormous number of people were dissatisfied with the way in which the Education Act was being administered by the London County Council, and some hon. Members would like to see an alteration introduced. Clause 28, which extended the time for the repayment of loans from thirty to sixty years, proposed what was really a revolution in regard to the borrowing powers of educational authorities, and it ought not to be allowed to pass without careful consideration. It devolved the obligation for repayment upon another generation. Clause 29, dealing with the 2d. rate for secondary education, was most important, and more time ought to be allowed for its discussion. There were other matters dealt with in Part III. of the Bill which could not be properly discussed in two days, amongst these being the question of the apportionment of capital expenditure, the conditions imposed upon students entering training colleges, and the arrangements as to vacation schools and the health of school children. In regard to vacation schools they had an entirely new experiment. He believed that the experiment so far had been successful; but it had been voluntary and had not received the approval of the Board of Education in any definite way. Again, in regard to the health of the children attending the schools, it was admitted that the clause dealing with that question involved very complicated problems. Lastly, there was the question of the teachers' register. The teachers' register was started in 1899–1900. The question was one which affected teachers very considerably. Many of them had gone to very great inconvenience and expense to qualify themselves to get on to this register, and it was not right that injustice should be done to them by abolishing it. [MINISTERIAL cries of "Divide."] It was perfectly clear that a majority of hon. Members opposite did not wish to have a discussion or a thorough understanding of the question, and that was the reason why they were in such a desperate hurry for their holiday. He asked the right hon. Gentleman if he thought seriously that he could pass these ten important clauses satisfactorily in one day, and whether he intended to bring the question of the feeding of children under Clause 35.

*MR. HICKS BEACH

said that as the representative of an agricultural constituency he protested against the hollowness of the concession offered by the Government. Clauses 35 and 36 were no doubt of great importance and worthy of a full day's discussion. For such questions as the feeding of children, and the providing of means of recreation in the school-houses in their holidays— even to the extent of turning the schoolroom into a swimming bath or gymnasium — might very well be raised in those clauses. But surely Clauses 25 to 34 were collectively of much greater importance and worthy of more than one day's discussion. He believed that there were many clauses in the Bill which were very unpopular, but he could assure the right hon. Gentleman that Clause 29, which removed the 2d. limit of rate for secondary education, was most unpopular in the country districts. The Government had announced that they had fixed August 4th for adjourning for the holidays, though they had frequently in the past twitted the late Government with an unnatural desire to adjourn on August 11th, which was a day of national importance in all constituencies which contained tracts of moorland.

*MR. SPEAKER

said that if the hon. Member wanted to get away either on August 4th or 11th he had better keep to the point under discussion.

MR. BIRRELL

said that as regarded the feeding of children, there was, as the House knew, a Bill dealing with that subject which had been referred to a very laborious and painstaking Committee. The Government gave an assurance at the time of the reference that time would be given for the consideration of the measure, and he hoped the promised opportunity would be found during the autumn session. Therefore it was quite unnecessary to consider that part of the case, as during the autumn they would perhaps have the report of that Committee before the House. He would be sorry if the question of devolution under Clause 26 were not properly discussed. It was a complicated subject, but he still hoped that they would arrive at some arrangement under which power should be given to the county councils to accept, proposals which would enable devolution to be carried out. He would be sorry if this principle of devolution did not receive fair consideration at the hands of the House when it came to be dealt with in Committee, but unless some sort of agreement or common ground was arranged between them it might be im- possible fairly to consider it. The county councils might be willing, and he was informed they were willing, to make schemes of their own to devolve upon local bodies their powers.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

wanted to know what sort of agreement or arrangement the right hon. Gentleman wanted. He himself wished to press upon the Administration the advisability of withdrawing some of the miscellaneous clauses between 25 and 34, although of course he did not include in that recommendation Clause 26, which dealt with delegation. He earnestly pressed the Government not to bring their proposals and themselves into discredit by asking the House to do more than could possibly be done in the time, and he suggested the Government might still further relieve the Bill of some unnecessary clauses. He did not ask them to make any proposals now, but he did ask them to consider the matter. He thought the time given for the discussion was ludicrous, but the remedy for that was not, in his opinion, to move an Amendment to give further time, but to suggest that the Government might still further relieve the Bill by excising some unnecessary clauses.

MR. ASQUITH

said that the suggestion was a reasonable one, and between now and the time when this portion of the Bill was reached the Government would consider how far it was possible to adopt it.

Question put, and negatived.

Proposed words inserted.

MR. BRIDGEMAN

said the Amendment he now moved was to leave out Sub-section (g) relating to Welsh education. There had already been some discussion upon this point and he did not propose to take up time in going over arguments which had already been addressed to the House. He, however, ventured to think that a new departure such as was proposed by the portion of the Bill here referred to was a question that might very well be dropped or else a much longer time must be allowed for its discussion. He would rather have seen it dropped than parts of Clause 3 which were much more important. He moved the Amendment because he thought it was absolutely impossible to discuss the whole of this question in one day.

MR. F. E. SMITH

seconded the Amendment. He ventured to urge most strongly upon the generosity of hon. Gentlemen opposite a condition which they would admit could not be over looked. It was that, although Welsh representatives did not allude to it, there was in Wales a very strong body of opinion entirely unrepresented in this House which possessed the strongest moral claim to have its views considered in these debates so far as a reasonable allowance of time would enable those views to be considered. That body of opinion was avowedly hostile to the portion of the Bill which dealt with Wales, and he asked the right hon. Gentleman responsible for the measure whether he seriously suggested that the propriety of making a new arrange m en t of this kind could be adequately considered in a single day.

Amendment proposed— To leave out lines 23 and 24."—(Mr. Bridgeman.)

Question proposed, "That the word 'That' stand part of the Question."

THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOAED OF TRADE (Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE,) Carnarvon District

said he certainly thought one day would be quite enough to discuss this point. The question had been discussed very fully in a few hours at a conference in Wales, and it was also discussed very fully upon the Second Reading of the Bill. He saw no special difficulty in the matter. He had looked at the Amendments on the Paper, but they did not raise any serious points. There were two or three Amendments of importance, but they could all be adequately discussed in the course of a day's debate. He believed ho could satisfy the hon. Gentleman that there was no real ground for apprehension with regard to the powers of the proposed council, and the Government were fully prepared to meet all reasonable suggestions.

*SIR WILLIAM ANSON

said he must disabuse the House of the impression which had been made—unintentionally, no doubt—by the right hon. Gentleman that the proposals of the late Government for giving to the Welsh council control of their primary education in any way resembled the proposals now before the House. The late Government assented to a proposal for a joint Committee under Section 17 of the Act of 1902, upon which powers would be conferred under the control and superintendence of the Board of Education, and for which the Parliamentary representative of the Board could answer in this House. The present Government's proposal made the Welsh Council independent of the Board of Education, and left no one responsible to Parliament for its action. Nobody could be called to account for any action of the council taken under Part IV., and they had to boar in mind that what this council would have to administer was not the Act of 1902 but the Bill now before them, which, if passed in its present form, would enable the local authority to efface religious teaching from all the elementary schools in its area. The House, or at any rate a considerable portion of it, would therefore agree with him in saying that it was a very large power to confer on any local authority for whom no one in this House was responsible. He had no doubt that from the point of view of the President of the Board of Trade the matter was a simple one. They were to confer upon a council powers by Order in Council, and give it all the money which was due for education within its area, to do what it would with, and no one was to be called to account. It was plain and simple enough on paper, but the simplicity amounted to crudity and the crudity involved peril, and one day was not adequate for discussing the proposal in all its bearings.

LORD R. CECIL

could not agree with the President of the Board of Trade that this subject had been discussed adequately on the Second Reading. On the contrary, the matter was scarcely mentioned on that occasion. Owing to the rules of the House they were not allowed to discuss the merits of the proposal, but only whether it was desirable that it should form part of the Bill or not. Part IV. was contained in one clause. That was merely a matter of drafting, and as a matter of substance it might just as well have been contained in nine clauses. If this Part had been brought in as a separate Bill, no doubt the nine subsections would have appeared as separate clauses, and certainly no one would have suggested that the discussion should have lasted only one day. Sub-section 4, Sub-head (a), proposed to confer on the council the powers and duties of the Board of Education. That was a very serious power indeed to confer upon the council in Wales. Even in England, where the Board of Education exercised these powers, they were subject to a very large number of checks, and ultimately in each case to the control of Parliament. By another sub-section power was given by Order in Council to authorise the council in Wales to raise any money required by contributions. These were very wide powers, and certainly the proposal ought not to be passed sub silentio. Part II. gave some indication of the kind of powers that the proposal would confer upon the council for Wales.

MR. LLOYD-GEORGE

said they had had the powers referred to by the hon. Member for years in Wales, and Part II. did not affect them.

LORD R. CECIL

said he thought the right hon. Gentleman somewhat exaggerated the point when he said that all these powers had already been conferred upon the authority for intermediate education in Wales. The powers under Part II. were very wide, but he thought it was a proposal of an extremely novel character to set up in Wales a council over which Parliament would have no control.

MR. BIRRELL

said the object of this proposal was to secure the control of Parliament over the allocation of the money. Having regard to the position which Wales occupied, there could be very little hesitation in the mind of anybody who knew the zeal and the passion of the Welsh people for education in admitting that they were perfectly well able to look after elementary as well as intermediate education if this council were set up by the common consent of the Welsh people. That was an important piece of devolution, which he commended to all parts of the House. Looking at the matter from the point of view of Whitehall, he was bound to inquire what their position would be in regard to the £800,000 allocated to be spent upon Welsh education, and he refused to be responsible for the expenditure of that money unless he, with the House and the Treasury, had some control over it Any Amendment to secure that end would receive no opposition from the Government. If that point could be got over and proper security given to the House as to control, and provided Parliament was given opportunities of informing itself as to how the money was being expended in order that questions might be answered in the House, that seemed to him to meet the whole necessities of the case. He did not see how they could refuse to Wales the complete control of elementary education, provided she was willing to undertake it and was equal to the task, just in the same way as the late Government conferred upon Wales complete control of intermediate education.

