Sitting of 4 November 1902

Preamble
The House met at Two of the Clock.
WATER PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
As amended, considered; to be read the third time tomorrow.
OSBORNE ESTATE BILL.
Ordered, That the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills do examine the Osborne Estate Bill with respect to compliance with the Standing Orders relative to Private Bills.—(Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer.)
PETITIONS.
  CANADIAN CATTLE (IMPORTATION).
  Petitions for abolition of restrictions: from Leek; Whitby; Langholm; Kirkconnel; Thornlie Bank; Haworth; Felling; Rishton; and Pickering; to lie upon the Table.
  EDUCATION (ENGLAND AND WALES) BILL.
  Petitions against: from Haslingden; and Orkney; to lie upon the Table.
  EDUCATION (ENGLAND AND WALES) BILL.
  Petitions for alteration: from Langholm; Leek; Kirkconnel; Haworth; Felling; Pickering; and Whitby; to lie upon the Table.
  EDUCATION (ENGLAND AND WALES) BILL.
  Petitions in favour: from Worcester; West Ilsley; Woodgreen; Southampton; and Warrington; to lie upon the Table.
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT (IRELAND) (No. 2) BILL.
  Petition from Dublin, for alteration; to lie upon the Table.
  PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION IN TRADE.
  Petitions for legislation: from Leek; Langholm; Kirkconnel; Haworth; Felling; Rishton; Whitby; and Pickering; to lie upon the Table.
  SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS ON SUNDAY BILL.
  Petitions in favour: from Manchester; and Park Road; to lie upon the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  TRADE UNIONS.
  Copy presented, of Report by the Chief Labour Correspondent of the Board of Trade on Trade Unions in 1901, with Comparative Statistics for 1892–1900 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS CIRCULATED WITH THE VOTES.

  Importation of Basic Slag.
  MR. ALEXANDER CROSS (Glasgow, Camlachie): To ask the President of the Board of Agriculture whether he is aware that quantities of spurious basic slag have been imported recently into the United Kingdom; that a foreigner has been apprehended on a charge of alleged fraud in connection with these importations and committed to take his trial in London; whether he will watch these proceedings in the interest of his Department and take steps, and, if so, what steps, to prevent farmers being imposed upon by this article, sold as containing a percentage of phosphoric acid much in excess of the actual facts.
  (Answered by Mr. Hanbury.) My attention has been directed to the case referred to in this Question, which apparently relates to a recent prosecution at the Mansion House in which an agent living in Brussels was charged with selling under a false warranty two cargoes of inferior basic slag. The defendant was committed for trial on the 3rd inst. I shall continue to watch this case. I have directed our inspectors' attention to the prosecution in order that they may bring the matter to the notice of the local authorities they visit, and have also communicated the particulars in our possession to the Irish Department of Agriculture, as it is understood that the greater portion of the consignments in question have been sold to dealers in that country.

  Licensing Act, 1902—Police Assistance to Publicans.
  MR. GRETTON: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether, as promised, a circular pointing out to the police their duties in assisting publicans to keep the law has yet been issued.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Akers-Douglas.) I understand that the hon. Member has in mind a promise given by my right hon. friend, the present Chancellor of the Exchequer, with special reference to Section 4 of the Licensing Act, 1902. In pursuance of that promise, I have inserted in one of the circulars which I am about to issue on the Act a paragraph pointing out that the police should of course continue to assist licence-holders in keeping the law by warning the person in charge of the premises if they see a drunken person entering them, and by helping, at the request of the licence-holder or his agent, to expel from the premises any person who is drunk, quarrelsome, or disorderly.

  Sale of Old Brass Work from London Bridge.
  SIR JOHN COLOMB: To ask the hon. Member for North Huntingdonshire, as representing the First Commissioner of Works, whether he is aware that the whole of the cast bronze scroll work lamps on London Bridge are advertised for sale; whether these lamps were made from French guns captured during the Peninsular war: and, if so, whether he will consider the propriety of securing them for use in suitable places under the control of the Department.
  (Answered by Mr. Ailwyn Fellowes.) Inquiry shows that the lamps in question have been temporarily withdrawn from sale; so far as can be ascertained from the authorities concerned with the widening of the bridge, there is nothing to show that the lamps were made from French guns captured during the Peninsular war. The sale or retention of the lamps is a matter with which the City of London is concerned; the Office of Works has no jurisdiction whatever.

  Naval Construction—Armour Plate Contracts.
  MR. JAMES HOPE (Sheffield, Brightside): To ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether specifications have yet been issued for the armour required for any of the battleships or cruisers included within the programme of the current financial year.
  (Answered by Mr. Arnold-Forster.) Specifications are being prepared for the armour which will be required for the battleships and cruisers included in the programme of the current financial year. Specifications will shortly be issued with tenders for the armour. No specifications for armour have yet been issued.

  Ireland—Defaulting Tenants on the Dillon Estate.
  SIR JOHN COLOMB: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether any of the purchasing occupiers on the Dillon Estate have failed to pay instalments of their purchase money when due; and, if so, what proportion of the total number have so failed, and what action is being taken by the Congested Districts Board to recover the amounts so overdue.
  (Answered by Mr. Wyndham.) None of the tenants on this property, to whom advances have been made by the Land Commission for the purchase of their holdings, are in arrear with their payments to the Commission, except in two cases where the sum due, representing interest on the advances, amounts to 1s. 10d. The Question probably refers to the non-payment of the rent due to the Congested Districts Board. Out of the 4,191 tenants on the estate, the number who have not vet paid the rents and arrears due on 1st November, 1901, is ninety-seven. Proceedings are being taken in all these cases.

  All Hallows Church, City—Union of Benefices Act.
  MR. H. C. RICHARDS: To ask the hon. Member for West Salford, as representing the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, whether the vacancy of All Hallows, Lombard Street, has been brought to his knowledge; and if the Commissioners will take steps to secure
  6
  the appointment of the necessary Commission, under the Union of Benefices Act, to amalgamate one or more of the three parishes in Lombard Street within the City of London.
  (Answered by Mr. Lees Knowles.) The initial proceedings under the Union of Benefices Act have to be taken by the Bishop of London. When the proposal, with the necessary assents, reaches the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, they will, I feel sure, do all in their power to facilitate an amalgamation.

(2.15.) QUESTIONS IN THE HOUSE.

  South Africa—Loans to Boers.
  Mr. WEIR: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether loans granted to the Boers in the Harrismith district of South Africa are partly in money and partly in kind; if so, will he state what value is placed respectively on oxen and mules thus supplied; are the animals submitted to examination by a veterinary surgeon prior to the transaction being completed, and is a warranty given that they are sound.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. J. CHAMBERLAIN, Birmingham, W.): I have asked the Governor, by telegraph, for the information desired by the hon. Member, but have not yet received his reply.

  Armour for New Cruisers.
  SIR CHARLES DILKE (Gloucestershire, Forest of Dean): I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty when the orders for armour were placed and the manufacture commenced of the armour which was required for the armoured cruisers of the 1901 programme.
  THE SECRETARY TO THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. ARNOLD-FORSTER, Belfast, W.): The armour for the six new armoured cruisers of the 1901–02 programme was provisionally ordered on the 12th August last, and the orders were confirmed on the 3rd September. The manufacture of the armour was immediately commenced by the armour plate makers.

  India and the Government's Military Proposals.
  SIR CHARLES DILKE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether it is possible to circulate, before the discussion on the Indian Finance Accounts, either the whole or the earlier portion of the papers containing the observations of the Viceroy and the members of his Council on the military proposals of His Majesty's Government communicated to them and to the House of Commons in February last.
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Earl PERCY, Kensington, S.): I am afraid that the despatch I have bean awaiting from India has not yet arrived, and until I get it, it would not be possible to publish the other Papers.

  British Influence in the Yangtsze Valley.
  Mr. LAMBERT (Devonshire, South Molton): I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what is the degree of influence now claimed by His Majesty's Government over the Yangtsze Valley.
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Lord CRANBORNE, Rochester): The general position of His Majesty's Government with regard to the Yangtsze region has been often stated and has undergone no change. It seems scarcely possible or desirable to deal with the matter by means of Question and Answer. I propose, however, on an early date to lay Papers relating to the evacuation of Shanghai; the hon. Member will find in them information bearing upon the point which he has raised.

  Metropolitan Police Perjury.
  MR. HENRY J. WILSON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he can state what other reasons, besides the use of unnecessary violence, induced the authorities to dismiss a second constable from the Metropolitan Police Force in connection with the case of ex-Constable Rolls; and whether the second constable was implicated in corroborating the false charge brought against Wheelerbread by ex-Constable Rolls.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. AKERS DOUGLAS, Kent, St. Augustine's): The second constable, when questioned by his superior officers at the police station, corroborated Rolls in a statement which was afterwards proved to be false.

  North Sea Fisheries Investigation.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade, in view of the fact that, under the International Scheme for North Sea Fisheries Investigation, the annual sum of £4,800 will be required for the maintenance of the central organisation of Copenhagen, and that Great Britain, Germany, and Russia will each contribute £1,250, and other countries £262 10s., will he indicate the names of these other countries; and will he state whether all the Powers, signatories of the North Sea Convention, were invited to contribute.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. GERALD BALFOUR, Leeds, Central): It is proposed that £262 10s. towards the maintenance of the Central Fishery Organisation at Copenhagen shall be paid by Denmark, Holland, Sweden, Norway and Finland. The Powers who were parties to the Convention were Great Britain, Germany, Belgium, Denmark, France and the Netherlands. France and Belgium were not invited by Sweden to take part in the first Fishery Conference at Stockholm but have since been asked to participate in the investigations. I understand that France has declined the invitation, and Belgium has the matter under consideration.

  Canadian Exports of Pig Iron and Steel.
  MR. LOUGH: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he will state the rate of the bounty paid by Canada on the export of pig iron and steel, and the quantity of this bounty-fed iron and steel imported into this country during the last two years.
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I know of no bounties on the export of Canadian pig iron and steel. Bounties are given on the production of pig iron and of steel ingots and puddled iron bars made

  9
  from such pig iron. Up to April, 1902, the rates were $3 per ton of 2,000 lbs., except on pig iron produced from foreign ores which received $2. Between 1902 and 1907 the bounties are subject to continuous reduction, and the rates at present payable are 90 per cent. of those ,quoted above. The quantity of Canadian pig iron exported to this country in the years 1900–1901 was 1,603 tons. The corresponding total for 1901–1902 is provisionally stated as 100,519 tons. The Canadian accounts do not separately distinguish the exports either of steel ingots or puddled iron bars.
  MR. LOUGH: Have the Government any intention of imposing countervailing duties for the protection of our manufactures against this bounty-fed iron and steel?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: No, Sir.

