HC Deb 28 July 1910 vol 19 cc2353-75

Order read for Committee.


There is a number of Instructions on the Paper. They all propose to give powers to the Committee which the Committee already have. Therefore they are unnecessary and are out of order.

Considered in Committee.

[Mr. EMMOTT in the Chair.]



I beg to move "That the Chairman do report Progress and ask leave to sit again." I make this Motion to draw attention to the way in which the Government has treated those Members of the House and of this Committee who are opposed to this measure. I venture to say there never has been a case where a Bill of such far-reaching importance as this Bill is, in our view at any rate, has been rushed through the House in its three stages in three consecutive days. When the Prime Minister introduced this Bill he clearly indicated that it was a measure which we ought to have ample time, not only for considering—that is, the Bill as it was introduced—but also for considering Amendments and the other stages of the Bill. The Prime Minister said:— I have not introduced the Bill as I might have done under the Ten Minute Rule. I think the Prime Minister very naturally shied at such an arbitrary proceeding as introducing a Bill of this magnitude under the Ten Minute Rule. He went on to say that he did not do so— because of the importance and gravity of the subject. I thought it would be hardly treating it with proper respect. At the same time, I would earnestly deprecate at this stage anything in the nature of prolonged or acrimonious discussion. I think it is most desirable that hon. Members should study the Bill, and ample opportunity will be given before the Second Reading." [OFFICIAL REPORT, 28th June, 1910, cols, 851 and 852.] I think those words clearly indicated to the House that he himself looked on the Bill as one of very grave importance, and as one which we ought to have ample time to consider in its various stages. It is quite true we have had ample time only to consider the Bill between the First and Second Readings, but I say we have had no time to consider the altered Bill, for it has been altered since the First Reading. We have had no time to study the Amendments that have been put on the Paper this morning, and we have had no time to look at the altered situation which was created by the speech of the Prime Minister yesterday. I would also like to point out that this Constitution of ours is for the most part an unwritten Constitution, and the enactments which were put in our hands, through the White Paper issued recently, are practically the only part of our Constitution which is written. This Bill seeks to destroy and to very gravely alter one of the most important parts of that written portion of our Constitution. I draw the attention of the House that that is proposed to be done in three days, and that the most important stage, the Committee stage, is to be taken after the House was sitting up until three o'clock this morning. I think that is not fair. I should like to remind the House that this question has never been before the country at a General Election, and that in the only election which has taken place a few days ago the result was that the candidate at that election who objected to any change in the Declaration was returned by a larger majority than his predecessor in the constituency had enjoyed.

On those grounds I think we have every right to ask that further time should be given between the Second Reading and the Committee stage. I should like to quote again from the Prime Minister. After having informed us that he proposed that the Committee stage and Report and Third Reading of this Bill should be postponed until after the adjournment, that is until November, he came down to the House one day, and without any notice informed us that owing to representations which he had received from various quarters of the House he had come to the conclusion that it would be better to dispose of this Bill before the Recess. I should have thought before such an idea ever entered into the head of the Prime Minister that when he consulted with the Members in various quarters of the House the least he could have done was to have consulted with that portion of the House from which opposition would come. He never did that, he never took our convenience or views into consideration, as I submit he ought to have done. He came down and told the House that the remaining stages must be disposed of before we rose for the holidays. I do not think that is treating us fairly. I do not think in any case, whether he had given us notice or not, that sufficient time has been given or is being given for the discussion of a matter of such grave importance as that concerned in this Bill. For those reasons I beg to move.

The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. Runciman)

I am sure that the hon. Member does not expect the Government to accept the Motion. Ample time was given between the First and Second Reading for a great deal of the discussion which he desires, and I am sure we are only consulting the general wish of the House in proceeding at once with the Bill. [HON. MEMBERS: "No, no."]


Of those in favour of the Bill, no doubt.


The Bill is a very short Bill. The number of Amendments which are down on the Paper, although large in number, really cover, I think, very few principles, and the discussion that we can have this afternoon will be quite ample for the purpose. I am sure the hon. Gentleman and those who think with him will take full advantage of the opportunities which are offered to them. We could not think of accepting this Motion.


Nobody will be surprised at the answer which the right hon. Gentleman has made. It is quite obvious that it is the deliberate intention of the Government to force this Bill through Parliament in a manner for which I do not believe any Member of this House can find any precedent. The position is a remarkable one, and I do not wonder that my hon. Friend has made this Motion, because it affords the only opportunity possible for calling the attention of the House and the country to the action of the Government. What is the position? A few moments ago the Chancellor of the Exchequer told us that this House is to re-assemble on 15th November for the Autumn Session. I defy the Government, or any Member of it, to give us a satisfactory reason for forcing this Bill through in three consecutive days now when they could with perfect ease make it part of their programme for the Autumn Session. Supposing this Bill was to require a week's time, and I do not think that would be too much to give to its various stages, then if the right hon. Gentleman is correct in saying that the House is anxious to carry it nobody would object to an extra week being given for its consideration at that time. The right hon. Gentleman says, though there are numerous Amendments, that they are few in regard to the priciples which arise, and that some of them are duplicated many times over. That is perfectly true. He goes on to say that the questions at issue are simple, and can easily be decided on the Amendment. I think the right hon. Gentleman is straining the argument in defence of his situation in making that speech. We sat until three o'clock this morning, and consequently the Amendments were not in the hands of the Members until this morning. I only received them at eleven o'clock. We have had in the meantime to consider those Amendments and make up our minds which seemed the best calculated to carry out the object we have in view. I do not believe that it ever occurred before that on a Bill of this grave and far-reaching character Members of the House, who received their Amendments at eleven o'clock, have been asked to come down and seriously discuss them at four o'clock, with this condition: that the discussion is to be carried through within the compass of a single sitting in order that the Report and Third Reading may be taken to-morrow.

