HC Deb 18 July 1910 vol 19 cc1027-41

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £1,453,725, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1911, for public education in Scotland, and for science and art in Scotland, including a Grant in Aid." [NOTE.—£800,000 has been voted on account.]


I am exceedingly sorry to have to bring this very difficult question before the Committee at this very untimely hour, and I ask their forbearance. I only bring it forward because it is most important. It can be answered favourably by the Lord Advocate without raising any question of international law, because it is purely a matter of internal administration. The Committee will remember that I have always been opposed to the scheme of allocation from the moment it saw the light. I consider it unjust and unfair. It forces on the mind of anyone who looks at the figures the feeling that there is bias, a bias in favour of certain counties. I do not believe there is any bias for or against any county, but when one looks at the figures he is bound to suppose there is some bias. It is not only unjust, but in my opinion it is illegal. Hon. Members will remember that there were two schemes of allocation brought forward. The first was withdrawn very shortly after it was produced. That scheme was, in my opinion, in strict accordance with the letter and spirit of the Act. Unfortunately, owing no doubt to previous errors of distribution, it did not give to every education district a share of the increased Treasury grant. These districts grumbled, but if the then existing distribution was wrong, it would have been the duty of the Secretary for Scotland to do what was right, and to amend the Act. The Act was not amended.

It was said that the words of the Act were flexible; that there was nothing rigid or peremptory about it; and a new scheme of allocation was produced actually within two or three days of the first scheme. As if by the movement of a magician's wand twenty or thirty thousand pounds was deducted from the grants which had been made under the first scheme to the industrial education districts. Now, I hold as strongly as it is possible for me to do that there should be no words in any Act of Parliament which would allow the Secretary for Scotland, or the Education Department, or the Lord Advocate, or anyone else to so alter and manipulate the figures as to take £20,000 or £30,000 from certain localities and give it to another without alteration of the Act. I took occasion last year to show how this allocation worked according to the actual average attendance in schools, and I have asked time after time for any reason why, for instance, Dumbartonshire should receive 9s. 3d., Lanarkshire 9s. 5d., Linlithgowshire 9s. 1d., and Renfrewshire—all industrial districts, mark you—9s. 8d. per head of the pupils in average attendance at State-aided schools, whereas, for no reason I have yet been given, Berwickshire has 18s., Orkney 23s., Peebles 20s., Selkirkshire 17s., and Wigtonshire 17s. No man has ever given me a reason why there should be this difference, and I ask hon. Members to remember that I do not make this complaint without having made inquiry at every reasonable source as to the reason for these differences. I have been told that when you consider secondary education, and bursaries and medical inspection, circulating teachers, assistants in small schools, and a lot of subsidiary services it will be found that there is no reason for complaint and that these seemingly unjust figures would turn out all right. I waited patiently for a year, and I find that the allocation of money to elementary schools, after you have deducted all these expenses, is of the most extraordinary nature. Dumfriesshire, for instance, gets 9d. per pupil towards the cost of elementary schools, Kinross 8½d., Kircudbrightshire 9d.; whereas Edinburgh has 8s. 8d., Wigtonshire 10s. id., and Glasgow 10s. 3d. I have asked, time after time, for the reason, and the only reason I have been given for this extraordinary diversity of grant is that secondary education would explain it. It does not explain it to me.