  Workhouse Nursing Staffs.
  MR. JOHN WILSON: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether the Committee appointed to inquire into the differences alleged to exist between masters and matrons of English workhouses on the one hand, and the nursing staffs on the other, is still pursuing its investigations; has the inquiry concluded; and, if so, what is the result; if not concluded, can he say when it is likely to be brought to a close.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. WALTER LONG, Bristol, S.): The Committee appointed by me with reference to the nursing of the sick poor in workhouses have concluded their inquiry, and I understand I shall receive their Report very shortly.

  School Building Grants.
  MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Board of Education whether any regulations, in addition to those contained in the Revised Code of 1870 and other Codes, have been made by the Education Department with respect to the use of schools which have been aided by building grants.
  THE SECRETARY OF THE BOARD OF EDUCATION (Sir WILLIAM ANSON, Oxford University): By Regulations of the Board of Education such schools can only be transferred to School Boards under Section 23 of the Elementary Education Act, 1870, and the Board of Education refuse to pay annual grants to a School Board on account of such a school till this condition has been satisfied. Under the same Regulations a School Board may not pay any consideration (whether price or rent) for a school so transferred, except a strictly nominal one. The Regulations in the Code of 1870, to which the hon. Member refers, relate to the conditions on which building grants were made and not to the use of schools aided by such grants.
  MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: But are applicants for building grants required to give any undertaking to maintain the efficiency of the schools, and what provision is there for dealing with cases of failure to do so?
  SIR WILLIAM ANSON:: The Regulations contain certain requirements as to the maintenance of efficiency. I have not them before me just now, but if the hon. Member will give notice I will obtain the information.

  Highland Deer Forests—Glastullich Farm.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether the Secretary for Scotland is aware that the greater part of the grazing farm of Glastullich, at Lochbroom, Ross-shire, is about to be added to the deer forest of Rhidorroch; and, in view of the extension of deer forests in the Highlands, will the Government consider the advisability of introducing legislation to prevent land suitable for occupation by the people being converted into deer forest.
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. A. GRAHAM MURRAY, Buteshire): The farm of Glastullich has lately been broken up and a large portion granted by the proprietor as an extension of holdings to five neighbouring crofter townships. The Secretary for Scotland has no reason to suppose that addition of the remainder

  11
  to the deer forest of Rhidorrioch will prejudicially affect the economic condition of the district, and does not contemplate legislation in the direction suggested.

  Scottish Congested Districts Return.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether the Secretary for Scotland will grant the Return on the Paper relative to congested districts (Scotland). †
  MR. A. GRAHAM MURRAY: The Secretary for Scotland would not be prepared to grant the Return in the form suggested by the hon. Member, which would offer difficulties in preparation, owing to many of the congested districts not being conterminous with parishes and for other reasons. If the hon. Member will inform me of his object in asking for the Return, I will consider whether it is possible substantially to meet his wishes.
  MR. WEIR: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a precisely similar Return was granted to an Irish Member now in gaol?
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order!

  Illegal Trawling in Scottish Waters— Additional Cruisers.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate, whether the Secretary for Scotland is now prepared to add to the number of cruisers at the disposal of the Scottish Fishery Board for the protection of the interests of the line fishermen against the operations of illegal trawlers.
  † The Return was as follows:—Congested Districts (Scotland),—Return giving the population (1891 and 1901) and valuation, according to parishes, of the various districts scheduled as congested in Scotland, the Poor Rate assessment for each parish, and the number of tenants with rentals under £4, in the following form:—

  County.

  Parish.

  Population, 1891.

  Population, 1901.

  Valuation.

  Poor Rate in £.

  Number of tenants with rentals under £4.

  MR. A. GRAHAM MURRAY: The funds at the disposal of the Fishery Board do not at present admit of any addition to their fleet of cruisers.
  MR. WEIR: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Conservative candidate for Orkney and Shetland bitterly complains of the inadequate number of cruisers round the coast?
  No answer was returned.

  Colonel Finch's Coonagh Property.
  MR. TULLY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland what steps have been taken to sell to the tenants, under the fortieth section of the Land Act of 1896, the property owned by Colonel Finch at Coonagh, near Limerick City; and in what state do the negotiations now stand.
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. WYNDHAM, Dover): The Order of the Land Judge declaring the tenants of this property to be the purchasers of their holdings, was lodged with the Land Commission on Wednesday last. The sales will be closed in a few days.

  Maintenance of the Deaf and Dumb in Ireland.
  MR. TULLY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether it is the intention of the Government to give effect to the Report of the Royal Commission of 1888, to have the maintenance and education of the deaf and dumb and blind in Ireland made an Imperial charge, and not a tax on the Irish ratepayers.
  MR. WYNDHAM: I must refer to my reply to the similar Question addressed to me on the 10th July last by the hon. Member for the College Green Division of Dublin.†
  MR. TULLY: But this is an original Question, and I do not claim any copyright in my Questions.

  Dublin Custom House Steps—Begging by Nuns.
  MR. SLOAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that on pay days in Custom House, Dublin, nuns are allowed to go from desk to desk begging alms; and whether he intends putting a stop to the practice.
  MR. WYNDHAM: I am informed that the alleged practice does not exist in any of the Departments located in the Custom House. It appears, however, that in the Department of the Collector of Customs the nuns of the Order of the Little Sisters of the Poor have visited the Office from time to time to receive alms voluntarily contributed to their charity, but that they have never solicited alms, nor have they acted in the manner suggested in the Question. I understand that an official formerly employed in this Department is at present under the care of these nuns.
  MR. SLOAN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the employees complain of this practice?
  MR. TULLY: When does the right hon. Gentleman propose to re-enact the penal laws in Ireland against priests and nuns?
  MR. WYNDHAM: I am not aware of what the hon. Member for South Belfast alleges. I understand that there is no solicitation for alms.
  MR. SLOAN: Then is the question to be left in its present position?
  MR. WYNDHAM: As at present advised, I do not propose to intervene.

  Monaghan Police.
  MR. SLOAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of
  † See (4) Debates cx., 1378.
  14
  Ireland if he will state the number of constables of the Royal Irish Constabulary doing town duty in Monaghan, and to what particular denomination do they separately belong.
  MR. WYNDHAM: Eleven constables, of whom ten are Roman Catholics and one is a Protestant.
  MR. TULLY: Is it proposed to split up the barracks into religious compartments?

  Irish Police and Freemasonry.
  MR. SLOAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that District Inspector Tyson, of the Royal Irish Constabulary Depot, recently delivered a speech to the men under his charge denouncing freemasonry; and whether such speeches from a public officer will be allowed in future.
  MR. WYNDHAM: Mr. Tyson has been a freemason for thirty years. He made no such speech.

  Irish Affairs—Nationalist Demand for a General Discussion.
  MR. TULLY: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he can now state if he is prepared to give a day for the discussion of Irish affairs, in view of the new circumstances which have arisen affecting that country.
  THE PRIME MINISTER AND FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR, Manchester, E.): No, Sir, I have nothing to add to the answer which I have given on several occasions to similar Questions.
  MR. TULLY: I wish to bring back those poor "Exiles of Erin" to the Nationalist Benches. Last night there were more than enough outside on the shelf to defeat the Government, and I want to bring them back.

  London Water Bill.
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: I wish to ask the Prime Minister whether it is worth while to continue printing every day the Amendments to the London Water

  15
  Bill, seeing that that measure is not to be taken until the Education Bill has passed through Committee.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Very well, I will not put it down for the present.
  MR. LOUGH: Will the right hon. Gentleman relieve our anxiety on the subject as soon as he can? It is a very troublesome question.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I am afraid I cannot make it less troublesome.

  EDUCATION (ENGLAND AND WALES) BILL.
  Considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee).
  [Mr. J. W. LOWTHER (Cumberland, Penrith) in the Chair.]
  Clause 10:—
  DR. MACNAMARAmoved an Amendment providing that the Board of Education should "without unnecessary delay" determine in case of dispute whether a school was necessary or not. He said he had taken the words which he proposed to insert from the Scottish Education Act, but he might remind the Committee that in the English Act of 1870 the phrase used was "with due despatch."
  SIR CHARLES DILKEsaid that on the preceding night an Amendment to which some hon. Members attached great importance—it was one in the name of the hon. Member for Liverpool, and dealt with the question of time—was excluded from discussion by the application of the closure. He thought it very essential that the House should have an opportunity of discussing and dividing upon the question.
  DR. MACNAMARAsaid he had adopted the Scotch form, not because it was preferable, but because it seemed that anything in connection with the Scottish Act found greater favour in certain quarters.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In line 9, after the word 'shall' to insert the words 'without unnecessary delay.'"—(Dr. Macnamara.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  MR. HENRY HOBHOUSE (Somersetshire, E.)said that surely the Committee were not going to insert words in an Act of Parliament which would suggest that a Government Department could be guilty of unnecessary delay.
  Several HON. MEMBERS: Government Departments are.
  MR. HENRY HOBHOUSEsaid he would have thought the word "forthwith" would have been sufficient.
  Question put and agreed to.
  MR. M'KENNAproposed to cancel all the words of the Clause after the statement that the Board of Education should, without unnecessary delay, determine in case of dispute whether a school was necessary or not. He said the Clause provided that the Board of Education should decide under such conditions that it was inconceivable that their decision should be other than favourable to the existing managers of schools or other persons, as against the I local education authority. It was difficult in dealing with the Bill not to believe that the want of good faith so frequently disclosed was intentional; of course he was ready to recognise that the conditions imposed on the Board of Education were not really understood at the time they were inserted in the Clause, but as he had said, it was difficult to believe it, because when they came to consider the conditions one by one, they found that the hands of the Board were absolutely tied in coming to a conclusion between the local education authority and the managers. The first condition was that the Board of Education should have regard to the interest of secular instruction. That looked fair, but as a matter of fact, although the local education authority might urge that the interests of secular instruction would be damaged by a new non-provided school, the denominational