I am not going to say anything about the Bill itself. My hon. Friend said that the Bill had been materially changed by the alteration made by the Prime Minister yesterday. He also referred to the fact, which is an undoubtd one, that the only alteration made is one which is a concession to hon. Gentlemen opposite, and that the views of those who are either opposed root and branch to the Bill, or the views of those who, like myself, are anxious to see the objectionable language removed, but would like something very different from what the Government have proposed—all those views have been entirely disregarded by the Prime Minister. No attempt has been made to meet them by Amendment, nor has the smallest hope been held out to us that in Committee the Government would favourably consider the proposition that we desire to make. Not only is this Bill altered by the announcement of the Prime Minister, but the whole position was changed by the speech made by the Chief Secretary for Ireland in that very small portion of his speech which had any reference to the Bill itself. Those who were present will remember that the right hon. Gentleman, when he told us a great deal about the past and present, said that he would say a word or two now about the Declaration itself. It was only in his concluding sentences that he dealt with the subject which was really before the House. What he said came to this, that as the Protestant cause is so strong everybody have made up their minds as to the Protestant Succession, and the logical conclusion of the right hon. Gentleman's speech is that this Bill in its full form is not necessary because no Declaration of any kind is required inasmuch as the Protestant Succession stands secure.

Therefore it comes to this, that the Government tell us that this Bill must be carried and they are asking this House at enormous inconvenience, personally and collectively, to dispose of it to-day, while the last utterance the Government has made on the subject is that this Bill is not necessary, and all that would be required would be a single line to remove the present Declaration. That is a most extraordinary declaration. I do not wonder that my hon. Friend has raised the question. He cannot hope of course to secure its acceptance by the Government, but I venture to say that the Government has set a very bad precedent in the method by which they propose to carry this legislation and that they are making a very unfair demand upon Parliament and upon the time of Members. They may rely on it, and they ought to have realised, that there are a great many men in all parts of the country who look upon this proposed change with the greatest misgiving, and when they realise this change has been forced upon Parliament at the end of the Session, and in a few hours of time, and by a process of Debate which has no precedent and which makes Debate almost a farce. I do not think the Government can complain if those people continue to resent this change and if they claim it has been made in a violent and exceptional manner. For these reasons I do not wonder at the proposal of my hon. Friend, and if he goes to a Division I shall certainly support him because it is the only way open to us to register in this House our protest against the unprecedented, and as I think, most improper action which the Government have taken.


I rise to support the Motion. The hon. Member who moved it referred to the fact that the Prime Minister, in introducing the Bill, assured the Members of the House generally that they should, so far as possible, or certainly implied that they should, have ample time for discussion on the Second Reading. As a matter of fact, what happened? Yesterday the Eleven o'clock Rule was suspended and a number of Members on both sides of the House were anxious to speak when the Closure was moved by the Government.

The CHAIRMAN (Mr. Emmott)

It is not in order in Committee to reflect on the Closure being carried by the House.


I was not reflecting on the House, but I think a mistake was made. I suggest, inasmuch as the Government curtailed the time for discussion on the First Reading, that it is only reasonable, and I am sure the whole country expected that they would have given ample time for the discussion on the Second Reading.


I have told the hon. Member that that is out of order.


The Secretary for Ireland last night said that the Protestant Succession is absolutely secure as against Popery in this country, and he referred to it as though he thought that in that Declaration they had got the Pope very much in the same way as, it seems to me, the Prime Minister thinks he has got the opponents of this Bill by proceeding in the way he has done. I would suggest that, in view of the statement made in the country by the Chief Liberal Whip that the Government had no intention of dealing with controversial measures except the definition and adjustment of the relations between the two Houses, this proceeding really amounts to a breach of faith with the electors, inasmuch as the Government have introduced one of the most controversial measures possible. The Leader of the Opposition yesterday expressed the belief that the statement was strictly true, but that the majority of the people in the country were opposed to any alteration of the Declaration. Incidentally I may remark that, inasmuch as the right hon. Gentleman is, I suppose, a supporter of representative government, it is a matter for surprise that he should have voted for the Second Reading of this Bill when he was under the impression that the majority of the people were opposed to it. I said in a former Debate that the Government had no mandate for this Bill. What is more, there is no general demand from the country for it. The only demand the Government seem to have had is from the hon. Member for Clare (Mr. W. Redmond), who, the day after the death of the late King, wrote a letter asking that such a measure as this should be introduced and the offensive words in the Declaration struck out. I would put it to the Government whether they are not straining very severely the loyalty of their supporters in the country by introducing the Education Bills they have done——


The hon. Member is not confining himself even to the Bill, and when he deals with the Bill he appears to be making a Second Reading speech. He must apply himself to the Motion to report Progress.


I was about to say that the Government had introduced other Bills straining the loyalty of their followers, but that this Bill does so more than any of the others. I do not think there ought really to be any complaint even if I was making a Second reading speech, seeing that I got up yesterday on every occasion between four o'clock and half past ten without being called on; therefore, I think the House might naturally be a little indulgent. We have heard time after time from Members on the Treasury Bench of the iniquity of the House of Lords in trying to thwart the opinion of the country; but it seems to me that the House of Lords is not in it with the Government, who, having changed their minds, now try to force the Bill through in such a short space of time as three days. In so doing they are certainly trying to thwart the opinions of the electors, who have, without doubt, declared very clearly that they are opposed to this Bill, and would like more time in which to express their opinion. The House of Lords will have an opportunity, of which I trust they will avail themselves——


I must remind the hon. Member that he is irrelevant. If I have to speak again I shall order him to resume his seat.


I will endeavour not to be irrelevant any more. I think it is not irrelevant to the matter before the House to ask whether this Bill, if it is forced through, will have any legal force. I would refer to the interesting point raised yesterday by the Noble Lord opposite (Lord H. Cecil), as to whether, if the Sovereign refused to take the Declaration, anything could be done.


That clearly is irrelevant.


