§ Order for Second Reading read.
§ The SOLICITOR - GENERAL for SCOTLAND (Mr. F. C. Thomson)I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
This is a Bill which contains certain provisions that were embodied in the Economy (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill. Certain provisions dealing with education in that Bill are not to be found in the present one. Those which are included are, I think, non-contentious in character, and I ask the House to give the Bill a Second Reading. The Clauses in this Bill which were in the Economy (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill are Clauses 1, 2, and 5. Clauses 3 and 4 were accepted in another place by the Secretary for Scotland.
The first Clause provides that the words that are found in the Clause should be inserted in Section 18, Sub-section (9), of the Education (Scotland) Act, 1918. That Section deals with the transference to the education authorities of voluntary schools. Hon. Members from Scotland will remember that under Section 18 it was provided that after ten years, if it appeared to the education authority that the school which had been transferred was no longer required it might be closed, or if it appeared that, having regard to the religious belief of the parents of the children, it was no longer necessary for it to be carried on with the particular religious safeguards, it might be carried on as an ordinary public school. If the education authorities in these circumstances thought that a school should be discontinued or carried on as an ordinary public school, and they had the sanction of the Scotch Education Department, then the school could be discontinued or carried on as an ordinary public school. It was further enacted, however, that this could not be done until after 10 years. It was thought that, the education authority being elected only for three years, there might, when the next education authority came in, be a change of policy. It was desired to give the managers of voluntary schools security that there would be no change for 10 years. What we propose is that, if the trustees of the transferred school or their 2262 successors are of opinion that the school should be discontinued or carried on as an ordinary public school, and the Department approves, the school shall be discontinued or carried on as an ordinary public school. We do not alter the safeguards laid down for this transference of schools in any way. It is only if the trustees consider there is no reason for the school being continued. It has been found in practice that certain of these schools are no longer required, as the numbers of children may have decreased, or there may have been a movement of the population. There may be no necessity for such a particular school, and if all parties desire it, before the period of 10 years it should be possible to alter matters.
§ Mr. SULLIVANIs it necessary that the trustees should agree?
§ The SOLICITOR - GENERAL for SCOTLANDThat is perfectly clear. Nothing can be done unless the trustees agree to this course of action. As to Clause 2, it is provided under the Education Act of 1918 that the education authorities shall have a general meeting every month, with the proviso that it shall not be necessary between the end of June and the end of October to have more than one meeting. It has been found, now that the work of the education authorities is regularly going—especially in some of the Highland counties—that it is unnecessary that it should be obligatory upon the education authorities to have a general meeting every month. We propose that the education authorities shall meet at such times as are necessary, but that there shall be at least one meeting in each quarter. We are not impairing their authority to meet. We say that if you do not desire to meet oftener it will be enough to meet once a quarter. In some districts there is considerable expense for travelling, the payment of expenses and lost time. This Clause, which is supported by the Association of Education Authorities in Scotland, deserves, I think, the support of the House.
As to Clause 3, there has been some considerable discussion on the matter. It was moved in the House of Lords by the Duke of Atholl and accepted by the Secretary for Scotland. It was moved on behalf of the education authorities, who were in its favour. The Secretary for Scotland did 2263 say that if it was not non-contentious, and if serious opposition manifested itself in this House, the position would require to be re-considered. Serious opposition has manifested itself, Members of different parties taking the view that this provision is not desirable. Certain Members have put down an Amendment to reject the Bill on Second Reading. Others have expressed a strong view that nothing shall be done in the way of amendment until there is further consideration. It was obvious that this Bill could not be got through as a non-contentious Measure if this Clause were adhered to. Therefore I propose to delete this Clause when the Bill goes to Committee. I think myself that it is unfortunate that opposition has manifested itself so strongly. There is no doubt that under the Act of 1918 the position as between the local education authorities and the school management committees, which have the charge of secondary schools, has been rather ambiguous. There has been a certain conflict of authority, and the education authorities of Scotland have desired that this should be amended, and that it should not be possible for a school management committee having charge of a secondary school to conflict with the education authority. There has been difficulty and conflict in a number of counties. I think it is a pity that the House did not see its way to accept the Clause, but, in view of the strong opposition manifested from different quarters of the House, it was quite obvious that the Bill could not be carried through if we insisted on retaining the Clause.