  17
  managers would be able to contend that secular instruction would not be damaged by their school, as the local education authority had absolute control of secular instruction, and it was, therefore, immaterial from the point of view of secular instruction whether the new school was a voluntary or provided school. This first condition was, therefore, the merest pretence, and no one could conceive that the Board would, in such a case as he had suggested, give its decision in favour of the local education authority. The second point was that regard was to be paid to the wishes of the parents, who were the parties who were to go before the Board of Education. On the one side, they would have ten parents from the district served by the school put forward, probably by some society who paid their expenses, but who would speak at any rate as parents living in the district; while, on the other side, there would be the local education authority, with its head offices possibly forty miles away from the locality, and very likely the representative of the district on the authority unable to attend. Would not the judgment of the Board of Education oil this point go in favour of the ten parents or the managers as against a local education authority whose contact with parish concerns, it could be argued, was less close, and who could not put forward any better argument than the general public convenience? The third and last condition alone was obviously sufficient to put the local education authority out of Court. It was that the Board was also to have regard to the economy of the rates. Once again, who were the parties to go before the Board of Education? On the one side, there was the local education authority which was to levy the rates for the building and maintenance of the school; on the other hand, the managers of the existing school, or ten parents who would come forward with the guarantee that they would find the building. It was clear that in that case there must be economy of rates, and the decision would go against the local authority. That was not all. The author of the Bill—and he could not believe that the First Lord of the Treasury had realised the fact—had put in a final sub-Section which still further limited the discretion of the Board of Education. It was to the effect that wherever a number of persons had built a school and got thirty children to attend
  18
  it, the Board was bound to recognise the institution as a public elementary school, and the local education authority could not appeal against that, provided the school was actually in existence. The right of appeal was only given when the school building was not ready. The humour of the Clause did not end there. It would be observed that the subsequent Clause did not provide any penalty if the local education authority did not act in conformity with the orders of the Board of Education, and the managers or other persons were placed in this position: If they could build their school and get thirty children to attend it for the three months that were to elapse before any appeal was to be made to the Board of Education, the local education authority was at once put out of court. An Amendment had accordingly been put down giving the Board compulsory power in the matter as against the local education authority, but not, he complained, as against the managers of an existing school or other persons. In practice the proposals of the Government would be used in certain districts to prevent the local education authority from doing its duty by making provision for elementary education in its area, while on those who objected, the managers of existing schools or other persons, there would be no enforcable duty of making good the deficiency.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 4, line 10, to leave out the words from the word 'not' to the end of the Clause."—(Mr. M'Kenna.)
  Question proposed, "That the words from the word 'not,' to the first word 'to,' in line 12, stand part of the Clause."
  MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid the hon. Gentleman suffered from the malady which he observed had attacked a great many of the critics of the Bill, who thought it was some marvellously subtle contrivance devised by wicked and unscrupulous persons, who, under the cover of very plain and apparently innocent provisions, were really bringing into operation a marvellous engine for the destruction of all that hon. Gentlemen opposite held dear. The disease appeared to have attacked a large number of hon. Gentlemen opposite, and was a very vigorous and apparently infectious malady, but he really could not see that it ought

  19
  to find an exciting cause in the words to which the hon. Gentleman objected. The hon. Gentleman thought these three provisions in Clause 10 at once so plausible and so wicked that only a surgical operation which would leave nothing hut the first two lines of the Clause would satisfy him. They had laid down that the Board of Education, in determining a controversy as to whether a school was or was not necessary, should have regard to three conditions—the interest of secular instruction, the wishes of the parents as to the education of their children, and the economy of the rates. What other conditions could they possibly have put in? He was perfectly unable to understand the hon. Gentleman's point with regard to secular instruction. They heard yesterday speeches from many Hon. Gentlemen opposite complaining that the provisions of the Bill would tend to the multiplication of small schools, and that this would be injurious to the interests of secular education. Now they had put into Clause 10 a provision that the Board of Education should have regard to the interests of secular education, and they were at once denounced as unscrupulous Machiavelian legislators. It appeared to him that they had attempted to meet, and had met, the very objection of which they heard so much yesterday, and the hon. Gentleman, in common consistency, ought now to support the Government. Why were they to imagine that the Board of Education were incapable of discovering what the general views might be in the district where a new school was to be erected? Why were they to assume that the inspectors sent down by the Board of Education would be incapable of discovering the general views of the district and of corning to a rational conclusion on this not very recondite matter Then as to the provision that the Board of Education should have regard to the economy of the rates, he should have thought that was a condition that would have appealed to every hon. Gentleman on the other side. It was true it might be argued, with great and genuine force, that if the rates concerned were the rates of the whole area for which the local authority provided, that authority itself would be the best judge, until, at all events, a loan was asked for, and while the expenditure was merely out of the
  20
  annual rates. But they were here concerned with a rate which fell, not on the education authority as a whole, and not on the whole area which the authority controlled, but probably with one that concerned only a relatively small portion of that area. It was quite fair, therefore, that the burden to be thrown on the ratepayers should be one of the considerations, though not the most important or vital, which ought not to be lost sight of by the Board of Education. It seemed to him that these conditions were not only desirable, but necessary. Their number certainly ought not to be diminished, for they covered the whole ground. The hon. Gentleman argued that, while a general power was given to the Education Department to compel the local authorities to do their duty under this. Act and the Act of 1870, there was no corresponding power to compel the managers of voluntary schools to do their duty. He quite agreed that it would be an abuse if persons, while saying they were ready to build a school, and that what was wanted in the district was a school suited in the main to those of their own denomination, should defer from month to month, or from year to year, under cover of that perhaps perfectly just contention, the carrying out of an obligation which the interests of the district required should be carried out without any undue delay. He thought, however, that a provision in regard to this matter need not be inserted in an Act, as power already existed in the Department. He therefore submitted that the Clause as it stood was not open to the strictures of the hon. Gentleman.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsuggested that only the first two lines of the Clause, providing "that the Board of Education shall determine in case of dispute whether a school is necessary or not," were necessary; all the rest was verbiage. But it seemed to have been determined that the new education authority should have practically no voice in connection with any new schools. The County Councils, which were to conduct the education of the country, were being put into a position so contemptible and humiliating

  21
  that he could not conceive any self-respecting body accepting the task upon such terms, and they could not be surprised if many of these bodies could not undertake the responsibility. Let the Committee look at the conditions in Clause 10. They had declared that the local education authority were to be supreme in respect of secular education. Supposing the local education authority said a new provided school was necessary for secular education, how were they to maintain secular education if that question was sent to the Board of Education to be determined against them? The same might be said of every one of these conditions. They would see that the local education authority were a miserable, subordinate body, who had to have the whole of their actions in secular education, in rates, and in everything else at the disposal of the Board of Education. His hon. and learned friend had taken some trouble to prove that these conditions would compel the Board of Education to determine against a provided school and in favour of a denominational school. He need not have been at that trouble. Those who had listened to the discussions and had seen the animus with which this Bill had been prepared might take it for granted that this matter would go to an arbitration in which the arbitrator had already decided. He confessed that the reference of this Section to the authors of the Bill, and those who would have to administer it, showed the way the decision was likely to go. The first thing was free secular education, and if there was any colour or pretence that the control of secular education was going to be given to the local education authority, the first condition must and ought to be that the decision as to new schools for secular education should be left to the local authority alone. It should not be over-ruled by any one who could say, "Our opinion is that denominational schools are better than provided schools for providing secular education." Consider the next condition, having regard to the wishes of the parents. One of the great merits of this Bill was that it was to be administered by the local authority. Who was the best judge of the wishes of the parents in a particular locality, the Board at Whitehall or the
  22
  local authority? Who possessed the best means of judging? Why was the Board of Education at Whitehall to be a netter judge of the wishes of the parents in a particular locality than the local education authority or the County Council? The County Council was put into a most contemptible position. They might be challenged on every point. They were not to be the people who were to judge whether a school was necessary or not in their own district. What would be the value of an educational authority which was not capable of forming an opinion as to whether a school was necessary or not? Then, with regard to the question of rates. Was the Secretary to the Board of Education a better judge of the question of rates than the local County Council or local education authority? It would surprise some local County Council and Borough Councils to hear that. If the hon. Gentleman had to listen to two people, one of whom proposed to build a school without any charge to the rates and the other to build a school with a charge to the rates, he would of course always decide in favour of the school which was not to be a charge on the rates. If the hon. Gentleman had to go into the question of rates he could come to no other conclusion. The First Lord of the Treasury felt that somehow or other County Councils and Borough Councils had something to do with the rates. Whether that was a recent discovery on the part of the First Lord of the Treasury he did not know. The right hon. Gentleman had tried to get out of the stringency of that difficulty by saying that the charge on the rates for building the school would be a local charge; but that the charge for the maintenance of each of these schools would be a general charge; therefore his answer to that objection had utterly and entirely failed. Then, the last condition:
  "A school actually in existence shall not be considered unnecessary in which the number of scholars in average attendance as computed by the Board of Education is not less than thirty."
  The Attorney General had interpreted that as meaning schools actually in existence at the time of the passing of the Act. But that was to include a school formed in the future. Anybody

  23
  could get hold of a barn, which was what these schools were in old days, and get together thirty scholars.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir ROBERT FINLAY, Inverness Burghs)said, first of all, sanction would have to be obtained under Clause 9, and after that, if the school was established, the attendance dwindled down to below thirty, it would be unnecessary.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: Would it be a school actually in existence?
  SIR ROBERT FINLAYsaid, as he understood, the right hon. Gentleman was alluding to schools established after the passing of the Act. They could only be established under the sanction provided by Clause, 9, and subject to inquiry, if demanded, by the Board of Education. If it passed that test, a school so set up would remain a necessary school so long as it contained thirty scholars.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid then "established" meant thirty scholars, and did not mean a school actually in existence. In future, when thirty scholars were got together there would be a power to compel County Councils and local education authorities to maintain the school. He did not know under the circumstances whether the powers placed in the County Councils under this Bill were such that they could conscientiously undertake to administer it. In the West Riding of Yorkshire the local authorities had had already stated that they did not consider, under the conditions of the Bill, that they could conduct the education of the county. The Attorney General looked forward, with the ardour of his profession, to the mandamus with which he would be charged under this Bill. But the question went further. Why not mandamus the other party? There was no answer at all to that. The only penalty put into the Act was to withdraw the grant, but that did not prevent the obligation to maintain the school. The proposal was that the rates should be withdrawn as well.
  SIR ROBERT FINLAYsaid if the conditions were not observed the right of maintenance ceased.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTasked how in the world were they going to mandamus one set of parties and not another? Were they not also persons who came under the law? Parliament ordered them to do a particular thing; if they did not do it the grant might be withdrawn. But if they were ordered to do a thing on these conditions, why were they not to be compelled to do it? It was not very important to labour the point, because he regarded the mandamus as a farce. If such powers were necessary the scheme of education would be at an end. He agreed with these Amendments. They were Amendments which determined the question of whether a school was necessary or not, and if the Government chose to say that a question of that kind should not be left with the education authority, then he ventured to say they would condemn the Bill, and that the education authority would be worthless for the purpose for which it was brought into being.
  SIR JOSEPH LEESEsupported the Amendment, because the words it proposed to omit were, in his opinion, absolutely unnecessary. Not only would some of the conditions not work, but they placed upon the Board of Education something in the nature of a direction which surely was not necessary in a body to be vested with judicial authority. The Board were to have regard to the interests of secular instruction. But the Clause concerned new schools, and it already been provided that the local authority should have all control of secular instruction. What, then, was the use of repeating a provision already passed by the Committee? Then the Board were to have regard to the wishes of the parents. Where were they to find the parents of the children who might possibly attend a school not yet built? It was really ridiculous to make such a provision. As to having regard to the economy of the rates, who could tell better than the elected representatives of the ratepayers how money should be spent? And who, being elected by the ratepayers, would dare to waste the ratepayers' money? The best safeguard for the economy of the rates was the control of the ratepayers. The