MR. WALTER LONG

said he was anxious to know the exact position of the Government in regard to the Welsh devolution scheme. He understood the President of the Board of Education to say that an Amendment would be introduced to secure to the Board of Education the right of obtaining information to enable the Government to answer Questions in Parliament. That was quite a different point from that which had been raised, which was whether there was still to reside in the Board of Education any power not merely to obtain information but to control the expenditure. He agreed that the position in Wales was different from that in any other part of the country, but the Government could not on that account ask them to consider such a proposal purely from the point of view of Wales. This was a proposition to give Wales absolute control of elementary education, and at the same time Welshmen were to lie allowed to come here and interfere with English and Scottish education. It was rather a strong order to ask them to discuss this scheme of devolution in a form which was far from definite and settled in the mind of the Government. The matter might very well form the subject of future legislation.

SIR HENRY CRAIK (Glasgow and Aberdeen Universities)

said he was desirous that full control should be secured by the Board of Education over the expenditure of this council in Wales. If that was the intention of the right hon. Gentleman he could not have taken a worse way to carry it out. The proposal they were now discussing interfered not merely with the Board of Education and the Departmental rules, but with a very much larger question, namely, the whole control of Parliament over its own grants. It was idle for the President of the Board of Education and the President of the Board of Trade to compare the two cases of the National Council proposed for Wales and the Council established for higher education in Wales. There was no analogy whatever between the two. The council which was to deal with national education in Wales would have a certain sum handed over from the Exchequer, but the council for higher education in Wales dealt with endowments and certain schools belonging to them. It had nothing to do with the Imperial grant. [An HON. MEMBER: "It has."] It did not decide how the Imperial grant should be distributed. [An HON. MEMBER: "It does."] The way in which the Imperial grant was to be distributed was decided by the rules laid down by the Board of Education, and not by the Secondary Education Board in Wales. The President of the Board of Education desired above all things to secure the authority of his Department and the authority of Parliament over the grants, but the proposal in the Bill was to hand over a large sum every year to this council to be distributed according to rules which it might itself lay down. The conditions under which the Imperial grants were distributed were submitted to Parliament for approval. The Minister who distributed the grants was responsible to Parliament, and if any school, or teacher, or any individual, felt aggrieved at the way the grants were distributed an appeal could be made to Parliament through a representative. This was absolutely abolished by Part IV. of the Bill. Could the right hon. Gentleman say that he had any means by which to secure the authority of Parliament over the disbursement of sums amounting to £1,000,000 a year? If they were to have Home Rule in matters of education in Wales, and the independent distribution of Imperial grants, why not for other parts of the country? If the Chief Secretary for Ireland were here he would agree with him in regretting that the Board of Education in Ireland acted independently of him. The right hon. Gentleman could only accept their decisions. Did the House wish the same thing for Wales and Scotland? To pass such a measure for Scotland would be a retrograde movement which would be regretted by all who had the interests of education in that country at heart. In view of the large interests involved they would do well to take more than a single day to discuss the proposal.

LORD BALCARRES

said he considered one day wholly insufficient for the discussion of this question. The President of the Board of Education had given assurances that certain matters would be put right, but as they were not put right in the Bill these assurances did not satisfy him or his friends. The President of the Board of Trade had practically told the country that this matter was outside the sphere of controversy in Wales, but having made himself acquainted with the facts, he could state that there was a very powerful section bitterly hostile to Clause 37 of the Bill. The right hon. Gentleman knew that he had the whole of the Welsh Party on his side, but it should be remembered that two-fifths of the votes cast at the election, representing a substantial body of opinion, were opposed to Clause 37. Two-fifths of the votes had been cast against the President of the Board of Trade. There was in the clause as introduced no provision for the responsibility of Parliament. He defied anyone to say that it could be adequately discussed in five hours. The clause was one of the most controversial parts of the Bill. People in Wales who were deeply interested in education assured him that they viewed with the greatest apprehension the principles laid down under Clause 37. He might refer in passing to the extraordinary nature of the speech directed against voluntary schools by the hon. and learned Member for Mid. Glamorganshire, and he contended that one day was wholly inadequate to discuss so important a proposal.

Mr. ASQUITH

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

Question put, "That the Question be now put.

The House divided:—Ayes, 328; Noes, 81. (Division List, No. 130.)