As regards Clause 4, it has been possible under the law up to now for education authorities to provide travelling facilities for pupils where it seemed advisable. In order to give better education facilities, they could either convey the pupils to school, or provide travelling facilities or board and lodging. These facilities could only be given after inquiry into the circumstances of the parents. We propose under this Clause that after the Scottish Education Department are satisfied, when the matter has been brought before them by an education authority, that the provision of such travelling facilities would involve less cost in a particular year than the provision of a new school, they shall be entitled to afford these facilities to 2264 parents without inquiry as to whether the financial circumstances of the parents are such as to make it absolutely necessary. It is felt that if a country school is closed, or if one has not been built, and the children have to travel some distance, it is right that the cost of conveyance should be borne by the authority.
The last Clause will be found to provide very fully for all cases of children who are either epileptic, crippled, or defective in the sense of being unable to benefit by instruction at an ordinary school, and also for those children who it is advisable should attend open-air schools. I confidently recommend this useful little Bill to the consideration of the House.
Captain BENNI do not want to detain the House, but I must make this observation, that it is not really respectful to the Scottish representatives in this House that a Bill of this kind should be taken at 3.30 in the morning. It is an important, though a small, Bill, and I want to ask the Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury if he can give us a pledge that the remaining stages of the Bill, so far as taken in the House, will be taken at some reasonable hour, and not in the early morning.
§ The SOLICITOR - GENERAL for SCOTLANDThe Bill will go to Scottish Grand Committee, where hon. Members will have a full opportunity to discuss it.
Captain BENNMy second observation is that the Solicitor-General, in moving the deletion of Clause 3, will, no doubt, give an opportunity for an expression of views on both sides. I have had representations on both sides as regards the merits of that Clause. If the Parliamentary Secretary can assure us that the Third Reading will be taken at a decent hour, and not at the end of a long Sitting, I shall be satisfied.
§ Mr. T. JOHNSTONI rather regret the haste with which the Solicitor-General for Scotland has withdrawn Clause 3. I think there are arguments for and against it. My own view is that the bulk of the arguments are in favour of the Clause, but I certainly would say that we might use it as a bargaining power. The Solicitor-General might get this Clause through yet if he were to give some concessions in other directions to the school management committees. That 2265 is the crux of the question. The school management committees in Scotland feel that this Bill is simply another attempt to whittle away their already very small powers, and if the Solicitor-General could add to their powers in directions in which it is perfectly safe, and which would add to the efficiency of education in Scotland, I do not think there would be serious trouble about the Clause.
Clause 1 no one objects to, but to Clause 2 I personally take very serious objection. Clause 2 gives power to a county education authority to hold meetings as seldom as once a quarter. What is the use of talking about popular control of education at all if there is only to be a meeting once a quarter? Who is going to run education in the intervening period? It is going to be the executive officer. As a matter of fact, he is very largely doing it now with monthly meetings.
§ The SOLICITOR-GENERAL for SCOTLANDThey can meet as often as they like.
§ Mr. JOHNSTONYes, but the Act of 1918 compels them to meet about 10 times a year, and the purpose of this Clause is to compel them to meet only four times a year. Who is behind that? The executive officers. I have been on an education authority, and I know all about it. Why is this Clause put in here?
§ Mr. BLUNDELLIn Lancashire they meet only four times a year.
§ Mr. JOHNSTONThat shows how backward England is. Up to 1918 we took some pride in our education. We object entirely to the administration of education being taken away from the people and handed over, so far as possible, to a group of people called executive officers. What will happen in Argyllshire? They are to meet once in three months. Who is to control education in the intervening period? Emergencies arise, teachers have to be appointed. Who will appoint them? The executive officer. Bursars are to be selected. Who will select them? The education officer. There is nobody else. Every emergency question will be settled by the executive officer. Then when your education authority meets, what happen? The members are scattered all over Argyllshire. It takes some of them three days to get to the meeting and three 2266 days to get home. They can only afford to sit for a couple of hours. The executive officer now has all the business cut and dry. There is no more control over the administration of education in Argyllshire by the education authority than over the man in the moon. The administration of education in Scotland has been more or less on a democratic basis for a hundred years and more. Now you propose to withdraw that faint trace of it by doing away with the monthly meetings. Whatever party is in power, whether Conservative, Liberal, Labour or Coalition, ought to make it the business of the Government of the day to encourage as many citizens as possible to take an interest in local administration, to take a pride in the administration of education. The last thing you should do is to take away the administration of your education from the citizens themselves and hand it over to a bureaucracy who are divorced from the people of Scotland and over whom the people of Scotland have little or no control. What control have they now? You have a triennial election to your education authority. Who can stand as a representative of a local area for the local authority of the county? Only gentlemen of the leisured class or paid officials of the trade unions. Who else can afford to go 50 miles to a meeting? You are gradually taking away the opportunities of the citizens to interest themselves in the administration of education because of the fact that the circle of possible candidates in every area is steadily becoming smaller. At the last election there were areas in which you could not get candidates at all of any party. The result has been that the administration of education has ceased to be a popular function. You have the school-managing committees, the greatest farce without exception, the greatest fraud ever perpetrated on the democracy of Scotland.