It is only fair to the Department to say that there is the very widest discrepancy in the amounts paid by various education districts for secondary education. For example—and I should like the Lord Advocate, who has the most marvellous memory for figures of any man I ever knew, would explain this to me—in Aberdeenshire out of £17,365, 86 per cent. is spent on secondary education and the subsidiary objects to which I have alluded, and 14 per cent. on elementary education, whereas in Glasgow 6 per cent. of £50,000 is spent on secondary education and 94 per cent. on elementary. I think it is an extraordinary state of things that this should occur under one grant. My object is to try to explain to the Committee that this is an unjust allocation. I should like to say in passing that out of a balance of £421,000 £225,000 appears to be divided among 30,000 pupils, while £196,000 is divided among 727,000 pupils. It is an altogether disproportionate provision. I should like in very few words to call the attention of the Committee to my own Constituency. It suffers more, if I may say so, than any other constituency in Scotland. In the last distribution of seats the constituency of South Lanarkshire was apparently carved out as a purely agricultural constituency, whereas the other three constituencies in Lanarkshire are industrial and coal-mining districts. This constituency of South Lanarkshire is as large as a county; it is larger than most. I have brought this matter before the Secretary for Scotland when he was in this House, and he gave me this answer on 24th November, 1908. Members can see that I have been working to get this injustice removed for two years. He said:— It would be quite possible to consider whether the special circumstances of a district such as South Lanark were not of sufficient magnitude to justify the creation of a special district committee for that special district. I need hardly say that nothing whatever was done in the matter. Nothing has been done, and the injustice not only remains, but is even greater than anyone would suppose it was. I would like to make a little comparison between my own Constituency and that of Berwickshire. In Berwickshire there are 300,000 acres; in South Lanark 400,000. The population is almost as sparse. The population in South Lanark is 136 per acre; in Berwickshire it is 14. The important consideration in this matter is the valuation and the education rate, because the Act says that the greater aid shall he given to those districts in which per head of population the burden of expenditure on education purposes is excessive as compared with the valuation. Well, I trust to prove that the valuation per head of the population in South Lanark is £8 17s. 5d., whereas in Berwickshire it is £10 3s. The education rate in Berwickshire is 8½d. on the average, and in South Lanark 9d. Now, by the Act it ought to be that South Lanark should have a greater amount per head of pupils in average attendance at State-aided schools than Berwickshire has. But, on the contrary, and without any reason that any human being can explain or that I have elicited from the Front Bench, Berwickshire gets 18s. 3d. per pupil, and South Lanarkshire gets 9s. 7d. And after deducting what is paid for secondary education one would have supposed that the average amount would have been the same because of the similarity of the constituencies. But it is not so. Berwickshire gets 6s. after secondary education and all the bursaries and everything else have been deducted, and South Lanark gets 3s. 10d. That is contrary to the Act. It might very well be said that this allocation gives greater aid where the valuation is high and the expenditure on education is low; but where the population is poor and the valuation is low, and the education rate is high, the Education Department steps in and gives a low Grant. "To him that hath," the Education Department says, "shall be given; from him who bath not shall be taken even that which he hath."

I intend to make one or two other comparisons which are quite as fruitful as that as to the extraordinary nature of the allocation. I will only ask the Committee to remember this—that I put all this before the Lord Advocate last year, and he told us that £190,000 was distributed according to population: £94,000 according to the Act, £6,000 for highland counties, and one or two more particulars he gave. Every item of that allocation is distinctly and directly opposed to the Act. I asked him to explain why the law was administered in this way. The Act of Parliament provides in Clause 15 that the grant provided by the Imperial Exchequer shall no longer be applied or distributed as heretofore, but shall be distributed in accordance with the definite principle stated in Clause 16, II. And Clause 16, II., says: "The scheme of education is to be prepared which is to be so framed as to give greater aid to those districts in which per head of the population the burden of expenditure on educational purposes is excessive as compared with the valuation of the district." I have given you one concrete instance. I could give you more, and I only spare you because of the very late hour. But these concrete instances show—I cannot say it too often—that the Scottish education fund is being administered entirely and absolutely contrary to the Act of Parliament of 1908. In his speech defending it on 1st July, 1909, the Lord Advocate said:— Experience will doubtless enable us to make the distribution a sound basis in future I will give the Lord Advocate credit for this—he has never for one moment defended that allocation, and I do not think he will do it even now. He said in the same speech:— When we have made our distribution and gained our experience, we will prepare to distribute our money next year on even a better system than that now disclosed. I can honestly say that no possible distribution could be worse, and if he says there will be a new distribution I should be the last man to divide this House on the matter. If I am told the allocation is to be changed, if I am even told that the allocation of these moneys will probably be changed, then I will not divide the House. But if I am told again that they want to garner further experience, that they want to wait another year, that there are certain balances which were brought forward from other years, that they want still to wait, that they want, in fact, to stereotype the injustice, then, if I can get any Members to go into the Lobby with me I will certainly, even at this late hour, divide the House. In conclusion, I will just paraphrase one sentence of the Lord Advocate. All I can say is that I want fair play and nothing more, but I will not take less.

