HC Deb 21 March 1907 vol 171 cc964-1005

Order for Third Reading read.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the third time."

SIR A. ACLAND-HOOD (Somerset, Wellington)

moved the adjournment of the debate. He said that last Thursday the Prime Minister was asked a question about the business of the House for this week. He had handed to the Government Whips a copy of The Timesgiving the answer and he had not seen it since. The Prime Minister stated that to-morrow (Thursday) it was proposed to move the Speaker out of the Chair on the Civil Service Estimates and to take the Third Reading of the Consolidated Fund Bill. The right hon. Gentleman said it was necessary to get the Third Reading by Thursday. He contended there was no reason why it should be taken that night, especially having regard to the fact that the Committee stage of an important Bill was behind it. It might be urged that the Bill was in a more advanced stage now than could have been anticipated last Thursday. But why was that so? A bargain was made across the floor of the House, and all he could say was that if statements were to be made by the Leader of the House on one day, and on the same day an arrangement come to between the Secretary for War and himself as representing the front Opposition Bench, and those bargains and arrangements were to be upset, he would be very chary of coming to such arrangements in future. On this occasion he thought that the Government had a particularly bad case. On Monday last, it would not be denied that on the Second Reading of this Bill they did not have a particularly happy time; and when on the Third Reading they might expect to be hammered again, they took the Bill at a period of the night when no reporters would be present. Another point was that this year the Army (Annual) Bill was in many important respects an almost entirely new Bill, and it ought to be given full and fair discussion by all those who were interested in the well-being of the private soldier. His hon. friends behind him wanted that full discussion, but apparently the Government desired to have the Third Reading of another important Bill in front of it in order to burke discussion, or to bring it on in the small hours of the morning when the debates were too late to be reported. He made his motion because he was speaking of a bargain made across the floor of the House, and because he did not believe in such Bills being hurried through.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the debate be now adjourned." (Sir Alexander Acland-Hood.)

THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. Haldane,) Haddington

said that as regarded the Army (Annual) Bill, ever since he had been in the House it had been taken at that hour of the night, and he was there prepared to give the fullest information in his power to hon. and gallant Members opposite—quite as full information as had been given on former occasions. He did not desire in the least to curtail the consideration of the Bill.

THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. George Whiteley, Yorkshire, W.R.,) Pudsey

said that as this matter affected the business of the House, he wished to reply to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wellington. He thought that the intervention of the right hon. Gentleman was somewhat ungenerous, if not ungracious. On Thursday night last the Prime Minister was interrogated as to the course of business, when he said that the Second Reading of the Consolidated Fund Bill would be taken on Tuesday, and the Third Reading on Wednesday. The House would remember that the Leader of the Opposition rose in his place and pressed the Prime Minister that it was not fair to take the Second Reading of the Consolidated Fund Bill on Tuesday, when at a quarter past eight the discussion would be interrupted for private Members' business and when so many of his supporters wanted to speak on the Bill. Having got the Report of Ways and Means through on Thursday night, in order to meet the views of the right hon. Gentleman and his Party the Government gave up the long Government day on Monday for the discussion of the Consolidated Fund Bill and contented themselves with the short day on Tuesday for their other business. In fact, the Government had altered their arrangements and gone out of their way to oblige hon. Gentlemen opposite, and now they were being blamed for it. Moreover, as must always be the case, announcements as to the course of public business made on a Thursday were bound in some respects to be provisional; but they endeavoured as far as they could to adhere to their plan.

LORD BALCARRES (Lancashire, Chorley)

said that that was the first time they had been told that announcements made as to the course of public business on Thursdays were bound to be provisional. They were not told so on Thursday last, when the hon. Gentleman made his forecast of the course of business for the next few days. He thought that it would have been within the ordinary scope of Parliamentary etiquette if the hon. Gentleman had informed the Opposition that this alteration in the business was to be made, and that the Third Reading of the Consolidated Fund Bill was to be taken that evening. They had a right to notice that this important Bill was to be taken instead of the Army (Annual) Bill. They would not have objected to the Bill being taken, if they had had fair notice. They did not object to the Secretary for War's measure being taken that night, because the right hon. Gentleman had given notice about it. But it was unfair to interpose the Consolidated Fund Bill between the Army (Annual) Bill and the House. He presumed that the Motion would be defeated and that they would have to discuss the Consolidated Fund (No. 1) Bill, but he ventured to appeal to the Patronage Secretary even at the last moment to give way on the matter.


hoped the Patronage Secretary would reconsider his decision to force on the Consolidated Fund Bill that evening. He did not see how the hon. Gentleman was going to lose if he gave way. If he did so they would proceed with the Army (Annual) Bill as to which there was no intention to prolong the discussion indefinitely. One or two hours would be sufficient for the Army (Annual) Bill, and then the hon. Gentleman would have the next day to discuss the Third Reading of the Appropriation Bill. That would not interfere with Supply, which he would get just the same. He asked the hon. Gentleman to consider for a moment, in his own interest and the interests of the House, whether he would not make a gracious concession and allow them now to proceed with the consideration of the Army (Annual) Bill.

LORD R. CECIL (Marylebone, E.)

pointed out that the Prime Minister said on Thursday last that the Second Reading of the Consolidated Fund Bill would be taken on Tuesday, the Committee on Wednesday, and the Third Reading on Thursday. No alteration was made in that scheme of business except that by arrangement the Second Reading was taken on Monday instead of on Tuesday. Thereupon the Patronage Secretary said that it necessarily followed that in consequence of that alteration the Third Reading should be taken that night.


pointed out that the Committee stage was under the arrangement to be taken that evening.


said there could be no discussion on the Committee stage except of a technical character, but the Third Reading was a different matter and any question could be raised which in the view of hon. Members was of public importance. The Members of the Opposition had relied on a pledge given by the Prime Minister, and he felt that the House was in some little difficulty because the Prime Minister was not present. He felt convinced that if the Prime Minister had been present, he would have got up at once, and, throwing over the Patronage Secretary, said that any statement which he had made in the House and which had been relied upon by other Members must be observed literally, if the proceedings of the House were to be carried on with comfort and without friction. He thought that considering the statements which had been made and that the Prime Minister was not present to secure the strict fulfilment of the pledge he had given, the Government would be well advised to yield the point, which could make no difference to them, but which would make a considerable difference in the feelings of a large body of Members as to the way in which they had been treated.

THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir Edward Grey,) Northumberland, Berwick

said that nothing was more disagreeable or disconcerting than any dispute as to whether there had been a breach of faith with regard to the arrangement of business. He would point out to the noble lord that the Leader of the Opposition was absent, as well as the Prime Minister, and as during the course of the day it had been known exactly what the arrangements were, he should certainly have expected the Leader of the Opposition to have been present to raise the question if there had been any general impression that there had been breach of faith. He did not remember any case in which the successive stages of the Consolidated Fund Bill had not been taken on successive days. It was not possible to alter the present arrangements without causing considerable inconvenience to the House of Lords, whose business had been arranged on the assumption that the Third Reading of the Bill would be taken that night.

MR. WILLIAM RUTHERFORD (Liverpool, West Derby)

hoped that the Government would not press this matter. If they persisted in taking two important measures like the Consolidated Fund Bill and the Army (Annual) Bill after eleven o'clock, it would be a characteristic illustration of the extraordinary way in which those now responsible for the business of the country conducted it. The House had fixed eleven o'clock as a reasonable time at which to finish business, and although they knew there were occasions on which it was absolutely necessary to proceed after that hour, and they knew the Army (Annual) Bill was to come on after that time, there was no reason why the discussion upon it should not commence at eleven o'clock. But it was a most important measure, which they ought not to be called upon to discuss in the middle of the night, and there was no reason for taking a second Bill after the hour at which the business of the House usually finished. He had private information that many supporters of the Government desired to raise important questions on the Third Reading of the Consolidated Fund Bill, and they had been deliberately robbed of their opportunity. It had been suggested that if the Government yielded on this point facilities would be given to allow them to get the Army (Annual) Bill in an unreasonably short time. All he could say was that he would be no party to any thing of the sort.

*MR. CAVE (Surrey, Kingston)

said he had fully intended to call attention to what he thought was a real grievance on the Motion for the Third Reading of this Bill, which he understood was to be taken to-morrow. He had desired to raise the question of the block of business in the Courts, but owing to the change in the arrangements he was not prepared to state his case fully that night. He thought the alteration was a cause of real disadvantage to private Members, and he therefore appealed to right hon. Gentlemen opposite to have regard to what the Prime Minister

was certainly understood to say last week, and to allow the debate to be adjourned.

MR. COURTHOPE (Sussex, Rye)

said the House had been told that arrangements were made last week with another place in order to allow the Government to take the Third Reading of the Consolidated Fund Bill to-night, but if such an arrangement had been made so long ago, it was a great pity the House was not informed earlier. There were many hon. Members who desired to raise important questions on the Third Reading of the Bill, and many hon. Members were determined to take the opportunity, it being one of the few opportunities private Members had. It was understood that the opportunity would arise to-morrow. The Prime Minister undoubtedly said so, and when the arrangement was made to transpose the business of Monday and Tuesday, all the House was told was that there had been an interchange of business. Not a word was said of any alteration of the business for Wednesday and Thursday. Under those circumstances, he urged that not only would great inconvenience be caused to private Members by the loss of the opportunity to raise important questions, but owing to the determination to raise those points, at no matter what hour, the course if persisted in would postpone to an unreasonable period of the night the discussion on the Army Annual Bill. He therefore urged the Government to allow the Bill to stand over until to-morrow.

Question put.

The House divided: —Ayes, 74; Noes, 263. (Division List No. 46.)