§ Mr. SPEAKERDoes this arise in this Bill?
§ Mr. JOHNSTONYes.
§ Mr. SPEAKERIn Clause 2?
§ Mr. JOHNSTONNot exactly, but it is the effect of Clause 2, which proposes that there shall be only four meetings of an education authority every year. I am submitting arguments to show how 2267 this House should not give them powers only to hold four meetings a year, and I am meeting a possible argument put up by people on the other side who will say that while they are only meeting four times a year, the school education committees are functioning in the local areas. I hope I am in order in showing they are powerless and useless.
§ Mr. KIRKWOODYou have reduced us to the level of Englishmen.
§ Mr. JOHNSTONYou have stripped them of their powers, and there is no man with any sense of self respect who would sit on one of these dummy school managing committees. Clause 3 seeks to limit the powers of school managing committees in the secondary schools. Have the Government decided to withdraw it altogether, or is it to be argued out in Committee upstairs? If it is to be discussed upstairs, I am certain there will be a considerable body of opinion among the Scottish Members of all parties—for we are anxious not to make it a party matter, but to do the most we can for the education of our children—who, if the Government do not harden their hearts like Pharoah and say they cannot go back on their decision and are not prepared to have any discussion at all, are agreeable to that Clause going through, always provided you increase the powers of the school managing committees, make them self-respecting units, give them some responsible work to do and maintain in Scotland a democratic and a local interest in the administration of education.
Clause 4 is a very innocent Clause, and I trust there will be no objection taken to that from any quarter of the House. If, for example, a county education authority decides to close a school in an area, it may be a very bad business. They may be closing it when they ought not to close it, but when they do it is grossly unfair to say to the parents of the children: "Although you have only two pounds ten shillings a week, you shall be compelled to pay the travelling expenses of your children to school eight or fourteen miles away." It is a gross injustice, and I trust that the Clause will go through unanimously. I hope there will be no factious criticism, but I would impress upon the Solicitor-General for Scotland that he must face the fact that there is grave initiation in Scotland that education 2268 authorities are fast becoming a bureaucracy. We all agree in limiting the powers of these bureaucrats, and we think it is good and proper business from an educational point of view that you should give school management committees power even to recommend bursars to the county education committee. To-day the school management committee have not even power to recommend a child of promise for a bursary. This is settled by county gentlemen a hundred miles away, not one of whom know the least thing about children in particular local areas. There are a number of things that you could give the school management committee to do, and I trust that before this Bill goes to the Committee stage the Solicitor-General will do something to make it of some use in Scotland, and allow that country to retain some pride in education and some democratic control over the education of Scottish children. In these difficult economic times, we should have before us the ideals which our forefathers had for giving our children the best education.
§ The SOLICITOR-GENERAL for SCOTLANDI beg to move, "That the Debate be now adjourned."
It is obvious that a number of Members wish to speak on the Bill, and I think we should give another day to it, so that Members who desire to speak may have an opportunity of doing so.
§ Mr. WESTWOODThere are several Members here who stayed all night, and I appeal to the Solicitor-General that he should at least allow the exact position to be placed before the House. I am satisfied that if the position is understood by those who are making the opposition, that opposition will be withdrawn.
§ The SOLICITOR - GENERAL for SCOTLANDThere will be an opportunity of replying on a further occasion. It seems to me that at this time of the morning it is undesirable to continue the discussion on a Bill in which great interest is being displayed.
Captain BENNWill the hon. and learned Gentleman give us an indication when the adjourned Debate will take place, and if it will be at a reasonable time of the day?
§ The SOLICITOR - GENERAL for SCOTLANDWe hape to take the adjourned Debate on the Bill on Friday.