2.0 A.M.


The speech to which we have just listened deals with nothing but a purely financial question. The great question of education which touches Scotland more deeply than any other will be dealt with in a few minutes after two o'clock, without a single mention of any purely educational matter. Had I been able to agree with any of the conclusions of the hon. Member I would gladly dissemble my love for the Government and go into the Lobby against them, although I fear I should have been disappointed, but so far not a single Member opposite has stood up for his own proposals, not even the hon. Member for North Aberdeen (Mr. Pirie). But, unfortunately, I am unable to agree with the conclusions of the hon. Member. One thing I can say from some experience and that is that the Government in any scheme for the distribution of this sum of money will have just as many opponents as they have on this one. We have met with the same thing over and over again in the old days, and I defy even the archangel himself to find a scheme of distribution which will satisfy any but a very small mind. The Act says certain things are to be kept in view in the distribution. It does not say that these are to be the sole and universal guiding things, or that nothing else is to enter into it. It would be a very serious matter indeed for educational administration if you had dislocated the whole work by diminishing the Grant which is now much bigger than has hitherto been given. That would have been a serious disturbance, and would have upset many schemes of local authorities, and it would not have been improved by a few local authorities getting larger sums than they bad before. What you have to try for is to make a fair distribution, and a part of that fairness is that it should be on a level with what has gone before, so as to enable the school boards in different localities to carry on much the same work they have hitherto done. One of the essential benefits of the minute is that it is subject to change.

The whole question of the incidence of local taxation and the assistance the rates ought to have from Imperial Grants and other subsidies, is a question which must be dealt with on a large basis. Do not try to figure it out by altering this allocation. Do it on a large and complete scale. I assert, after a careful consideration, that looking all round upon the needs of the different localities in Scotland, and looking upon what is their past expenditure and the necessity of not disturbing them unduly, that on the whole the Government, in the scheme they have laid before the House, have done what is wise for all parties. To try to measure the Grants by the amount of the local rates, by the exact proportion of average attendance or population, or by the rateable value in each case, is unwise. To fancy that this will give you the best and most equitable distribution all over Scotland would be mere pedantry, and you would find that after you had spent months or years in trying to introduce it you would have just as many opponents as you have to this scheme. I trust that the Secretary for Scotland will not be persuaded to proceed with any undue rapid change. Let him, as fast as he can, get to the much larger point of the Imperial subsidies to local rates. But that question has nothing to do with education. If we could only eliminate these financial questions for our annual discussion we should have much more interesting educational topics discussed in their place. Had it been possible for me to do so I should have tried to do my duty in opposing the Government. I cannot find sufficient reasons in the proposals of the hon. Member for adopting this course, even if I believed he would have the backbone and strength of will to carry his threats into execution, which I very much doubt. So far as I can speak for my hon. Friends on this side of the House, we shall heartily support the Lord Advocate if he goes to a Division.


I am also here under a very strong sense of duty. Judging from the empty state of the benches opposite and the crowded benches on this side, it seems that the Liberal Members have a greater sense of duty than the Opposition. I rise to support the Amendment moved by the hon. Member for South Lanark (Sir Walter Menzies). I represent a constituency which, unfortunately, is in the same state as regards the educational Grants as South Lanark. Greenock used to receive £800 as a residue Grant from the Government, but during the past two years that sum has not been received, and it is only natural that there is a considerable dissatisfaction owing to the new rules. Last year, when the question was brought up, the Lord Advocate said that these Grants were not like the laws of the Medes and Persians. I hope that in another year that we may see the Grants altered, and that those districts which are not receiving the average amount for the whole country will have their Grants raised proportionately. Also I wish to draw attention to the circulars sent out by the Education Department to local school boards, which I understand are sent out by the Scottish Education Department in London from time to time. Would it not be possible for the Board of Education to put together the different circulars and send them out to the different school boards once a year, and, if possible, to invite the co-operation of the school boards along the lines they wish carried out? It seems to me very necessary, if they are going to continue to rely upon men who give their time to school board work, to carry them with them in the changes they make. Would it not be possible for the Scottish Education Department to consult and send on advance proofs to the school boards of the country, invite criticism and suggestion, and then allow a certain time to elapse before the new rules are put into force? It seems to me that the Education Department differs from the ordinary State Departments. In the Army, the Navy, and the Civil Service the instructions of the head office are carried out by paid officials at their different branches, but in the Education Department they depend on the support they receive from men who give their time voluntarily to local school board work. If they could carry with them the School Boards in the different ways I have mentioned, they would get a higher estate of efficiency throughout the country.