Acland-Hood, Rt Hn. Sir Alex. F. Butcher, Samuel Henry Cross, Alexander
Anstruther-Gray, Major Campbell, Rt. Hon. J. H. M. Dalrymple, Viscount
Arkwright, John Stanhope Carlile, E. Hildred Faber, George Denison (York)
Ashley, W. W. Castlereagh, Viscount Fell, Arthur
Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hon. Sir H. Cave, George Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.
Balcarres, Lord Cavendish, Rt. Hon. Victor C.W. Forster, Henry William
Banbury, Sir Frederick George Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor) Gardner, Ernest (Berks, East).
Banner, John S. Harmood- Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E. Haddock, George R.
Beach, Hn Michael Hugh Hicks Coates, E Feetham (Lewsisham Hamilton, Marquess of
Beckett, Hon. Gervase Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E. Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashford
Bignold, Sir Arthur Corbett, T. L. (Down, North) Harrison-Broadley, Col. H. B.
Bowles, G. Stewart Courthope, G. Loyd Helmsley, Viscount
Boyle, Sir Edward Craig, Charles Curtis(Antrim, S. Hervey, F. W. F.(Bury S. Edm'ds
Bridgeman, W. Clive Craig, Captain James(Down, E.) Hills, J. W.
Bull, Sir William James Craik, Sir Henry Houston, Robert Paterson
Hunt, Rowland Roberts, S.(Sheffield, Ecclesall) Thornton, Percy M.
Lane-Fox, G. R. Rothschild, Hon. Lionel Walter Vincent. Col. Sir C. E. Howard
Lonsdale, John Brownlee Rutherford, W. W (Liverpool) Walrond, Hon. Lionel
Magnus, Sir Philip Salter, Arthur Clavell Williams, Col. R. (Dorset, W.)
Mason, James F. (Windsor) Sassoon Sir Edward Albert Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E. R.)
Meysey-Thompson, E. C. Sheffield Sir Berkeley George D. Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart-
Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield) Smith Abel H(Hertford, East) Younger, George
Nield, Herbert Smith F.E.(Liverpool, Walton)
Percy, Earl Stanley Hon. Arthur (Ormskirk TELLERS FOR THE AYES—.
Randles, Sir John Scurrah Starkey, John R. Viscount Valentia and Lord Edmund Talbot
Rawlinson, John FrederickPeel Thomson, W. Mitchell-(Lanark)
Abraham, William (Cork, N.E.) Cox, Harold Jones, William(Carnarvonshire
Acland, Francis Dyke Crean, Eugene Jowett, F. W.
Agnew, George William Cremer, William Randal Kearley, Hudson E.
Ainsworth, John Stirling Crooks, William Kekewich, Sir George
Alden, Percy Crosfield, A. H. Kilbride, Denis
Allen, A Acland(Christchurch) Dalziel, James Henry King, Alfred John (Knutsford)
Allen, Charles P. (Stroud) Davies, Ellis William (Eifion) Laidlaw, Robert
Armstrong, W. C. Heaton Davies, Timothy (Fulham) Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)
Asquith, Rt. Hon HerbertHenry Davies, W. Howell (Bristol, S.) Lambert, George
Baker, Joseph A(Finsbury, E.) Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.) Lamont, Norman
Balfour, Robert (Lanark) Duncan, C.(Barrow-in-Furness Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.)
Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight) Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne) Lea, Hugh Cecil (St. Pancras, E.
Barker, John Dunne, Major E Martin(Walsall Leese, Sir Joseph F.(Accrington
Barlow, Percy (Bedford) Edwards, Enoch (Hanley) Lehmann, R. C.
Barnard, E. B. Edwards, Frank (Radnor) Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich)
Barry, E. (Cork, S.) Elibank, Master of Levy, Maurice
Barry, Redmond J.(Tyrone, N.) Essex, R. W. Lewis, John Herbert
Beale, W. P. Esslemont, George Birnie Lough, Thomas
Beauchamp, E. Eve, Harry Trelawney Lundon, W.
Beck, A. Cecil Everett, R. Lacey Lupton, Arnold
Bellairs, Carlyon Fenwick, Charles Luttrell, Hugh Fownes
Belloc, Hilaire Joseph Peter R. Ferens, T. R. Lyell, Charles Henry
Benn, W.(T'w'rHamlets,S.Geo. Ffrench, Peter Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester
Bennett, E. N. Findlay, Alexander Mackarness, Frederick C.
Berridge, T. H. D. Fuller, John Michael F. Maclean, Donald
Bethell, Sir J.H(Essex, Romf'rd Fullerton, Hugh MacNeill, John Gordon Swift
Billson, Alfred Gill, A. H. MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.
Black, Arthur W. Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John MacVeigh, Charles (Donegal, E.)
Boland, John Glover, Thomas M'Callum, John M.
Bramsdon, T. A. Goddard, Daniel Ford M'Crae, George
Branch, James Gooch, George Peabody M'Hugh, Patrick A.
Brigg, John Greenwood, G. (Peterborough) M'Kean, John
Brocklehurst, W. B. Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward M'Kenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald
Brodie, H. C. Gulland, John W. M'Micking, Major G.
Brooke, Stopford Gwynn, Stephen Lucius Mallet, Charles E.
Bryce, J. Annan Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B. Manfield, Harry (Northants)
Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn Hall, Frederick Markham, Arthur Basil
Burns, Rt. Hon. John Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis Marnham, F. J.
Byles, William Pollard Harmsworth, Cecil B.(Worc'r) Meehan, Patrick A.
Carr-Gomm, H. W. Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale) Menzies, Walter
Causton, Rt. Hn RichardKnight Harvey, W.E. (Derbyshire, N. E. Micklem, Nathaniel
Cawley, Sir Frederick Harwood, George Mond, A.
Chance, Frederick William Hayden, John Patrick Montagu, E. S.
Cheetham, John Frederick Hazel, Dr. A. E. Mooney, J. J.
Churchill, Winston Spencer Hemmerde, Edward George Morton, Alpheus Cleophas
Clarke, C. Goddard Henry, Charles S. Murphy, John
Cleland, J. W. Herbert, Colonel Ivor(Mon., S.) Murray, James
Clough, William Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe) Nicholson, Charles N (Doncast'r
Clynes, J. R. Higham, John Sharp Norton, Capt. Cecil William
Cobbold, Felix Thornley Hogan, Michael Nussey, Thomas Willans
Collins, Stephen (Lambeth) Holden, E. Hopkinson Nuttall, Harry
Collins, Sir Wm. J.(S. Pancras, W Hope, John Deans (Fife, West) O'Brien, Kendal(Tipperary Mid
Cooper, G. J. Hudson, Walter O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)
Corbett, CH(Sussex, E. Grinst'd) Hutton, Alfred Eddison O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)
Cornwall, Sir Edwin A. Hyde, Clarendon O'Dowd, John
Cory, Clifford John Jardine, Sir J. O'Grady J.
Cotton, Sir H. J. S. Jenkins, J. O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)
Cowan, W. H. Johnson, John (Gateshead) O'Malley, William
O'Shaughnessy, P. J. Runciman, Walter Wadsworth, J.
O'Shee, James John Samuel, Herbert L.(Cleveland) Walsh, Stephen
Parker, James (Halifax) Samuel, S.M. (Whitechapel) Walters, John Tudor
Partington, Oswald Scott, A. H. (Ashton under Lyne Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)
Paul, Herbert Seely, Major J. B. Wardle, George J.
Pearce, Robert (Staffs. Leek) Shackleton, David James Waring, Walter
Pearce, William (Limehouse) Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford) Wason, Eugene(Clackmannan)
Philipps, Col. Ivor (S'thampton) Shaw, Rt. Hon. T. (Hawick B.) Wason, John Cathcart(Orkney)
Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke) Shipman, Dr. John G. Waterlow, D. S.
Pirie, Duncan V. Silcock, Thomas Ball Wedgwood, Josiah C.
Pollard, Dr. Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John Weir, James Galloway
Power, Patrick Joseph Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie White, George (Norfolk)
Price, C. E. (Edinb'gh, Central Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.) White, Luke (York, E.R.)
Price, Robert John(Norfolk, E.) Snowden, P. White, Patrick (Meath, North)
Priestley, W.E.B.(Bradford, E.) Stanley, Hn. A. Lyulph (Chesh.) Whitehead, Rowland
Radford, G. H. Steadman, W. C. Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)
Raphael, Herbert H. Strachey, Sir Edward Whittaker, Sir Thomas Palmer
Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro' Straus, B. S. (Mile End) Wiles, Thomas
Redmond, John E. (Waterford Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon) Wilkie, Alexander
Redmond, William (Clare) Stuart, James (Sunderland) Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarth'n
Rees, J. D. Summerbell, T. Williamson, A.
Richards, T.F.(Wolverh'mpt'n Sutherland, J. E. Wills, Arthur Walters
Richardson, A. Taylor, John W. (Durham) Wilson, Henry J.(York, W.R.)
Ridsdale, E. A. Taylor, Theodore C(Radcliffe) Wilson, J. H. (Middlesbrough)
Roberts, Charles H.(Lincoln) Tennant, Sir Edward(Salisbury Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.)
Roberts, G. H. (Norwich) Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.) Winfrey, R.
Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.) Thomas, David Alfred(Merthyr Wood, T. M'Kinnon
Robinson, S. Tomkinson, James
Roche, John (Galway, East) Toulmin, George
Rose, Charles Day Verney, F. W. TELLERS FOR THE NOES—
Rowlands, J. Villiers, Ernest Amherst Mr. Whiteley and Mr. J. A. Pease.

Original Question again proposed.


called attention to the state of business in the Court of Appeal. He made no reflection whatever upon the conduct or arrangement of business in that Court, but it was the fact that owing to circumstances entirely outside the control of the Court there was a serious block of business. He did not know whether the House was aware that throughout the sittings the Court of Appeal had been engaged upon appeals from the King's Bench and the Probate Divisions, and the result was that there had not been half a dozen appeals from the Chancery side disposed of during the present sittings. No doubt the Court of Appeal had a right to deal first with King's Bench appeals, which were in arrear; but the practical effect was a denial of justice to suitors in the Chancery Division during the present sittings. The list of appeals set down before the commencement of the sittings had not been appreciably reduced, and many new appeals had accumulated. They who were familiar with the Courts knew that the work of the Appeal Court, on the common law side, had immensely increased during the last few years. The appeals under the Workmen's Compensation Acts occupied a great deal of time.


