§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £15,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1912, for Public Education in Scotland, and for Science and Art in Scotland."
§ Sir HENRY CRAIK
I am sure that the Secretary for Scotland is burning with zeal to carry out the duties of his new office. I do not know whether he would care, before I say anything, to explain this Vote.
The SECRETARY for SCOTLAND (Mr. McKinnon Wood)
This is a Supplementary Estimate for £15,000, and it arises from a purely automatic increase. As my hon. Friend opposite knows very well, the Vote which is here dealt with is an additional Grant to the school boards given under Section 67 of the Act of 1872, which provides that the expenditure shall depend on the relation and produce of a given rate to the number of children receiving education in a given school board area. It is, therefore, a purely automatic increase over which we have no control, and dependent on the provision of that Statute.
§ Sir H. CRAIK
I am sure the right hon. Gentleman is possessed of very full knowledge and experience in regard to this matter, but I am sorry to say he has taken the Committee very slightly indeed into his confidence. He has given a remarkably inadequate description of the necessity for this increase. It is quite true that the increase is, in part, caused by the provisions of Section 67 of the Act of 1872. 1433 But I should have preferred the right hon. Gentleman to explain what that Section originally provided, and what large changes have been since made in it which have caused this increase. Section 67 only provided that the addition should be made if the rate of 3d. in the £ did not yield 7s. 6d., and I would like the Committee to observe that that was the rate contemplated as normal forty years ago, when the Act was passed. The right hon. Gentleman forgets that since then the provisions of Section 67 have been very seriously altered and amended.
Mr. McKINNON WOOD
Is it in order to discuss the provisions of the Statute, or of amending Statutes, on a mere Supplementary Estimate which provides for an automatic increase of expenditure under the Statute?
§ Sir H. CRAIK
May I point out that the right hon. Gentleman explained this increase by saying that it arose through the operation of Section 67 of the Act of 1872, which Section no longer prevails, but which has been supplemented by sections in other Acts to which I claim to have an equal right to refer.
Mr. McKINNON WOOD
I used the words "and amending Acts," but really that is not the question. The point is—can we discuss on a Supplementary Estimate, the provisions of a Statute? I would point out that the hon. Member asked me for an explanation of the Vote and I gave it.
§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN
I understand the right hon. Gentleman referred to the Act simply for the purpose of drawing attention to the basis on which the original Grant was made, and he explained that the sum now asked for is a purely automatic increase on that basis. It is not in order for any Member of the Committee to refer to the original Grant or anything in relation thereto. It would be in order to give reasons why the automatic increase should not have taken place.
§ Sir H. CRAIK
Is it not necessary, in order to make the matter clear to the Committee, that hon. Members should understand the section under which this increase has been caused?
§ The DEPUTY - CHAIRMAN
No, I think not. These are matters which might have been referred to when the original Estimate was discussed, but it is not in order now.
§ Mr. JAMES HOPE
Reference has been made to a certain section of an Act of Parliament. There have been certain amending Acts, and surely it would be in order to refer to them so as to probe the statement of the Secretary for Scotland that this increase has been of an automatic character. It must be in order to ask for an explanation of this particular provision so as to see if the increase naturally and properly arises out of the automatic working of the Statute.
§ Sir H. CRAIK
If the increase in the original Vote had depended on the Section to which the right hon. Gentleman referred there would have been no increase and no Supplementary Estimate. It is only because Section 67 has been materially altered by other Sections in the Acts of 1897 and 1908 that the increase has arisen. If the Committee are not to vote blindfold, if they are to have a clear understanding of the Section, if they are to know what they are doing, and unless they are to rely on the simple ipse dixit of the right hon. Gentleman I cannot understand how they can agree to this Vote. After all, this is a matter of very great and farreaching importance.
§ The DEPUTY - CHAIRMAN
I must again lay it down as clearly as I possibly can that this is not the place for discussing the Statute on which this Grant is based. The hon. Member would be in order in raising a question as to the cause of the increase, but he has been informed that it is purely automatic on the original basis.