  25
  conditions were therefore absolutely unnecessary, and the desire of the Government would be secured by the words—
  "The Board of Education should determine in case of dispute whether a school is necessary or not."
  DR. MACNAMARAdesired to enter a last, but, he feared, a futile, protest against this new-fangled scheme of providing school accommodation. He was a constitutionalist, and was unable to accommodate himself to the rapid and enormous changes the present. "Constitutional Government" were making in this matter. In the past, the one ground on which additional accommodation had been provided was the existence of a deficiency of school places, and that was the only safe basis on which to go. The entirely new scheme now proposed was bound in the long run to he disastrous. The Board were to have regard to the interest of secular instruction. He did nut understand that at all. Was it suggested that in a village there were to he provided several kinds of secular instruction? No one in his senses would imagine that a great variety of forms of secular instruction could he provided to meet special needs. He imagined that this new provision was simply their old friend "necessary or not" in another form. But if that was the case, why not say so? Then, the Board were to have regard to the wishes of the parents. That was all moonshine. If they had regard to the wishes of a persistent, but he was glad to say a small, minority of the parents in the matter of school accommodation, the authority would never provide any school at all. It was impossible to have regard to the wishes of the parents in that way. All that could be done was, after the necessary accommodation had been provided, to meet the needs of the parents, if practicable, with regard to religious instruction—perhaps under the Scottish system. The whole purport of the provision under discussion was to provide separate schools in response to the demand for different classes of religious instruction. Such a scheme was financially disastrous and educationally grotesque. Small schools could not be organised, the money of the ratepayers would be wasted, and the children would not get the education
  26
  which they could get if they attended a comparatively large school. The third point was as to the economy of the rates. He was not particularly anxious about the rates. He would like to put the rates and theology on one side, and get on with the question of education pure and simple. But he viewed with some cynicism this provision coming from the Board of Education in the Homeland of the great British Empire. The recent declaration of the Premier of West Australia that as long as they had a single penny in their coffers they would spend it on the education of their people was in sharp contrast with this overwhelming desire for the economy of the rates. What would be said of a Secretary of State for War who, on finding the Army furnished with obsolete guns, refused to remedy the defect on the ground that regard must be had to the economy of the taxes? That was a perfectly parallel position, as national education was as much a line of national defence as the Army. The policy of the Clause was extremely short-sighted. A clear incentive was given to the use of denominational buildings wherever they existed, in order to relieve the locality of the capital charges for the building of a new school. The religious bodies of the country, having such buildings, had only to get the necessary attendance and claim to be put on the rates, and there for all time would be a school with the fetters of denominationalism around the education of the children. The clear intention of this provision was to secure that being done, and he protested against it. Apart from the existing parochial buildings, which with slight alterations could be used for schools, there were about £800,000 a year in voluntary subscriptions. At a generous estimate the repairs mould cost £250,000, leaving over half a million of money at once applicable to the provision of buildings, which might be used for school purposes, and by instructing the Board to have regard to the economy of the rates, the Government were switching off education from the broad lines of nationalism to the narrow and devious ways of sectarianism. This new-fangled scheme of school accommodation being denominational rather than national,

  27
  would be fatal to national progress and national education. The question of rate-aid, and popular control would settle itself, but this Clause fettered denominationalism of the narrowest kind around the education of the country, and therefore he strongly opposed it.
  SIR JOHN GORSTsaid that the last time the Board of Education, of which he was a member, had to decide this question they decided it in the very way which the hon. Member for North Camberwell had described as impossible. In a village on the outskirts of Leeds there was a deficiency of school accommodation which the vicar wished to supply by building an additional voluntary school, and the School Board of Leeds by building a board school. The parish was a rich one, the rector was an extremely able educationalist, and, as far as the interests of education were concerned, there was nothing to choose between the two proposals. The sole ground on which the matter was decided was the wishes of the parents who would be served by the school. There was no difficulty in finding those parents, because they lived in the houses of the village in which the school was to be built. Inquiry was made and it was easily ascertained that the people wished to have a board school. That being the general opinion of the parents, the decision of the Board of Education was that the deficiency should be supplied by the School Board of Leeds, and not by the vicar.
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTONsaid his strong objection to this proposal of the Government was that it tied the hands of the Department and hampered them in giving proper consideration as to whether a school ought to be provided or not. He gathered from the Prime Minister's speech that these three instructions were the obvious ones and exhausted all the instructions that could be given to the Department, and other matters could not arise. Surely all who had had experience of education questions knew that these three matters did not exhaust the instructions, and there were other matters which ought to be taken into consideration which would
  28
  arise in the creation of a new school. The main question was whether the accommodation was required or not, and in taking that into account they should consider other things that might arise in connection with the matter. The right hon. Gentleman said the Opposition seemed to look upon these matters with grave suspicion, and for his own part he did look upon them with suspicion. None of the speeches from the other side had put forward any reason for leaving this matter to the discretion of the Department. The real reason for putting in this proviso was to give the Department an excuse for deciding in favour of denominational schools. The object of putting in these limitations seemed to be to hamper any future Government which might succeed the present Government in dealing with this question. He could not see any other grounds for this proposal and he strongly opposed it on the ground that in this matter the Education Department ought to have absolute and full discretion and should not be hampered in deciding what future accommodation ought to be provided.
  MR. CHANNINGsaid that the one point of interest in the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Cambridge University was that he openly admitted that in the case he quoted the Department absolutely excluded the consideration of the economy of the rates, and had argued that, in this case, the Department had secured effectually a just solution of the wants of the locality by deciding the matter without taking that question into consideration. The speech of the right hon. Gentleman was thus one of the very strongest arguments for leaving the Board of Education an absolutely free hand and not restricting them by this requirement. He had regarded this Bill from beginning to end with a profound conviction that it was intended to supply unlimited funds and unrestricted power to the clerical party to enable thorn to get and keep in their hands the educational machinery of the country. They were now reduced to the ridiculous position, that this omnipotent authority, which was to re-organise the education of the country was to set

  29
  about its duty bound hand and foot; and not only were they to have an equal balance given to the denominational competitors in regard to the right to make provision of schools, but when they came to arbitrate as to whether this authority was really to be entitled to provide schools for the community—the local education authority, which any one with aspirations for a national system would wish to see given the fullest right to provide, or their private sectarian competitors — then they had the Board of Education launched upon them with its hands and feet tied and fettered and limited by the restrictions the very absence of which they now knew had enabled the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Cambridge University to perform not long ago an act of justice. These two Clauses completely fettered and paralysed the education authority. Then, again, he wish to put this question. Part of Section 18 of the Act of 1870 was embodied in this Bill, and the words included were—
  "That a School Board shall from time to time provide such additional school accommodation as is in their opinion necessary in order to supply a sufficient amount of public school accommodation for the district."
  Yesterday, the Chairman in ruling certain Amendments out of order drew attention to the last paragraph of the Third Schedule which provided:—
  "The duty of a local education authority under the Education Acts, 1870 to 1902, to provide a sufficient amount of public school accommodation, shall include the duty to provide a sufficient amount of public school accommodation, without payment of fees, in every part of their area."
  He wished to ask whether the limitations of these Clauses which restricted the powers of the local authority and of the Board of Education were consistent or inconsistent with the provisions he had just quoted to the Committee? It seemed to him that those provisions gave unrestricted power for the provision of future accommodation to the local education authority, and constituted a duty on their part to provide from time to time such accommodation, and especially of free places, as in their opinion was sufficient and necessary. These restrictions which were placed upon the local education authority, and upon the freedom of the
  30
  Board of Education in acting as arbiter, were an entire contradiction to the wording of the Bill. His hon. friend naturally took exception to the words at the end of the Clause, because there had been no explicit statement as to what sort of schools were contemplated. In a previous debate the Attorney General had said that a school must necessarily mean a public elementary school, but there was nothing in this Clause to justify that contention. It simply said, "a school actually in existence." It was perfectly essential that that point should be clearly defined before they could admit the justice of the right hon. Gentleman's contention. The Attorney General said that these schools must run the gauntlet of Clause 9.
  SIR ROBERT FINLAY: Yes, the new schools.
  MR. CHANNING: Where was the difficulty in a rich company raising funds, and either using old buildings or building new schools, without giving any notice or applying to the local authority or the Board of Education and carrying those schools on for six months under the conditions laid down in the Act of 1870, for public elementary schools with a Conscience Clause time table and expressed willingness to receive an inspector, etc.? Where was there anything in the Act to prevent schools of that kind being run for a few months by private individuals or a company and then claiming to come in on the rates and compete with the schools of the local education authority? Such schools could come to the Education Department and say "We have an average attendance of more than thirty and we claim to be quartered permanently upon the rates and the grant list."
  SIR ROBERT FINLAY: Under Clause 9, the Board of Education would have a controlling power as to whether such schools should be public elementary schools or not.
  MR. CHANNINGcontended that there was no difficulty in starting a school, for they could do this by inviting people to send thirty children. His point was that if any body of men were to do that, that school, according to the wording of this