Will the hon. Member state on which Vote in the Bill he is making his remarks.


said he understood that part of the Vote which the House was asked to pass in the Bill was connected with the Civil Service Expenditure, and might be applied to paying the salaries so the Judges.


Not to the salaries of the Judges.


said he had always been under the impression that any genuine grievance connected with the administration of justice could be properly raised upon this Bill. He understood that some part of this Vote was devoted to the payment of the expenses of the Court of Appeal.


I asked the hon. and learned Member what particular Vote made his remarks relevant, and so far he has not made any reply to my question.


asked if it would be relevant to discuss the administration of the Courts of Justice generally on the salary of the Attorney-General on the ground that he ought to have advised the Crown to create more Judges?


That question cannot be discussed, because it would be a matter for legislation.


asked the President of the Board of Education to state the general policy of his Department in regard to repairs to voluntary schools. Would the right hon. Gentleman allow to voluntary schools in England the indulgence granted to provided schools in Wales? He also asked what the right hon. Gentleman's scheme was for the distribution of the grant of £100,000 provided in the Estimates for elementary schools. That sum had been allotted for the provision of new schools, and he would like to have some further information from the right hon. Gentleman in regard to that proposal. All they had been told up to the present was that it was a contribution towards solving the difficulty in the single school areas. How could it be contended that such a sum would solve the difficulty by the provision of new schools? It was quite evident that not more than 10,000 children at the outside could be accommodated by that sum. He wanted to know what was the right hon. Gentleman's scheme for the distribution of the money. How did he propose to allocate it to the different counties? He could not understand how the grant was at all compatible with Clause 96 of the Act of 1870.


said the two classes of schools were not on the same footing. It was a statutory duty on both the local education authority and managers to provide buildings efficiently equipped for the purposes of schools, but the penalty was not the same in both cases. If the managers of a non-provided school failed to perform their part of the contract, it was the duty of the local education authority no longer to maintain the school, and upon that point the Board of Education had no alternative but to carry out the law. No part of the £100,000 referred to would be spent if the legal advisers of the Crown advised that it would be improper to spend it in view of Section 96 of the Act of 1870. There was obviously a difficulty with regard to that section. It was a question not for him so much as for the legal advisers of the Crown. [An Opposition Member: Where are they?]


Where is Balfour?


said that if the legal advisers of the Crown were of opinion that the section precluded the expenditure of any part of the £100,000 without a special Act, no money under the Vote would be spent until he had had an opportunity of bringing in a special Act. It was a very difficult and technical point of law, and at present he could not say more on that subject. The intention of the Vote was very simple. It had come to his knowledge that in certain districts there was no school open for parents to send their children to except a school of a particular denominational character. In those cases if the parents desired that a new school should be built for their children to attend, no doubt under Section 8 of the Act of 1902 it would be open for any person to object to that proposal. After the Board of Education had heard the objections and decided in favour of the parents, it would be open for the parents to apply to the Board of Education for a sufficient grant to put up the necessary school. This sum was not intended for general distribution over all the counties in the country. It was intended for the purpose of providing against particular cases of tyranny, and it would, he believed, prove ample for the purpose.


said he was glad that the Attorney-General had entered the House. It appeared to him that Section 96 of the Act of 1870 prevented the application of the £100,000 in the way proposed by the Government. The President of the Board of Education had referred to the matter as difficult and complicated. He differed from the right hon. Gentleman. It appeared to him to be a very clear case. There seemed to be no doubt whatever that without amending the Act of 1870 they could not apply any sum out of a Parliamentary Grant in the way proposed. In some way or other the Government were going to make a gift of this sum to the local authorities, not, he presumed, as part of the Parliamentary Grant, but in some other form, towards the building or enlarging of schools. He did not know that that could be done. Of course, there was Section 9 of the 1902Act, but that did not appear to provide for any grant by the central Government towards the building of a new school. There were one or two other points which he wished to put to the Government in regard to the administration of the Board of Education. There was the dispute between the Swansea local authority and the managers of the non-provided schools—not only Church of England schools, but Roman Catholic schools also. The managers of the non-provided schools had taken up the position that they should be treated in an equal manner with the provided schools as to allowances for cleaning, lighting, and teaching; but they had been resisted by every means and evasion by the local education authority. The Board of Education, when appealed to, whether presided over by a Conservative Minister or by a Liberal or Radical Minister, had uniformly decided in favour of the managers, and against the local education authority. There had been one long continued struggle between the managers and the local education authority. The last question raised was that the teachers should receive the same salaries in the non-provided schools as in the provided schools and the managers had pointed out that unless they could pay the same salaries their efficient teachers would necessarily leave their schools, and go elsewhere. The fact was that the desire of the local education authority was to starve the non-provided schools out of existence. [Cries of "Oh, oh."] He made that charge perfectly. The local education authority said to the managers of the voluntary schools—"You fix the salaries of the teachers, and we will see whether we can do anything in the matter." In truth they forced the managers to undertake the responsibility of paying the salaries of the teachers out of their own pockets if the local education authority could wriggle out of their responsibility. That was not a position to adopt if they wished to secure the efficiency of education. All this conduct was animated simply by religious bigotry and intolerance. He did not believe that the right hon. Gentleman, speaking as the responsible Minister for Education, would venture to say a word in support of the conduct of that local authority, or that any hon. Member opposite, however bitter a Nonconformist he might be, would rise in his place to defend their action. He wished to know what steps the Government proposed to take in order to secure justice in the matter. He understood that the competent teachers were leaving the voluntary schools, and those who suffered most were the children. He insisted that a strong case had been made out for the interference of the Government in the interests of education itself. He had been furnished by a gentleman who was not a Conservative in politics, who recently won a seat on the county council in Monmouthshire, with a letter in which it was stated that he fought his election distinctly on the basis of fair play for both the non-provided and provided schools; and he added on behalf of his constituents that a strong voice had been raised against the unjust treatment meted out to the non-provided schools by the local education authority. He asked the hon. Gentleman the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education, whom they all knew to be a fair-minded man, whether it was a fact that there had been this unfair treatment of the non-provided schools in Monmouthshire, and what steps the Government intended to take in order to secure that justice should be done in the matter. He hoped that this grievance, which was both religious and educational, would be amended.

*THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir John Walton,) Leeds, S.

said that the noble Lord had brought before the House a point of law in connection with a Vote to be made in regard to education, which involved a question of great importance, having reference to the powers of the House respecting Votes of Supply and its relation to Parliament. If he fully understood the point raised by the hon. Member, it might be stated in these terms: —By the Act of 1870 further grants towards the erection of voluntary schools were prohibited. The practice of making these grants had been established for many years, and the grants made by the House of Commons from time to time in aid of the building of voluntary schools were afterwards sanctioned by Appropriation Acts. It was now proposed to sot aside a sum with a view to assisting the building of schools under circumstances which had been indicated by his right hon. friend. Of course the House would observe that the conditions since 1870 had entirely changed, and therefore it might well be that while Parliament some thirty-seven years ago considered that the policy of assisting school buildings should come to an end, they might now under the altered conditions take an entirely different view of the educational policy which was calculated to serve the national interest. But still, although the conditions had changed, the constitutional difficulty remained. Undoubtedly there was a statutory prohibition against the voting of money for this purpose, and he supposed it might be said and might very well be argued that while Parliament, consisting not only of this House, but of the Lords, prohibited a Vote of money for this purpose until the Act of Parliament had been repealed, such a Vote would be unconstitutional. That contention he agreed rested upon very strong grounds, but there still remained the far more interesting question of the method or the machinery by which a change in the prohibition of the Act of 1870 could be effected. It would be a strong thing to hold that, under conditions which had entirely changed, in the lifetime of a generation, a statutory provision could interfere with the constitutional privilege of the House to vote supplies for any purpose which they thought was necessary. Assuming that the statutory prohibition existed, how could it be removed? Every Vote of the House, before it could be operative, became effective by means of an Act of Parliament, and he knew of no legal principle by which they could differentiate between the operative effect of statutes other than the Appropriation Act, and of that Act itself, which was an Act of Parliament, giving legislative authority to a Vote of the House. It might well therefore be, although it was open to discussion, that although the ordinary function of an Appropriation Act was simply to take a sum out of the Consolidated Fund and apply it to satisfying Votes which the House had passed in Committee, there was nothing which would prevent its being applied to any purpose to which Parliament thought fit to apply it. It was quite possible that by means of an Appropriation Act passed by both Houses the statutory prohibition would be removed.


said he would just like to ask which clause of this Bill could possibly be regarded as a repeal of the Act of 1870.