Mr. W. ADAMSONMight I put it to the Solicitor-General that certain other business is to be taken on Friday, which will again put this Bill into the position of a second or third Order, and there may be even less time to discuss the matter on Friday. A considerable number of Members are waiting and anxious to discuss this Bill, and I think the representative of the Scottish Office who replies, should allow a discussion to take place. As has been pointed out, the position of education authorities ought to be put in the House this morning before we adjourn the discussion of this Bill, and I hope the Solicitor-General or the Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury will assent to it.
§ Mr. JAMES BROWNMight I urge the Solicitor-General to withdraw the idea of separating without discussing the Bill, particularly as to whether Clause 3 ought to be withdrawn, because it would be taking away the last shred of democracy?
§ Mr. SPEAKEROn the Motion for the Adjournment of the Debate, we must not discuss the merits.
§ Mr. DUNCAN MILLARI think it is somewhat discourteous to those Members who have awaited this Debate for hours that the adjournment should be moved at this stage. If the Solicitor-General for Scotland and those who have charge of the business of the House had realised that there would not be sufficient time to discuss this matter fully at this particular time, surely they might have had the courtesy rather to have allowed this Bill to be debated at a later stage instead of entering upon the Debate here and now and ending it in this unsatisfactory way. I should have liked a further statement from the Solicitor-General for Scotland as to why there is to be a withdrawal from the Bill at this stage of one of the Clauses in which Members are specially interested. I hope I am in order in suggesting that if there is any arrangement for continuing the Debate on this matter we should have a very definite assurance that we are not again to be put in the position we are at the present moment, and that we shall be informed when it will suit to have this matter dis- 2270 cussed. In view of the statement made that this Bill is going to the Scottish Grand Committee, I would urge that there should be a full opportunity of discussing the Clause there. The hon. and learned Gentleman should not say at this stage that he is going to withdraw any particular Clause. He should allow the Grand Committee to debate the various points of this Clause. I cannot understand the Government allowing this Amendment to be inserted in the House of Lords, if they have not considered and approved it.
§ Mr. SPEAKERThe hon. and learned Member must not debate the point whether the Clause stand part of the Bill or not.
§ Mr. MILLARI do not pursue the argument further than that, if this question is to be adjourned, we should have a very definite undertaking that the Bill will be taken at a fixed time.
§ Mr. WESTWOODOn the suggestion that we are now to adjourn it requires something more that the claim put forward by the hon. and learned Member for East Fife (Mr. D. Millar). This is an important question from the Scottish administration point of view, and we are entitled, if the House is to adjourn now, to have a guarantee from the Government that it shall be taken as the first Order. I am a member of the executive of the Scottish Authority and I am entitled to express my view with authority in this House. It is such a vital question affecting the lives of our children. We have been waiting here, but the opponents of the Bill have gone. Therefore, I do hope we are going to get a guarantee that this question will be the first Order.
§ Mr. HARDIEI want to draw attention to what happened yesterday at the opening of business. When the Leader of the Opposition asked what arrangements were to be made, we got a full promise that this education business for Scotland was to be taken. The ordinary Eleven o'Clock Rule was suspended, and it seems to me that the Government have got what they wanted under the suspension of the Rule; they were quite prepared to dupe Scotland once again. I want to protest against Scottish questions always being relegated to some unearthly hour for dis- 2271 cussion. If the Government cannot arrange the business better, and if Scotland is always to be relegated to some unearthly hour after waiting all night, it is not going to lead to the friendly feeling that should exist in the House of Commons. I am not using any warning or giving out any threats, but, knowing my fellow-countrymen as I do, this kind of conduct is not going to meet with success in the House of Commons. I hope now that the House will go on with the business, or, by God, you will know about it! [HON. MEMBERS: "Order, order!"]
§ Mr. SHORTWe ought to have a statement from the Solicitor-General as to the point raised, or we shall be compelled to oppose the Adjournment if it be persisted in. The Bill is introduced very shortly with no complete statement of the provisions and following a speech by one or two Members we get the Adjournment removed. This is not the way in which the House ought to be treated. In my opinion it is an act of gross discourtesy to the House. [HON. MEMBERS: "No, no!"] It most certainly is. Hon. Members may want to get to bed. I have wanted to go to bed for some considerable time, but having got to this hour of the morning I am prepared to stop until this afternoon to transact the business. If hon. Members are not prepared to do that they must not be surprised if we stand in the way. I have been prevented from going home already and that is one reason I am here. This Bill is vitally important. It affects the education of the working class of Scotland.
§ Mr. SPEAKERThe hon. Member cannot now debate the merits of the Bill.