§ Sir H. CRAIK
I am unable, in view of that ruling, to enter upon the very large questions which have led to the increase. You tell me I am not at liberty to enter upon the causes of that increase, and I am afraid, therefore, that I must depart from the extended exposition of the subject upon which I originally intended to embark. This Grant is to supplement the rates of school boards. In the Estimates for 1911 and 1912 a large decrease was made as compared with the Estimate of the previous year. Had it not been for that decrease, then a very much larger supplementary sum would now have been required. I want to know from the right hon. Gentleman what was the reason for decreasing the Estimate in 1911 and 1912 from that which was required in the previous years. I want to know why the Department framed such a statement of estimate as to think that the supplement 1435 to the rates which would be required would be less in the current financial year than in the previous year? It really absolutely disproves their Estimate and their calculation, and I want to know what has been the reason for this extraordinary miscalculation, and what have been the reasons which have led to this additional burden being put upon the rates and has led to the increase in the demand and in the sum to be voted to supplement it automatically? Has it been anything in the policy of the Department? If so, let us know what it is. What has led to this increased expenditure by the school boards? If, on the other hand, it is something in the policy of the school boards, are we, the House of Commons, to be asked to vote any amount which may be required in order to meet what may be possible extravagance on the part of the school boards? Have we no hold over it at all?
These are questions that ought to be explained by the right hon. Gentleman. Let me summarise them. First, I wish to know whether there was a heavy deduction in the Estimates for the present current financial year, a deduction which appears to be based upon no solid grounds and which is proved to be a miscalculation? And, secondly, I want to know to what does the right hon. Gentleman attribute this large increase? Is it due to pressure brought by the Department upon the educational authorities and school boards, or is it independent action by the school boards which has caused the expenditure which this Committee must now consider? I think these are points of very great importance which trench upon the whole range of educational administration, and particularly the question of extravagance in that administration. Unless we are to vote automatically sums of this sort we must have some further clear explanation of how it is that there is this increase of expenditure, which is certainly not automatic, and how it has originated. It is all very well to say that we must vote this Supplementary Estimate because the expenditure is automatic, but the originating cause of the increase of expenditure is not automatic, and I want to know who is responsible for it, whether it is the Department or the School Boards?
§ Mr. RONALD M'NEILL
My hon. Friend who has just sat down has pointed out, quite rightly, that the total Estimates for the present year show a very large decrease upon the Votes for the previous 1436 year, and he asks for an explanation for that decrease, and how it came about that the Department, in view of that large decrease, did not provide for the automatic increase which we are now told takes place. I should like to know what is the meaning of this automatic increase. My hon. Friend no doubt is very familiar with the educational question, and he spoke of this automatic increase as a matter with which he was familiar, but there are many of us, probably on both sides of the House, who are not so familiar as he is with the matter, and would like to know what is meant by the automatic increase taking place in this matter. Another matter which calls for some explanation is this. If the right hon. Gentleman would be good enough to look at the note at the bottom of this Supplementary Estimate he will see that the revised Estimate of £70,000 represents an average Grant of £285 over the whole year on 245 boards. Now surely that must be a fixed quantity, the number of boards to which Grants have to be made, and it seems to me that there is a great inconsistency between that note and the note appearing immediately above it, because it appears that the original Estimate was based upon an Estimate of claims by 250 boards. If there were 250 boards who were making claims in the original Estimate, how did it come that the revised Estimate was reckoned on a basis of five Boards less? Moreover, there is further confusion still, as it appears to me, because the claims, we are told, are claims "received so far." That seems to me to imply that more claims may be received. Those received so far show an average Grant of over £300 for new claims and of £133 from the year outstanding. If up to the present time claims amounting to £300 have been received, how can this Estimate be regarded as accurate or final if it only represents a Grant of £285. If you have got claims of over £300—it does not show how much over £300; it is a perfectly indefinite sum apparently—how does it come about that the Estimate is based upon a sum which is considerably below those claims? So that you have a sum of money lower than the amount of claims received, and the total number of Boards for which provision is made is also a smaller number than the total number appearing in the original Estimates. It appears to me that all this points, if not to inaccuracy and confusion, yet to a sufficient amount of ambiguity to justify us in asking for a much fuller explanation from the Secretary for Scotland than we have 1437 had yet. It would be much more satisfactory if, before we vote this amount, he would place something before us that would clear these points up.