I should like to join in the appeal to the Government, although no doubt it is somewhat late in the day. I regret that the question should have been raised in the manner it has been. Since yesterday morning the Bill has been materially altered. We have in our hands eight pages of Amendments, which were not presented to us until quite late this morning, and it has been absolutely impossible for any Member, feeling the responsibility of his duties, to come here this afternoon and say that he has arrived in his own mind at the best decision on the Amendments now on the Paper. This is too serious a matter to be pushed forward at this speed. I was rather struck this morning by noticing in the paper most favourable to the Government, the statement that so far as this matter was concerned the House of Commons undoubtedly knew a great deal better than the electors themselves. That seemed a rather bold statement to make; but the paper went on to say that there was no doubt in the country a very different feel- ing from that in the House of Commons. I think it is desirable that the country should have an opportunity of knowing what is being done in the House of Commons, and of considering which of the Amendments proposed is most likely to lead to a solution of the question. I desire most cordially to meet the wish for the removal of anything likely to be offensive to any other party or religion, but it is too serious a matter to be taken in hand in the manner adopted by the Government. Let anyone compare the two speeches made from the Treasury Bench yesterday—the weighty speech of the Prime Minister, which made us at all events think very carefully over the solution which he suggested, and the speech which concluded the Debate last night, and which at all events ought to be understood in the country. When the people see that this Declaration is not a real Declaration, because the Government do not believe that any Declaration at all is necessary, but is merely one put forward to satisfy what they think are the perfectly unnecessary fears of a certain number of people, I do not think the proposal will be accepted as a good solution of a very difficult constitutional point.


I have a great deal of sympathy with the complaint of the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Walter Long) as to the insufficiency of the time granted for so important and grave a matter as that before the House. It is one of the gravest matters that could occupy the attention of Parliament, and I think that three weeks rather than three days should have been allotted to it But there I part company with the right hon. Gentleman. He says that this is the only opportunity the House has had of debating the question of the shortness of time. He has forgotten that he might have debated the question at the commencement of to-day's proceedings on the Motion to suspend the Eleven o'clock Rule. [Several HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Those cries of "No" only add to my sorrow at the incapacity of hon. Gentlemen opposite to understand the Rules of this House or to take advantage of them. I venture to say that if any Member will read attentively Standing Order 1, he will find that the Motion made to-day was not excluded from Debate or Amendment. It might have been debated and amended to the full. We might have been discussing it now had hon. Members opposite had an adequate knowledge of the Rules of the House.


If the hon. Member will read Sub-section (7) he will see why we could not debate the Motion.


No, I should see why you could. Standing Order 1 gives a particular form of words which may be moved and decided without Amendment or Debate. Speaking from memory, I think the Standing Order says that a Motion may be moved at the commencement of proceedings, that certain business, if under discussion at eleven o'clock, may be proceeded with——


I do not think this has anything to do with the Motion before the Committee.


I was challenged on the point, but I will content myself by affirming, and I am sure that neither Mr. Speaker nor the Chairman would deny, that any Member might have debated or moved to amend the Motion made at the commencement of to-day's proceedings.


If we had done so, we should not have been allowed to debate the question now, so that it comes to exactly the same thing.


I am answering the complaint that there had been no other opportunity of debating the matter. I have pointed out that there was an opportunity to-day; and I may remind hon. Members that for ten days past they have passed a similar motion without taking advantage of their opportunity to debate it. Members opposite complain, and I think with some reason, of the insufficiency of the time accorded to the discussion of so grave and important a subject as that now before the Committee; but if the Motion to report Progress were carried, the time at our disposal for debating important matters would be still more curtailed. [An HON. MEMBER: "The Autumn Session."] Are hon. Members really prepared to go on sitting from now until next November, or even for another week? I believe that even on the opposite side there is neither so much constancy nor so much courage as would encourage hon. Members to resist the desire of the Government to rise next week. My experience of this House is that when a holiday is proposed everybody wants one; sometimes they want one when it is not proposed. I think hon. Members opposite have lost many opportunities of which they might have availed themselves to resist the rapid progress of business through this House. Although I regret it, I am afraid they will now be forced to accept the conditions of the Government and pass this Bill in the extremely rapid manner proposed.


The great reason why the Motion to report Progress should be supported is the nature of the consideration involved. The essential point upon which we are embarking is the alternative to the existing Declaration. As one of those who are against the present Declaration, I think the alternatives to the words of the Declaration are of extreme importance. There is no greater or important thing to consider than whether we can put in an effective alternative to the words of the existing Declaration. How are we really to consider what the right words are to be? This is a matter of extreme importance. The statement was only made by the Prime Minister last night. We have only had these new Amendments in our hands for a very few minutes or a very few hours this morning. There is one other consideration which I should like to address to the right hon. Gentleman opposite. It is not as though there was any hurry in regard to this Bill. The question of making the Declaration in its present or in its new form does not arise for a long time to come. It only arises at the time of the Coronation, which we are told is next June, or when a new Parliament is summoned. Under these circumstances what possible hurry can there be to push on a Bill of this kind at the present moment, when it is admitted on all hands that the real question now is as to the terms of the amended Declaration?

There is one other consideration which ought to weigh with Members of this House. This is a matter in which we ought to be as little controversial as possible. In order to be that it is essential that those who do not take the view that the amended Declaration is satisfactory as it stands should have sufficient time to consider what to them would appear to be a real safeguard for the Protestant position in this country, and what should be a real substitute—and not a sham one—for the Declaration which is to be repealed. On these grounds I ask why is the matter to be pressed forward? Surely both in this House and the country we ought to have adequate time to consider these matters.


I must say I was rather struck by the attitude taken up by the Government. After having passed judgment they are prepared to listen to the arguments put forward. It is rather regrettable that this attitude should be introduced at this time into this Debate, and that the attitude of the President of the Board of Education, on behalf of the Government, should be the ipsi dixit: "I have said it, and no one can dispute it; now you may proceed with your arguments." I think we have a right to protest against that. I suppose we are to have no other Government reply because the Government has already spoken; but when the Government replies like they do sometimes, I do not know that the House will be much the poorer for the absence of a reply, or that the dignity of the House of Commons will be impaired by it. I wish to ask why is it necessary that this Bill should now be rushed through in this manner, because the Government take the view, I suppose—although they have been singularly indefinite—that although the Bill may become law, the first time it would come into action would be the date of the Coronation in June next? This Bill would still be in ample time if it were deferred becoming law till after 15th November next. You have only to get it ready for the great occasion in June next. The advantage of delaying it is obvious. It would not be required at the opening of Parliament, because I understand the Government take the view that although a new Parliament is called no necessity for it arises. I differ from that view. I hope the Committee will consider it, because the Government have, through the Chief Secretary for Ireland, deliberately given the go-by to this very important constitutional point. Assuming that to be so; if in the view of the Government this Declaration cannot be used till the month of June, would there not be time to debate it in November? It seems to me the only object the Government can have in not postponing it till November is to burke discussion in the country. I was very glad indeed to hear the recognition paid by the spokesman on behalf of the Government to what they were pleased to term the very successful "agitation," as they called it, worked in the country against the change proposed by this Bill. I do not really think——


On a point of Order, Mr. Emmott. Should not the discussion on the Motion to report Progress have some relevance to the question?