said he understood that there was no express repeal of an Act in question; he was referring to the Appropriation Act, by means of which all the money Votes of the House became effective, because the statute took the sum out of the Consolidated Fund and applied it to the object to which it had been devoted by a Resolution passed in Committee. If the House thought proper to decide under the altered conditions in which we lived that a sum of money might be granted for a prohibited purpose and an Appropriation Act was framed so as to give the force of statute to that Resolution, and that Act were passed by both Houses of Parliament, he thought they might contend that that was a perfectly constitutional and orthodox way of repealing the Act which imposed the prohibition. He spoke with some diffidence, because he knew lawyers might well hold a different view. The difficulty might be obviated by a Bill, which would appear to be a simpler plan, but that course would set a precedent which would lead to a multiplication of statutes. On the whole, the Appropriation Act seemed to be the better way of making operative the decisions of the House of Commons. The matter was, however, one of very considerable difficulty, and the House in coming to a conclusion must not confine itself to the decision of the question whether the prohibition could be removed in the way he had indicated, but must devote its attention to the larger question of the way in which the House might exercise its privileges and vote supplies for any purpose that it wished. As to the Swansea dispute he did not understand that the noble Lord desired to reflect upon the conduct of the Education Department, but that he was endeavouring to reflect upon the conduct of the education authority in Swansea in regard to the managers of the schools, and he had imputed motive to the local education authority which might or might not be well founded. He did not think, however, that that was a matter with which the House had any concern. The education authority had a right to exercise their function in connection with the administration of the Act as they chose, just as the managers of the schools were entitled to use their powers under the Act of 1902. The whole of the difficulty was due to the extraordinary and complicated machinery of that amazing statute, because under it the management of the school was vested in one body and the administration and control of expenditure in another authority. The managers of the schools had the right of engaging teachers, and the questions which arose as to the engagements of teachers and their salaries differed in a variety of circumstances, such as the indirect payment which a teacher might receive by reason of being allowed to occupy a house or by reason of participating in certain advantages which might attach to his office. All these advantages had to be considered before a conclusion could be come to as to the terms upon which a teacher was to be engaged. The local education authority had a right to take up the position that they had nothing to do with the engagement of teachers, and that the managers as trustees for schools must make the contract which they thought proper. They were not only entitled to take up that position, but the managers could force them to take it up. The managers had no right to throw upon the education authority the responsibility for fixing the terms; but, on the other hand, the education authority had no right to interfere with the managers in this regard. All the education authority could do was to control the expenditure, but that arose when the accounts were audited at the end of the year. They might then point out if they thought proper that in their opinion excessive sums had been paid to the teachers, but the answer to that was, "We invited your suggestions as to the sums which ought to be paid. You refused to assist us and left us to use our own discretion." And, unless the education authority could show that the managers had acted negligently and with indifference in the discharge of their duties, no criticism of the expenditure could be entertained. His right hon. friend when appealed to would point out that the education authority had deprived themselves of any right to criticise when they refused to consider the terms at the suggestion of the managers. The whole difficulty arose from the fact that Parliament in its wisdom thought fit to fix the responsibility for education on two authorities. It, however, gave a power of appeal to the Education Department which he had no doubt when consulted would arrive at a solution which would be just to both parties.

*MR. BRIDGEMAN (Shropshire, Oswestry)

said the haste of the right hon. Gentleman to reply would seem to give rise to the impression that there was no other point to be answered with regard to education. But there were other points. Considerable apprehension had been caused among the members of the English Church in Wales at the policy of the Government in creating a Welsh Education Department and the appointment of Mr. Davies as the head of that Department. On a previous occasion the House was unable to obtain any reply to the question as to what steps had been taken to ascertain that Mr. Davies was the best person to fill that position, and whether there were not other gentlemen better qualified by being acquainted with the Welsh language and having in other respects equally good qualifications with Mr. Davies. The House was told that that gentleman's appointment was largely due to the fact that he was well acquainted with Welsh opinion on the subject. What had occurred at Question-time had made his apprehension still more acute. Last week he put a Question to the right hon. Gentleman as to the application of the local education authority to close a particular Church school in Denbighshire—the school at Llanychan. The reply was that the application had been received, but there had been no time to read it. Today he had again put the Question, this time in two parts. That Question was, first, To ask the President of the Board of Education, if he could now state what grounds the local Education Authority for Denbighshire had advanced for holding the school at Llanychan to be unnecessary; and, secondly, what action the Board of Education proposed to take in the matter. He was quite prepared to hear that the Board of Education had not had time to consider the application, but he was not prepared for the answer to the first part of his Question—that the Board had not as yet been informed of the grounds on which the closing of the school was considered necesssary. Was he to understand that the education authority sent in an application without stating the grounds?


said the education authority had applied to close the school without stating their grounds, but they had grounds which they would state.


said if that was so the proper answer to the local authority would have been that no attention would be paid to the application until the grounds for it were given. Under the Act of 1902 there was a section which said the Board of Education should without unnecessary delay determine whether a school was necessary or not, and that in arriving at the determination they should have regard to the instruction, the wishes of the parents, and other matters of that sort.


said no attempt would be made to settle the question at all until they had the facts before them. No steps had been taken.


said the school might be closed without their having had any opportunity of showing why it should not be closed, and he was confirmed in his suspicion of the dangers of the Welsh Department with a man at the head of it chosen, apparently without any competition with other people, on account of his sympathies with the Welsh revolt. According to the section which had been quoted, a school could not be considered as unnecessary unless the average attendance had been below thirty. In the school in question from May 1st to August, 1906, the attendance was thirty-four; in the next six months it was twenty-nine, which was partly due to an epidemic of mumps, and the children could not get back to their duties. He contended, therefore, that there was no ground for closing the school, because it had not been proved that the attendance was below thirty. There was a council school some little distance away from the church school, and the master of that school, accompanied by the minister of the Methodist Chapel adjoining, he understood, had been visiting the parents of children going to the church school with the object of trying to persuade them to keep their children away until it was possible to prove that the attendance was below thirty. If that was the way in which Welsh public opinion was to be interpreted by the Board of Education they would have a good deal to say against the new Welsh Department.


Mr. Davies has not yet entered upon his functions.


said he was only expressing the hope that when the gentleman did enter upon them he would not follow the course suggested by the Denbighshire local education authority.


said in reference to the new vote of £100,000 for building schools, they were, of course, all bound to accept the statement of the Attorney-General on a point of law, and he would not venture to dispute it. But he had been accustomed all his life to study the Education Acts and the history of Education Grants, and he thought that: the Attorney-General would find that although grants were made as long ago as 1833, they did not for a long time depend upon any Act of Parliament. The Attorney-General had told them that the grants were regulated by a series of statutes, and that the money was assigned under the Appropriation Act. To his knowledge there was no statute whatever previous to the Act of 1870 which provided for any education grant of any sort at all. The grants were made until 1870 solely under the minutes of the Department, and were placed in the Votes for the year, but they never had any statutory authority until the Act of 1870 was passed.


There is the Schools Sites Act.


said that that did not provide for grants. It made certain provisions on the acquirement of sites by local authorities, but it did not provide for any grants whatever. Mr. Forster and the Government of Mr. Gladstone intended that building operations should be the work of the locality, and at the expense of the locality, and that the means whereby grants could be earned from the National Exchequer should be provided by the local authority. The right hon. Gentleman had in his Department a legal advisor. Surely, when this amount of £100,000 was entered for the first time the right hon. Gentleman consulted the legal adviser. If the legal adviser had expressed, as he was inclined to think he must have done, that there was some ground for doubting the legality of the grant, did the, right hon. Gentleman then consult the law officers of the Crown? He went further in his objection to their grant than the mere legal irregularity which it involved. It did not mean merely a contravention of the Act of Parliament. What did it mean? It meant that they were giving to one part of the United Kingdom those means which other parts of the United Kingdom had to provide for at their own expense in order to obtain yearly grants out of the Exchequer. Why should this be accorded to England and Wales alone? [An Hon. Member: Scotland.] Scotland had no such grant, and it was an injustice which she shared with Ireland. The policy embodied in the two great Education Acts had been departed from without taking legal advice, and in flagrant defiance of the fundamental policy of those Acts.

COLONEL R. WILLIAMS (Dorsetshire, W.)

said they had often opposed the principle of legislation by reference, but the Government now appeared to have introduced an entirely new principle, that of legislation without any reference at all, because this Bill was going to repeal Acts which had never been mentioned. He would like the Secretary to the Board of Education to elucidate somewhat the answer which had been given with regard to the difference in the treatment meted out to provided and non-provided schools. The Minister for Education had given a very clear exposition of the case, but in the end it simply amounted to this, that the Board of Education had to judge what was reasonable. What was the test of reasonableness to be applied to schools in different parts of the country? He would like to know why the carrying out of certain requirements in the case of a provided school was considered reasonable when spread over a period of seven years, and why in the case of a non-provided school a period of six months only was considered long enough to fulfil similar requirements?

SIR J. RANDLES (Cumberland, Cockermouth)

said this appropriation of £100,000 illustrated the real grievance so far as it affected Nonconformity. The Minister for Education had told them that it was proposed, wherever there was a grievance in a single school area, to provide some special remedy to enable them to build a provided school. The difficulty referred to was not a small point, because if it was known in any particular district that it was possible simply by an application to the Board of Education to get some assistance for a provided school that fact alone would be sufficient to secure that misuse of opportunity which so often resulted in such cases. If the Minister in charge of a Bill the effect of which would be to deduct 15 per cent. from the pay of the teachers in non-provided schools would withdraw his proposal and bring in a measure to deal fairly with the question there would be some prospect of a reasonable compromise being arrived at.


Order, order. The hon. Member is not entitled to discuss matters of legislation.


said he was rather surprised at one of the statements made by the Attorney-General. The hon. and learned Gentleman had said that the managers appointed the teachers. He had always been under the impression that the managers nominated the teachers and that they were appointed by the local education authority. The names of the teachers were sent in by the managers, but they could be either accepted or rejected by the local education authority.