AYES.
Abraham, Wm. (Cork, N.E.)	Collins, Sir W. J. (S. PancrasW.	Henry, Charles S.
Abraham, William (Rhondda	Cooper, G. J.	Herbert, Colonel Ivor (Mon., S
Acland, Francis Dyke	Corbett, C. H. (Sussex, E Grinst'd	Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe)
Adkins, W. Ryland	Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.	Higham, John Sharp
Agnew, George William	Cory, Clifford John	Hobart, Sir Robert
Ainsworth, John Stirling	Cotton, Sir H. J. S.	Hodge, John
Alden, Percy	Cowan, W. H.	Hogan, Michael
Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch	Cremer, William Randal	Hooper, A. G.
Armitage, R.	Crombie, John William	Hope, W. Bateman(Somerset N
Armstrong, W. C. Heaton	Crossley, William J.	Horniman, Emslie John
Asquith, Rt. Hn. Herbt. Henry	Davies, D. (Montgomery Co.)	Howard, Hon. Geoffrey
Astbury, John Meir	Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardigan	Hyde, Clarendon
Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)	Davies, W. Howell (Bristol, S.	Illingworth, Percy H.
Balfour, Robert (Lanark)	Devlin, Chas. Ramsay (Galway	Johnson, John (Gateshead)
Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight;	Dewar, John A (Inverness-sh.	Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)
Barker, John	Dickinson, W.H. (St. Pancras N	Jones, David Brynmor(Swans'a
Barlow, Percy (Bedford)	Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.	Jones, Leif (Appleby)
Barnard, E. B.	Dobson, Thomas W.	Jones, William (Carnarvonshire
Barnes, G. N.	Dolan, Charles Joseph	Joyce, Michael
Barran, Rowland Hirst	Duckworth, James	Kearley, Hudson E.
Barry, E. (Cork, S.)	Duncan, C.(Barrow-in-Furness	Kelley, George D.
Beale, W. P.	Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)	Kennedy, Vincent Paul
Beauchamp, E.	Dunne, Major E. M. (Walsall)	Kincaid-Smith, Captain
Beaumont, H. (Eastbourne)	Edwards, Clement (Denbigh)	Kitson, Sir James
Beaumont, W. C. B. (Hexham)	Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)	Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominster
Beck, A. Cecil	Ellis, Rt. Hon. John Edward	Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)
Bellairs, Carlyon	Erskine, David C.	Lambert, George
Benn, John W. (Devonport)	Essex, R. W.	Lamont, Norman
Benn, W.(T'w'r Hamlets,S. Geo.	Eve, Harry Trelawney	Lawson, Sir Wilfrid
Berridge, T. H. D.	Everett, R. Lacey	Layland-Barratt, Francis
Bertram, Julius	Fenwick, Charles	Lea, Hugh Cecil(St.Pancras,E.)
Billson, Alfred	Ferens, T. R.	Lehmann, R. C.
Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine	Field, William	Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich
Black, Arthur W. (Bedfordsh.	Fiennes, Hon. Eustace	Lever, W. H. (Cheshire, Wirral)
Boland, John	Flynn, James Christopher	Levy, Maurice
Bolton, T. D. (Derbyshire, N.E.	Fuller, John Michael F.	Lewis, John Herbert
Brace, William	Fullerton, Hugh	Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David
Bramsdon, T. A.	Gill, A. H.	Lough, Thomas
Branch, James	Ginnell, L.	Lundon, W.
Bright, J A.	Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert J.	Lyell, Charles Henry
Brodie, H. C.	Glendinning, R. G.	Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)
Brooke, Stopford	Goddard, Daniel Ford	Macdonald, J.M.(Falkirk B'ghs
Brunner, J. F. L. (Lancs., Leigh	Grant, Corrie	Maclean, Donald
Bryce, J. A. (Inverness Burghs	Grey, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward	Macpherson, J. T.
Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn	Grove, Archibald	MacVeigh, Chas. (Donegal, E.)
Buckmaster, Stanley O.	Gulland, John W.	M'Arthur, William
Burke, E. Haviland-	Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B	M'Callum, John M.
Burnyeat, J. D. W.	Hall, Frederick	M'Crae, George
Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas	Halpin, J.	M'Hugh, Patrick A.
Buxton, Rt. Hn. Sydney Chas.	Hammond, John	M'Kenna, Reginald
Byles, William Pollard	Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis	M'Killop, W.
Cairns, Thomas	Hardie, J. Keir(Merthyr Tydvil)	M'Laren, H. D. (Stafford, W.)
Caldwell, James	Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)	M'Micking, Major G.
Carr-Gomm, H. W.	Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worc'r)	Manfield, Harry (Northants)
Causton, Rt. Hn. Richard K.	Hart-Davies, T.	Mansfield, H. Rendall (Lincoln)
Cawley, Frederick	Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)	Marks G. Croydon(Launceston
Chance, Frederick William	Haslam James (Derbyshire)	Marnham, F. J.
Channing, Francis Allston	Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)	Mason, A. E. W. (Coventry)
Cheetham, John Frederick	Haworth, Arthur A.	Massie, J
Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.	Hayden, John Patrick	Meagher, Michael
Churchill, Winston Spencer	Hazel, Dr. A. E.	Meehan, Patrick A.
Clancy, John Joseph	Hazleton, Richard	Menzies, Walter
Clark, C. Goddard	Hedges, A. Paget	Micklem, Nathaniel
Cleland, J. W.	Helme, Norval Watson
Cogan, Denis J.	Henderson, Arthur (Durham)	Mond, A.
Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)	Henderson, J.M.(Aberdeen, W.	Montgomery, H. H.
Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)	Richards, Thos. (W. Monm'th)	Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe
Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)	Richards, T. F.(Wolverh'mpt'n	Tennant, Sir Edw. (Salisbury)
Morrell, Philip	Richardson, A.	Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)
Morse, L. L.	Rickett, J. Compton	Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.
Morton, Alpheus Cleophas	Ridsdale, E. A.	Thomas, Sir A.(Glamorgan, E.
Murray, James	Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)	Thomas, David Alfred(Merthyr
Napier, T B.	Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)	Thomasson, Franklin
Nicholson, Charles N (Doncast'r	Roberts, John H. (Denbighs)	Thompson, J.W.H.(Somerset, E
Nolan, Joseph	Robertson, Sir G. Scott(Bradf'rd	Tomkinson, James
Norman, Henry	Robinson, S.	Toulmin, George
Norton, Capt. Cecil William	Robson, Sir William Snowdon	Trevelyan, Charles Philips
Nuttall, Harry	Roe, Sir Thomas	Verney, F. W.
O'Brien, Kendal(Tipperary Mid)	Rogers, F. E. Newman	Vivian, Henry
O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)	Rose, Charles Day	Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)
O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)	Rowlands, J.	Walters, John Tudor
O'Doherty, Philip	Russell, T. W.	Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)
O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)	Samuel, HerbertL. (Cleveland)	Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan
O'Dowd, John	Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)	Wason, John Cathcart(Orkney
O'Hare, Patrick	Scarisbrick, T. T. L.	Waterlow, D. S.
O'Malley, William	Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)	Watt, H. Anderson
O'Mara, James	Scott, A.H.(Ashton under Lyne)	Wedgwood, Josiah C.
O'Shaughnessy, P. J.	Seaverns, J. H.	Weir, James Galloway
Parker, James (Halifax)	Seddon, J.	Whitbread, Howard
Paul, Herbert	Seely, Major J. B.	White, George (Norfolk)
Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)	Shackleton, David James	White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)
Pearson, Sir W. D. (Colchester	Shaw, Chas. Edw. (Stafford)	White, Luke (York, E.R.)
Pearson, W. H. M.(Suffolk, Eye)	Shaw, Rt. Hon. T. (Hawick B.)	White, Patrick (Meath, North)
Philipps, Col. Ivor(S'thampton)	Sheehan, Daniel Daniel	Whitehead, Rowland
Pliilipps, J. Wynford(Pembroke	Shipman, Dr. John G.	Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)
Pirie, Duncan V.	Silcock, Thomas Ball	Whittaker, Thomas Palmer
Pollard, Dr.	Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John	Wiles, Thomas
Power, Patrick Joseph	Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie	Wilkie, Alexander
Price, C. E. (Edinburgh. Central	Smyth, Thos. F. (Leitrim, S.)	Williams, J. (Glamorgan)
Priestley, Arthur (Grantham)	Soames, Arthur Wellesley	Williams, Osmond, (Merioneth)
Priestley, W.E.B.(Bradford, E.	Soares, Ernest J.	Williams, Llewelyn(Carmarthen
Radford, G. H.	Stanger, H. Y.	Wills, Arthur Walters
Rainy, A. Rolland	Stanley, Hn. A. Lyulph(Chesh.)	Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)
Raphael, Herbert H.	Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)	Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)
Rea, Russell (Gloucester)	Strachey, Sir Edward	Winfrey, R.
Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro'	Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)	Wood, T. M'Kinnon
Redmond, John E.(Waterford)	Stuart, James (Sunderland)	Woodhouse, Sir J.T.(Huddersf'd
Redmond, William (Clare	Sullivan, Donal
Rees, J. D.	Summerbell, T.	TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr. Whiteley and Mr. J. A. Pease.
Rendall, Athelstan	Sutherland, J. E.
Renton, Major Leslie	Taylor, John W. (Durham)
NOES.
Anson, Sir William Reynell	Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E.	Lockwood, Rt. Hn. Lt.-Col. A.R.
Anstruther-Gray, Major	Condon, Thomas Joseph	Long, Rt. Hn. Walter(Dublin, S.)
Arkwright, John Stanhope	Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)	Lowe, Sir Francis William
Arnold-Forster Rt. Hn Hugh O.	Courthope, G. Lloyd	Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred
Balcarres, Lord	Craig, Chas. Curtis (Antrim, S.)	M'Calmont, Colonel James
Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey)	Craik, Sir Henry	Mason, James F. (Windsor)
Banbury, Sir Frederick George	Dalrymple, Viscount	Meysey-Thompson, E. C.
Banner, John S. Harmood-	Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-	Mildmay, Francis Bingham
Baring, Hon. Guy (Winchester)	Du Cros, Harvey	Morpeth, Viscount
Beach, Hn. Michael Hugh Hicks	Faber, George Denison (York)	Muntz, Sir Philip A.
Beckett, Hon. Gervase	Faber, Capt. W. V. (Hants, W.)	Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)
Bignold, Sir Arthur	Fell, Arthur	Nield, Herbert
Boyle, Sir Edward	Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.	Pease, Herbert Pike(Darlington)
Bridgeman, W. Clive	Forster, Henry William	Percy, Earl
Brotherton, Edward Allen	Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)	Rawlinson, John Frederick P.
Bull, Sir William James	Hambro, Charles Eric	Remnant, James Farquharson
Burdett-Coutts, W.	Hardy, Laurence(Kent, Ashford	Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Eeclesall)
Carlile, E. Hildred	Harrison-Broadley, Col. H. B.	Rutherford, John (Lancashire)
Castlereagh, Viscount	Hay, Hon. Claude George	Salter, Arthur Clavell
Cave, George	Helmsley, Viscount	Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)
Cavendish, Rt. Hn. Victor C.W.	Hervey, F.W.F.(BuryS Edm'ds	Smith, F. E.(Liverpool, Walton
Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)	Hill, Sir Clement (Shrewsbury)	Starkey, John R.
Cecil, Lord John P. Joicey-	Hill, Henry Staveley(Staff'sh.)	Thomson, W. Mitchell-(Lanark)
Cecil, Lord R,(Marylebone, E.)	Lane-Fox, G. R.	Thornton, Percy M.

Turnour, Viscount	Williams, Col. R. (Dorset, W.)	TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Sir Alexander Acland-Hood and Viscount Valentia.
Walker, Col. W.H.(Lancashire)	Wilson, A. Stanley(York, E.R.)
Walrond, Hon. Lionel	Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George
Warde, Col. C. E. (Kent, Mid.)	Younger, George

Question put accordingly, "That the word 'That' stand part of the Question."

The House divided:—Ayes, 329; Noes, 80. (Division List no.131.)