That is for the Chairman.


Yes, certainly. The speeches made on a Motion to report Progress should have some relevance. But whilst the hon. Member's remarks are not irrelevant, I must point out that he is merely repeating what has already been said.


I will at once, as I always do, respect the authority of the Chair. If the Government, by refusing this Motion and by pressing forward this matter now, instead of allowing it to stand over till November, are doing so because they are afraid of the agitation which, on their own statement, has been worked up in the country, I might be allowed to say this: If it is agitation, it is agitation that proceeds from the innate convictions of the people. It is an agitation not fortified and stimulated by lies about Chinese slavery or Liberal Publication Department literature. Perhaps I should not call them lies, but "political exaggeration." It is a genuine agitation, and I rejoice to think that though we may suffer we will suffer gladly. The Government are fools, because they must pay the ultimate penalty. Discussion is burked, everything is done to despite the popular voice. I shall rejoice when retribution falls.


I take it that the real object of this Motion to report Progress is to put this thing off till November. There is another and very strong reason why this should be postponed, and that is that this is practically a new Declaration altogether. Surely, it is not asking too much that, in face of this new Declaration, I should have the opportunity of going down to my Constituents and asking them what they think of it. I am astonished that the Government have refused the time for discussion. It seems to me that they are afraid and ashamed of their conduct in this matter. They are trying to rush the Bill through, and think they will end it. My opinion is that they are only beginning it, and they may find out by-and-by that to flout Scottish opinion, as they are doing at the present time, is not to get a good character. Undoubtedly the matter is being rushed. The Government have no mandate from either the people or the Liberal party to deal with this matter. I was much struck, in hearing the Prime Minister a fortnight ago, state, in regard to the Woman Suffrage Bill, that there was no mandate for it. I should like to, ask the Prime Minister if he has got any mandate for this Bill, which is a much more important matter than the Woman Suffrage Bill? He will have to say that he has not, for the matter has never been discussed at all by our Constituents. I (la not want to go into other points, but I trust that the Government, even at this somewhat late hour, will not be afraid of discussion in the country, and that they will put the matter off till November, and allow us to have an opportunity of consulting our Constituents. I shall vote for the Motion to report Progress, because I do not think that either our Constituents or ourselves have been treated fairly in this matter.


The hon. Member who has just sat down has overlooked the fact that over 400 Members voted for the Second Reading of the Bill last night. I think, therefore, that so far as that part of his argument goes, it falls to the ground.


They did not represent the country.


I apprehend that what the hon. Gentleman wishes to put forward is the Referendum. That I cannot assent to. When Parliament, it is urged, finds itself in the possession of a majority it should not be enabled to carry any measure that it proposes until that particular measure has been referred to the constituents of my hon. Friend.


That is not my argument.


At all events, that is not the Constitution of this country at present. At all events, the House of Commons, carrying a Bill with such a majority as that of last night, is entitled,. I think, to consider that it may proceed with it. Hon. Gentlemen opposite have very fairly admitted that they have had full and ample opportunity for the discussion of this Bill [HON. MEMBERS: "No, no."] Well, the hon. Gentleman who moved this Motion, after he had read the speech of the Prime Minister, admitted that there had been time between the First and the Second Reading for discussion, and everybody who has followed the course of events must recognise that the time was fully available. The question now arises, the principle of the Bill having been affirmed by a large majority, whether the time now before us is or is not sufficient to discuss and to determine fully the important question whether you want a repudiatory Declaration or whether you a ant an affirmatory Declaration. That was the question which was put with great force by the Leader of the Opposition. Which do you want? There is, I agree, a difference of opinion, on that subject. There are some—I think an obvious minority in this House—who insist upon the repudiatory Declaration. There are, on the contrary others who think that an affirmatory Declaration is better. Having settled that point first, I should imagine there is ample time for the further discussion which may very legitimately arise as to whether the words of the affirmatory Declaration which have been put forward by the Prime Minister as the proposal of the Government are or are not sufficient. I would put it to the House whether, instead of wasting time at the beginning by this kind of discussion, Members could not bend their minds to what, after all, I venture to say, is the simple point; as to whether you want a repudiatory or affirmatory Declaration. Having discussed that, I hope in candour and in perfect good temper, I think we shall find ample time has been left to consider the words of the Prime Minister's proposal. I do honestly hope that after the expression of the case of the Government that they cannot accept this Motion, we may, as business men, set ourselves to grapple with this point, the issue of which is very simple, and which ought to be determined without any very great difficulty.


I find myself in some difficulty as to how to vote on this question. I am a strong supporter of the Bill, and I also support the Prime Minister's Amendment, but if this Motion can be regarded as a Motion of criticism for the way in which the Government have managed their business I think the case for it overwhelming. Never was a Bill managed as this Bill has been managed. The Government left an immense interval between the First and Second Readings. They left no interval between the Second Reading and the Committee stage, which is much more important and much more desirable. In fact, my hon. Friends are perfectly entitled to complain that they have been treated in a way quite unparalleled in Parliamentary history, and quite inconsistent with the statement of the Prime Minister when he introduced the Bill. I imagine what really took place is this: The Government intended to keep the Bill back until the autumn originally, when they thought it would be useful as against the Nationalist Members from Ireland in getting their Budget through. They would then be able to say to them, "If you do not vote for our Whisky Tax we will let the King continue to anathematise your religion." That plan evidently has now been abandoned. The Government want now to press their Bill through as quickly as possible. On the other hand this Motion would really mean adjourning the discussion until the Autumn. That is really what it comes to. I confess, though my hon. Friends think with perfect truth that this agitation in the country is very honest, yet it is an ill-constructed agitation, and it is more likely to produce heat than light, and the House would be in no better position after three months' Protestant rhetoric in the next summer and autumn. Therefore I think it would be a pity to adjourn. The course the Government ought to have taken would have been to put the Appropriation Bill down for the end of this portion of the Session, and to have taken this Bill last week. Why they did not take that course I do not understand. As we find ourelves in this position, I think it would be better not to adjourn the discussion, and not to run the risk of all this further controversy.