MR. RAWLINSON (Cambridge University)

moved that the Bill be read a third time this day six months. The express enactment of the Act of 1870 forbidding the making of a grant for any particular purpose was impliedly being over-ruled by the Appropriation Bill. Would the Attorney-General give him an instance where such a repeal had ever been made before? It was an unconstitutional proceeding, and he submitted that no such case had ever occurred in the history of Parliament. It was sufficient for his purpose to say that it had never been done before. It was not the object of the Appropriation Bill to repeal an enactment by a side wind. He was glad to hear from the Attorney-General that the Board of Education intended to enforce the rights of managers of the schools. He agreed with the hon. and learned Gentleman in the position which he had taken up on the question of the appointment of teachers. He begged to move.


in seconding the Amendment, said the Attorney-General could not deny that many legal authorities might take a view contrary to that which he had expressed. That being so, and in view of the fact that it was now one o'clock, he thought the Amendment should be agreed to. The debate was brought on at eleven o'clock when no one expected it. It had practically been proved that the Government were committing an illegal act. The Solicitor-General had not been able to get up and confirm the opinion hesitatingly given by the Attorney-General. The purpose to which the £100,000 was to be applied might be very good, but the money was not to be applied to all parts of the Kingdom. Scotland and Ireland were excluded from this illegality. He was rather surprised that no Member from Ireland had got up to say that he was prepared to take a share of the £100,000, and run the risk of the Vote's being illegal. If such a proposal had been made when the Conservative Government was in office, hon. Members on on all sides would have protested against its being sanctioned. He would be the last to suggest that the President of the Board of Education knew that he was doing an illegal act. He excused the right hon. Gentleman because he had only just succeeded to the office. The Chief Secretary for Ireland, who had the facts at his finger ends, was not present. That was another reason why the Bill should not be then disposed of. The Attorney General had apparently just returned from a pleasant evening party, and it was not fair that he should be committed to a legal opinion without mature deliberation.

Amendment proposed— To leave out the word, 'now' and at the end of the question to add the words 'upon this day six months.' "—(Mr. Rawlinson.)

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

MR. FORSTER (Kent, Sevenoaks)

said he was surprised, after the speeches which had been made, at the silence which was as discreet as it was unusual on the part of hon. Gentlemen opposite. The Act of 1870distinctly debarred the Government from applying the £100,000 in the way proposed. The House had it on the authority of the learned Attorney-General that, although the section of the Act of 1870 was out of date, it still remained the law of the land. The Attorney-General had committed himself to the opinion that the voting of the money until Parliament had repealed the section prohibitory was illegal. The only way in which the Attorney-General could get over the difficulty was that one Act of Parliament passed by this House and by the House of Lords, if sanctioned by the Sovereign, might be taken to over-ride any previous Act of Parliament with which it might be in conflict, and that the Appropriation Act might enable such a thing to be done. They were not now dealing with the Appropriation Act; that was passed only at the end of the session. He admitted that the question was one of great difficulty and complexity, and he asked the House if it was fitting and proper at one o'clock in the morning that they should deal with a matter which the Attorney-General himself declared involved far-reaching constitutional issues. He was confident that they on that side of the House had not the slightest intention of dividing against the Bill. [An HoN. MEMBER: Why not?] He did not think that his Party had ever committed themselves to a course of that kind; and they would not on the present occasion; but in order to afford

time to deal with the great and important constitutional question involved, he begged to move that the debate be now adjourned.

Motion made, and Question put, "That the debate be now adjourned."—(Mr. H. W. Forster.)

The House divided: Ayes, 62; Noes, 218. (Division List, No 47.)

Acland-Hood, Rt. Hn. Sir Alex. F. Craig, Captain James(Down, E. Nicholson, Wm. G.(Petersfield)
Arkwright, John Stanhope Craik, Sir Henry Nield, Herbert
Ashley, W. W. Cross, Alexander Randles, Sir John Scurrah
Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hon. Sir H. Dalrymple, Viscount Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel
Banbury, Sir Frederick George Faber, George Denison (York) Roberts, S (Sheffield, Ecclesall)
Banner, John S. Harmood- Fell, Arthur Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)
Beckett, Hon. Gervase Finch, Rt. Hon. George H. Sheffield, Sir Berkeley George D.
Bignold, Sir Arthur Haddock, George R. Smith, Abel H(Hertford, East)
Bowles, G. Stewart Hamilton, Marquess of Smith, F. E (Liverpool, Walton)
Bridgeman, W. Clive Hardy, Laurence(Kent, Ashford Starkey, John R.
Bull, Sir William James Harrison-Broadley, Col. H.B. Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)
Campbell, Rt. Hon. J. H. M. Hay, Hon. Claude George Turnour, Viscount
Carlile, E. Hildred Helmsley, Viscount Valentia, Viscount
Castlereagh, Viscount Hervey, F. W. F.(Bury S. Edm'ds Walrond, Hon. Lionel
Cave, George Hills, J. W. Williams, Col. R. (Dorset, W.)
Cavendish, Rt. Hon. Victor C.W. Houston, Robert Paterson Wilson, A Stanley(York, E. R.)
Cecil, Lord R.(Marylebone, Hunt, Rowland Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart-
Coates, E. Feetham(Lewisham) Lane-Fox, G. R. Younger, George
Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E. Lonsdale, John Brownlee
Corbett, T. L. (Down, North) Mason, James F. (Windsor) Tellers for the Ayes—
Courthope, G. Loyd Meysey-Thompson, E. C. Lord Balcarres and Mr. Forster.
Craig, Charles Curtis(Antrim, S. Morpeth, Viscount
Acland, Francis Dyke Brooke, Stopford Crosfield, A. H.
Agnew, George William Bryce, J. Annan Dalziel, James Henry
Ainsworth, John Stirling Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn Davies, Timothy (Fulham)
Alden, Percy Burns, Rt. Hon. John Davies, W. Howell (Bristol, S.)
Allen, A. Acland(Christchurch) Burnyeat, W. J. D. Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)
Allen, Charles P. (Stroud) Byles, William Pollard Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness
Armstrong, W. C. Heaton Carr-Gomm, H. W. Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)
Asquith, Rt Hon. Herbert Henry Causton, Rt. Hn. Richard Knight Dunne, Maj. E. Martin (Walsall
Baring, Godfrey(Isle of Wight) Cawley, Sir Frederick Edwards, Clement (Denbigh)
Barlow, Percy (Bedford) Chance, Frederick William Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)
Barnard, E. B. Cheetham, John Frederick Edwards, Frank (Radnor)
Barran, Rowland Hirst Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R. Elibank, Master of
Barry, E. (Cork, S.) Churchill, Winston Spencer Essex, R. W.
Barry, Redmond J(Tyrone, N.) Clarke, C. Goddard Everett, R. Lacey
Beale, W. P. Cleland, J. W. Fenwick, Charles
Beauchamp, E. Clough, William Ferens, T. R.
Bellairs, Carlyon Clynes, J. R. F french, Peter
Belloc, Hilaire Joseph Peter R Collins, Stephen (Lambeth) Fiennes, Hon. Eustace
Benn, W.(T'w'r Hamlets, S. Geo Collins, Sir Wm J.(S.Pancras, W Findlay, Alexander
Bennett, E. N. Cooper, G. J. Fuller, John Michael F.
Berridge, T. H. D. Corbett, CH (Sussex, E. Grinst'd Fullerton, Hugh
Boland, John Cornwall, Sir Edwin A. Gill, A. H.
Bowerman, C. W. Cory, Clifford John Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herb. John
Bramsdon, T. A. Cowan, W. H. Glover, Thomas
Branch, James Cox, Harold Goddard, Daniel Ford
Brocklehurst, W. B. Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth) Gooch, George Peabody
Brodie, H. C. Crean, Eugene Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)
Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward Mason, A. E. W. (Coventry) Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)
Gulland, John W. Meehan, Patrick A. Scott, A. H.(Ashton under Lyne
Gwynn, Stephen Lucius Menzies, Walter Seely, Major J. B.
Haldane, Rt, Hon. Richard B. Mond, A. Shackleton, David James
Hall, Frederick Montagu, E. S. Shaw, Rt. Hon. T. (Hawick B.)
Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis Mooney, J. J. Shipman, Dr. John G.
Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale) Morse, L. L. Silcock, Thomas Ball
Harvey, W.E(Derbyshire, NE.) Morton, Alpheus Cleophas Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John
Hayden, John Patrick Murphy, John Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie
Hazel, Dr. A. E. Nicholson, Chas. N.(Doncaster) Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.
Henry, Charles S. Norton, Captain Cecil William Stanley, Hn. A. Lyulph (Chesh-
Herbert, Colonel Ivor (Mon., S. Nussey, Thomas Willans Straus, B.S. (Mile End)
Higham, John Sharp O'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary Mid. Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)
Hobart, Sir Robert O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny) Summerbell, T.
Hogan, Michael O'Connor, John (Kildare, N. Sutherland, J. E.
Hudson, Walter O'Dowd, John Taylor, John W. (Durham)
Hutton, Alfred Eddison O'Grady, J. Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe
Hyde, Clarendon O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.) Tennant, Sir Edward(Salisbury)
Jardine, Sir J. O'Shee, James John Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.
Johnson, John (Gateshead) Parker, James (Halifax) Thomas, David Alfred(Merthyr
Jones, Wm. (Carnarvonshire) Partington, Oswald Tomkinson, James
Jowett, F. W. Paul, Herbert Toulmin, George
Kearley, Hudson E. Pearce, Robert (Staffs. Leek) Villiers, Ernest Amherst
Kilbride, Denis Pearce, William (Limehouse) Wadsworth, J.
Kincaid-Smith, Captain Pearson, W. H. M. (Suffolk, Eye Walsh, Stephen
King, Alfred John (Knutsford) Pirie, Duncan V. Walters, John Tudor
Laidlaw, Robert Pollard, Dr. Walton, Sir J. L. (Leeds, S.)
Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester) Power, Patrick Joseph Wardle, George J.
Lambert, George Price, C.E (Edinb'gh, Central) Waring, Walter
Lamont, Norman Priestley, W.E.B. (Bradford, E. Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)
Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.) Radford, G. H. Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)
Lehmann, R. C. Raphael, Herbert H. Waterlow, D. S.
Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro' Wedgwood, Josiah C.
Levy, Maurice Redmond, John E. (Waterford White, George (Norfolk)
Lewis, John Herbert Rees, J. D. White, Luke (York, E.R.)
Lough, Thomas Richards, T.F.(Wolverh'mpt'n) White, Patrick (Meath, North)
Lupton, Arnold Richardson, A. Whitehead, Rowland
Luttrell, Hugh Fownes Ridsdale, E. A. Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)
Lyell, Charles Henry Roberts, Chas. H. (Lincoln) Wiles, Thomas
Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester) Roberts, G. H. (Norwich) William, Llewelyn (Carmarthen
Maclean, Donald Roberts, John H. (Denbighs) Wills, Arthur Walters
MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.) Robinson, S. Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.)
MacVeigh, Chas. (Donegal, E. Robson, Sir William Snowdon Winfrey, R.
M'Hugh, Patrick A. Roche, John (Galway, East)
M'Kenna, Rt. Hn. Reginald Rose, Charles Day Tellers for the Noes—Mr. Whiteley and Mr. J. A. Pease.
M' Micking, Major G. Rowlands, J.
Manfield, Harry (Northants) Runciman, Walter
Markham, Arthur Basil Samuel, S.M. (Whitechapel)