§ Mr. HARRY HOPE
I think we ought to have a further explanation before we vote this sum, because in Scotland at the present time there is a very widespread feeling of alarm at the manner in which the Scottish Education Department is rushing school boards into large expenditure of money, and I understand that it is due to this that larger Grants are being needed by the school boards. I do not wonder that these Grants are needed in view of the high-handed autocratic manner in which the Education Department are managing educational affairs in Scotland, and I know that at the present time education in Scotland is being endangered and the public mind is being put up against education because of the extreme and high-handed manner in which the Scotch Education Department are managing things, and, therefore, as a protest against the action of the Department I beg to move a reduction of £100 in this item.
§ Sir F. BANBURY
Among their other defects, the Government do not seem to be able to multiply, although they can add. The Revised Estimate of £70,000, according to the footnote, represents an average Grant of £285 for 245 boards. If the right hon. Gentleman will take a pencil and a piece of paper and multiply 285 by 245 he will find that it does not produce 70,000. I do not think it is necessary for me to tell him what it is.
§ Sir F. BANBURY
I had better not say. He can make the calculation himself, which I have already made, and if he tells me I shall know whether he has made it correctly or not. That is the first thing that I point out. And then, with regard to the explanation which has been given by the right hon. Gentleman, we have been told this is an automatic increase. Of course, I am glad to accept the right hon. Gentleman's words, but it is just possible that he may have made an error, and it is on the assumption that he has made such an error that I ask him how he makes out this automatic increase. The original Estimate—I am now reading from the Supplementary Estimate—was £55,000 on estimated claims by 250 Boards. The Revised Estimate is not on 250 Boards, but on 245, and therefore the Revised Estimate is on five Boards less than the 1438 original Estimate. How can it be an automatic increase on the original Estimate when it is for five Boards less than the original Estimate? This seems to me to be a rather extraordinary coincidence. I daresay it is all right, but I do not understand it.
§ Sir H. CRAIK
If the hon. Baronet will permit me, may I say that if I had been permitted to explain the subsequent Sections, not Section 67 of the Act of 1872, but those which followed, I would have been able to remove the difficulty which my hon. Friend is dealing with.
§ Sir F. BANBURY
I am much obliged for the interruption, and for the statement that if he had explained it I would have understood it.
§ Sir F. BANBURY
Then I am still in the dark. It is the habit of the Government to leave these explanations to Members on this side of the House. I have already made one explanation, and my hon. Friend is in a position to make another. The only explanation I can see is that while the number of boards by this Estimate has fallen from 250 to 245 the claims have increased by £84, that is, from £220 to £300. I do not see how that can be automatic. It is evidently something which was not anticipated when the Estimates were originally framed, and I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman who moved the Amendment has not possibly found the true explanation. He has said it all arises, not from the fact that there has been an automatic increase, but because the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for Scotland or his predecessor have put greater charges upon the various school boards. That is an explanation which coincides with the right hon. Gentleman's statement that a bad Estimate was made up by an automatic increase in the number of schools which will require a Grant. Of course the real explanation of that is that the Scottish Office did not really take the trouble to make a correct estimate, and find out what the Grant really ought to be. They relied upon the good nature of the Opposition in allowing them to come down and ask for a revised estimate if their 1439 original estimate should be wrong. I am not sure it was not because they had not time to make that revised estimate but were doing other things.
Mr. McKINNON WOOD
I am glad to answer the various points which have puzzled the hon. Baronet. There is no great puzzle about the reason why the amount varies, or why you should have a larger amount for a smaller number of boards. The fact is you have three inconstant and variable quantities. You have the number of boards which may comply with the conditions, you have the variations, which it is rather difficult for the Education Department to foresee, in the amount of the produce of the 3d. rate, and you have variations in the cost of education. It is not remarkable that the amount cannot be precisely foreseen or that it should vary and increase even though the number of boards affected should be diminished. As to the figure that puzzled the hon. Baronet, it is obvious that these two figures could not give the product of a round sum of £70,000. It is the usual practice of the Treasury to take a round sum, and in this case seventy was the nearest round sum, and we are merely following the ordinary practice of the Treasury in taking that figure. There has been no change of policy. The cost of education has somewhat increased at a greater rate than was anticipated. That is why the full amount was not foreseen. I hope the hon. Member will not persist in his Amendment, because it will be clearly an attempt to deprive certain school boards in Scotland of a sum of money to which they are entitled by Statute, and this is merely an ordinary increase.