  31
  Clause, would be entitled to say, "We are a public elementary school." Therefore they had to face this evil in its most naked and outrageous form. Practically by this Clause the sectarian demand to start schools was placed on an absolute level in the first place with the local authority, and after they had restricted the rights of the local authority, the Board of Education were prevented from judging with a free hand between the two parties. Finally the bogus and mushroom schools started all over the country might set up claims for permanent support from the rates. It was a disgrace to education, and a disgrace to fair play as between one side and another in this matter.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE (Carnarvon Boroughs)understood that the Government, in its allusion in this Clause to a "necessary school" only intended it to refer to a public elementary school, but according to the wording, it might equally refer to an unauthorised school. He was sure the Government did not wish the Clause to be ambiguous.
  SIR ROBERT FINLAYsaid there could be no harm in inserting "public elementary" before the word "school" but it was not necessary, because the only schools in regard to which that Clause had any force were public elementary schools.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGEurged that the same thing occurred yesterday on a Clause. There was a misleading expression in that Clause, and he thought the Government would alter it, but when it came to the point they had no opportunity of amending it. The Committee should have a promise from the Government that they would introduce the words "public elementary."
  SIR ROBERT FINLAYthought the words were already quite unnecessary, and if they were introduced in one place in this Clause and not in another earlier in the Clause it might leave in doubt as to what the meaning of "school" in the first instance was. The Clause began by saying that the Board of Education should determine whether a school was necessary or not. There the word was "school" and the question could only arise in the case of public elementary schools.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid the word "school," at the beginning was not used in the same sense as at the end. At the beginning it was not a public elementary school that was referred to, and the Board of Education was deciding there whether a school should become a public elementary school.
  SIR ROBERT FINLAY: I do not agree with that.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid the Board of Education was to determine whether a school had become a public elementary school or not.
  SIR ROBERT FINLAYsaid that under Clause 8 the local education authority could say that a particular public elementary school was not necessary, and ensure that the word in Clause 10 related to the provision of new schools.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid the Attorney General had been good enough to refer to Clause 8. The first words of that Clause referred to a "public elementary school" and he thought it would be better that these words should be introduced here also. There was no kind of sliding scale in the considerations that were to determine the Board of Education in the decision of an appeal. Wishes of the parents, secular instruction, and economy of the rates—they were all placed on an equal footing. As to the last consideration, respecting the rates, there was no option. The decision must be in favour of the denominational school. As to the wishes of the parents, how were they going to be ascertained? Was there going to be a public inquiry, or was the clergyman to get up a petition and hand it in? The inspector who went down to inquire, as a rule, had preconceived notions with regard to these things. There were two different opinions with regard to education. One was, that the most important thing was secular instruction. The second was that of the gentleman who got up the petition; and they would say they did not want to give their children this dangerous weapon of reading and writing, as Canon Lyttleton had described it; what they wanted was to give them religious doctrine which taught them to

  33
  be "humble and lowly to all their betters," and explained to them that their betters were the canons and prebendaries and curates of the Church. That was their opinion of education. A large number of these inspectors were clergymen themselves, and they were the very gentlemen who for years and years had tolerated insanitary dwellings, purely and simply in the interests of sectarian education. ["Oh, oh."] Was it not the case that those inspectors had the superintendence of the health and education of the children, and that they had done that in the interest of the denominational schools? [Cries of "Oh," and "Divide."] Hon. Members opposite were exceedingly impatient. When they were getting their Bill through at motor-car speed, surely they might tolerate a few regulations on the speed. Did they mean to say that the toleration of insanitary schools was not detrimental to education
  and to the health of the children? Did the law of the land tolerate them now? If it did not, why was it then that those inspectors did not report the insanitary condition of the schools to the Board of Education? It was because they were what was called imbued with a friendly sympathy with the voluntary schools. Those inspectors, imbued with a friendly sympathy with the voluntary schools, would go down to make this inquiry. They would not visit the parents; they would see the managers and the clergyman, and their report would be that in the interest of education, the wishes of the parents, and the rights of the existing denominational schools, a rival school should not be set up.
  (4.3.) Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 203; Noes. 109. (Division List No. 468.)

  AYES.

  Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

  Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

  Greville, Hon. Roland

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Colomb, Sir.John Charles Ready

  Groves, James Grimble

  Archdale, Edward Mervyn

  Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole

  Hain, Edward

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Cox, Irwin Edward Bainbridge

  Hall, Edward Marshall

  Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.

  Cranborne, Viscount

  Halsey, Rt. Hon. Thomas F.

  Arrol, Sir William

  Cross, Alexander (Glasgow)

  Hanbury, Rt. Hon. Robert Wm.

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Cross, Herb. Shepherd (Bolton)

  Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashf'rd

  Bailey, James (Walworth)

  Crossley. Sir Servile

  Hare, Thomas Leigh

  Bain, Colonel James Robert

  Cubitt, Hon. Henry

  Harris, Frederick Leverton

  Baird, John George Alexander

  Dalrymple, Sir Charles

  Haslam, Sir Alfred S.

  Balcarres, Lord

  Denny, Colonel

  Heaton, John Henniker

  Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J. (Manch'r)

  Digby, John K. D. Wingfield-

  Helder, Augustus

  Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey)

  Dixon-Hartland SirFr'dDixon

  Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T.

  Balfour, Rt HnGeraldW (Leeds

  Douglas, Rt. Hon A. Akers-

  Hobhouse, Henry (Somerset,E.

  Bartley, George C. T.

  Dyke, Rt. Hon. Sir William Hart

  Hogg, Lindsay

  Beckett, Ernest William

  Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas

  Hope, J F. (Sheffield, Brightside

  Bignold, Arthur

  Faber, George Denison (York)

  Howard, John (Kent, Fav'rsh'm

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Fardell, Sir P. George

  Howard, J. (Midd., Tottenham)

  Bond, Edward

  Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward

  Hozier, Hon. James HenryCecil

  Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-

  Fergusson, Rt. Hn Sir J. (Mane'r

  Hudson, George Bickersteth

  Boulnois, Edmund

  Finch, George H.

  Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse

  Brassey, Albert

  Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

  Johnstone, Heywood

  Brodrick, Rt. Hon. Sir John

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Kemp, George

  Brookfiled, Colonel Montagu

  Fison, Frederick William

  Kenyon, Hon. Geo. T (Denbigh)

  Brown, Alexander H (Shropsh.

  FitzGerald, Sir Robert Penrose-

  Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W.(Salop

  Brymer, William Ernest

  Fitzroy ,Hon. EdwardAlgernon

  Kimber, Henry

  Bull, William James

  Flannery, Sir Forteseue

  Knowles, Lees

  Campbell, Rt Hn J. A.(Glasgow

  Fletcher, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

  Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.

  Carew, James Laurence

  Flower, Ernest

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

  Forster, Henry William

  Lecky, Rt. Hn. William Edw. H.

  Carvill, Patrick Geo. Hamilton

  Foster, Philips (Warwick, S.W.

  Lee, ArthurH (Hants., Fareham

  Cavendish, V. C. W (Derbyshire

  Galloway, William Johnson

  Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

  Cayzer, Sir Charles William

  Garfit, William

  Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Gibbs, Hon. Vicary (St. Albans)

  Long, Col. Charles W.(Evesham

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

  Gordon MajEvans-(T'rH'melts

  Long, Rt. Hn. Walter(Bristol,S)

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. (Birm.)

  Gore, Hn G. R. C. Ormsby-(Salop

  Loyd, Archie Kirkman

  Chaplin. Rt. Hon. Henry

  Gore, Hon. S. F. Ormsby-(Line.)

  Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft)

  Chapman, Edward

  Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon

  Macdona, John Cumming

  Clive, Captain Percy A.

  Gosehen, Hon. Geroge Joachim

  M'Iver, Sir Lewis (Edinburgh W

  Cochrane Hon. Thos. H.A.E.

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire)

  Coghill, Douglas Harry

  Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

  Malcolm, Ian

  Cohen, Benjamin Louis

  Greene, SirEW(B'ryS,Edm'nds

  Manners, Lord Cecil

  Maxwell, Rt Hn Sir HE.(Wigt'n

  Purvis, Robert

  Tollemache, Henry James

  Maxwell, WJH(Dumfriesshire

  Pym, C. Guy

  Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.

  Meysey-Thompson, Sir H. M.

  Randles, John S.

  Tritton, Charles Ernest

  Mildmay, Francis Bingham

  Rankin, Sir James

  Tufnell, Lieut.-Col. Edward

  More, Robt. Jasper (Shropshire)

  Rasch, Major Frederic Carne

  Valentia, Viscount

  Morgan, David J(Walthamstow

  Rattigan, Sir William Henry

  Vincent, Sir Edgar (Exeter)

  Morrell, George Herbert

  Ridley, Hn. M.W.(Stalybridge

  Walker, Col. William Hall

  Morrison, James Archibald

  Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson

  Walrond, Rt. Hon Sir William H

  Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer

  Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)

  Wanklyn, James Leslie

  Mount, William Arthur

  Rothschild, Hon. Lionel Walter

  Warde, Colonel C. E.

  Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.

  Round, Rt. Hon. James

  Welby, Lt-Col. A.C.E(Taunton

  Murray, Rt Hn A. Graham(Bute)

  Royds, Clement Molyneux

  Welby, Sir Charles G. E. (Notts.

  Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

  Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-

  Wharton, Rt. Hn. John Lloyd

  Myers, William Henry

  Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander

  Whiteley, H(Ashton-und.Lyne

  Nicholson, William Graham

  Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse)

  Williams, RtHn J Powell-(Birm

  Nicol, Donald Ninian

  Simeon, Sir Barrington

  Wilson, A. Stanley(York, E. R.)

  Nolan, Col.John P.(Galway, N.

  Skewes-Cox, Thomas

  Wilson-Todd, Wm. H. (Yorks.)

  Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay

  Smith, James Parker(Lanarks.

  Wodehouse,Rt. Hn. E.R.(Bath)

  Parker, Sir Gilbert

  Spencer, Sir E. (W. Bromwich)

  Worsley-Taylor, Henry Wilson

  Pemberton, John S. G.

  Stanley, Edward Jas.(Somerset)

  Wylie, Alexander

  Percy, Earl

  Stewart, Sir Mark J. M`Taggart

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  Pierpoint, Robert

  Strutt, Hon. Chas. Helley

  Wyndham-Quin, Major W. H.

  Platt-Higgins, Frederick

  Sturt, Hon. Humphry Napier

  Younger, William

  Plummer, Walter R.

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Talbot, Rt. Hn. J.G.(Oxf'dUniv

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Thorburn, Sir Walter

  Sir Alexander Acland-

  Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Hoodand Mr. Anstruther.

  NOES.

  Allan, Sir William (Gateshead)

  Harcourt,Rt. Hon. Sir William

  Philipps, John Wynford

  Allen, Charles P. (Glouc., Stroud

  Harwood, George

  Rea, Russell

  Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)

  Hayne, Rt. Hon. Charles Seale-

  Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

  Bell, Richard

  Hayter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur D.

  Robertson, Edmund (Dundee)

  Brigg, John

  Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H.

  Runciman, Walter

  Broadhurst, Henry

  Holland, Sir William Henry

  Schwann, Charles E.

  Brown, George M.(Edinburgh)

  Hope, John Deans (Fife, West

  Shackleton, David James

  Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson

  Horniman, Frederick John

  Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)

  Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

  Humphreys-Owen, Arthur C.