I should like to support the Member for South Lanarkshire on the question of the distribution of the Education Fund. I agree with him that the distribution is not in accordance with the spirit of the Act. My Constituency has suffered severely under a distribution adopted by the Department, contrary to the intentions of the Act. I have always believed that that distribution would never hold. The hon. Member for Glasgow University said the Minute was open to change. Change is exactly what we want, and exactly what we cannot get. If you compare Leith with Edinburgh in this distribution it becomes clear how, under the Act, fair treatment could be given to both communities, but in the actual distribution most unfair treatment was accorded to one of them—that which I represent. As this distribution is so easily changed, then let it be changed. With respect to one of the new Orders regarding the numbers in classes, I agree that its object was admirable. The classes in a certain number of schools are excessive, and cannot be properly taught, but it has to be remembered that the cost of adapting the existing schools for smaller classes will in some cases be a very heavy burden on the ratepayers, and I think the rule should be adopted with due caution. Its object is admirable, and it is very much needed. Probably something in the form of a gymnasium could be attached to many of the school buildings which cannot be adapted for physical training.

I think that facilities for physical training are perhaps the most urgent of the needs of educational establishments. I agree that the reduction of classes is very necessary in some schools, but it should not be insisted on all at once, and without making due allowance for the burdens which it would impose on some communities. There is one other point to which I would draw attention, and that is the character of the school buildings. One of the difficulties we have in reducing the numbers in the classes and re-adapting school buildings is the permanent character of those buildings, which have been elected on those rigid lines to which the Lord Advocate referred. I am not sure the Lord Advocate was right in referring to rigid lines. He was apparently comparing the modified regulations at Long Island with the rigid regulations which exist in the rest of the country. These rigid regulations did obtain up to quite recently, but I am glad to be able to recognise the fact that we are now erecting buildings which can be adapted to the changing requirements of education. I do not think there is any rigid rule now. At any rate, I hope that throughout the whole country the rules will be no more rigid than they promise to be in the new schools of the Long Island. I think the Department would give great relief and afford greater educational facilities, especially in furthering their policy of reducing excessive numbers in classes, if they gave a lead to the schools boards, and especially the smaller school boards. We are still cursed with the small educational area, and the small school board is generally in the hands of its architect, who desires to set up some memorial to himself which will be a lasting testimony to his agricultural skill, and his power of putting money into stone and lime. I think the Education Department can give a lead in the direction of cheap evening school equipment, and I hope they will do it on the mainland as well as on the Long Island.

Captain WARING

I hope this prolonged Debate will prove to the Government the necessity of giving two days to the discussion of the Scottish Estimates. I wish to associate myself with the hon. Member for South Lanarkshire with regard to the distribution of Education Grants. I accompanied him into the Lobby last year on this question, and I will do so again. I will do so with the greater pleasure now with the knowledge that the Member for Glasgow University will be in the opposite Lobby. One question which my Constituents are interested in is the question of the education of children of that particular class which we call in Scotland wandering tinkers. If we thought the Children Act would solve this question we would rest content, but my information, obtained from authoritative sources, goes to show that the state of things in this respect, so far as my Constituency is concerned, is far from satisfactory. I have here a copy of a local paper from Banffshire, containing a letter from the Rev. George Shaw, of Dufftown, in which he says that he visited a tinkers' camp, and found a family of seven adults and three children, all housed under two covers, nine feet square each. As to their education, he says:— One of them told me his children had no education, had never been to school, and could neither read nor write. That letter was written on 9th July last, and I think it goes to prove that the 118th Section of the Children 1908 Act, on which the Lord Advocate appears to rely, has not, at all events yet, penetrated as far as Banffshire. There is no doubt that it is not to the convenience of Scotland to permit families to wander about and camp all over the place so long, as the education of the children would be exceedingly difficult. They belong to no particular parish. Nobody knows who is to pay for their education. In the winter it is possible to get hold of the children. I have heard of children who were attached to a school for four months in one winter, but with the advent of summer that all came to an end. I wish to ask the Lord Advocate whether he cannot consider the possibility of really getting hold of these children and insisting on their proper education. The tinkers have only got to settle down and have a house in some town, then the males can wander to their hearts' content in the summer and the children could attend school. But as long as the Government recognises this system of vagrancy this question will be difficult to solve. I do not want to touch on the moral aspects of the matter: the life is a very healthy one, but whether it is good for morals I am not prepared to say. Are these children never employed at work? Do they never work under the age of fourteen? I would rather like to know whether there are any prosecutions under that head. The question is one of considerable importance. It interests very greatly an important section of my Constituents, and I would like some assurance from the Lord Advocate that if he intends to rely solely on that 118th Section of the Children 1908 Act, he will at all events stir up its dormant faculty in order that its beneficial effects might reach Banffshire before long.