§ Mr. SHORTI will certainly follow your ruling, but I persist in my request for some statement from the Solicitor-General as to whether this Bill is to be taken at a reasonable time, and if it is to be the first Order of the day. Are we to have the opportunity of a full Debate on the provisions of the Bill? I am not satisfied that this Bill should be taken on a Friday. This is the kind of Bill that ought not to be relegated to a Friday. The Bill has very important provisions, and it ought to be given a proper place in the procedure of the House which will enable us to discuss it at a reasonable time and under proper conditions.
§ Mr. D. M. COWANI Should be very sorry to indulge in any charge of discourtesy, but I do think there has been some mismanagement of the business. I would point out that several of those who put down their names to an Amendment for the rejection of this Measure have left the House because of the understanding given by the Solicitor-General and the Prime Minister that Clause 3 was to be withdrawn. If it had been known that possibly Clause 3 was to be retained, they would have remained. This Clause is the crux of the whole question. Therefore, unless the Solicitor-General, speaking for the Government, can give an undertaking that there will be full opportunity for the discussion of this matter in the House, apart from the Committee, then I do think that Scotland will have real cause for complaint. I would ask him not to give a hasty decision unless it is a decision in accordance with the request made to him.
§ The SOLICITOR-GENERAL for SCOTLANDMy hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Leith (Captain W. Benn) expressed a strong view against the House being asked to conclude the Second Reading of this Bill at this hour of the morning, and I thought, in view of his appeal and in view of the fact that a number of Members who had taken an interest in this matter were no longer in the House, that I was best meeting the desires and wishes of my Scottish colleagues in not asking them to continue this discussion at this hour of the morning.
4.0 A.M.
I fully appreciate the point of my hon. Friend who wishes to put before the House the views of the education authorities of Scotland. I think it is important he should have an opportunity to state these views. We will give full opportunity for the discussion of the Bill on Second Reading. As regards what my hon. Friend for the Scottish Universities (Mr. Cowan) said, I stated that we propose to move the deletion of this Clause. We were in favour of this Clause, but, owing to the strong objection made to it in the House and owing to the statement made by the Secretary for Scotland in another place that if the matter became contentious, this Bill being non-contentious, we decided we should not adhere to it. I have stated my position earlier in the 2273 evening. There is not the slightest occasion for the smallest doubt. There is no desire to treat the Scottish Members with scant courtesy. They will be given full opportunity to discuss this Measure on Second Reading. It was only because my hon. Friend made a strong appeal not to force this matter through at this hour of the morning, as so many people were interested and so many Members wished to speak in this House, that I desired to meet the wishes of my Scottish colleagues.
Captain BENNWhat does the Solicitor-General mean by a full opportunity? Does it mean the first Order, or giving it a place that on Friday will curtail the Debate by the operation of the Four o'Clock Rule?
§ Mr. SULLIVANI would suggest that Friday is not a convenient day for Scottish Members who wish to get home. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] We have as good a right to get home as you. We have waited patiently for this Bill, and we do not think that education in Scotland is a party question. There are things peculiar to Scotland, and education is one. We want what will be satisfactory. Personally I would rather go on with the Bill this morning than on Friday, unless there is a promise that we will get it early on Friday.
§ The SOLICITOR - GENERAL for SCOTLANDI cannot guarantee an exactly definite hour, but we shall give hon. Member an absolutely full opportunity for discussion. I think those Members who desire to speak will have an opportunity of expressing their views.
§ Mr. SPEAKERThe hon. Member has already spoken.
§ Mr. SHORTI would like to ask a question. Will the Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury make arrangements, through the usual channels, for this Bill to be taken?
§ Colonel LESLIE WILSONIt is not a question for consultation through the usual channels. I will do my best to implement the undertaking given by my hon. Friend.
§ Mr. EDESpeaking for a considerable number of Members on these benches whose homes are in the suburbs, after the clock passes half-past eleven I have no further train and I cannot get one until 5.18. I know there are a considerable number of Members in a similar position. We have to rely upon railway transport, and when the House sits late, as it has done upon several occasions recently, we have to make a choice between lodging in a hotel and walking about the streets and becoming liable to be arrested by the police for wandering, until five o'clock in the morning. I do think that greater consideration might be shown to Members in fixing the business so that if we have a night sitting we really should have one.
§ Question put, "That the Debate be now adjourned."
§ The House divided: Ayes, 100; Noes, 29.