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Burt, Thomas

  Jacoby, James Alfred

  Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)

  Buxton, Sydney Charles

  Jones, David Brynmor(Sw'nsea

  Sloan, Thomas Henry

  Caine, William Sproston

  Kearley, Hudson E.

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  Caldwell, James

  Kinloch, Sir John, George Smyth

  Soares, Ernest, J.

  Cameron, Robert

  Lambert, George

  Spencer , RtHn C. R. (Northants

  Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

  Langley, Batty

  Stevenson, Francis S.

  Causton, Richard Knight

  Leese, Sir Joseph F.(Accrington

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  Channing, Francis Allston

  Leng, Sir John

  Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen,E.)

  Dalziel, James Henry

  Levy, Maurice

  Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan,E.)

  Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Thomas, David Alfred(Merthyr

  Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan

  Lloyd-George, David

  Thomas, F. Freeman-(Hastings

  Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

  Logan, John William

  Thomas ,JA (Glamorgan, Gow'r

  Dunn, Sir William

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Toulmin, George

  Edwards, Frank

  M'Kenna, Reginald

  Warner, Thomas Courtenay T

  Ellis, John Edward

  M`Laren, Sir Charles Benjamin

  Wason, Eugene

  Emmott, Alfred

  Mansfield, Horace Rendall

  Weir, James Galloway

  Evans, Sir Francis H(Maidstone

  Mappin, Sir Frederick Thorpe

  White, George (Norfolk)

  Farquharson, Dr. Robert

  Markham, Arthur Basil

  White, Luke (York, E. R.)

  Fenwick, Charles

  Mather, Sir William

  Whitley, George(York, W. R.)

  Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmund

  Mellor, Rt. Hon. John William

  Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

  Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)

  Middlemore, John (Thr'gmort'n

  Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

  Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

  Morgan, J. Lloyd(Carmarthen)

  Williams, Osmond (Merioneth

  Fuller, J. M. F.

  Morley, Charles (Breconshire)

  Wilson, Henry J. (York, W.R.

  Furness, Sir Christopher

  Newnes, Sir George

  Yoxall, James Henry

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  Norton, Capt. Cecil William

  Grant, Corrie

  Nussey, Thomas Willans

  Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir E. (Berwick)

  Palmer, Sir Chas. M.(Durham)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

  Griffith, Ellis J.

  Parthigton, Oswald

  Mr. Herbert Gladstone and

  Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

  Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)

  Mr. William M'Arthur.

  MR. A. J. BALFOURrose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question 'That the words of the Clause from the first word "to," in page 4, line
  36
  12, to the word "but," in line 14, both inclusive, stand part of the Clause,' be now put."
  Question put, "That the Question 'That the words of the Clause from the first word "to," to page 4, line 12, to the word "but," in line 14, both
  inclusive, stand part of the Clause,' be now put."
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 213; Noes. 108. (Division List No. 469.)

  AYES.

  Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

  Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

  Mildmay, Francis Bingham

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Fisher, William Hayes

  More, Robt. Jasper (Shropshire

  Archdale, Edward Mervyn

  Fison, Frederick William

  Morgan, David J(Walth'mstow

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  FitzGerald, Sir Robert Penrose-

  Morrell, George Herbert

  Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.

  Fitzroy, Hon Edward Algernon

  Morrison, James Archibald

  Arrol, Sir William

  Flannery, Sir Fortescue

  Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Fletcher, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

  Mount, William Arthur

  Bailey, James (Walworth)

  Flower, Ernest

  Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.

  Bain, Colonel James Robert

  Forster, Henry William

  Murray, Rt Hn A.Graham(Bute

  Baird, John George Alexander

  Foster, Philip S. (Warwick, S.W

  Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

  Balcarres, Lord

  Galloway, William Johnson

  Myers, William Henry

  Batfour, Rt. Hon. A.J.(Manchr

  Garfit, William

  Nicholson, William Graham

  Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey

  Gibbs, Hon. Vicary (St. Albans

  Nicol, Donold Ninian

  Balfour, Rt. Hn Gerald W(Leeds

  Gordon, Maj Evans-(T'rHmlets

  Nolan, Col. John P.(Galway,N.

  Bartley, George C. T.

  Gore, Hn G. R. C Ormsby-(Salop

  Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay

  Beckett, Ernest William

  Gore, Hon. S. F. Ormsby-(Line.)

  Parker, Sir Gilbert

  Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

  Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon

  Pemberton, John S. G.

  Bignold, Arthur

  Goschen, Hon. George Joachim

  Percy, Earl

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Pierpoint, Robert

  Bond, Edward

  Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

  Platt-Higgins, Frederick

  Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-

  Greene, Sir EW(B'ryS.Edm'nds

  Plummer, Walter R.

  Boulnois, Edmund

  Grevillle, Hon. Ronald

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Bowles, Capt. H. F. (Middlesex

  Groves, James Grimble

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Brassey, Albert

  Hall, Edward Marshall

  Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

  Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

  Halsey, Rt. Hon. Thomas F.

  Purvis, Robert

  Brookfield, Colonel Montagu

  Hambro, Charles Eric

  Pym, C. Guy

  Brown, Alexander H.(Shropsh.

  Hanbury, Rt. Hon. Robert Wm.

  Randles, John S.

  Brymer, William Ernest

  Hardy, Laurence(Kent,Ashf'rd

  Rankin, Sir James

  Bull, William James

  Hare, Thomas Leigh

  Rasch, Major Frederic Carne

  Campbell, Rt. Hn. J.A(Glasgow

  Harris, Frederick Leverton

  Rattigan, Sir William Henry

  Carew, James Laurence

  Haslam, Sir Afred S.

  Ridley, Hn. M.W.(Stalybriage

  Carson, Rt. Hn. Sir Edw. H.

  Heaton, John Henniker

  Ritchie,Rt. Hon. Chas.Thomson

  Carvill, Patrick Geo. Hamilton

  Helder, Augustus

  Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)

  Cavendish, V.C.W.(Derbyshire

  Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T.

  Robinson, Brooke

  Cayzer, Sir Charles William

  Hobhouse, Henry(Somerset,E.)

  Rothschild, Hon. Lionel Walter

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Hogg, Lindsay

  Round, Rt. Hon. James

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

  Hope, JF.(Sheffield, Brightside

  Royds, Clement Molyneux

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J.(Birm.

  Howard, John (Kent, Faversham

  Rutherford, John

  Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

  Howard, J. (Midd., Tottenham)

  Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-

  Chapman, Edward

  Hozier, Hn. James Henry Cecil

  Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander

  Clive, Captain Percy A.

  Hudson, George Bickersteth

  Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse

  Cocbrane, Hon. Thomas H.A.E.

  Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse

  Sharpe, William Edward T.

  Coghill, Douglas Harry

  Johnstone, Heywood

  Simeon, Sir Barrington

  Cohen, Benjamin Louis

  Kemp, George

  Sinclair, Louis (Romford)

  Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

  Kenyon,Hon. Geo. T.(Denbigh)

  Skewes-Cox, Thomas

  Colomb, Sir John Chas. Ready

  Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W. (Salop)

  Smith, James Parker(Lanarks.)

  Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole

  Kimber, Henry

  Spencer, Sir E. (W. Bromwich)

  Cox, Irwin Edward Bainbridge

  King, Sir Henry Seymour

  Stanley, Edward Jas.(Somerset

  Cranborne, Viscount

  Knowles, Lees

  Stewart, Sir Mark J. M'Taggart

  Cripps, Charles Alfred

  Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.

  Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley.

  Cross, Alexander (Glasgow)

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)

  Sturt, Hon. Humphry Napier

  Cross, Herb. Shepherd (Bolton)

  Lecky, Rt. Hn. William Edw. H.

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Crossley, Sir Saville

  Lee,ArthurH (Hants., Fareham

  Talbot, RtHn. J. G. (Oxf'd Univ

  Cubitt, Hon. Henry

  Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

  Thorburn, Sir Walter

  Dalrymple, Sir Charles

  Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Davenport, William Bromley-

  Long, Col. Charles W.(Evesham

  Tollemache, Henry James

  Denny, Colonel

  Long, Rt. Hn. Walter(Bristol,S

  Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.

  Digby, John K. D. Wingfield-

  Loyd, Archie Kirkman

  Tritton, Charles Ernest

  Dixon-Hartland, Sir Fr'dDixon

  Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft)

  Tufnell, Lieut.-Col. Edward

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Macdona John Cumming

  Valentia, Viscount

  Dyke, Rt. Hn. Sir William Hart

  M'Iver, Sir Lewis(EdinburghW

  Vincent, Col. Sir C E H. (Sheffield

  Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas

  M'Killop, James(Stirlingshire)

  Walker, Col. William Hall

  Faber, George Denison (York)

  Malcolm, Ian

  Walrond, Rt Hn. Sir William H.

  Fardell, Sir T. George

  Maxwell, Rt Hn Sir H. E(Wigt'n

  Wanklyn, James Leslie

  Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward

  Maxwell, W J H(Dumfriesshire

  Warde, Colonel C. E.

  Fergusson, Rt. Hn. Sir J(Manc'r

  Meysey-Thompson, Sir H. M.

  Welby, Lt-Col A.C.E.(Taunton

  Finch, George H.

  Middlemore, John Throgmort'n

  Welby, Sir Charles G.E.(Notts.)

  Wharton, Rt. Hon. John Lloyd

  Wodehouse, Rt. Hn. E.R. (Bath

  Younger, William

  Whiteley, H(Ashton-und. Lyne

  Worsley-Taylor, Henry Wilson

  Williams, Rt Hn Powell-(Birm

  Wylie, Alexander

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

  Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E.R.)

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  Sir Alexander Acland-

  Wilson-Todd, Wm. H. (York.)

  Wyndham-Quin, Major W. H.

  Hood, and Mr. Anstruther.

  NOES.

  Allan, Sir William(Gateshead)

  Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Sir William

  Pickard, Benjamin

  Allen, Charles P.(Gloue. Stroud

  Harwood, George

  Rea, Russell

  Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)

  Hayne, Rt Hon. Charles Seale-

  Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

  Bell, Richard

  Hayter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur D.

  Robertson, Edmund (Dundee)

  Brigg, John

  Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H.

  Runciman, Walter

  Broadhurst, Henry

  Holland, Sir William Henry

  Schwann, Charles E.

  Brown, George M. (Edinburgh

  Hope, John Deans (Fife, West

  Shackleton, David James

  Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson

  Horniman, Frederick John

  Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)

  Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

  Humphreys-Owen, Arthur C

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Burt, Thomas

  Jacoby, James Alfred

  Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)

  Buxton, Sydney Charles

  Jones, David Bryrnmor (Swans'a

  Sloan, Thomas Henry

  Caine, William Sproston

  Kearley, Hudson E.