I wish to say a word as to the speech of the hon. Member for South Lanark. I am glad to know that the distribution of the district education fund is not stereotyped, because the distribution as at present really affords some very extraordinary results. Kirkcudbrightshire gets 9d. per scholar in average attendance; Wigtonshire gets 10s. 1d. per scholar; Lanarkshire, which is looked upon as up to date, gets 3s. 10d.; and the City of Glasgow gets something over 10s. 3d. I do not give these figures as absolutely reliable, because there are other considerations to be taken into account. These are the results, however, as far as they have been given to me. I understand there are questions of balances brought forward from previous years, and also questions of some authorities doing a great amount of work, such as medical inspection, and others doing a less amount. Of course, there is a grouping of authorities. Those getting the larger Grants are thoroughly well satisfied with the distribution as at present. There is a group of authorities, a very large and important body, who are getting a smaller share, and they are thoroughly dissatisfied. Now, if the whole education money were put into a rate per £ in relief of taxation, the group of authorities which are getting the smaller Grants would be relieved to the extent of 3 18–120 pence; the groups getting the larger amount would be relieved by 3 20–120 pence. That is not a very great difference, but the average education rate in the group of authorities which is getting the smaller relief is no less than 2½d. in the £ in excess of the average rate in the group of authorities which is getting the larger Grant in relief. Now, the reading of the Act says that the true test is necessity—the needs of the different authorities. I suppose that means the financial means as well as the educational needs. I do hope the Lord Advocate will be able to tell us that this scheme of distribution of the Education Fund is not stereotyped, and that we will have a very early change in the method of distribution, and something more equitable decided upon. There is a matter to which the hon. Member for Leith Burghs referred to, and which has affected one of the districts that I represent, and that is the Order recently issued by the Education Department as to the size of class-rooms. The present size is sixty scholars. Probably that is too large. I think the new Order that is about to come out is that class-rooms are to be reduced to something like fifteen scholars. I will endorse what was said by the hon. Member for Leith Burghs—that I trust the Education Department will proceed with due caution in this matter, because it may involve an enormous burden on the already heavily burdened ratepayers.


There is a very wide feeling throughout Scotland on this subject. I had the opportunity during the Easter Recess of going up to Scotland and seeing a new school which had just been provided under the old Code—an admirably built school, which has classes for sixty scholars. But as between sixty and fifteen I do hope very much that the Scottish Education Department will adopt a reasonable policy, and have regard to the existing situation in cases such as this where a school has just been provided, admirably sanitary and well equipped in every way.


I do not think I can be accused of taking a narrow, selfish, or biased view of the distribution of money under this Bill. The Member for South Lanarkshire would know that if there is one county treated more unfairly than another from his point of view it is the county of Linlithgow. My county receives apparently 9s. 1d., his county receives 9s. 5d., and the Member for Leith Burghs cries out with 10s. 1d. Obviously the reason why in our counties the valuation is high in proportion to the amount expended is that we receive a smaller Grant. Instead of being exasperated and joining in the grumbles of my hon. Friend, my bosom swells with pride to think that the valuation of the county I represent is so much higher than that of the neighbouring county. I am very well content to take my 9s. 1d., compared with his 10s. 1d. I have very little hesitation in giving an assurance that my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow and Aberdeen Universities asks for, and the reason I give for that is that nobody has yet been able to produce another rival scheme which would have any reasonable hope of being accepted. This scheme is not ideal. No scheme could be ideal. It would not please everybody. But I may say that this scheme not only adheres closely to the spirit and letter of the Act, but it pleases a much larger number of local authorities than any other scheme yet produced, and until my hon. Friends are able to give us a rival scheme which they can demonstrate would please a larger number of authorities than that now on the Table, I hope the Government will stick to their scheme. There is only one other matter. I explained it at full length last year. The hon. Member for Leith Burghs (Mr. Munro Ferguson) says he hopes the Education Department will not insist upon too high a standard for school buildings. He may rest as sured that the Education Department will continue the policy they have hitherto pursued, and encourage thrift wherever it is possible.