AYES.
Abraham, Wm. (Cork, N.E.)	Clarke, C. Goddard	Haslam, James (Derbyshire)
Abraham, Wm. (Rhondda)	Cleland, J. W.	Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)
Acland, Francis Dyke	Cogan, Denis J.	Haworth, Arthur A.
Adkins, W. Ryland	Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)	Hayden, John Parick
Agnew, George William	Collins, Sir W. J. (S. Pancras W.	Hazel, Dr. A. E.
Ainsworth, John Stirling	Condon, Thomas Joseph	Hazleton, Richard
Alden, Percy	Cooper, G. J.	Hedges, A. Paget
Allen, A. Acland(Christchurch)	Corbett, C H (Sussex, Egrinst'd)	Helme, Norval Watson
Armitage, R.	Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.	Henderson, Arthur (Durham)
Armstrong, W. C. Heaton	Cory, Clifford John	Henderson, JM(Aberdeen, W.)
Asquith, Rt. Hn. Herbert H.	Cotton, Sir H. J. S.	Henry, Charles S.
Astbury, John Meir	Cowan, W. H.	Herbert, Col. Ivor (Mon., S.)
Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)	Cremer, William Randall	Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe)
Balfour, Robert (Lanark)	Crombie, John William	Higham, John Sharp
Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)	Crossley, William J.	Hobart, Sir Robert
Barker, John	Davies, David (Montgomery Co	Hodge, John
Barlow, Percy (Bedford)	Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan)	Hogan, Michael
Barnard, E. B.	Davies, W. Howell (Bristol, S.)	Hooper, A. G.
Barnes, G. N.	Devlin, Chas. Ramsay (Galway)	Hope, W Bateman(Somerset, N.
Barran, Rowland Hirst	Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh.)	Horniman, Emslie John
Barry, E. (Cork, S.)	Dickinson, W. H.(St. Pancras N	Howard, Hon. Geoffrey
Beale, W. P.	Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.	Hyde, Clarendon
Beauchamp, E.	Dobson, Thomas W.	Illingworth, Percy H.
Beaumont, Hubert (Eastbourne	Dolan, Charles Joseph	Johnson, John (Gateshead)
Beaumont, W.C.B(Hexham)	Duckworth, James	Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)
Beck, A. Cecil	Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness	Jones, David Brynmor(Swansea
Bellairs, Carlyon	Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)	Jones, Leif (Appleby)
Benn, John W. (Devonport)	Dunne, Major E. M. (Walsall)	Jones, Wm. (Carnarvonshire)
Benn, W. (T'w'r Hamlets S. Geo	Edwards, Clement (Denbigh)	Joyce, Michael
Berridge, T. H. D.	Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)	Kearley, Hudson E.
Bertram, Julius	Ellis, Rt. Hon. John Edward	Kelley, George D.
Billson, Alfred	Erskine, David C.	Kennedy, Vincent Paul
Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine	Essex, R. W.	Kincaid-Smith, Captain
Black, Arthur W. (Bedfordsh.	Eve, Harry Trelawney	Kitson, Sir James
Boland, John	Everett, R. Lacey	Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominster
Bolton, T. D. (Derbyshire, N.E	Fenwick, Charles	Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)
Brace, William	Ferens, T. R.	Lambert, George
Bramsdon, T. A.	Field, William	Lamont, Norman
Branch, James	Fiennes, Hon. Eustace	Lawson, Sir Wilfrid
Bright, J. A.	Flynn, James Christopher	Layland-Barratt, Francis
Brodie, H. C.	Fuller, John Michael F.	Lea, Hugh Cecil(St. Pancras, E
Brooke, Stopford	Fullerton, Hugh	Leese, Sir J. F. (Accrington)
Brunner, J. F. L (Lancs., Leigh)	Gill, A. H.	Lehmann, R. C.
Bryce, J. A. (Inverness Burghs)	Ginnell, L.	Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich
Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn	Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herb. John	Lever, W. H. (Cheshire, Wirral)
Buckmaster, Stanley O.	Glendinning, R. G.	Levy, Maurice
Burke, E. Haviland-	Goddard, Daniel Ford	Lewis, John Herbert
Burnyeat, J. D. W.	Grant, Corrie	Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David
Burt Rt. Hon. Thomas	Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward	Lough, Thomas
Buxton, Rt. Hn. Sydney Chas.	Grove, Archibald	Lundon, W.
Byles, William Pollard	Gulland, John W.	Lyell, Charles Henry
Cairns, Thomas	Haldane, Rt. Hn. Richard B.	Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)
Caldwell, James	Hall, Frederick	Macdonald, J M(Falkirk B'ghs.)
Carr-Gomm, H. W.	Halpin, J.	Maclean, Donald
Causton, Rt. Hn. Richard K.	Hammond, John	Macpherson, J. T.
Cawley, Frederick	Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis	MacVeigh, Chas. (Donegal, E
Chance, Frederick William	Hardie, J Keir(Merthyr Tydvil)	M'Arthur, William
Cheetham, John Frederick	Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)	M'Callum, John M.
Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.	Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worc'r.)	M'Crae, George
Churchill, Winston Spencer	Hart-Davies, T.	M'Hugh, Patrick A.
Clancy, John Joseph	Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)	M'Kenna, Reginald
M'Killop, W.	Priestley, W.E. B. (Bradford E	Stuart, James (Sunderland)
M'Laren, H. D. (Stafford, W.)	Radford, G. H.	Sullivan, Donal
M'Micking, Major G.	Rainy, A. Rolland	Summerbell, T.
Manfield, Harry (Northants)	Raphael, Herbert H.	Sutherland, J. E.
Mansfield, H. Rendall (Lincoln	Rea, Russell (Gloucester)	Taylor, John W. (Durham)
Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston	Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro	Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)
Marnham, F. J.	Redmond, John E. (Waterford	Tennant, Sir Edward (Salisb'ry
Mason, A. E. W. (Coventry)	Redmond, William (Clare)	Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)
Massie, J.	Rees, J. D.	Thomas, Aber (Carmarthen, E.
Meagher, Michael	Rendall, Athelstan	Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)
Meehan, Patrick A.	Richards, Thos. (W. Monm'th)	Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr
Menzies, Walter	Richard, T. F. (Wolverh'mpt'n	Thomasson, Franklin
Micklem, Nathaniel	Richardson, A.	Thompson, J W H (Somerset, E.
Mond, A.	Rickett, J. Compton	Tomkinson, James
Montgomery, H. H.	Ridsdale, E.	Toulmin, George
Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)	Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)	Trevelyan, Charles Philips
Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)	Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)	Verney, F. W.
Morrell, Philip	Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)	Vivian, Henry
Morse, L. L.	Robertson Sir G Scott(Bradf'rd)	Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)
Morton, Alpheus Cleophas	Robinson, S.	Walters, John Tudor
Murphy, John	Robson, Sir William Snowdon	Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)
Murray, James	Roe, Sir Thomas	Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)
Napier, T. B.	Rogers, F. E. Newman	Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney
Nicholson, Chas. N. (Doncaster	Rose, Charles Day	Waterlow, D. S.
Nolan, Joseph	Rowlands, J.	Watt, H. Anderson
Norman, Henry	Russell, T. W.	Wedgwood, Josiah C.
Norton, Capt. Cecil William	Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)	Weir, James Galloway
Nuttall, Harry	Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)	Whitbread, Howard
O'Brien, K. (Tipperary Mid.)	Scarisbrick, T. T. L.	White, George (Norfolk)
O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)	Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)	White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)
O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)	Scott, A.H.(Ashton under Lyne)	White, Luke (York, E.R.)
O'Doherty, Philip	Seaverns, J. H.	White, Patrick (Meath, North)
O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)	Seddon, J.	Whitehead, Rowland
O'Dowd, John	Seely, Major J. B.	Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)
O'Hare, Patrick	Shackleton, David James	Whittaker, Thomas Palmer
O'Malley, William	Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)	Wiles, Thomas
O'Mara, James	Shaw, Rt. Hn. T. (Hawick B.)	Wilkie, Alexander
O'Shaughnessy, P. J.	Sheehan, Daniel Daniel	Williams, J. (Glamorgan)
Parker, James (Halifax)	Shipman, Dr. John G.	Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)
Paul, Herbert	Silcock, Thomas Ball	Williams, L. (Carmarthen)
Pearce, Robert (Staffs. Leek)	Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John	Wills, Arthur Walters
Pearson, Sir W. D. (Colchester)	Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie	Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)
Pearson, W.H.M. (Suffolk, Eye	Smyth, Thos. F. (Leitrim, S.)	Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)
Philipps, Col. Ivor (S'tha'pton)	Soames, Arthur Wellesley	Winfrey, R.
Philipps, J. Wynford(Pembroke	Soares, Ernest J.	Wood, T. M'Kinnon
Pirie, Duncan V.	Stanger, H. Y.	Woodhouse, Sir JT(Huddersf'd
Pollard, Dr.	Stanley, Hn. A. Lyulph (Chesh.
Power, Patrick Joseph	Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)	TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr. Whiteley and Mr. J. A. Pease.
Price, C.E. (Edinb'gh, Central)	Strachey, Sir Edward
Priestley, Arthur (Grantham)	Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)
NOES.
Acland-Hood, Rt. Hn. Sir Alex F.	Cave, George	Hardy, L. (Kent, Ashford)
Anson, Sir William Reynell	Cavendish, Rt. Hn. Victor C.W.	Harrison-Broadley, Col. H. B.
Anstruther-Gray, Major	Cecil, Lord John P. Joicey-	Helmsley, Viscount
Arkwright, John Stanhope	Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)	Hervey, F. W. F. (Bury S Edm'ds
Arnold-Forster, Rt. Hn. H. O.	Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E.	Hill, Sir Clement (Shrewsbury)
Balcarres, Lord	Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)	Hill, Henry Staveley (Staff'sh
Balfour, Rt. Hn. A.J.(City Lond)	Courthope, G. Loyd	Lane-Fox, G. R.
Banbury, Sir Frederick George	Craig, Chas. Curtis (Antrim, S.)	Lockwood, Rt. Hn. Lt.-Col. A.R.
Baring, Hon. Guy (Winchester)	Craik, Sir Henry	Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (Dublin. S.
Beach, Hn. Michael Hugh H.	Dalrymple, Viscount	Lowe, Sir Francis William
Beckett, Hon. Gervase	Douglas, Rt. Hn. A. Akers-	Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred
Bignold, Sir Arthur	Du Cros, Harvey	M'Calmont, Colonel James
Boyle, Sir Edward	Faber, George Denison (York)	Mason, James F. (Windsor)
Bridgeman, W. Clive	Faber, Capt. W. V. (Hants, W.	Meysey-Thompson, E. C.
Brotherton, Edward Allen	Fell, Arthur	Mildmay, Francis Bingham
Bull, Sir William James	Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.	Morpeth, Viscount
Burdett-Coutts, W.	Forster, Henry William	Muntz, Sir Philip A.
Carlile, E. Hildred	Gibbs, G. N. (Bristol, West)	Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield
Castlereagh, Viscount	Hambro, Charles Eric	Nield, Herbert

Pease, Herbert P. (Darlington	Smith, F E.(Liverpool, Walton)	Williams, Col. R. (Dorset, W.)
Percy, Earl	Starkey, John R.	Wilson, A. Stanley(York, E.R.
Rawlinson, John Frederick P.	Thompson, W. Mitchell (Lanark	Wyndham, Rt. Hn George
Remnant, James Farquharson	Thornton, Percy M.	Younger, George
Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)	Turnour, Viscount
Rutherford, John (Lancashire)	Valentia, Viscount	TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr. Claude Hay and Mr. Evelyn Cecil.
Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)	Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancash.
Salter, Arthur Clavell	Walrond, Hon. Lionel
Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East	Warde, Col. C. E. (Kent, Mid)

ASQUITH

claimed "That the main question, as amended, be now put."

*MR. SPEAKER

said that there was an Amendment standing in the name of the Leader of the Opposition which he thought ought to be considered. If the right hon. Gentleman was prepared to move it at once he would withhold his consent from the Motion.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR moved to leave out the words providing that if a Minister of the Crown moved to leave out Part II. or any clause of the Bill the question should be put without debate. The first part of the paragraph—the last sentence of which he was proposing to omit—gave the Minister power to more that any portion of the Bill be dropped. That was a perfectly proper proposal, but the Government had gone much further and said that the proposal to drop any part of the Bill not only might be made but must be accepted or rejected by the House without amendment or debate. It was the first time they had endeavoured to deal with this question, and he thought it would be a most evil omen that the House should adopt a scheme which would make it appear that it was in the opinion of the House reasonable that the promoters of the Bill should have this power. They had only got to consider what would happen if the promoters of the Bill, for example, were to exercise the power in respect to Clause 4. There was a large number of hon. Members from Ireland, for instance, who were anxious to have the Bill passed if they could get such provisions in Clause 4 as they desired. It would be perfectly possible for the Government to drop Clause 4 without giving any reason, without listening to any reason, and without permitting any discussion. That power ought not to be granted.