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  Caldwell, James

  Kinloch, Sir John George Smyth

  Soares, Ernest J.

  Cameron, Robert

  Lambert, George

  Spencer, RtHn C. R. (Northants

  Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

  Langley, Batty

  Stevenson, Francis S.

  Causton, Richard Knight

  Leese, Sir Joseph F.(Accrington

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  Channing, Francis Allston

  Leng, Sir John

  Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen,E.

  Dalziel, James Henry

  Levy, Maurice

  Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.

  Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr

  Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan

  Logan, John William

  Thomas, F. Freeman-(Hastings

  Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Thomas, J A(Glamorgan, Gower

  Dunn, Sir William

  M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

  Toulmin, George

  Edwards, Frank

  M'Kenna, Reginald

  Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

  Ellis, John Edward

  M'Laren, Sir Chas. Benjamin

  Wasen, Eugene

  Emmott, Alfred

  Mansfield, Horace Rendall

  Weir, James Galloway

  Evans, Sir Francis H(Maidstone

  Mappin, Sir Frederick Thorpe

  White, George (Norfolk)

  Farquharson, Dr. Robert

  Markham, ,Arthur Basil

  White, Luke (York, E.R.)

  Fenwick, Charles

  Mather, Sir William

  Whiteley, George (York, W.R.

  Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmund

  Mellor, Rt. Hon. John William

  Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

  Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)

  Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

  Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

  Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

  Morley, Charles (Breconshire)

  Williams, Osmond (Merioneth

  Fuller, J. M. F.

  Newnes, Sir George

  Wilson, Henry J. (York, W.R.

  Furness, Sir Christopher

  Norton, Capt. Cecil William

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  Nussey, Thomas Willans

  Grant, Corrie

  Palmer, Sir Chas. M. (Durham)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

  Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir E. (Berwick)

  Partington, Oswald

  Mr. Herbert Gladstone and

  Griffith, Ellis J.

  Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)

  Mr. William M'Arthur.

  Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

  Philipps, John Wynford

  (4.28.) Question put accordingly.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 220; Noes, 107. (Division List No. 470.)

  AYES.

  Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

  Allhusen, Augustus H'nryEden

  Bond, Edward

  Chapman, Edward

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-

  Clive, Captain Percy A.

  Archdale, Edward Mervyn

  Boulnois, Edmund

  Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E.

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Bowles, Capt. H.F.(Middlesex

  Coghill, Douglas Harry

  Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.

  Brassey, Albert

  Cohen, Benjamin Louis

  Arrol, Sir William

  Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

  Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Brookfield, Colonel Montagu

  Colomb, Sir John Charles Ready

  Bailey, James (Walworth)

  Brown, Alexander H. (Shropsh.

  Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole

  Bain, Colonel James Robert

  Brymer, William Ernest

  Cox, Irwin Edward Bainbridge

  Baird, John George Alexander

  Bull, William James

  Cranborne, Viscount

  Balcarres, Lord

  Campbell, RtHn. J. A (Glasgow

  Cripps, Charles Alfred

  Balfour, Rt. Hon. A.J.(Manch'r

  Carew, James Laurence

  Cross, Alexander (Glasgow)

  Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey)

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

  Cross, Herb. Shepherd (Bolton)

  Balfour, Rt. Hn Gerald W(Leeds

  Carvil Patrick Geo. Hamilton

  Crossley, Sir Savile

  Banbury, Frederick George

  Cavendish, V.C.W(Derbyshire

  Cubitt, Hon. Henry

  Bartley, George C. T.

  Cayzer, Sir Charles William

  Dalrymple, Sir Charles

  Beckett, Ernest William

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Davenport, William Bromley-

  Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

  Denny, Colonel

  Bignold, Arthur

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J.(Birm.

  Digby, John K. D. Wingfield-

  Dixon-Hartland, Sir Fred Dix'n

  Johnstone, Heywood

  Rattigan, Sir William Henry

  Dorington, Rt. Hon. Sir John E.

  Kemp, George

  Ridley, Hn. M.W. (Stalybridge)

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Kenyon, Hon. Geo. T. (Denbigh)

  Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson

  Dyke, Rt. Hn. Sir William Hart

  Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W. (Salop.

  Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)

  Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas

  Kimber, Henry

  Robinson, Brooke

  Faber, George Denison (York)

  King, Sir Henry Seymour

  Rothschild, Hon. Lionel Walter

  Fardell, Sir T. George

  Knowles, Lees

  Round, Rt. Hon. James

  Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward

  Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.

  Royds, Clement Molyneux

  Fergusson, Rt. Hn. Sir J (Manc'r

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)

  Rutherford, John

  Finch, George H.

  Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool)

  Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-

  Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

  Lecky, Rt. Hn. William Edw. H.

  Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Lee, Arthur H.(Hants., Fareh'm

  Samul, Harry S. (Limehouse)

  Fison, Frederick William

  Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

  Sharpe, William Edward T.

  FitzGerald, Sir Robert Penrose-

  Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

  Simeon, Sir Barrington

  Fitzroy, Hon. Edward Algernon

  Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham

  Sinclair, Louis (Romford)

  Flannery, Sir Fortescue

  Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (Bristol,S.

  Skewes-Cox, Thomas

  Fletcher, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

  Lowe, Francis William

  Smith, James Parker (Lanarks)

  Flower, Ernest

  Loyd, Archie Kirkman

  Spencer, Sir E. (W. Bromwich)

  Forster, Henry William

  Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft)

  Stanley, Edward Jas. (Somerset)

  Foster, Philip S.(Warwick,S.W

  Macdona, John Cumming

  Stewart, Sir Mark J. M'Taggart

  Galloway, William Johnson

  M'Iver,SirLewis(EdinburghW

  Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

  Garfit, William

  M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire)

  Sturt, Hon. Humphry Napier

  Gibbs, Hon. Vicary (St. Albans)

  Malcolm, Ian

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Gordon, MajEvans-(T'rH'ml'ts

  Manners, Lord Cecil

  Talbot, Rt. Hn. J. G (Oxfd'Univ.

  Gore, HnG.R.C.Ormsby-(Salop

  Maxwell, RtHn Sir H.E(Wigt'n

  Thorburn, Sir Walter

  Gore, Hon. S. F. Ormsby-(Linc.)

  Maxwell, W. J H(Dumfriesshire

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon

  Meysey-Thompson, Sir H. M.

  Tollemache, Henry James

  Goschen, Hon. George Joachim

  Mildmay Francis Bingham

  Tomlinson, Sir Win. Edw. M.

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  More, Robt. Jasper (Shr pshire)

  Tritton, Charles Ernest

  Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

  Morgan, David J(Walthamst'w

  Tufnell, Lieut.-Col. Edward

  Greene, Sir EW(B'rySEdm'nds

  Morrell, George Herbert

  Valentia, Viscount

  Greville, Hon. Roland

  Morrison, James Archibald

  Vincent, Col Sir C E H (Sheffield

  Groves, James Grimble

  Morton; Arthur H. Aylmer

  Vincent, Sir Edgar (Exeter)

  Ha l, Edward Marshall

  Mount, William Arthur

  Walker, Col. William Hall

  Halsey, Rt. Hon. Thomas F.

  Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.

  Walrond, Rt.Hn. Sir William H

  Hambro, Charles Eric

  Murray, RtHn A. Graham(Bute

  Wanklyn, James Leslie

  Hanbury, Rt. Hon. Robert Wm.

  Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

  Warde, Colonel C. E.

  Ha dy, Laurence(Kent,Ashf'rd

  Myers, William Henry

  Welby, Lt.-Col. A.C.E(Taunton

  Hare, Thomas Leigh

  Nicholson, William Graham

  Welby, Sir Charles G.E.(Notts.)

  Harris, Frederick Leverton

  Nicol, Donald Ninian

  Wharton, Rt. Hon. John Lloyd

  Haslam, Sir Alfred S.

  Nolan, Col. John P. (Galway,N.)

  Whiteley, H. (Ashton und. Lyne

  Haslett, Sir James Horner

  Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay

  Williams, RtHnJ Powell-(Birm.

  Heaton, John Henniker

  Parker, Sir Gilbert

  Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E.R.)

  Helder, Augustus

  Pemberton, John S. G.

  Wilson-Todd, Wm. H.(Yorks.)

  Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T.

  Percy, Earl

  Wodehouse, Rt. Hn. E.R.(Bath)

  Hobhouse, Henry (Somerset,E.

  Pierpoint, Robert

  Worsley-Taylor, Henry Wilson

  Hogg, Lindsay

  Plummer, Walter R.

  Wylie, Alexander

  Hope, J.F.(Sheffield,Brightside

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  Horner, Frederick William

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Wyndham-Quin, Major W. H.

  Howard, John(Kent,Faversh'm

  Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

  Younger, William

  Howard, J. (Midd., Tottenham)

  Purvis, Robert

  Hozier, Hon. James Henry Cecil

  Pym, C. Guy

  Hudson, George Bickersteth

  Randles, John S.

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

  Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse

  Rankin, Sir James

  Sir Alexander Acland-

  Jeffreys, Rt. Hon. ArthurFred.

  Rasch, Major Frederic Carne

  Hood, and Mr. Anstruther.

  NOES.

  Allan, Sir William (Gateshead)

  Channing, Francis Allston

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  Allen, Charles P (Glouc.,Stroud

  Dalziel, James Henry

  Grant, Corrie

  Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)

  Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)

  Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir E. (Berwick)

  Bell, Richard

  Davies,M. Vaughan-(Cardigan

  Griffith, Ellis J.

  Brigg, John

  Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

  Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

  Broadhurst, Henry

  Dunn, Sir William

  Harwood, George

  Brown, GeorgeM. (Edinburgh.)

  Edwards, Frank

  Hayne, Rt. Hon. Charles Seale-

  Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson

  Ellis, John Edward

  Hayter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur D.

  Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

  Emmott, Alfred

  Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H.

  Burt, Thomas

  Evans, Sir Francis H(Maidstone

  Holland. Sir William Henry

  Buxton, Sydney Charles

  Fenwiek, Charles

  Hope, John Deans (Fife,West)

  Caine, William Sproston

  Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond

  Horniman, Frederick John

  Caldwell, James

  Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)

  Humphreys-Owen, Arthur C.

  Cameron, Robert

  Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

  Jacoby, James Alfred

  Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

  Fuller, J. M. F.

  Jones, David Brynmor (Swans'a

  Causton, Richard Knight

  Furness, Sir Christopher

  Kearley, Hudson E.

  42

  43

  Kinloch, Sir John George Smyth

  Palmer, Sir Charles M. (Durham

  Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen,E.)

  Lambert, George

  Partington, Oswald

  Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan,E.)