I can only say with considerable regret that I have not received any satisfaction whatever. It is not a question of appealing to me to bring forward a scheme which will please the majority. The question is, is it right and is it according to the Act? I say it is neither according to the letter nor according to the spirit of the Act, and, therefore, I regret very much that I must go into the Lobby against the Government. With reference to the remarks of the hon. Member for Glasgow and Aberdeen Universities (Sir Henry Craik) about my backbone, I may say that I have a backbone, I will not only oppose this allocation at this time, but so long as I am in this House.


There is one matter to which I would direct the attention of the Department, and that is an injustice under which my Constituents in Inverness suffer, the fact that their medical inspection scheme, which they were the first school board to introduce, is now being superseded by the scheme of the county. Under the Burgh scheme the actual cost of administration is considerably less, and they feel they are going to be asked now to sacrifice themselves for the benefit of other parts of the county in which the school rate is lower, and, further, that the efficiency of the scheme will suffer. I know the Department recognises the way in which the Inverness School Board attempted the introduction of the system of proper medical inspection, and I ask the Lord Advocate whether it would not be possible to allow them to continue the scheme they have so successfully introduced.


I congratulate the hon. Member for South Lanark (Sir Walter Menzies) on his speech on this occasion. It is in great contrast with the speech he delivered earlier in the evening. It is ludicrous that in his speech earlier in the evening, and in that of the hon. Member for Dumfries (Mr. Molteno), they did not say a word of criticism on the person who is responsible for the state of affairs which the hon. Member has described as being so unjust, who is nobody but the Secretary for Scotland. I am glad he has backbone now and I shall certainly support him. I call to mind the incident in Committee when the Bill was first introduced, when the Scottish Office came down with different schemes after listening to different deputations, and the more numerous the deputation the more numerous the change. The scheme satisfied no one, and it was a ludicrous arrangement and should be protested against as long as it exists.

Question put, "That a sum, not exceeding £1,453,725, be granted to His Majesty to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1911, for Public Education in Scotland, and for Science and Art in Scotland, including a Grant in Aid."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 68; Noes, 15.

Division No. 106.] AYES. [3.0 a.m.
Ainsworth, John Stirling Hayward, Evan Seddon, James A.
Allen, Charles Peter Henderson, J. M. (Aberdeen, W.) Seely, Col. Rt. Hon. J. E. B.
Benn, W. (Tower Hamlets, S. Geo.) Hughes, Spencer Leigh Shortt, Edward
Bentham, George J. Hunter, William (Lanark, Govan) Soares, Ernest Joseph
Bowerman, Charles W. Illingworth, Percy H. Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander
Buxton, C. R. (Devon, Mid) Jones, William (Carnarvonshire) Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)
Clough, William Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J. Waring, Walter
Collins, Godfrey P. (Greenock) Millar, James Duncan White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire)
Cowan, William Henry Murray, Capt. Hon. Arthur C. Whyte, Alexander F. (Perth)
Dalziel, Sir James H. (Kirkcaldy) Muspratt, Max Williams, Penry (Middlesbrough)
Dawes, James Arthur O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny) Williamson, Sir Archibald
Falconer, James Pease, Rt. Hon. Joseph A. Wilson, T. F. (Lanark, N.E.)
Furness, Stephen Pointer, Joseph Young, William (Perth, East)
Hancock, John George Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)
Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose) Primrose, Hon. Neil James
Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale) Pringle, William M. R. TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Master of Elibank and Mr. Gulland.
Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth) Radford, George Heynes
Haworth, Arthur A. Raffan, Peter Wilson
Jackson, John A. (Whitehaven) TELLERS FOR THE NO. Mr. Remnant and Viscount Dalrymple.

[CLASS 2, VOTE 31.]