The Noble Lord who has just sat down is in a different position to many of us His constituents have already formed an opinion on this Bill, but the country at large has had no such opportunity. If considered impartially, this Motion ought to attract support from all sides of the House, because it is a Motion which goes to the very root of the whole principle of Liberalism. If the Government had carried out the policy they initiated in the King's Speech, we would have a Second Chamber, initiating, revising, and, subject to due safeguards, delaying legislation, and then we could rest content, but at present we have a Second Chamber, which, although it may be hostile to such measures as the Budget, cannot be depended upon in regard to a question like this. We rather seem to be guided by the Leader of the Opposition. The Government formulate their proposals, the Leader of the Opposition seems to agree, and then everything is rushed through in a hurry. As a Liberal, when the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition happens to agree with the Government, I, like my hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy (Sir Henry Dalziel), view the position with profound suspicion. I am rather inclined to oppose any measure with increased activity on account of that fact.

The Government during the whole of the elections talked about nothing but that the will of the people should prevail. Every town was illuminated by these perorations, and placards to that effect were posted in every village and almost in every post office. They seem to me now to be stultifying their whole election policy. They are deliberately ignoring whatever will the people may wish to express. There is a further grievance. I feel that in questions of this kind we must not aim at merely passing a Bill rapidly through Parliament, but we must try to get a definite settlement in the country.

That can only be done by creating trust in the constituencies and by making it clear that you are not trying to rush a Bill through Parliament, but that your aim is to arrive at a just settlement of the question. I cannot agree with what has fallen from the Noble Lord opposite. I am a most profound believer in popular government. More than that, I believe in the common-sense of the people. However strong prejudices may be, I believe if the case is put fairly before the people these prejudices will fade away, and it is only by acting in a manner like that that a definite conclusion can be arrived at.

The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. Runciman)

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

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

The Committee divided: Ayes, 255; Noes, 142.