2275| Division No. 297.] | AYES. | [4.8 a.m. |
| Ainsworth, Captain Charles | Davidson, J. C. C. (Hemel Hempstead) | Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone) |
| Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S. | Davies, Thomas (Cirencester) | Hopkins, John W. W. |
| Ashley, Lt.-Col. Wilfrid W. | Du Pre, Colonel William Baring | Houfton, John Plowright |
| Banks, Mitchell | Edmondson, Major A. J. | Howard, Capt. D. (Cumberland, N.) |
| Barnston, Major Harry | Elliot, Capt. Walter E. (Lanark) | Hudson, Capt. A. |
| Becker, Harry | Ellis, R. G. | Hutchison, G. A. C. (Midlothian, N.) |
| Bell, Lieut.-Col. W. C. H. (Devizes) | Erskine-Bolst, Captain C. | Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H. |
| Betterton, Henry B. | Eyres-Monsell, Com. Rt. Hon. Sir B. M. | Jodrell, Sir Neville Paul |
| Blundell, F. N. | Falle, Major Sir Bertram Godfray | King, Captain Henry Douglas |
| Boyd-Carpenter, Major A. | Fawkes, Major F. H. | Lane-Fox, Lieut.-Colonel G. R. |
| Brass, Captain W. | Flanagan, W. H. | Lort-Williams, J. |
| Bruford, R. | Ford, Patrick Johnston | Lougher, L. |
| Bruton, Sir James | Furness, G. J. | Lumley, L. R. |
| Buckley, Lieut.-Colonel A. | Galbraith, J. F. W. | McNeill, Ronald (Kent, Canterbury) |
| Cadogan, Major Edward | Ganzoni, Sir John | Manville, Edward |
| Campion, Lieut.-Colonel W. R. | Garland, C. S. | Margesson, H. D. R. |
| Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City) | Greenwood, William (Stockport) | Molloy, Major L. G. S. |
| Chapman, Sir S. | Hacking, Captain Douglas H. | Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C. |
| Clayton, G. C. | Hall, Rr-Adml Sir W. (Liv'p'l, W. D'by) | Nall, Major Joseph |
| Cobb, Sir Cyril | Halstead, Major D. | Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter) |
| Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips | Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry | Nicholson, Brig.-Gen. J. (Westminster) |
| Cope, Major William | Hawke, John Anthony | Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William |
| Craig, Captain C. C. (Antrim, South) | Hennessy, Major J. R. G. | Parker, Owen (Kettering) |
| Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend) | Hilder, Lieut.-Colonel Frank | Pease, William Edwin |
| Curzon, Captain Viscount | Hiley, Sir Ernest | Pennefather, De Fonblanque |
| Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings) | Sanderson, Sir Frank B. | Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South) |
| Peto, Basil E. | Shepperson, E. W. | Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement |
| Privett, F. J. | Simpson-Hinchliffe, W. A. | Wallace, Captain E. |
| Raine, W. | Skelton, A. N. | Watts, Dr. T. (Man., Withington) |
| Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford) | Stanley, Lord | Wise, Frederick |
| Robertson-Despencer, Major (Islgtn, W.) | Stott, Lt.-Col. W. H. | Yerburgh, R. D. T. |
| Rogerson, Capt. J. E. | Stuart, Lord C. Crichton- | |
| Roundell, Colonel R. F. | Sugden, Sir Wilfrid H. | TELLERS FOR THE AYES.— |
| Russell, William (Bolton) | Skyes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H. | Colonel Leslie Wilson and Colonel |
| Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham) | Thompson, Luke (Sunderland) | the Rt. Hon. G. A. Gibbs. |
| NOES. | ||
| Adamson, Rt. Hon. William | Hardie, George D. | Newbold, J. T. W. |
| Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith) | Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (N'castle, E.) | Potts, John S. |
| Bonwick, A. | Henderson, T. (Glasgow) | Short, Alfred (Wednesbury) |
| Broad, F. A. | John, William (Rhondda, West) | Sullivan, J. |
| Brown, James (Ayr and Bute) | Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown) | Tout, W. J. |
| Darbishire, C. W. | Kirkwood, D. | Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda) |
| Dudgeon, Major C. R. | Lawson, John James | Westwood J. |
| Ede, James Chuter | Leach, W. | |
| Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty) | M'Entee, V. L. | TELLERS FOR THE NOES.— |
| Fairbairn, R. R. | Marshall, Sir Arthur H. | Mr. Ammon and Mr. Thomas |
| Gray, Frank (Oxford) | Millar, J. D. | Johnston. |
§ Debate to be resumed upon Thursday.