§ Mr. DILLON
This is one of the most extraordinary Debates I have ever heard in a somewhat long experience. As far as I can understand, Members from Scotland are complaining that they are getting too much money for education, and they have moved a reduction. If they desire to get rid of this extra Grant I will accept it gratefully for Ireland. We, instead of having an automatic increase, have surrendered £25,000 to the Treasury this year. I have often admired the Scotch. They are qualified to give us a lesson in finance, but they seem on this occasion to be possessed by some extraordinary new spirit which I never met in Scotch Members before. I should have imagined that the Scottish Members would have accepted 1440 this with gratitude, or at least in silence. If it will relieve the situation in the slightest degree I will undertake to accept this extra sum on behalf of Ireland.
MARQUESS of TULLIBARDINE
I think this is the only means my hon. Friend has of pointing out the attitude of the Scottish Education Department.
§ The CHAIRMAN
I think I ought to have called the hon. Member (Mr. Dillon) to order. I hope the Noble Lord will not pursue this matter further.
MARQUESS of TULLIBARDINE
We are now, unless the Secretary for Scotland can give us a more satisfactory answer than his distinguished chief can give, likely to be landed with something like £93,000 extra on the rates, and we are naturally very anxious for superannuation—
Mr. McKINNON WOOD
Is it in order to refer to an entirely different subject, namely, the superannuation of teachers?
MARQUESS of TULLIBARDINE
That is why we are anxious to be economical with the rates in other directions.
§ Mr. PRINGLE
Will other Members be in order in referring to the general policy of the Education Department?
§ The CHAIRMAN
I understand the Noble Lord had left that point and was coming back to the limits of order.
MARQUESS Of TULLIBARDINE
I had hoped that other Scottish Members would also assist me in warding off an attack from Ireland. One of the reasons why we are being so careful is that we have so many expenses at present and we do not want any more.
§ Mr. JAMES HOPE
The hon. Member (Mr. Dillon) must know very well that very often when you are asking for more the only way to get it is to move to get something less.
§ The CHAIRMAN
I have already indicated that in my view the remarks of the hon. Member (Mr. Dillon) were out of order. I called the Noble Lord to order, and I hope the hon. Member will not make any further reference to that point.
I hope another time the hon. Member will not be out of order, or, if he is, that we may be allowed to reply to him. I was going to say something really very effective. I must protest 1441 against what the Secretary for Scotland has said about the increase being altogether automatic. It is not. He admitted that it was partly due to the increase in the cost of education. That is not necessarily automatic. It is very often due to the pressure of the Education Department on the School Boards. As I understand these Statutes, which are responsible for some parts of the increase, it may arise from two sources—extra expenditure or decrease in the rateable value. The original Section says:—Where in any parish or borough a school rate of not less than 3d. in the £ on the rateable value of such parish or borough may be levied and the whole produce of such rate is less than £20, or 7s. 6d. per child in average attendance, such school board shall be entitled, in addition to the Parliamentary Grant, to such further sum of money out of moneys provided by Parliament as will, together with the produce of the rate, make it up to £20, or 7s. 6d. for each child.The amending Statute, the Act of 1897, keeps that principle, though it modifies the figures. Which of these causes has operated, or have they both operated, in any degree? Has there been any actual decrease in the rateable value in the area of any School Board, or has it been entirely an increase in the number of children over and above the increase in the rateable value? Then no proper explanation
|Division No. 25.]||AYES.||[8.0 p.m.|
|Aitken, Sir William Max||Goldman, C. S.||Pretyman, E. G.|