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

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

said he desired to repeat a question which had not been answered, as to the appointment of Mr. Davies to the Welsh Education Board. They had not been told what the qualifications of Mr. Davies were, or why he had been appointed. They did not know what previous educational work he had done, or in what way lie was fitted to discharge the duties of his office. The appointment was of a most important and novel character, and the House ought to know why this gentleman had been selected. The House had had no adequate explanation why provided and non-provided schools should not be treated on the same basis and given equality of treatment. He hoped the Government even now would take the opportunity of reassuring hon. Members who wished to see fair play to all schools, not only in Wales but in England.


was perfectly certain that those who were acquainted with the educational problem throughout the United Kingdom would admit that England, Scotland and Wales, were far ahead of Ireland, both in the way in which education was carried out, and in all the sanitary appointments of the schools. The Chancellor of the Exchequer a year ago held out some hope that Ireland would at last through a Liberal Government receive assistance to a large and substantial amount. The right hon. Gentleman said it was unnecessary for him to assure hon. Gentlemen that within the limits of his possibilities and opportunities, it would be his desire to give effect to that hope, by translating it into concrete action. The right hon. Gentleman then went on to say that resistance to the claims of Ireland or any other part of the Kingdom did not rest in the long run with the officials of the Treasury. The responsibility rested with the Government, and he could assure hon. Gentlemen from Ireland that so far as his legal power allowed he would see, in regard to educational matters in which he thought Ireland had a real grievance, that Irish funds were not unduly encroached upon and that the Imperial Exchequer should contribute; that in the course of the next few months he would go carefully into the matter and see how far it was possible to deal with it. An opportunity was now given to the right hon. Gentlemen to explain how those words were going to be justified, and whether it would not be possible for him, if he had found it inconsistent with something he had said in the meantime, to hold out an assurance that some of the many terrible pains and penalties under which the youth of Ireland suffered, first of all in proceeding to school in the depths of winter over rough roads, and having then to sit, perhaps ill-clad, without a fire, the whole day through, were going to be removed. Hon. Gentlemen, when these appeals were made, seemed to think the circumstances were exaggerated, but they were not. The late Chief Secretary for Ireland said he approached the subject with sympathy and that at the earliest possible moment he would remove the blot from the government of Ireland. The present Chief Secretary said he understood that every child was expected to bring a piece of peat with him to the school-house so as to build up a fire to warm the children for the rest of the day. Since the ancient statute was passed the circumstances had changed; parts of the country which were then covered with peat were entirely altered. There was now no peat, and it was impossible for these little children to bring it to school. When one had regard to the large amount of money that was given to Scotland and England for education it seemed very hard that a small amount could not be given to Ireland to remove this crying evil which was a disgrace and a shame to the Government. Even the Attorney-General for Ireland said that primary education in Ireland had been most shamefully neglected in the past. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had spoken of hundreds of thousands as though they were mere bagatelles. The right hon. Gentleman had gone on to say that they had been face to face with a great difficulty, but it had been removed. If primary education was to be made good, and teachers properly paid, the Government would by some means or other secure funds for that primary education which every member of the Government regarded as being of as much importance in Ireland as in England, and which must be dealt with and dealt with quickly. There they had the opinions of two members of the Government. A third member of the Government, who had since been appointed to the Embassy at Washington, had said that the salaries of Irish teachers were inadequate, and had held out a promise of improved remuneration. He had spoken of the excellence of Irish teachers, and said, as to the question of how reforms were to be effected, that in the first place more money was required, and all he could do was to plead for the liberal treatment of Irish education, because without more money very much could not be done. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Dover, when he was Chief Secretary for Ireland, stated emphatically that the only way to consider grants in Ireland, Scotland, and Wales was to approach the whole question on the basis of population. On referring to the figures they would be appalled at the injustice done to Ireland. In 1901–2 England had £9,500,000; Scotland, £1,333,000; and Ireland, £1,387,000. There was equality between Ireland and Scotland, because there was equality of population. But to come to the figures of the present year. England in 1907–8 had £13,500,000; Scotland, £2,255,400; Ireland, £1,408,000, though the population of the two latter countries was practically identical. It could not be said that Ireland was fairly treated, with the school buildings tumbling about their ears in many places. The sanitary condition of the schools, in large towns like Belfast, where the population had grown during the last twenty or thirty years, was quite inadequate. The buildings were often old, and the children were herded together so closely during the time they were being taught that it really moved one's heart to see them. It was impossible, in such conditions, that the children could take the best advantage of the education afforded; besides which, the conditions were injurious to their health and to the race as a whole. Many of the evils from which Ireland suffered were due to the fact that children were confined in inadequate and rotten schools. It could not be expected that they would grow up to be strong and healthy men and women; nor could they hope for improvement, unless the right hon. Gentleman carried out some at all events of the many specious promises which he made last year. Hon. Members representing the wealthier parts of England and Scotland had very little idea of what went on in the poorer parts of Ireland. He challenged anyone in the House to read the speeches delivered by the three responsible Ministers to whom he had referred—who still sat silent and would not get up and answer the arguments which had been addressed to them—and prove that they had carried out the pledges given in those speeches.

MR. JOHN REDMOND (Waterford)

said the hon. and gallant Member must know that the first Order down for that day was a discussion upon primary education in Ireland.


I was quite aware of it.


said it appeared to him that the hon. Member had just been rehearsing the speech he intended to deliver in the debate on primary education. He sincerely hoped that having heard that speech they would not be obliged to listen to it again on some future occasion. Of course, the hon. and gallant Member was entitled to speak on the subject, but after having kept them up with a long discourse now it would be scarcely fair and not in accordance with the Standing Order to have a repetition of the same speech that day. With reference to the grant of £100,000, it had always been the practice, when such grants were made to this country for education, that equivalent grants should be made to Scotland and Ireland. Last year, when £1,000,000 was allocated to education in this country, it was clearly understood that equivalent grants would be made to Scotland and Ireland. On behalf of Ireland he wished to put in a claim for such a grant.

LORD EDMUND TALBOT (Sussex, Chichester)

asked the Attorney-General if he agreed with the view that the Vote was illegal.


I did not say that it was illegal. What I said was that it might need statutory authority.


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, 216; Noes 54. (Division List No. 48.)