Division No. 143.] AYES. [4.50 p.m.
Abraham, William (Dublin Harbour) Crossley, Sir William J. Haslam, James (Derbyshire)
Adkins, W. Ryland D. Cullinan, J. Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry
Agnew, George William Dalziel, Sir James H. (Kirkcaldy) Haworth, Arthur A.
Ainsworth, John Stirling Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.) Hayden, John Patrick
Alden, Percy Dawes, J. A. Hayward, Evan
Armitage, R. Delany, William Hazleton, Richard
Baker, H. T. (Accrington) Dickinson, W. H. (St. Pancras, N.) Healy, Maurice (Cork, N.E.)
Balfour, Robert (Lanark) Dillon, John Healy, Timothy Michael
Barnston, H. Donelan, Captain A. Helme, Norval Watson
Barran, Sir J. (Hawick) Doris, William Henderson, Arthur (Durham)
Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.) Duffy, William J. Henry, Charles S.
Beale, W. P. Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness) Herbert, Col. Sir Ivor
Belloc, Hilaire Joseph Peter R. Edwards, Enoch Higham, John Sharp
Benn, W. (Tower Hamlets, St. Geo.) Ellis, Rt. Hon. John Edward Hindle, F. G.
Bethell, Sir J. N. Elverston, H. Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.
Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine Esmonde, Sir Thomas Hodge, John
Boyle, D. (Mayo, N.) Falconer, J. Hogan, Michael
Brigg, Sir John Farrell James Patrick Holt, Richard Durning
Brocklehurst, W. B. Fenwick, Charles Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)
Bryce, J. Annan Ferene, T. R. Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)
Burke, E. Haviland- Ffrench, Peter Horne, C. Silvester (Ipswich)
Burns, Rt. Hon. John Field, William Howard, Hon. Geoffrey
Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas Fisher, W. Hayes Hughes, Spencer Leigh
Buxton, C. R. (Devon, Mid) Flavin, Michael Joseph Illingworth, Percy H.
Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, N.) France, G. A. Isaacs, Sir Rufus Daniel
Byles, William Pollard Furness, Stephen Johnson, W.
Carr-Gomm, H. W. Gelder, Sir W. A. Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea)
Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich) George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd Jones, Edgar R. (Merthyr Tydvll)
Cawley, Harald T. (Heywood) Gibson, Sir James Puckering Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)
Chancellor, H. G. Gilhooly, James Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)
Channing, Sir Francis Allston Gill, A. H. Joyce, Michael
Chapple, Dr. William Allen Ginnell, L. Keating, M.
Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S. Glanville, H. J. Kelly, Edward
Clancy, John Joseph Glover, Thomas Kennedy, Vincent Paul
Clough, William Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford Kilbride, Denis
Clynes, J. R. Greenwood, G. G. King, J. (Somerset, N.)
Collins, G. P. (Greenock) Griffith, Ellis J. (Anglesey) Lambert, George
Collins, Stephen (Lambeth) Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway) Lardner, James Carrige Rushe
Collins, Sir Wm. J. (St. Pancras, W.) Hackett, J. Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.)
Compton-Rickett, Sir J. Hall, Frederick (Normanton) Layland-Barratt, Sir Francis
Condon, Thomas Joseph Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis (Rossendale) Leach, Charles
Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow) Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose) Lehmann, R. C.
Cornwall, Sir Edwin A. Hardie, J. Keir (Merthy[...] Tydvll) Levy, Sir Maurice
Cowan, W. H. Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale) Lewis, John Herbert
Crawshay-Williams, Eliot Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, W.) Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas
Crean, Eugene Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N.E.) Lundon, T.
Crosfield, A. H. Harwood, George Lyell, Charles Henry
Lynch, A. A. Pease, Rt. Hon. Joseph A. Sutton, John E.
Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester) Phillips, John (Longford, S.) Talbot, Lord E.
Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs) Pickersgill, Edward Hare Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)
Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J. Pointer, Joseph Tennant, Harold John
MacNeill, John Gordon Swift Pollard, Sir George H. Thomas. Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)
MacVeagh, Jeremiah Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H. Thorne, William West Ham)
M'Callum, John M. Priestley, Sir W. E. B. (Bradford, E.) Toulmin, George
M'Kean, John Pringle, William M. R. Trevelyan, Charles Philips
Marks, G. Croydon Radford, G. H. Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander
Masterman, C. F. G. Raffan, Peter Wilson Verney, F. W.
Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.) Rainy, A. Rowland Walker, H. de R. (Leicester)
Meehan, Patrick A. (Queen's Co.) Raphael, Herbert H. Walton, Sir Joseph
Middlebrook, William Reddy, M. Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)
Millar, J. D. Redmond, John E. (Waterford) Wardle, George J.
Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall) Redmond, William (Clare) Waring, Walter
Muldoon, John Rendall, Athelstan Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay
Murray, Captain Hon. A. C. Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln) Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)
Muspratt, M. Roberts, G. H. (Norwich) Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)
Nannetti, Joseph P. Robinson, S. Waterlow, D. S.
Neilson, Francis Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke) White, Sir George (Norfolk)
Nolan, Joseph Roche, Augustine (Cork) White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire)
Norton, Capt Cecil W. Roe, Sir Thomas White, Sir Luke (York, E.R.)
Nugent, Sir Walter Richard Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter White, Patrick (Meath, North)
Nussey, Sir Willans Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland) Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.
Nuttall, Harry Scanlan, Thomas Whyte, A. F. (Perth)
O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny) Scott, A. H. (Ashton-under-Lyne) Wiles, Thomas
O'Brien, William (Cork, N.E.) Seely, Col., Right Hon. J. E. B. Wilkie, Alexander
O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.) Sheehan, Daniel Daniel Williams, J. (Glamorgan)
O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool) Sheehy, David Williams, P. (Middlesbrough)
O'Doherty, Philip Sherwell, Arthur James Williams, W. Llewelyn (Carmarthen)
O'Donnell, T. (Kerry, W.) Shortt, Edward Wilson, Hon. G. G. (Hull, W.)
O'Kelly, Edward P. (Wicklow, W.) Smith, H. B. (Northampton) Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)
O'Malley, William Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.) Wilson, T. F. (Lanark, N.E.)
O'Neill, Dr. Charles (Armagh, S.) Snowden, P. Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)
O'Shaughnessy, P. J. Soames, Arthur Wellesley Wing, Thomas
O'Shea, James John Soares, Ernest J. Wood, T. M'Kinnon (Glasgow)
Palmer, Godfrey Mark Spicer, Sir Albert
Parker, James (Halifax) Strachey, Sir Edward TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Master
Pearce, William Sutherland, J. E of Elibank and Mr. Gulland.
Arbuthnot, G. A Fletcher, J. S. MacCaw, Wm. J. MacGeagh
Ashley, W. W. Forster, Henry William Mackinder, Halford J.
Attenborough, W. A. Foster, H. S. (Suffolk, N.) Macmaster, Donald
Baird, J. L. Foster, J. K. (Coventry) M'Calmont, Colonel James
Baker, Sir R. L. (Dorset, N.) Gardner, Ernest Meysey-Thompson, E. C.
Balcarres, Lord Gibbs, G. A. Mildmay, Francis Bingham
Banbury, Sir Frederick George Gilmour, Captain J. Mitchell, William Foot
Baring, Captain Hon. G. Goldman, C. S. Moore, William
Barlow, Sir John E. Gooch, Henry Cubitt Morpeth, Viscount
Barnston, Harry Gordon, J. Morrison-Bell, Major A. C.
Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry, N.) Goulding, Edward Alfred Morton, Alpheus Cleophas
Bathurst, Hon. A. B. (Glouc., E.) Grant, J. A. Mount, William Arthur
Bathurst, Charles (Wilton) Gretton, John Newdegate, F. A.
Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks Guinness, Hon W. E. Newton, Harry Kottingham
Benn, I. H. (Greenwich) Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne) Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)
Bird, A. Hall, E. Marshall (Toxteth) O'Neill, Hon. A. E. B. (Antrim, Mid[...]
Boyle, W. L. (Norfolk, Mid) Hamilton, Marquess of (Londonderry) Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William
Bridgeman, W. Clive Hamilton, Lord C. J. (Kensington, S.) Paget, Almeric Hugh
Brunskill, G. F. Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashford) Parkes, Ebenezer
Bull, Sir William James Harmsworth, R. L. Peel, Hon. W. R. W. (Taunton)
Carlile, E. Hildred Harrison-Broadley, H. B. Peto Basil Edward
Castlereagh, Viscount Henderson, H. (Berks, Abingdon) Pretyman, E. G.
Cator, John Hickman, Colonel Thomas E. Primrose, Hon. Neil James
Cecil, Evelyn (Ashton Manor) Horne, W. E. (Surrey, Guildford) Quitter, William Eley C.
Cecil, Lord Hugh (Oxford University) Horner, A. L. Rice, Hon. W.
Chaloner, Col. R. G. W. Hume-Williams, W. E. Ridley, Samuel Forde
Chambers, J. Hunter, Sir C. R. (Bath) Roberts. S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)
Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry Kerr-Smiley, Peter Rolleston, Sir John
Clyde, J. Avon Kimber, Sir Henry Ronaldshay, Earl of
Cooper, Capt. Bryan (Dublin, S.) Kinlock-Cooke, Sir Clement Rothschild, Lionel de
Craig, Captain James (Down, E.) Kirkwood, J. H. M. Royds, Edmund
Craik, Sir Henry Kyffin-Taylor, G. Rutherford, Watson
Cripps, Sir C. A. Lane-Fox, G. R. Sanders, Robert A.
Dairymple, Viscount Law, Andrew Boner (Dulwich) Sanderson, Lancelot
Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott Lee, Arthur H. Sandys, G. J. (Somerset, Wells)
Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers- Llewelyn, Venables Smith, F. E. (Liverpool, Walton)
Du Cros, Arthur P. (Hastings) Lloyd, G. A. Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)
Duncannon, Viscount Locker-Lampson, O.(Ramsay) Starkey, John R.
Faber, George Denison (Clapham) Lockwood, Rt. Hon. Lt.-Col. A. R. Staveley-Hill, Henry(Staffordshire)
Falle, B. G. Long, Rt. Hon. Walter Steel-Maitland, A. D.
Fell, Arthur Lonsdale, John Brownlee Stewart, Gershom (Cheshire, Wirral)
Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey Lowe, Sir F. W. (Birm., Edgbaston) Terrell, G. (Wilts, N.W.)
Thompson Robert (Belfast, North) Ward, Arnold (Herts, Watford) Wood, Hon. E. F. L. (Ripon)
Thomson, W. Mitchell (Down, North) Warde, Col. C. E. (Kent, Mid) Wood, John (Stalybridge)
Thynne, Lord A. White, Major G. D. (Lancs., Southport) Worthington-Evans, L. (Colchester)
Tobin, Alfred Aspinall Willoughby, Major Hon. Claude Yoxall, Sir James Henry
Tryon, Capt. George Clement Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E.R.) TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. C. Craig and Sir C. Cory.
Walker, Colonel W. H. (Lancashire) Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