|Ashley, Wilfrid W.||Gordon, Hon. John Edward (Brighton)||Pryce-Jones, Col. E.|
|Baker, Sir Randolf L. (Dorset, N.)||Greene, Walter Raymond||Ratcliff, R. F.|
|Balcarres, Lord||Guinness, Hon. Walter Edward||Rawson, Colonel Richard H.|
|Banbury, Sir Frederick George||Hamersley, Alfred St. George||Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)|
|Barlow, Montague (Salford, South)||Henderson, Major H. (Berks, Abingdon)||Rutherford, Watson (L'pool, W. Derby)|
|Bathurst, Charles (Wilton)||Herbert, Hon. A. (Somerset, S.)||Sanders, Robert Arthur|
|Bennett-Goldney, Francis||Hill-Wood, Samuel||Sanderson, Lancelot|
|Bentinck, Lord H. Cavendish-||Hoare, Samuel John Gurney||Spear, Sir John Ward|
|Boles, Lieut.-Col. Dennis Fortescue||Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)||Steel-Maitland, A. D.|
|Boyle, W. Lewis (Norfolk, Mid)||Horner, Andrew Long||Sykes, Alan John (Ches., Knutsford)|
|Bridgeman, W. Clive||Houston, Robert Paterson||Terrell, George (Wilts, N. W.)|
|Burn, Col. C. R.||Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement||Touche, George Alexander|
|Campbell, Capt. Duncan F. (Ayr, N.)||Knight, Captain Eric Ayshford||Walrond, Hon. Lionel|
|Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred||Larmor, Sir J.||Wheler, Granville C. H.|
|Cautley, Henry Strother||Law, Rt. Hon. A. Bonar (Bootle)||White, Major G. D. (Lancs., Louth)|
|Cecil, Lord R. (Herts, Hitchin)||Lonsdale, Sir John Brownlee||Willoughby, Major Hon. Claud|
|Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.)||M'Calmont, Col. James||Wood, John (Stalybridge)|
|Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)||McNeill, Ronald (Kent, St. Augustine)||Worthington-Evans, L.|
|Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet)||Neville, Reginald J. N.||Yate, Colonel C. E.|
|Denniss, E. R. B.||Newton, Harry Kottingham|
|Duke, Henry Edward||Parkes, Ebenezer|
|Faber, George Denison (Clapham)||Peel, Captain R. F. (Woodbridge)||TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. H. Hope and Marquess of Tullibardine.|
|Fell, Arthur||Perkins, Walter F.|
|Fletcher, John Samuel (Hampstead)||Pollock, Ernest Murray|
|Abraham, William (Dublin Harbour)||Baring, Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple)||Burke, E. Haviland-|
|Acland, Francis Dyke||Barnes, G. N.||Burns, Rt. Hon. John|
|Addison, Dr. C.||Barton, William||Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas|
|Ainsworth, John Stirling||Beale, William Phipson||Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, N.)|
|Alden, Percy||Beauchamp, Sir Edward||Byles, Sir William Pollard|
|Anstruther-Gray, Major William||Boland, John Pius||Carr-Gomm, H. W.|
|Armitage, R.||Booth, Frederick Handel||Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich)|
|Atherley-Jones, Llewellyn A.||Brady, P. J.||Cawley, H. T. (Lancs., Heywood)|
|Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.)||Brocklehurst, William B.||Chancellor, Henry George|
|Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)||Buckmaster, Stanley O.||Chapple, Dr. William Allen|
has been given of this extraordinary note:—
The original estimate of £25,000 was based on the estimated claims of 250 Boards to an average Grant of £220.
§ The claims received so far show an average Grant of over £300 for new claims. Why, then, should the average be taken at only £285? Is there any reason to suppose that those boards which have not yet sent in their accounts will not come up to the average of those who have? Then what is that £133? It does not seem to be accounted for. On the face of it it would look as if the average ought to be no less than £433. At any rate there is an absolute disparity between the £300, which is the average of those who have come in, and the £285 on which the Vote is based. I think there ought to be some explanation on that point. I should also like to know why 245 is taken for this Supplementary Estimate instead of the former basis of 250. Have five boards disappeared, or are five boards not going to make these claims?
§ Question put, "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £14,900, be granted for the said service."
§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 70; Noes, 206.