Acland, Francis Dyke Beauchamp, E. Burns, Rt. Hon. John
Agnew, George William Bellairs, Carlyon Burnyeat, W. J. D.
Ainsworth, John Stirling Belloc, Hilaire Joseph Peter R. Byles, William Pollard
Alden, Percy Benn, W. (T'w'r Hamlets, S. Geo Carr-Gomm, H. W.
Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch) Bennett, E. N. Causton, Rt. Hn. Richard K.
Allen, Charles P. (Stroud) Berridge, T. H. D. Chance, Frederick William
Armstrong, W. C. Heaton Boland, John Cheetham, John Frederick
Asquith, Rt. Hn. Hrbert Henry Bowerman, C. W. Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.
Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight) Bramsdon, T. A. Churchill, Winston Spencer
Barlow, Percy (Bedford) Branch, James Clarke, C. Goddard
Barnard, E. B. Brocklehurst, W. B. Cleland, J. W.
Barran, Rowland Hirst Brodie, H. C. Clough, William
Barry, E. (Cork, S.) Brooke, Stopford Clynes, J. R.
Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N. Bryce, J. Annan Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)
Beale, W. P. Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn Collins, Sir Wm. J. (S Pancras, W.
Cooper, G. J. Kennedy, Vincent Paul Richardson, A.
Corbett, CH.(Sussex, E. Grinst'd Kilbride, Denis Ridsdale, E. A.
Cornwall, Sir Edwin A. King, Alfred John (Knutsford) Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)
Cory, Clifford John Laidlaw, Robert Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)
Cowan, W. H. Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester) Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)
Cox, Harold Lambert, George Robinson, S.
Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth) Lamont, Norman Robson, Sir William Snowdon
Crean, Eugene Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.) Rose, Charles Day
Crosfield, A. H. Lehmann, R.C. Rowlands, J.
Dalziel, James Henry Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich) Runciman, Walter
Davies, Timothy (Fulham) Levy, Maurice Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)
Davies, W. Howell (Bristol, S. Lewis, John Herbert Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)
Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.) Lough, Thomas Scott, A.H.(Ashton-und.-Lyne)
Duncan, F. (Barrow-in-Furness Lupton, Arnold Seely, Major J. B.
Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne) Luttrell, Hugh Fownes Shackleton, David James
Dunne, Maj. E. Martin (Walsall Lyell, Charles Henry Shaw, Rt. Hn. T. (Hawick, B.)
Edwards, Clement (Denbigh) Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester) Shipman, Dr. John G.
Edwards, Enoch (Hanley) Maclean, Donald Silcock, Thomas Ball
Edwards, Frank (Radnor) McVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S) Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John
Elibank, Master of MacVeigh, Chas. (Donegal, E.) Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie
Essex, R. W. M'Hugh, Patrick A. Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)
Everett, R. Lacey M'Kenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald Stanley, Hn. A. Lyulph(Chesh.)
Fenwick, Charles M' Micking, Major G. Straus, B. S. (Mile End)
Ferens, T. R. Manfield, Harry (Northants) Strauss, E. A. Abingdon)
F french, Peter Markham, Arthur Basil Summerbell, T.
Fiennes, Hon. Eustace Mason, A. E. W. (Coventry) Sutherland, J. E.
Findlay, Alexander Meehan, Patrick A. Taylor, John W. (Durham)
Fuller, John Michael F. Menzies, Walter Taylor, Theodore C.(Radcliffe)
Fullerton, Hugh Mond, A. Tennant, Sir Edward(Salisbury
Gill, A. H. Montagu, E. S. Thomas, David Alfred(Merthyr
Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert J. Mooney, J. J. Tomkinson, James
Glover, Thomas Morse, L. L. Toulmin, George
Goddard, Daniel Ford Morton, Alpheus Cleophas Villiers, Ernest Amherst
Gooch, George Peabody Murphy, John Wadsworth, J.
Greenwood, G. (Peterborough) Nicholson, Chas. N.(Doncaster) Walsh, Stephen
Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward Norton, Captain Cecil William Walters, John Tudor
Gulland, John W. Nussey, Thomas Willans Walton, Sir John L.(Leeds, S.)
Gwynn, Stephen Lucius O'Brien, K. (Tipperary Mid.) Wardle, George J.
Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B. O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny) Waring, Walter
Hall Frederick O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.) Wason, Eugene(Clackmannan)
Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis O'Dowd, John Wason, John Cathcart(Orkney)
Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale) O'Grady, J. Waterlow, D. S.
Harvey, W.E.(Derbyshire N.E,) O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.) Wedgwood, Josiah C.
Hayden, John Patrick O'Shee, James John White, George (Norfolk)
Hazel, Dr. A. E. Parker, James (Halifax) White, Luke (York, E.R.)
Hemmerde, Edward George Partington, Oswald White, Patrick (Meath, North)
Henry, Charles S. Paul, Herbert Whitehead, Rowland
Herbert, Col. Ivor (Mon., S.) Pearce, Robert (Staffs. Leek) Whitley, John Henry(Halifax)
Higham, John Sharp Pearson, W.H.M. (Suffolk, Eye, Wiles, Thomas
Hobart, Sir Robert Pirie, Duncan V. Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarth,
Hogan, Michael Pollard, Dr. Wills, Arthur Walters
Hudson, Walter Power, Patrick Joseph Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.)
Hutton, Alfred Eddison Price, C.E. (Enidb'gh, Central) Winfrey, R.
Hyde, Clarendon Priestley, W.E.B.(Bradford, E.)
Jardine, Sir J. Radford, G. H. TELLERS FOR THE AYES—
Johnson, John (Gateshead) Raphael, Herbert H. Mr. Whiteley and Mr. J. A. Pease.
Jones, William (Carnarvonsh. Rea, Walter Russell Scarboro'
Jowett, F. W. Redmond, John E. Waterford)
Kearley, Hudson E. Richards, T.F. Wolverh'mpt'n
Arkwright, John Stanhope Campbell, Rt. Hon. J. H. M. Craig, Charles Curtis(Antrim, S.
Ashley, W. W. Carlile, E. Hildred Craig, Capt. James (Down, E.)
Balcarres, Lord Castlereagh, Viscount Cross, Alexander
Banbury, Sir Frederick George Cave, George Dalrymple, Viscount
Banner, John S. Harmood Cavendish, Rt. Hn. Victor C. W. Fell, Arthur
Beckett, Hon. Gervase Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.) Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.
Bignold, Sir Arthur Coates, E. Feetham (Lewisham) Forster, Henry William
Bowles, G. Stewart Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E. Haddock, George R.
Bridgeman, W. Clive Corbett, T. L. (Down, North) Hamilton, Marquess of
Bull, Sir William James Courthope, G. Loyd Hardy, Laurence(Kent, Ashford
Helmsley, Viscount Nield, Herbert Williams, Col. R. (Dorset, W.)
Hervey, F.W.F(Bury S. Edmd's Randles, Sir John Scurrah Wilson, A. Stanley(York, E.R.)
Hills, J. W. Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart
Hunt, Rowland Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall) Younger, George
Lane-Fox, G. R. Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)
Lonsdale, John Brownlee Sheffield, Sir Berkeley George D. Tellers for the Noes—
Mason, James F. (Windsor) Smith, Abel H.(Hertford, East Sir Alexander Acland-Hood and Viscount Valentia
Meysey-Thompson, E. C. Starkey, John R.
Morpeth, Viscount Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)
Micholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield) Walrond, Hon. Lionel

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

The House divided:—Ayes, 214; Noes, 56. (Division List No. 49.)

Acland, Francis Dyke Davies, W. Howell (Bristol, S.) Lever, A. Levy(Essex, Harwich
Agnew, George William Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.) Levy, Maurice
Ainsworth, John Stirling Duncan C.(Barrow-in-Furness) Lewis, John Herbert
Alden, Percy Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne) Lough, Thomas
Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch) Dunne, Major E. Martin (Walsall Lupton, Arnold
Allen, Charles P. (Stroud) Edwards, Clement (Denbigh) Luttrell, Hugh Fownes
Armstrong, W. C. Heaton Edwards, Enoch (Hanley) Lyell, Charles Henry
Asquith, Rt. Hn. HerbertHenry Edwards, Frank (Radnor) Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)
Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight) Elibank, Master of Maclean, Donald
Barlow, Percy (Bedford) Essex, R. W. MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.
Barnard, E. B. Everett, R. Lacey McVeigh, Charles (Donegal, E.)
Barran, Rowland Hirst Fenwick, Charles M'Kenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald
Barry, E. (Cork, S.) Ferens, T. R. M'Micking, Major G.
Barry, Redmond J.(Tyrone, N. Ffreneh, Peter Manfleld, Harry (Northants)
Beale, W. P. Fiennes, Hon. Eustace Markham, Arthur Basil
Beauchamp, E. Findlay, Alexander Mason, A. E. W. (Coventry)
Bellairs, Carlyon Fuller, John Michael F. Meehan, Patrick A.
Belloc, Hilaire Joseph Peter R. Fullerton, Hugh Menzies, Walter
Benn, W.(T'w'r Hamlets, S. Geo. Gill, A. H. Mond, A.
Bennett, E. N. Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John Montagu, E. S.
Berridge, T. H. D. Glover, Thomas Mooney. J. J.
Boland, John Goddard, Daniel Ford Morse, L. L.
Bowerman, C. W. Gooch, George Peabody Morton, Alpheus Cleophas
Bramsdon, T. A. Greenwood, G. (Peterborough) Murphy, John
Branch, James Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncast'r
Brocklehurst, W. B. Gulland, John W. Norton, Capt. Cecil William
Brodie, H. C. Gwynn, Stephen Lucius Nussey, Thomas Willans
Brooke, Stopford Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B. O'Brien, Kendal(Tipperary Mid
Bryce, J. Annan Hall, Frederick O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)
Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)
Burns, Rt. Hon. John Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale) O'Dowd, John
Burnyeat, W. J. D. Harvey, W.E.(Derbyshire, N.E. O'Grady, J.
Byles, William Pollard Hayden, John Patrick O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)
Carr-Gomm, H. W. Hazel, Dr. A. E. O'Shee, James John
Causton, Rt. Hn Richard Knight Hemmerde, Edward George Parker, James (Halifax)
Chance, Frederick William Henry, Charles S. Partington, Oswald
Cheetham, John Frederick Herbert, Col. Ivor (Mon., S.) Paul, Herbert
Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R. Higham, John Sharp Pearce, Robert (Staffs. Leek)
Churchill, Winston Spencer Hobart, Sir Robert Pearson, W.H.M.(Suffolk, Eye)
Clarke, C. Goddard Hogan, Michael Pirie, Duncan V.
Cleland, J. W. Hudson, Walter Pollard, Dr.
Clough, William Hutton, Alfred Eddison Power, Patrick Joseph
Clynes, J. R. Hyde, Clarendon Price, C. E. (Edinb'gh, Central)
Collins, Stephen (Lambeth) Jardine, Sir J. Priestley, W.E.B.(Bradford, E.)
Collins, Sir Wm. J (S.Pancras, W. Johnson, John (Gateshead) Radford, G. H.
Cooper, G. J. Jones, William(Carnarvonshire) Raphael, Herbert H.
Corbett,C.H.(Sussex, E. Grinst'd Kearley, Hudson E. Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro'
Cornwall, Sir Edwin A. Kennedy, Vincent Paul Redmond, John E. (Waterford)
Cory, Clifford John Kilbride, Denis Richards, T.F.(Wolverh'mpt'n
Cowan, W. H. King, Alfred John (Knutsford) Richardson, A.
Cox, Harold Laidlaw, Robert Ridsdale, E. A.
Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth) Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester) Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)
Crean, Eugene Lambert, George Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)
Crosfield, A. H. Lamont, Norman Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)
Dalziel, James Henry Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.) Robinson, S.
Davies, Timothy (Fulham) Lehmann, R. C. Robson, Sir William Snowdon
Rose, Charles Day Summerbell, T. Waterlow, D. S.
Rowlands, J. Sutherland, T. E. Wedgwood, Josiah C.
Runciman, Walter Taylor, John W. (Durham) White, George (Norfolk)
Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel) Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe) White, Luke (York, E.R.)
Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde) Tennant, Sir Edward(Salisbury) White, Patrick (Meath, North)
Scott, A. H.(Ashtonunder Lyne) Thomas, David Alfred(Merthyr) Whitehead, Rowland
Seely, Major J. B. Tomkinson, James Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)
Shackleton, David James Toulmin, George Wiles, Thomas
Shaw, Rt. Hon. T. (Hawick B.) Villiers, Ernest Amherst Williams, Llewelyn(Carmarth'n
Shipman, Dr. John G. Wadsworth, J. Wills, Arthur Walters
Silcock, Thomas Ball Walsh, Stephen Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.)
Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John Walters, John Tudor Winfrey, R.
Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie Walton, Sir John L.(Leeds, S.)
Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.) Wardle, George J. TELLERS FOR THE AYES—
Stanley, Hn. A. Lyulph(Chesh.) Waring, Walter Mr. Whiteley and Mr. J. A. Pease.
Straus, B. S. (Mile End) Wason, Eugene(Clackmannan)
Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon) Wason, John Cathcart(Orkney)
Acland-Hood, Rt. Hn Sir Alex. F. Craig, Charles Curtis(Antrim, S.) Nield, Herbert
Arkwright, John Stanhope Craig, Captain James(Down, E.) Randles, Sir John Scurrah
Ashley, W. W. Cross, Alexander Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel
Balcarres, Lord Dalrymple, Viscount Roberts, S.(Sheffield, Ecclesall)
Banbury, Sir Frederick George Fell, Arthur Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)
Banner, John S. Harmood- Finch, Rt. Hon. George H. Sheffield, Sir Berkeley George D.
Beckett, Hon. Gervase Forster, Henry William Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)
Bignold, Sir Arthur Haddock, George R. Starkey, John R.
Bowles, G. Stewart Hamilton, Marquess of Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)
Bridgeman, W. Clive Hardy, Laurence(Kent,Ashf'rd) Turnour, Viscount
Bull, Sir William James Hay, Hon. Claude George Valentia, Viscount
Campbell, Rt. Hon. J. H. M. Helmsley, Viscount Walrond, Hon. Lionel
Carlile, E. Hildred Hervey, F. W.F.(Bury S. Edm'ds Williams, Col. R. (Dorset, W.)
Castlereagh, Viscount Hills, J. W. Wilson, A. Stanley(York, E.R.)
Cave, George Hunt, Rowland Wortley, Rt. Hon. C.B. Stuart-
Cavendish, Rt. Hon. Victor C. W. Lane-Fox, G. R. Younger, George
Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.) Mason, James F. (Windsor) TELLERS FOR THE NOES—
Coates, E. Feetham(Lewisham) Meysey-Thompson, E. C. Mr.Lonsdale and Mr. Courthope.
Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E. Morpeth, Viscount
Corbett, T. L. (Down, North) Nicholson, Wm G.(Petersfield)
MR. ASQUITH claimed,