Question put, "That the Chairman report Progress and ask leave to sit again."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 131; Noes, 272.

Division No. 144.] AYES. [5.0 p.m.
Arbuthnot, G. A. Foster, John K. (Coventry) Mount, William Arthur
Ashley, Wilfrid W. Gardner, Ernest Newdegate, F. A.
Attenborough, Walter Annis Gibbs, George Abraham Newton, Harry Kottingham
Baird, John Lawrence Gilmour, Captain John Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)
Baker, Sir Randolf L. (Dorset, N.) Goldman, Charles Sydney O'Neill, Hon. A. E. B. (Antrim, Mid)
Balcarres, Lord Gordon, J. Paget, Almeric Hugh
Banbury, Sir Frederick George Grant, James Augustus Parkes, Ebenezer
Baring, Captain Hon. Guy Victor Gretton, John Peto, Basil Edward
Barlow, Sir John Emmott Guinness, Hon. Walter Edward Pollock, Ernest Murray
Barnston, Harry Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne) Pretyman, Ernest George
Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry, N.) Hall, E. Marshall (Toxteth) Quilter, William Eley C.
Bathurst, Hon. Allen B. (Glouc. E.) Hamilton, Lord C. J. (Kensington, S.) Rice, Hon. Walter Fitz-Uryan
Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton) Hamilton, Marquess of (Londonderry) Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)
Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks Hardy, Laurence Rolleston, Sir John
Benn, Ion Hamilton (Greenwich) Harmsworth, R. L. Ronaldshay, Earl of
Bird, Alfred Harrison-Broadley, H. B. Royds, Edmund
Boyle, W. Lewis (Norfolk, Mid) Honderson, H. G. H. (Berkshire) Rutherford, Watson
Bridgeman, William Clive Hickham, Colonel Thomas E. Sanders, Robert A.
Brunskill, G. Horne, Wm. E. (Surrey, Guildford) Sanderson, Lancelot
Carlile, Edward Hildred Horner, Andrew Long Smith, F. E. (Liverpool, Walton)
Castlereagh, Viscount Hume-Williams, William Ellis Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)
Cator, John Hunter, Sir Charles Rodk. (Bath) Starkey, John Ralph
Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor) Kerr-Smiley, Peter Kerr Staveley-Hill, H.
Chambers, James Kimber, Sir Henry Steel-Maitland, A. D.
Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement Stewart, Gershom (Ches, Wirral)
Clyde, James Avon Kirkwood, John H M. Terrell, G. (Wilts, N.W.)
Colefax, H. A. Kyffin-Taylor, G. Thompson, Robert (Belfast, North)
Cooper, Capt. Bryan R. (Dublin, S.) Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich) Thomson, W. Mitchell (Down, North)
Cory, Sir Clifford John Lee, Arthur Hamilton Thynne, Lord Alexander
Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.) Lockyer-Lampson, O. (Ramsay) Tobin, Alfred Aspinall
Craig, Captain James (Down, E.) Lockwood, Rt. Hon. Lt.-Col. A. R. Tryon, Capt. George Clement
Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet) Long, Rt. Hon. Walter Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire)
Craik, Sir Henry Lonsdale, John Brownlee Warde, Col. C. E. (Kent, Mid)
Cripps, Sir Charles Alfred Lowe, Sir F. W. (Birm. Edgbaston) White, Maj. G. D. (Lancs. Southport)
Dairymple, Viscount MacCaw, Wm. J. MacGeagh Willoughby, Major Hon. Claude
Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. S. Mackinder, Halford J. Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E.R.)
Du Cros, Arthur P. (Hastings) Macmaster, Donald Wolff, Gustav
Duncannon, Viscount M'Calmont, Colonel James Wood, John (Stalybridge)
Faber, George D. (Clapham) Meysey-Thompson, E. C. Worthington-Evans, L.
Falle, Bertram Godfray Mitchell, William Foot Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart-
Fell, Arthur Molteno, Percy Alport Yoxall, Sir James Henry
Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey Moore, William
Fletcher, John Samuel Morpeth, Viscount TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Col.
Forster, Henry William Morrison-Bell, Major A. C. Chaloner and Mr. Primrose.
Foster. H. S. (Suffolk. N.) Morton, Alpheus Cleophas
Abraham, William (Dublin Harbour) Bull, Sir William James Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.
Adkins, W. Ryland D. Burke, E. Haviland- Cowan, W. H.
Agnew, George William Burns, Rt. Hon. John Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)
Ainsworth, John Stirling Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas Crawshay-Williams, Ellot
Alden, Percy Buxton, C. R. (Devon, Mid) Crean, Eugene
Armitage, Robert Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, North) Crosfield, Arthur H.
Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry Byles, William Pollard Crossley, Sir William J.
Baker, Harold T. (Accrington) Carr-Gomm, H. W. Cullinan, John
Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.) Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich) Dalziel, Sir James H.(Kirkcaldy)
Balfour, Robert (Lanark) Cawley, H. T. (Lancs. Heywood) Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.)
Barnes, George N. Chancellor, Henry George Dawes, James Arthur
Barran, Sir John N. (Hawick B.) Channing, Sir Francis Allston Delany, William
Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.) Chapple, Dr. William Allen Dickinson, W. H.
Beale, William Phipson Clancy, John Joseph Dillon, John
Belloc, Hilaire Joseph Peter R. Clough, William Donelan, Captain A.
Benn, W. (Tower Hamlets, S. Geo.) Clynes, John R. Doris, William
Bethell, Sir John Henry Collins, Godfrey P. (Greenock) Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-
Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine Collins, Stephen (Lambeth) Duffy, William J.
Brady, Patrick Joseph Collins, Sir Wm. J. (S. Pancras, W.) Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)
Brigg, Sir John Compton-Rickett, Sir J. Edwards, Enoch
Brocklehurst, William B. Condon, Thomas Joseph Elibank, Master of
Bryce, J. Annan Corbett, A. Cameron Ellis, Rt. Hon. John Edward
Elverston, Harold Lambert, George Reddy, Michael
Esmonde, Sir Thomas Lane-Fox, G. R. Redmond, John E. (Waterford)
Falconer, James Lardner, James Carrige Rushe Redmond, William (Clare, E.)