He advocated the proposal in the first part of the paragraph as an alteration in the Standing Order in the interest of the general business of the House. He hoped in the interests of future legislation and of this Bill the right hon. Gentleman would accede to his proposal. So far as he know, the Government did not propose to drop any part of the Bill which he would wish to be retained, but he was speaking rather beyond the immediate intentions of the Government.

Amendment proposed— In line 38, to leave out from the word 'Committee,' to the end of the paragraph."— (Mr. A. J. Balfour.)

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

MR. ASQUITH

said the object of putting in this sentence was to save time. He would take as an example a Motion that was tolerably certain to be made to leave out Part 2 of the Bill. On that Motion the whole of the day or the greater part of the day might be taken up subject only to the closure. They wanted to save the time of the House to discuss the living clauses of the Bill which the Government intended to press, and on the part of the Government he wished to give the assurance that no Motion would be made to leave out any clause or any part of this Bill which was not in the nature of something separable from the rest of the Bill; in other words, no Motion to drop any part of the Bill which was dependent on the general scheme of the measure would be submitted.

Question put.

The House divided:—Ayes, 272; Noes, 122. (Division List No. 132.)

AYES.
Abraham, Wm. (Rhondda)	Adkins, W. Ryland	Ainsworth, John Stirling
Acland, Francis Dyke	Agnew, George William	Alden, Percy
Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch	Essex, R. W.	M'Crae, George
Armitage R.	Eve, Harry Trelawney	M'Kenna, Reginald
Armstrong, W. C. Heaton	Everett, R. Lacey	M'Laren, H. D. (Stafford. W.)
Asquith, Rt. Hn. Herbert H.	Fenwick, Charles	M'Micking, Major G.
Astbury, John Meir	Ferens, T. R.	Manfield, Harry (Northants)
Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)	Fiennes, Hon. Eustace	Mansfield, H. Rendall (Lincoln)
Balfour, Robert (Lanark)	Fuller, John Michael F.	Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)
Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)	Fullerton, Hugh	Marnham, F. J.
Barker, John	Gill, A. H.	Mason, A. E. W. (Coventry)
Barlow, Percy (Bedford)	Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbort J.	Massic, J.
Barnard, E. B.	Goddard, Daniel Ford	Menzies, Walter
Barnes, G. N.	Grant, Corrie	Micklen, Nathaniel
Barran, Rowland Hirst	Grey, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward	Mond, A.
Beale, W. P.	Grove, Archibald	Montgomery, H. H.
Beauchamp, E.	Gulland, John W.	Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)
Beaumont, H. (Eastbourne)	Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.	Morrell, Philip
Beaumont, W. C. B. (Hexham)	Hall, Frederick	Morse, L. L.
Beck, A, Cecil	Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis	Morton, Alpheus Cleophas
Bellairs, Carlyon	Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil	Murray, James
Benn, John Williams(Devonp't	Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)	Napier, T. B.
Benn, W. (T'wrHamlets, S. Geo.	Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worc'r)	Nicholson, Charles N.(Doncast'r
Berridge, T. H. D.	Hart-Davies, T.	Norman, Henry
Bertram, Julius	Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)	Norton, Capt. Cecil William
Billson, Alfred	Haslam, James (Derbyshire)	Nuttall, Harry
Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine	Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)	O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)
Black, Arthur W(Bedfordshire)	Haworth, Arthur A.	Parker, James (Halifax)
Bolton, T. D. (Derbyshire, N.E	Hazel, Dr A. E.	Paul, Herbert
Brace, William	Hedges, A. Paget	Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)
Bramsdon, T. A.	Helme, Norval Watson	Pearson, Sir W. D. (Colchester)
Branch, James	Henderson, Arthur (Durham)	Pearson, W.H.M. (Suffolk, Eye
Bright, J. A.	Henderson, J.M.(Aberdeen, W.)	Philipps, Col. Ivor(S'thampton)
Brodie, H. C.	Henry, Charles S.	Philipps, J. Wynford(Pembroke
Brooke, Stopford	Herbert, Colonel Ivor (Mon. S.)	Pirie, Duncan V.
Brunner, J. F. L.(Lancs., Leigh)	Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe)	Pollard, Dr.
Bryce, J. A. (Inverness Burghs	Higham, John Sharp	Price, C. E. (Edinb'gh, Central)
Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn	Hobart, Sir Robert	Priestley, Arthur (Grantham)
Burayeat, J. D. W.	Hodge, John	Priestley, W.E.B.(Bradford, E.
Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas	Hooper, A. G.	Radford, G. H.
Byles, William Pollard	Hope, W. Bateman (Somerset N	Rainy, A. Rolland,
Cairns, Thomas	Horniman, Emslie John	Raphael, Herbert H.
Caldwell, James	Howard, Hn. Geoffrey	Rea, Russell (Gloucester)
Carr-Gomm, H. W.	Hyde, Clarendon	Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro)
Causton, Rt. Hn. Richard K.	Illingworth, Percy H.	Rees, J. D.
Cawley, Frederick	Johnson, John (Gateshead)	Rendall, Athelstan
Channing, Francis Allston	Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)	Renton, Major Leslie
Cheetham, John Frederick	Jones, David Brynmor(Swansea	Richards, Thomas(W. Monm'th
Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.	Jones, Leif (Appleby)	Richards, T.F.(Wolverh'mpt'n)
Churchill, Winston Spencer	Jones, William (Carnarvonsh.)	Richardson, A.
Clarke, C. Goddard	Kearley, Hudson E.	Rickett, J. Compton
Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)	Kelley, George D.	Ridsdale, E. A.
Cooper, G. J.	Kincaid-Smith, Captain	Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)
Corbett, CH(Sussex, E Grinst'd)	Lamb, Edmund G.(Leominster	Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)
Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.	Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)	Roberts, John H. (Denbighs,)
Cory, Clifford John	Lambert, George	Robertson, Sir G. Scott(Bradf'rd
Cotton, Sir H. J. S.	Lamont, Norman	Robinson, S.
Cowan, W. H.	Lawson, Sir Wilfrid	Robson, Sir William Snowdon
Cremer, William Randal	Layland-Barratt, Francis	Roe, Sir Thomas
Crombie, John William	Lea, Hugh Cecil (St. Pancras, E	Rogers, F. E. Newman
Crossley, William J.	Leese, Sir J. F. (Accrington)	Rose, Charles Day
Davies, David (Montgomery Co	Lehmann, R. C.	Rowlands, J.
Davies, W. Howell (Bristol, S.)	Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich	Russell, T. W.
Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh.	Lever, W.H. (Cheshire, Wirral)	Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)
Dickinson, W.H.(St. Pancras, N	Levy, Maurice	Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel).
Dobson, Thomas W.	Lewis, John Herbert	Scarisbrick, T. T. L.
Duckworth, James	Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David	Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde).
Duncan, C.(Barrow-in-Furness	Lough, Thomas	Scott, A.H. (Ashton under Lyne)
Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)	Lyell, Charles Henry	Seaverns, J. H.
Dunne, Major E. M. (Walsall)	Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)	Seddon, J.
Edwards, Clement (Denbigh)	Macdonald, J.M.(Falkirk B'ghs.	Seely, Major J. B.
Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)	Maclean, Donald	Shackleton, David James
Ellis, Rt. Hon. John Edward	Macpherson, J. T.	Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)
Erskine, David C.	M'Arthur, William	Shaw, Rt. Hon. T. (Hawick B.)