"That the main Question be now put."

The House divided:—Ayes, 210; Noes, 53. (Division List No. 50.)

Acland, Francis Dyke Bowerman, C. W. Cooper, G. J.
Agnew, George William Bramsdon, T. A. Corbett, C, H.(Sussex,EGrinst'd.
Ainsworth, John Stirling Branch, James Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.
Alden, Percy Broklehurst, W. B. Cory, Clifford John
Allen, A Acland(Christchurch) Brodie, H. C. Cowan, W. H.
Allen, Churles P. (Stroud) Brooke, Stopford Cox, Harold
Armstrong, W. C. Heaton Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)
Asquith, Rt. Hn Herbert Henry Burns, Rt. Hon. John Crean, Eugene
Baring, Godfrey(Isle of Wight) Burnyeat, W. J. D. Crosfield, A. H.
Barlow, Percy (Bedford) Byles, William Pollard Dalziel, James Henry
Barnard, E. B. Carr-Gomm, H. W. Davies, Timothy (Fulham)
Barran, Rowland Hirst Causton, Rt Hn. Richard Knight Davies, W, Howell (Bristol, S.)
Barry, E. (Cork, S.) Chance, Frederick William Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)
Barry, Redmond J.(Tyrone, N.) Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R. Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness
Beale, W. P. Churchill, Winston Spencer Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)
Beauchamp, E. Clarke, C. Goddard Dunne, Major E. Martin (Walsall)
Bellairs, Carlyon Cleland, J. W. Edwards, Clement (Denbigh.)
Benn, W.(T'w'r Hamlets, S Geo. Clough, William Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)
Bennett, E. N. Clynes, J. R. Edwards, Frank (Radnor)
Berridge, T. H. D. Collins, Stephen; (Lambeth) Elibank, Master of
Boland, John Collins, Sir Wm J.(S. Paneras, W. Essex, R. W.
Everett, R. Lacey Luttrell, Hugh Fownes Rowlands, J.
Fenwick, Charles Lyell, Charles Henry Runciman, Walter
Ferens, T. R. Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester) Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)
F french, Peter Maclean, Donald Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)
Fiennes, Hon. Eustace MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S. Scott, A. H.(Ashton under Lyne
Findlay, Alexander McVeigh, Charles (Donegal, E.) Seely, Major J. B.
Fuller, John Michael F. M'Hugh, Patrick A. Shackleton, David James
Gill, A. H. M'Kenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald Shaw, Rt. Hon. T. (Hawick, B.)
Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John M'Micking, Major G. Shipman, Dr. John G.
Glover, Thomas Manfield, Harry (Northants) Silcock, Thomas Ball
Goddard, Daniel Ford Markham, Arthur Basil Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John
Gooch, George Peabody Mason, A. E. W. (Coventry) Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie
Greenwood, G. (Peterborough) Meehan, Patrick A. Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S-
Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward Menzies, Walter Stanley, Hn A. Lyulph(Chesh.)
Gulland, John W. Mond, A. Straus, B. S. (Mile End)
Gwynn, Stephen Lucius Montagu, E. S. Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)
Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B. Mooney, J. J. Summerbell, T.
Hall, Frederick Morse, L. L. Sutherland, J. E.
Harcourt, Right Hon. Lewis Morton, Alpheus Cleophas Taylor, John W. (Durham)
Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale) Murphy, John Taylor, Theodore C.(Radcliffe)
Harvey, W. E.(Derbyshire, N.E. Norton, Capt. Cecil William Tennant, Sir Edward(Salisbury
Hayden, John Patrick Nussey, Thomas Willans Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr
Hazel, Dr. A. E. O'Brien, Kendal(Tipperary Mid Tomkinson, James
Hemmerde, Edward George O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny) Toulmin, George
Henry, Charles S. O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.) Villiers, Ernest Amherst
Herbert, Colonel Ivor(Mon., S.) O'Dowd, John Wadsworth, J.
Higham, John Sharp O'Grady, J. Walsh, Stephen
Hobart, Sir Robert O'Shee, James John Walters, John Tudor
Hogan, Michael Parker, James (Halifax) Walton, Sir John L.(Leeds, S.)
Hudson, Walter Partington, Oswald Wardle, George J.
Hutton, Alfred Eddison Paul, Herbert Waring, Walter
Hyde, Clarendon Pearce, Robert (Staffs., Leek) Wason, Eugene(Clackmannan)
Jardine, Sir J. Pearson, W. H. M.(Suffolk, Eye) Wason, John Cathcart(Orkney)
Johnson, John (Gateshead) Pirie, Duncan V. Waterlow, D. S.
Jones, William(Carnarvonshire Pollard, Dr. Wedgwood, Josiah C.
Jowett, F. W. Power, Patrick Joseph White, George (Norfolk)
Kearley, Hudson E. Price, C. E.(Edinburgh, Central) White, Luve (York, E.R.)
Kennedy, Vincent Paul Priestley, W.E.B.(Bradford, E.) White, Patrick (Meath, North)
Kilbride, Denis Radford, G. H. Whitehead, Rowland
King, Alfred John (Knutsford) Raphael, Herbert H. Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)
Laidlaw, Robert Rea, Walter Russell(Scarboro' Wiles, Thomas
Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester) Redmond, John E.(Waterford) Williams, Llewelyn(Carmarth'n
Lambert, George Richards, T. F.(Wolverh'mpt'n Wills, Arthur Walters
Lamont, Norman Richardson, A. Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.)
Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.) Ridsdale, E. A. Winfrey, R.
Lehmann, R. C. Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)
Lever, A Levy(Essex, Harwich) Roberts, G. H. (Norwich) TELLERS FOR THE AYES—
Levy, Maurice Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.) Mr. Whiteley and Mr. J. A. Pease.
Lewis, John Herbert Robinson, S.
Lough, Thomas Robson, Sir William Snowdon
Lupton, Arnold Rose, Charles Day
Acland-Hood, Rt Hn. Sir Alex. F. Corbett, T. L. (Down, North) Lonsdale, John Brownlee
Arkwright, John Stanhope Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S. Mason, James F. (Windsor)
Ashley, W. W. Craig, Captain James(Down, E.) Meysey-Thompson, E. C.
Balcarres, Lord Cross, Alexander Morpeth, Viscount
Banbury, Sir Frederick George Dalrymple, Viscount Nicholson, Wm. G.(Petersfield
Banner, John S. Harmood- Fell, Arthur Nield, Herbert
Beckett, Hon. Gervase Finch, Rt. Hon. George H. Randles, Sir John Scurrah
Bignold, Sir Arthur Forster, Henry William Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel
Bull, Sir William James Haddock, George Roberts, S.(Sheffield, Ecclesall)
Campbell, Rt. Hon. J. H. M. Hamilton, Marquess of Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpoo)
Carlile, E. Hildred Hay, Hon. Claude George Sheffield, Sir Berkeley George D
Castlereagh, Viscount Helmsley, Viscount Smith, Abel H.(Hertford, East)
Cave, George Hervey, F. W. F.(BuryS Edm'ds Starkey, John R.
Covendish, Rt. Hon. Victor C. W. Hills, J. W. Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)
Cecil, Lord R.(Marylebone, E.) Hunt, Rowland Turnour, Viscount
Coates, E. Feetham(Lewisham) Lane-Fox, G. R.
Valentia, Viscount Wilson, A Stanley (York, E. R.) TELLERS FOR THE NOES—
Walrond, Hon. Lionel Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart- Mr. Courthope and Mr. Bridgeman.
Willams, Col. R. (Dorset, W.) Younger, George

Bill read the third time, and passed.

Main Question put accordingly.