|Clough, William||Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)||O'Neill, Dr. Charles (Armagh, S.)|
|Clynes, John R.||Jones, Leif Stratten (Notts, Rushcliffe)||O'Sullivan, Timothy|
|Collins, G. P. (Greenock)||Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)||Palmer, Godfrey Mark|
|Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)||Jones, W. S. Glyn- (T. H'mts, Stepney)||Parker, James (Halifax)|
|Cory, Sir Clifford John||Jowett, Frederick William||Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)|
|Cotton, William Francis||Joyce, Michael||Pearce, William (Limehouse)|
|Cowan, W. H.||Keating, Matthew||Phillips, John (Longford, S.)|
|Crumley, Patrick||Kilbride, Denis||Pirie, Duncan Vernon|
|Dalziel, Sir James H. (Kirkcaldy)||King, Joseph (Somerset, North)||Pointer, Joseph|
|Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)||Lamb, Ernest Henry||Pollard, Sir George H.|
|Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)||Lambert, Rt. Hon. G. (Devon, S. Molton)||Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.|
|Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.)||Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)||Power, Patrick Joseph|
|Delany, William||Lansbury, George||Pringle, William M. R.|
|Denman, Hon. R. D.||Lawson, Sir W. (Cumb'rld, Cockerm'th)||Radford, G. H.|
|Dillon, John||Leach, Charles||Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields)|
|Donelan, Captain A.||Lewis, John Herbert||Reddy, Michael|
|Doris, William||Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas||Redmond, William (Clare, E.)|
|Duffy, William J.||Low, Sir Frederick (Norwich)||Rendall, Athelstan|
|Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)||Lundon, Thomas||Richardson, Albion (Peckham)|
|Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)||Lynch, Arthur Alfred||Roberts, George H. (Norwich)|
|Elibank, Rt. Hon. Master of||Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)||Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford).|
|Elverston, Sir Harold||Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)||Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)|
|Esslemont, George Birnie||Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J.||Robinson, Sidney|
|Farrell, James Patrick||MacNeill, John G. S. (Donegal, South)||Roche, Augustine (Louth)|
|Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson||Macpherson, James Ian||Roe, Sir Thomas|
|Ffrench, Peter||MacVeagh, Jeremiah||Rose, Sir Charles Day|
|Flavin, Michael Joseph||McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald||Rowlands, James|
|Gelder, Sir W. A.||M'Laren, Hon. F. W. S. (Lincs., Spalding)||Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter|
|Gill, A. H.||M'Laren, Walter S. B. (Ches., Crewe)||Russell, Rt. Hon. Thomas W.|
|Glanville, H. J.||Markham, Sir Arthur Basil||Samuel, J. (Stockton)|
|Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford||Marks, Sir George Croydon||Sheehy, David|
|Goldstone, Frank||Marshall, Arthur Harold||Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)|
|Greenwood, Granville G. (Peterborough)||Masterman, C. F. G.||Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)|
|Griffith, Ellis J.||Meagher, Michael||Taylor, John W. (Durham)|
|Guest, Hon. Frederick E. (Dorset, E.)||Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)||Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)|
|Gulland, John William||Menzies, Sir Walter||Tennant, Harold John|
|Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)||Millar, James Duncan||Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)|
|Hackett, John||Molloy, Michael||Thorne, William (West Ham)|
|Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)||Mooney, John J.||Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander|
|Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)||Morrell, Philip||Verney, Sir Harry|
|Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds.)||Morton, Alpheus Cleophas||Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)|
|Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)||Muldoon, John||Wardle, George J.|
|Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)||Munro, Robert||Waring, Walter|
|Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry||Munro-Ferguson, Rt. Hon. R. C.||Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay|
|Hayden, John Patrick||Murray, Captain Hon. Arthur C.||Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)|
|Hayward, Evan||Nannetti, Joseph P.||Watt, Henry A.|
|Henderson, Arthur (Durham)||Needham, Christopher T.||Webb, H.|
|Higham, John Sharp||Neilson, Francis||White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)|
|Hinds, John||Nolan, Joseph||White, Patrick (Meath, North)|
|Hodge, John||Norman, Sir Henry||Whitehouse, John Howard|
|Hogge, James Myles||Nuttall, Harry||Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.|
|Holmes, Daniel Thomas||O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)||Wilkie, Alexander|
|Holt, Richard Durning||O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)||Williams, Penry (Middlesbrough)|
|Hudson, Walter||O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)||Wilson, Hon. G. G. (Hull, W.)|
|Hughes, Spencer Leigh||O'Donnell, Thomas||Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. W. (Worcs., N.)|
|Illingworth, Percy H.||O'Dowd, John||Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)|
|Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus||Ogden, Fred||Younger, Sir George|
|Jardine, Sir John (Roxburgh)||O'Grady, James|
|John, Edward Thomas||O'Kelly, Edward P. (Wicklow, W.)||TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. Illingworth and Mr. Howard.|
|Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea)||O'Malley, William|
§ Original Question put, and agreed to.