Shipman, Dr. John G.	Thomas, David Alfred(Merthyr)	Whitehead, Rowland
Silcock, Thomas Ball	Thomasson, Franklin	Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)
Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John	Thompson, J.W.H.(Somerset, E	Whittaker, Thomas Palmer
Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie	Tomkinson, James	Wiles, Thomas
Soares, Ernest J.	Toulmin, George	Wilkie, Alexander
Stanger, H. Y.	Verney, F. W.	Williams, J. (Glamorgan)
Stanley, Hn. A. Lyulph(Chesh.)	Vivian, Henry	Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)
Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)	Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)	Williams, Llewelyn(Carmarthn
Strachey, Sir Edward	Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)	Wills, Arthur Walters
Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)	Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)	Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)
Stuart, James (Sunderland)	Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney	Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton
Summerbell, T.	Waterlow, D. S.	Wood, T. M'Kinnon
Sutherland, J. E.	Wedgwood, Josiah C.	Woodhouse, Sir J.T.(Huddersf'd
Taylor, John W. (Durham)	Weir, James Galloway
Taylor, Theodore C.(Radcliffe)	Whit bread, Howard	TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr. Whiteley and Mr. J. A. Pease.
Tennant, Sir Edward(Salisbury	White, George (Norfolk)
Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)	White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire
Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)	White, Luke (York. E.R.)
NOES.
Abraham, William (Cork, N.E.)	Faber, Capt. W. V. (Hants. W.	O'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary Mid
Anson, Sir William Reynell	Fell, Arthur	O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)
Anstruther-Gray, Major	Field, William	O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)
Arkwright, John Stanhope	Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.	O'Doherty, Philip
Arnold-Forster, Rt. Hn. Hugh O.	Flynn, James Christopher	O'Dowd, John
Balcarres, Lord	Forster, Henry William	O'Hare, Patrick
Balfour, Rt. Hn. A.J.(City Lond.	Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)	O'Malley, William
Banbury, Sir Frederick George	Ginnell, L.	O'Mara, James
Banner, John S. Harmood-	Halpin, J.	O'Shaughnessy, P. J.
Baring, Hon. Guy (Winchester)	Hammond, John	Pease, Herbert Pike(Darlington)
Barry, E. (Cork, S.)	Hardy, Laurence(Kent. Ashford	Percy, Earl
Beach, Hn. Michael Hugh Hicks	Harrison-Broadley, Col. H. B.	Power, Patrick Joseph
Beckett, Hon. Gervase	Hay, Hon. Claude George	Rawlinson, John Frederick P.
Bignold, Sir Arthur	Hayden, John Patrick	Redmond, John E. (Waterford)
Boland, John	Hazelton, Richard	Redmond, William (Clare)
Boyle, Sir Edward	Helmsley, Viscount	Remnant, James Farquharson
Bridgeman, W. Clive	Hervey, F.W.F.(Bury S. Edm'ds	Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)
Brotherton, Edward Allen	Hill, Sir Clement (Shrewsbury)	Rutherford, John (Lancashire)
Bull, Sir William James	Hill, Henry Staveley(Staff'sh)	Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)
Burdett-Coutts, W.	Hogan, Michael	Salter, Arthur Clavell
Burke, E. Haviland-	Joyce, Michael	Sheehan, Daniel Daniel
Carlile, E. Hildred	Kennedy, Vincent Paul	Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)
Castlereagh, Viscount	Lane-Fox, G. R.	Smith, F. E.(Liverpool, Walton)
Cavendish, Rt. Hn. Victor C.W.	Lockwood, Rt. Hn. Lt.-Col. A.R.	Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)
Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor	Long, Rt. Hn. Walter(Dublin, S.	Starkey, John R.
Cecil, Lord John P. Joicey-	Lowe, Sir Francis William	Sullivan, Donal
Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)	Lundon, W.	Thomson, W. Mitchell-(Lanark)
Clancy, John Joseph	Lyttelton, Rt. Rt. Hon. Alfred	Thornton, Percy M.
Cleland, J. W.	MacVeigh, Chas. (Donegal, E.)	Tumour, Viscount
Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E.	M'Calmont, Colonel James	Walker, Col. W.H. (Lancashire)
Cogan, Denis J.	M'Hugh, Patrick A.	Walrond, Hon. Lionel
Condon, Thomas Joseph	M'Killop, W.	Warde, Col. C. E. (Kent, Mid)
Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)	Mason, James F. (Windsor)	Watt, H. Anderson
Courthope, G. Loyd	Meagher, Michael	White, Patrick (Meath, North)
Craig, Chas. Curtis (Antrim, S.)	Meehan, Patrick A.	Williams, Col. R. (Dorset W.)
Criak, Sir Henry	Meysey-Thompson. E. C.	Wilson, A. Stanley(York, E.R.)
Dairymple, Viscount	Mildmay, Francis Bingham	Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George
Devlin, Chas. Ramsay (Galway	Morpeth, Viscount	Younger, George
Dolan, Charles Joseph	Murphy, John
Douglas, St. Hon. A. Akers-	Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield	TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Sir. Alexander Acland-Hood and Viscount Valentia.
Du Cros, Harvey	Nield, Herbert W.
Faber, George Denison (York)	Nolan, Joseph

Main Question, as amended, again proposed.

Mr. ASQUITH

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

Question put, "That the Question be now put."

The House divided:—Ayes, 269; Noes, 120. (Division List No.133.)

AYES.
Abraham, William (Rhondda)	Dickinson, W.H.(St. Pancras, N.	Leese, Sir Joseph F.(Accrington)
Acland, Francis Dyke	Dobson, Thomas W.	Lehmann, R. C.
Adkins, W. Ryland	Duckworth, James	Lever, A. Levy(Essex, Harwich)
Agnew, George William	Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness	Lever W. H. (Cheshire, Wirral)
Ainsworth, John Stirling	Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)	Levy, Maurice
Alden, Percy	Dunne, Major E. M. (Walsall)	Lewis, John Herbert
Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)	Edwards, Clement (Denbigh)	Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David
Armitage, R.	Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)	Lough, Thomas
Armstrong, W. C. Heaton	Ellis, Rt. Hon. John Edward	Lyell, Charles Henry
Astbury, John Meir	Erskine, David C.	Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)
Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)	Essex, R. W.	Macdonald, J.M.(FalkirkB'ghs)
Balfour, Robert (Lanark)	Eve, Harry Trelawney	Maclean, Donald
Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)	Everett, R. Lacey	Macpherson, J. T.
Barker, John	Fenwick, Charles	M'Arthur, William
Barlow, Percy (Bedford)	Ferens, T. R.	M'Crae, George
Barnard, E. B.	Fiennes, Hon. Eustace	M'Kenna, Reginald
Barnes, G. N.	Fuller, John Michael F.	M'Laren, H. D. (Stafford, W.)
Barran, Rowland Hirst	Fullerton, Hugh	M'Micking, Major G.
Beale, W. P.	Gill, A. H.	Manfield, Harry (Northants)
Beauchamp, E.	Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John	Mansfield, H. Rendall (Lincoln
Beaumont, Hubert(Eastbourne	Goddard, Daniel Ford	Marks, G. Croydon(Launceston)
Beaumont, W. C. B. (Hexham)	Grant, Corrie	Marnham, F. J.
Beck, A. Cecil	Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward	Mason, A. E. W. (Coventry)
Bellairs, Carlyon	Grove, Archibald	Massie, J.
Benn, John Williams (Devonp't	Gulland, John W.	Menzies, Walter
Benn, W.(T'w'rHamlets, S. Geo.	Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.	Micklem, Nathaniel
Berridge, T. H. D.	Hall, Frederick	Mond, A.
Bertram, Julius	Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis	Montgomery, H. H.
Billson, Alfred	Hardie, J. Keir(Merthyr Tydvil)	Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)
Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine	Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)	Morrell, Philip
Black, Arthur W.(Bedfordshire)	Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worc'r)	Morse, L. L.
Bolton, T.D.(Derbyshire, N. E.	Hart-Davies, T.	Morton, Alpheus Cleophas
Brace, William	Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)	Murray, James
Bransdon, T. A.	Haslam, James (Derbyshire)	Napier, T. B.