Farrell, James Patrick Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.) Bendall, Athelstan
Fenwick, Charles Layland-Barratt, Sir Francis Ridley, Samuel Forde
Ferens, Thomas Robinson Leach, Charles Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)
Ffrench, Peter Lehmann, Rudolf C. Roberts, George H. (Norwich)
Field, William Levy, Sir Maurice Robinson, S.
Fisher, William Hayes Lewis, John Herbert Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)
Flavin, Michael Joseph Llewelyn, Venables Roche, Augustine (Cork)
France, Gerald Ashburner Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas Roe, Sir Thomas
Furness, Stephen Lundon, Thomas Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter
Gelder, Sir W. A. Lyell, Charles Henry Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland)
George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd Lynch, Arthur Alfred Scanlan, Thomas
Gibson, Sir James Puckering Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester) Schwann, Sir Charles E.
Gilhooly, James Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs) Scott, A. H. (Ashton-under-Lyne)
Gill, A. H. Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J. Seely, Col., Right Hon. J. E. B.
Ginnell, L. MacNeill, John Gordon Swift Sheehan, Daniel Daniel
Glanville, Harold James MacVeagh, Jeremiah Sheehy, David
Glover, Thomas M'Callum, John M. Shenvell, Arthur James
Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford M'Kean, John Shortt, Edward
Goulding, Edward Alfred McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald Smith, H. B. (Northampton)
Greenwood, Granville George Marks, G. Croydon Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)
Griffith, Ellis J. Meagher, Michael Snowden, Philip
Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway) Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.) Soames, Arthur Wellesley
Hackett, John Meehan, Patrick A. (Queen's Co.) Soares, Ernest Joseph
Hall, F. (Yorks, Normanton) Middlebrook, William Spicer, Sir Albert
Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale) Mildmay, Francis Bingham Strachey, Sir Edward
Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose) Millar, James Duncan Sutton, John E.
Hardie, J. Keir Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall) Sutton, John E.
Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale) Muldoon, John Talbot, Lord Edmund
Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West) Murray, Capt. Hon. Arthur C. Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)
Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N.E.) Muspratt, Max Tennant, Harold John
Harwood, George Nannetti, Joseph P. Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)
Haslam, James (Derbyshire) Neilson, Francis Thorne, William (West Ham)
Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth) Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncaster) Toulmin, George
Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry Nolan, Joseph Trevelyan, Charles Philips
Haworth, Arthur A Norton, Capt. Cecil W. Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander
Hayden, John Patrick Nugent, Sir Walter Richard Verney, Frederick William
Hayward, Evan Hussey, Sir Willians Walker, H. De R (Leicester)
Hazleton, Richard Nuttall, Harry Walton, Sir Joseph
Healy, Maurice (Cork, N.E.) O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny) Ward, A. S. (Herts, Watford)
Healy, Timothy Michael (Louth, N.) O'Brien, William (Cork) Wardle, George J.
Helms, Norval Watson O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.) Waring, Walter
Henderson, Arthur (Durham) O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool) Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay
Henry, Charles S. O'Doherty, Philip Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)
Herbert, Col. Sir Ivor (Mon. S.) O'Donnell, Thomas (Kerry, W.) Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)
Higham, John Sharp O'Dowd, John Waterlow, David Sydney
Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H. O'Kelly, Edward P. (Wicklow, W.) White, Sir George(Norfolk)
Hodge, John O'Malley, William White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire)
Hogan, Michael O'Neill, Dr. Charles (Armagh, S.) White, Sir Luke (Yorks, E.R.)
Holt, Richard Durning Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William White, Patrick (Meath, North)
Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield) O'Shaughnessy, P. J. Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.
Hope, John Deans (Fife, West) O'Shee, James John Whyte, A. F. (Perth)
Horne, Charles Slivester (Ipswich) Palmer, Godfrey Mark Wiles, Thomas
Howard, Hon. Geoffrey Parker, James (Halifax) Wilkie, Alexander
Hughes, Spencer Leigh Pearce, William Williams, John (Glamorgan)
Illingworth, Percy H. Pease, Rt. Hon. Joseph A. Williams, Penry (Middlesbrough)
Isaacs, Sir Rufus Daniel Peel, Hon. William R. W. (Taunton) Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthen)
Johnson, William Phillips, John (Longford, S.) Wilson, Hon. G. G. (Hull, W.)
Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea) Pickersgill, Edward Hare Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)
Jones, Edgar R. (Merthyr Tydvil) Pointer, Joseph Wilson, J. W. (Worcestershire, N.)
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth) Pollard, Sir George H. Wilson, T. F. (Lanark, N.E.)
Jones, William (Carnarvonshire) Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H. Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)
Jowett, Frederick William Priestley, Sir W. E. B. (Bradford, E.) Wing, Thomas
Joyce, Michael Pringle, William M. R. Wood, Hon. E. F. L. (Ripon)
Keating, Matthew Radford, George Heynes Wood, T. M'Kinnon (Glasgow)
Kelly, Edward Raffan, Peter Wilson
Kennedy, Vincent Paul Rainy, A. Rolland TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. Gulland and Mr. Dudley Ward.
Kilbride, Denis Raphael, Herbert Henry
King, Joseph (Somerset, North)