Branch, James	Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)	Nicholson, Chas. N. (Doncast'r
Bright, J. A.	Haworth, Arthur A.	Norman, Henry
Brodie, H. C.	Hazel, Dr. A. E.	Norton, Capt. Cecil William
Brooke, Stopford	Hedges, A. Paget	Nuttall, Harry
Brunner, J. F. L. (Lancs., Leigh	Helme, Norval Watson	O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)
Bryce, J.A.(Inverness Burghs)	Henderson, Arthur (Durham)	Parker, James (Halifax)
Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn	Henderson, J.M. (Aberdeen, W.)	Paul, Herbert
Burnyeat, J. D. W.	Henry, Charles S.	Pearce, Robert (Staffs. Leek)
Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas	Herbert, Col. Ivor (Mon., S.)	Pearson, Sir W. D.(Colchester)
Byles, William Pollard	Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe)	Pearson, W.H.M.(Suffolk, Eye)
Cairns, Thomas	Higham, John Sharp	Philipps, Col. Ivor(S'thampton)
Caldwell, James	Hobart, Sir Robert	Philipps, J. Wynford(Pembroke
Carr-Gomm, H. W.	Hodge, John	Pirie, Duncan V.
Causton, Rt. Hn. Richard Knight	Hooper, A. G.	Pollard, Dr.
Cawley, Frederick	Hope, W. Bateman(Somerset, N	Price, C. E. (Edinb'gh, Central)
Cheetham, John Frederick	Horniman, Emslie John	Priestley, Arthur (Grantham)
Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.	Howard Hon. Geoffrey	Priestley, W.E.B.(Bradford, E.)
Churchill, Winston Spencer	Hyde, Clarendon	Radford, G. H.
Clarke, C. Goddard	Illingworth, Percy H.	Rainy, A. Rolland
Cleland, J. W.	Johnson, John (Gateshead)	Raphael, Herbert H.
Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)	Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)	Redmond, Williar. (Clare)
Cooper, G. J.	Jones, Leif (Appleby)	Rees, J. D.
Corbett, C.H.(Sussex, E. Grins'd	Jones, William (Carnarvonshire	Rendall, Athelstan
Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.	Kearley, Hudson E.	Renton, Major Leslie
Cory, Clifford John	Kelley, George D.	Richards, Thos. (W. Monmouth
Cotton, Sir H. J. S.	Kincaid-Smith, Captain	Richards, T.F.(Wolverh'mpt'n
Cowan, W. H.	Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominster	Richardson, A.
Cremer, William Randall	Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)	Rickett, J. Compton
Crombie, John William	Lambert, George	Ridsdale, E. A.
Crossley, William J.	Lamont, Norman	Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)
Davies, David(Montgomery, Co.	Lawson, Sir Wilfrid	Roberts, John H. (Denbighs)
Davies, W.Howell (Bristol, S.)	Layland-Barratt, Francis	Robertson, Sir G. Scott(Bradf'rd
Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh.)	Lea, Hugh Cecil(St. Pancras, E.)	Robinson, S.
Robson, Sir William Snowdon	Stewart-Smith, D, (Kendal)	Weir, James Galloway
Roe, Sir Thomas	Strachey, Sir Edward	Whitbread, Howard
Rogers, F. E. Newman	Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)	White, George (Norfolk)
Rose, Charles Day	Stuart, James (Sunderland)	White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)
Rowlands, J.	Summerbell, T.	White, Luke (York, E. R.)
Russell, T. W.	Sutherland, J. E.	Whitehead, Rowland
Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)	Taylor, John W. (Durham)	Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)
Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)	Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)	Whittaker, Thomas Palmer
Scarisbrick, T. T. L.	Tennant, Sir Edw. (Salisbury)	Wiles, Thomas
Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)	Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)	Wilkie, Alexander
Scott, A. H. (Ashton-under-Lyne	Thomas, Sir A.(Glamorgan, E.)	Williams, J. (Glamorgan)
Seaverns, J. H.	Thomas, David Alfred(Merthyr)	Williams, Llewelyn(Carmarthen
Seddon, J.	Thomasson, Franklin	Wills, Arthur Walters
Seely, Major J. B.	Thompson, J. W. H. (Somerset, E	Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)
Shackleton, David James	Tomkinson, James	Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)
Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)	Toulmin, George	Winfrey, R.
Shaw, Rt. Hon. T.(Hawick B.)	Verney, F. W.	Wood, T. M'Kinnon
Shipman, Dr. John G.	Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)	Woodhouse, Sir J.T. (Huddersf'd
Silcock, Thomas Ball	Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)
Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John	Wason, Eugene(Clackmannan)	TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr. Whiteley and Mr. J. A. Pease.
Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie	Wason, John Cathcart(Orkney)
Soares, Ernest J.	Waterlow, D. S.
Stanger, H. Y.	Watt, H, Anderson
Stanley, Hon. A. Lyulph (Chesh.	Wedgwood, Josiah C.
NOES.
Abraham, William (Cork N.E.)	Faber, George Denison (York)	Nield, Herbert
Anson, Sir William Reynell	Faber, Capt. W. V. (Hants. W.)	Nolan, Joseph
Anstruther-Gray, Major	Fell, Arthur	O'Brien, K. (Tipperary Mid.)
Arkwright, John Stanhope	Field, William	O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)
Arnold-Forster, Rt. Hn. HughO	Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.	O'Doherty, Philip
Balcarres, Lord	Flynn, James Christopher	O'Dowd, John
Balfour, RtHn. A.J.(City Lond.)	Forster, Henry William	O'Hare, Patrick
Banbury, Sir Frederick George	Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)	O'Malley, William
Banner, John S. Harmood-	Ginnell, L.	O'Mara, James
Baring, Hon. Guy (Winchester)	Halpin, J.	O'Shaughnessy, P. J.
Barry, E. (Cork, S.)	Hammond, John	Pease, Herbert P. (Darlington)
Beach, Hn. Michael Hugh Hicks	Hardy, L, (Kent, Ashford)	Percy, Earl
Beckett, Hon. Gervase	Harrison-Broadley, Col. H. B.	Power, Patrick Joseph
Bignold, Sir Arthur	Hay, Hon. Claude George	Rawlinson, John Frederick P.
Boland, John	Hayden, John Patrick	Redmond, John E. (Waterford
Boyle, Sir Edward	Hazleton, Richard	Remnant, James Farquharson
Bridgeman, W. Clive	Helmsley, Viscount	Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall
Brotherton, Edward Allen	Hervey, F.W.F. (Bury S Edm'd)	Rutherford, John (Lancashire)
Bull, Sir William James	Hill, Sir Clement (Shrewsbury	Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)
Burdett-Coutts, W.	Hill, Henry Staveley(Staff'sh.)	Salter, Arthur Clavell
Burke, E. Haviland-	Hogan, Michael	Sheehan, Daniel Daniel
Carlile, E. Hildred	Joyce, Michael	Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East
Castlereagh, Viscount	Kennedy, Vincent Paul	Smith, F. E. (Liverpool, Walton
Cavendish, Rt. Hon. Victor C.W.	Lane-Fox, G. R.	Smyth, Thos. K. (Leitrim, S.)
Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)	Lockwood, Rt. Hn. Lt.-Col. A.R.	Starkey, John R.
Cecil, Lord John P, Joicey-	Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (Dublin S.	Sullivan, Donal
Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)	Lowe, Sir Francis William	Thomson, W. Mitchell (Lanark)
Channing, Francis Allston	Lundon, W.	Thornton,, Percy M.
Clancy, John Joseph	Lyttelton, Rt. Hn. Alfred	Turnour, Viscount
Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E.	MacVeigh, Chas. (Donegal, E.)	Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire
Cogan, Denis J.	M'Calmont, Colonel James	Walrond, Hon. Lionel
Condon, Thomas Joseph	M'Hugh, Patrick A.	Warde, Col. F. E. (Kent, Mid)
Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)	M'Killop, W.	White, Patrick (Meath, North)
Courthope, G. Loyd	Mason, James F. (Windsor	Williams. Col. R. (Dorset, W.)
Craig, Chas. Curtis (Antrim, S.)	Meagher, Michael	Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E.R.
Craik, Sir Henry	Meehan, Patrick A.	Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George
Dairymple, Viscount	Meysey-Thompson, E. C.	Younger, George
Devlin, Chas. Ramsay (Galway	Mildmay, Francis Bingham
Dolan, Charles Joseph	Morpeth, Viscount	TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Sir. Alexander Acland-Hood and Viscount Valentia.
Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-	Murphy, John
Du Cros, Harvey	Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield

Question put accordingly.

The House divided:—Ayes, 262; Noes, 121. (Division List No.134.)

AYES.
Acland, Francis Dyke	Duckworth, James	Levy, Maurice
Adkins, W. Ryland	Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness	Lewis, John Herbert
Agnew, George William	Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)	Lloyd-George, Rt. Hn. David
Ainsworth, John Stirling	Dunne, Major E. M.(Walsall)	Lough, Thomas
Alden, Percy	Edwards, Clement (Denbigh)	Lyell, Charles Henry
Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)	Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)	Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)
Armitage, R.	Ellis, Rt. Hn. John Edward	Macdonald, JM(FalkirkB'ghs.)
Armstrong, W. C. Heaton	Erskine, David C.	Maclean, Donald
Astbury, John Meir	Essex, R. W.	Macpherson, J. T.
Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)	Eve, Harry Trelawney	M'Arthur, William
Balfour, Robert (Lanark)	Everett, R. Lacey	M'Crae, George
Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)	Fenwick, Charles	M'Kenna, Reginald
Barker, John	Ferens, T. R.	M'Laren, H. D. (Stafford, W.)
Barlow, Percy (Bedford)	Fiennes, Hon. Eustace	M'Micking, Major G.
Barnard, E. B.	Fuller, John Michael F.	Manfield, Harry (Northants)
Barnes, G. N.	Fullerton, Hugh	Mansfield, H. Rendall (Lincoln)
Barran, Rowland Hirst	Gill, A. H.	Marks, G. Croydon (Launcest'n
Beale, W. P.	Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert J.	Marnham, F. J.
Beauchamp, E.	Goddard, Daniel Ford	Mason, A. E. W. (Coventry)
Beaumont, H. (Eastbourne)	Grey, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward	Massie, J.
Beaumont, W. C. B. (Hexham)	Grove, Archibald	Menzies, Walter
Beck, A. Cecil	Gulland, John W.	Micklem, Nathaniel
Bellairs, Carlyon	Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.	Mond, A.
Benn, John W. (Devonport)	Hall, Frederick	Montgomery, H.H.
Benn, W. (T'wr Hamlets, S. Geo	Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis	Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)
Berridge, T. H. D.	Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil	Morrell Philip
Bertram, Julius	Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)	Morse, L. L.
Billson, Alfred	Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worc'r)	Morton, Alpheus Cleophas
Birrell, Rt. Hn. Augustine	Hart-Davies, T.	Murray, James
Black, Arthur W. (Bedfordsh.)	Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)	Napier, T. B.
Bolton, T. D. (Derbyshire, N.E.	Haslam, James (Derbyshire)	Nicholson, Chas. N (Doncaster)
Brace, William	Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)	Norman, Henry
Bramsdon, T. A.	Haworth, Arthur A.	Norton, Capt. Cecil William
Branch, James	Hazel, Dr. A. E.	Nuttall, Harry
Bright, J. A.	Hedges, A. Paget	O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)
Brodie, H. C.	Helme, Norval Watson	Parker, James (Halifax)
Brooke, Stopford	Henderson, Arthur (Durham)	Paul, Herbert
Brunner, J. F. L. (Lancs., Leigh	Henderson, JM.(Aberdeen, W.)	Pearce, Robert (Staffs. Leek)
Bryce, J. A. (Inverness Burghs	Henry, Charles S.	Pearson, Sir W. D. (Colchester)
Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn	Herbert, Colonel Ivor (Mon. S.)	Pearson, W. H. M. (Suffolk, Eye
Burnyeat, J. D. W.	Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe)	Philipps, Col. Ivor (S'thampton
Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas	Higham, John Sharp	Philipps, J Wynford(Pembroke
Byles, William Pollard	Hobart, Sir Robert	Pirie, Duncan V.
Cairns, Thomas	Hodge, John	Pollard, Dr.
Caldwell, James	Hooper, A. G.	Price, C. E. (Edinb'gh.Central)
Carr-Gomm, H. W.	Hope, W. Bateman (Somerset N	Priestley, Arthur (Grantham)
Causton, Rt. Hn. Richard K.	Horniman, Emslie John	Priestley, W. E.B(Bradford, E
Cawley, Frederick	Howard, Hon. Geoffrey	Radford, G. H.
Cheetham, John Frederick	Hyde, Clarendon	Rainy, A. Rolland
Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.	Illingworth, Percy H.	Raphael, Herbert H.
Churchill, Winston Spencer	Johnson, John (Gateshead)	Rees, J. D.
Clarke, C. Goddard	Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)	Rendall, Athelstan
Cleland, J. W.	Jones, Wm. (Carnarvonshire)	Renton, Major Leslie
Cooper, G. J.	Kearley, Hudson E.	Richards, Thomas (WMonm'th
Corbett, C.H(Sussex, E. Grinst'd	Kelley, George D.	Richards, T, F. Wolverh'mpt'n
Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.	Kincaid-Smith, Captain	Richardson, A.
Cory, Clifford John	Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominster	Rickett, J. Compton
Cotton, Sir H. J. S.	Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)	Ridsdale, E. A.
Cowan, W. H.	Lambert, George	Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)
Cremer, William Randal	Lamont, Norman	Robertson, Sir G Scott(Bradf'rd
Crombie, John William	Lawson, Sir Wilfrid	Robinson, S.
Crosfield, A. H.	Layland-Barratt, Francis	Robson, Sir Wm. Snowdon
Davies, David (Montgomery Co	Lea, Hugh Cecil (St. Pancras, E	Roe, Sir Thomas
Davies, W. Howoll (Bristol, S.)	Leese, Sir J. F. (Accrington)	Rogers, F. E. Newman
Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh.	Lehmann, R. C.	Rose, Charles Day
Dickinson. W. H.(St. Pancras, N	Lever, A. Levy (Essex. Harwich	Rowlands, J.
Dobson, Thomas W.	Lever, W. H. (Cheshire, Wirral	Russell, T. W.
Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)	Summerbell, T.	White, George (Norfolk)
Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)	Sutherland, J. E.	White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)
Scarisbrick, T. T. L.	Taylor, John W. (Durham)	White, Luke (York, E.R.)
Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)	Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)	Whitehead, Rowland
Scott, A. H.(Ashton under Lyne	Tennant, Sir Edward (Salisb'ry	Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)
Seaverns, J. H.	Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)	Whittaker, Thomas Palmer
Seddon, J.	Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.	Wiles, Thomas
Seely, Major J. B.	Thomas, David Alfred(Merthyr	Wilkie, Alexander
Shackleton, David James	Thomasson, Franklin	Williams, J. (Glamorgan)
Shaw, Chas. Edw. (Stafford)	Thompson, JWH(Somerset, E.	Williams, L. (Carmarthen)
Shaw, Rt. Hn. T. (Hawick B.)	Tomkinson, James	Wills, Arthur Walters
Shipman, Dr. John G.	Toulmin, George	Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)
Silcock, Thomas Ball	Verney, F. W.	Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton
Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John	Walker, H. De R, (Leicester)	Winfrey, R.
Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie	Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)	Wood, T. M'Kinnon
Soares, Ernest J.	Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)	Woodhouse, Sir JT(Huddersf'd
Stanger, H. Y.	Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney
Stanley, Hn. A. Lyulph (Chesh.	Waterlow, D.S.	TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr. Whiteley and Mr. J. A. Pease.
Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)	Watt, H. Anderson
Strachey, Sir Edward	Wedgwood, Josiah C.
Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)	Weir, James Galloway
Stuart, James (Sunderland)	Whitbread, Howard
NOES.
Abraham, Wm. (Cork, N. E.)	Field, William	O'Brien, K. (Tipperary Mid.
Anson, Sir William Reynell	Finch, Rt. Hn. George H.	O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)
Anstruther-Gray, Major	Flynn, James Christopher	O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)
Arkwright, John Stanhope	Forster, Henry William	O'Doherty, Philip
Arnold-Forster, Rt. Hn. H. O.	Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)	O'Dowd, John
Balcarres, Lord	Ginnell, L.	O'Hare, Patrick
Balfour, Rt. Hn AJ(City Lond.)	Grant, Corrie	O'Malley, William
Banbury, Sir Frederick George	Halpin, J.	O'Mara, James
Banner, John S. Harmood-	Hammond, John	O'Shaughnessy, P. J.
Baring, Hon. Guy (Winchester)	Hardy, L. (Kent, Ashford)	Pease, Herbert P. (Darlington
Barry, E. (Cork, S.)	Harrison-Broadley, Col. H. B.	Percy, Earl
Beach, Hn. Michael Hugh Hicks	Hay, Hn. Claude George	Power, Patrick Joseph
Beckett, Hon. Gervase	Hayden, John Patrick	Rawlinson, John Frederick P.
Bignold, Sir Arthur	Hazleton, Richard	Redmond, John E. (Waterford)
Boland, John	Helmsley, Viscount	Redmond, William (Clare)
Boyle, Sir Edward	Hervey, F.W.F.(Bury S Edm'ds	Remnant, James Farquharson
Bridgeman, W. Clive	Hill, Sir Clement (Shrewsbury)	Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)
Brotherton, Edward Allen	Hill, Henry Staveley (Staff'sh.)	Rutherford, John (Lancashire
Bull, Sir William James	Hogan, Michael	Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)
Burdett, Coutts, W.	Jones, Leif (Appleby)	Salter, Arthur Clavell
Burke, E. Haviland-	Joyce, Michael	Sheehan, Daniel Daniel
Carlile, E. Hildred	Kennedy, Vincent Paul	Smith, Abel H (Hertford, East)
Castlereagh, Viscount	Lane-Fox, G. R.	Smith, F.E. (Liverpool Walton)
Cavendish, Rt. Hon. Victor C.W.	Lockwood, Rt. Hn. Lt.-Col. A.R.	Smyth, Thos. F. (Leitrim, S.)
Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)	Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (Dublin. S.	Starkey, John R.
Cecil, Lord John P. Joicey-	Lowe, Sir Francis William	Sullivan, Donal
Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)	Lundon, W.	Thomson, W.Mitchell-(Lanark
Channing, Francis Allston	Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred	Thornton, Percy M.
Clancy, John Joseph	MacVeigh, Chas. (Donegal, E)	Turnour, Viscount
Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E.	M'Calmont, Colonel James	Walker, Col. W. H.(Lancashire
Cogan, Denis J.	M'Hugh, Patrick A.	Walrond, Hon. Lionel
Condon, Thomas Joseph	M'Killop, W.	Warde, Col. C. E. (Kent, Mid.)
Courthope, G. Loyd	Mason, James F. (Windsor)	White, Patrick (Meath, North
Craig, Chas. Curtis (Antrim, S.)	Meagher, Michael	Williams, Col. R. (Dorset, W.)
Craik, Sir Henry	Meehan, Patrick A.	Wilsor, A. Stanley (York, E.R)
Dairymple, Viscount	Meysey-Thompson, E. C.	Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George
Devlin, Chas. Ramsay (Galway)	Mildmay, Francis Bingham	Younger, George
Dolan, Charles Joseph	Morpeth, Viscount
Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-	Murphy, John	TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Sir. Alexander Acland-Hood and
Du Cros, Harvey	Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield
Faber, George Denison (York)	Nield, Herbert	Viscount Valentia.
Faber, Capt, W. V. (Hants, W.)	Nolan, Joseph

Motion made, and Question, "That this House do now adjourn,'' — (Mr. Whiteley,)—put, and agreed to.

Ordered, That the Committee stage and Report stage of the Education (England and Wales) Bill, including the Financial Resolution relating thereto, shall be proceeded with in the following manner:—(a) That the remaining part of Clause 2 be proceeded with and the proceedings thereon brought to a conclusion on the first allotted day; (b) That Clause 3 be proceeded with and the proceedings thereon brought to a conclusion on the next allotted day; (c) That three allotted days he given, if required, to Clauses 4 and 5 and the Committee stage of the Financial Resolution, and the proceedings thereon shall, if not previously brought to a conclusion, be brought to a conclusion on the third of these allotted days: (d) That two days be given, if required, to Clauses 6 and 7 and the Report stage of the Financial Resolution, and the proceedings thereon shall, if not previously brought to a conclusion, be brought to a conclusion on the second of these allotted days; (e) That throe allotted days be given, if required, to Clause 8 to 13 and any Motion which may be made to leave out Part II. of the Bill, and the proceedings thereon shall, if not previously brought to a conclusion, be brought to a conclusion on the third of those allotted days; (f) That Clauses 25 to 34 be proceeded with, and the proceedings thereon brought to a conclusion on the next allotted days; that Clause 35 and 36 be proceeded with, and the proceedings thereon brought to a conclusion on the next allotted day; (g) That Part IV. of the Bill be proceeded with, and the proceedings thereon brought to a conclusion, on the next allotted day; (h) That the remaining clauses of the Bill, and the schedules, and any new Government clauses, and any new Government schedules, and any other matter necessary to bring the Committee stage to a conclusion, be proceeded with and brought to a conclusion on the next allotted day; (i) That three allotted days he given to the Report stage of the Bill, and the proceedings thereon shall, if not previously brought to a conclusion be brought to a conclusion on the third of these allotted days. After this Order comes into operation, any day shall be considered an allotted day for the purposes of this Order on which the Education (England and Wales) Bill is put down as the first Order of the Day. A Motion may be made by a Minister of the Crown to leave out Part II. of the Bill, or to leave out any clause of the Bill, before the consideration of any Amendments to that part or clause in Committee. The Question on a Motion moved by a Minister of the Crown to leave out Part II. of the Bill or to leave out any clause of the Bill shall be put forthwith by the Chairman or Speaker without debate. At 10.30 p.m. on any allotted day on which proceedings on any allotted business are to be brought to a conclusion, or if the day is a Friday, at 4.30 p.m., the Chairman or Speaker shall, if those proceedings have not already been brought to a conclusion, put forthwith the Question or Questions on any Amendment or Motion already proposed from the Chair and shall next proceed successively to put forthwith the Question on any Amendments moved by the Government of which notice has been given (but no other Amendments), and on every Question necessary to dispose of the allotted business to be concluded, and in the case of Government Amendments or of Government new clauses or schedules, he shall put only the Question that the Amendment be made, or that the clause or schedule be added to the Bill, as the case may be. At 11 p.m. on the day on which the Third Reading of the Bill is put down as first Order, or if that day is a Friday at 5 p.m., the Speaker shall put forthwith any Question necessary to conclude the proceedings on that stage of the Bill. Proceedings to which this Order relates shall not, on any allotted day on which proceedings on any allotted business are to be brought to a conclusion under this Order be interrupted under the provisions of any Standing Order relating to the Sittings of the House. After the passing of this Order, on any day on which any proceedings on the Education (England and Wales) Bill stand as the first Order of the day, no dilatory Motion on the Bill non Motion for Adjournment under Standing Order 10, nor Motion to postpone a Clause, shall be received unless moved by a Minister of the Crown, and the Question on any such Motion shall be put forthwith without debate. Any Private Business which is set down for consideration at 8.15 p.m. on any allotted day, or on the day on which the Third Reading of the Bill is put down as first Order, shall, instead of being taken on that day as provided by the Standing Order "Time for taking Private Business," be taken after the conclusion of the proceedings on the Bill for that day, and any Private Business so taken may be proceeded with though opposed, notwithstanding the Standing Order "Sittings of the House." — (Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman.)

Adjourned at twenty eight minutes after Two o'clock.