  Langley, Batty

  Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)

  Thomas, David Alfred(Merthyr

  Leese, Sir Joseph F.(Accringt'n

  Philipps, John Wynford

  Thomas, F.Freeman-(Hastings

  Leng, Sir John

  Pickard, Benjamin

  Thomas, J A(Glamorgan, Gower

  Levy, Maurice

  Rea, Russell

  Toulmin, George

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

  Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

  Logan, John William

  Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

  Wason, Eugene

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Robertson, Edmund (Dundee)

  Weir, James Galloway

  M'Kenna, Reginald

  Runciman, Walter

  White, George (Norfolk)

  M'Laren, Sir Charles Benjamin

  Schwann, Charles E.

  White, Luke (York, E.R.)

  Mansfield, Horace Rendall

  Shackleton, David James

  Whiteley, George (York, W.R.)

  Mappin, Sir Frederick Thorpe

  Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)

  Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

  Markham, Arthur Basil

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

  Mather, Sir William

  Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)

  Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)

  Mellor, Rt. Hon. John William

  Sloan, Thomas Henry

  Wilson, Henry J. (York, W. R.)

  Morgan, J. Lloyd(Carmarthen)

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  Woodhouse, Sir J.T(Huddersf'd

  Morley, Charles (Breconshire)

  Soares, Ernest J.

  Newnes, Sir George

  Spencer, Rt. Hn. CR(Northants

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

  Norton, Capt. Cecil William

  Stevenson, Francis S.

  Mr. Herbert Glad stone and

  Nussey, Thomas Willans

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  Mr. William M'Arthur.

  MR. CHANNINGsaid the Amendment he now proposed to move was, he thought, one which the Government would accept. It did not seem to him that the definitions in the Bill would cover the assumption that the schools in this Clause would be public elementary schools. The Attorney General had once or twice stated that it was the intention of the Government that they should be public elementary schools having the Conscience Clause, and a time-table which allowed the parents to withdraw their children during the hours of religious teaching. He was not able to gather from the hon. and learned Gentleman whether his Amendment would be accepted, but he invited the hon. and learned Gentleman to give it careful consideration.
  Amendment proposed, "In page 4, line 14, after the word 'a' to insert the words 'public elementary.'"—(Mr. Channing.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  SIR ROBERT FINLAYthought that there could be no objection to the insertion of these words if they were also inserted in the commencement of the Clause, but as they did not appear in the commencement they were quite unnecessary. They might have added the words in both cases, but they would only throw doubt on the construction of the Clause if the words were inserted in one place and not in the other. He
  44
  hoped the hon. Member would rest content with that statement now. The matter might be brought up at a later stage.
  MR. CHANNINGthought the difficulty might be obviated by inserting the words "public elementary" in both cases. He would be quite willing to withdraw his Amendment now if he understood that the words would be inserted by the Government in both places on the Report stage.
  SIR ROBERT FINLAYsaid he could not give any pledge as to the words being introduced. The matter would be considered, and he would be obliged if the hon. Gentleman would bring up the point on the Report stage.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. HERBERT LEWISin moving the substitution of "existing at the date of the passing of this Act" for "actually in existence," asked whether the words of the Clause meant in existence at the passing of the Act or existing at some time thereafter.
  SIR ROBERT FINLAYsaid the Clause would apply to every school existing at the time the question arose.
  MR. HERBERT LEWISthought in that case that the word "actually" was very much out of place. The object of the Amendment was to do something to check the enormous and unnecessary multiplication of schools

  45
  which would inevitably take place if the Clause remained in its present form. The amplest safeguards for the managers of voluntary schools and the ratepayers had been already provided, and he could not conceive why it should be deemed necessary to take a large number of small schools entirely out of the discretion of the local education authority and the Board of Education as was here proposed. The provision was as uneducational as it could possibly be. It would lead to the multiplication of small schools necessarily weak in their teaching staff. The proposal was simply denominationalism in excelsis, and he was surprised the Government should have given their sanction to it. By schools being multiplied, as they undoubtedly would be under this provision, the education of the country would be rendered less efficient and more costly. Owing to the principles which had, unfortunately, been adopted in the Bill, it might be found necessary in some places and for protective purposes to establish additional schools, but he ventured to think the Government could have devised a more statesmanlike method of meeting the difficulty. It was to the interests of education and the general social interests of the community that the boys and girls in elementary schools should, as far as possible, grow up together in those schools, and not be separated into small divisions. In that way they would learn to know and respect one another better, and much bitter sectarian strife would be prevented. It would, doubtless, be said that the proposal was made for the sake of towns like Chester or Southport, where Nonconformists had no adequate representation in the schools, but the Government seemed to have adopted the policy of the Chinaman who burned down his house to roast Ins pig—because they were attempting to meet that grievance by a method which would result in the infliction of far greater educational and financial grievances. He begged to move.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 4, line 14, to leave out the words 'actually in existence,' in order to insert the words 'existing at the date of the passing of this Act.'"—(Mr. Herbert Lewis.)
  Question proposed, "That the words 'actually in existence' stand part of the Clause."
  THE SECRETARY OF THE BOARD OF EDUCATION (Sir WILLIAM ANSON, Oxford University)said the Government could not possibly accept an Amendment, which would stereotype the conditions existing at the time when this measure became law. With the rapid growth of population and the possible changes of denominational conditions, it would not be desirable to provide that this portion of the Clause should apply only to schools in existence at the passing of the Act. He agreed with the hon. Member as to the disastrous effect of the multiplication of small schools. Such schools should not be multiplied more than was absolutely necessary for the protection of the interests and the satisfaction of the desires of the different denominations. It had to be borne in mind, however, that the Clause referred not to the creation of new schools but to the continuance of schools actually in existence. When the question of the creation of a new school came before the Board of Education it would have to be decided according to the conditions already debated and passed, but the provision under discussion dealt only with schools actually in existence at the time the question as to whether a school was necessary or not arose. Suppose that a locality changed its denominational character and became very largely Jewish or Roman Catholic. That denomination might come forward with a proposal to provide a denominational school. Under the circumstances, and having paid regard to the matters already dealt with, the Board of Education might sanction a school of a denominational character, and there might be a withdrawal of children from a school provided by the local authority. That school, though depleted, should be allowed to continue even though the numbers were but little over thirty. For that reason it was desirable that the words should be allowed to remain as they stood, because they would prevent any injustice arising from the shifting of population and the change in the denominational character of the population. The continuance of the provision of schools varying in character was still of very great importance and necessity

  47
  to many parents and children in the locality. For those reasons, on behalf of the Government, he could not accept the Amendment of his hon. friend.
  MR. BRYCEsaid he failed entirely to agree with the arguments which his hon. friend the Secretary to the Board of Education had used in reply to the Amendment of his hon. friend.
  MR.ERNEST GRAYsaid he could not agree with his hon. friend's defence of this Clause. The rule alluded to was in existence now, and it had not worked well at all. This proposal might mean one school entering into keen competition with another school, thus doing a great amount of injury to the education of the district What was the operation of this Clause? It tied the hands of the Board of Education. This was not a case of giving them larger powers and more iscretion, for it was simply tying their hands behind their backs compelling them to say "Notwithstanding that we have declared for twelve months past that this school is absolutely unnecessary, that it is injurious, that it is not in the interests of secular education, and has no regard for the economy of the rates, yet, inasmuch as you have secured an average attendance of thirty scholars during a period of twelve months we have no option whatever." This might injure the education of the district and be wasteful; yet, notwithstanding this, the Education Department had to recognise that school and place it upon the grant list. Could any hon. Member say that this rule had worked well in the past? Had it not been the means of compelling the Board of Education to place schools upon the grant list which they had declared to be unnecessary. Take the illustration given by his hon. friend. He had perfect power to deal with a case of that kind. Take a case where there was a change of population. Take, for example, the town of Dover and its great harbour works. Through the introduction of a great alien population at Dover the necessity would arise for the erection of schools of various kinds. The Board of Education could admit a school of ten or exclude one of 500. The right hon. Gentleman proposed now to add not a new power but to place fetters upon them by saying that Parliament had laid down that
  48
  this school, having scraped together for twelve months thirty children, was bound to be maintained by being placed upon the grant list, and so long as that school continued to give efficient education to thirty scholars they could not take it off the grant list. The right hon. Gentleman was throwing away his discretionary power in adopting those words. He begged the Government to reconsider the question of these small schools before the Report stage, and see if they could not leave the absolute unfettered discretion to the Board of Education and the local authorities, and not give away their powers by fettering themselves by an unnecessary Clause of this sort. He had supported the Government all through on these two Clauses, realising that until they reached this phrase the position of the Government was unassailable, hut here they were placing a direct premium upon the erection of these small schools. It had been argued that the interests of the rates were entirely in favour of religious denominations. If they had two schools in one district accommodating thirty scholars each, when one school would accommodate the sixty, that was not in the interest of the rates or of secular instruction. Let them suppose that a Nonconformist clergyman, dissatisfied with the teaching of Church schools, manages to erect a school for thirty children, and keeps them together for twelve months, and came to the Board of Education for recognition. The Board of Education were bound to take over that school.
  SIR ROBERT FINLAY: Not bound.
  SIR WILLIAM ANSON: They have to run the gauntlet of Clause 9.
  MR. ERNEST GRAYsaid that if at the end of twelve months such a school as he had described produced its register showing that thirty children had been in average attendance for twelve months it came within the terms of this Clause. [MINISTERIAL cries of "No, no!"] What was it then? Was there anything in the Bill which modified that procedure? Such a school would come up for an annual grant to be paid by the local authority, and as he read this Clause the Board of Education would then

  49
  have no option whatever. They must take over that school of thirty scholars. He urged the Government to trust their, own Department and leave them unfettered by any rigid rule of this discription. Let them take over schools of ten children if they thought it was desirable. He could imagine places in the Welsh valleys and in Cumberland and Westmoreland, where it might be found convenient to have a small school to prevent children having to tramp four or five miles, but he thought it should be left to the Board of Education quite unfettered, and they should not be compelled to take over any school of thirty whether they liked it or not.
  DR. MACNAMARAdesired to join in the appeal made by his hon. friend to the Government to accept this Amendment, or else to drop the last three or four lines of this Clause altogether. The Secretary to the Board of Education must recognise that this Bill was a great revolution in educational matters. Schools which were actually in existence should be dealt with fairly and honourably, but they should not allow denominationalists to come forward any time after the passing of this Bill, offering their buildings, and putting them upon the rates and grant list, thus forcing upon every locality for all time these denominational schools. Up to the present, the definition given them of an existing school had meant "a school in existence at the passing of the Act, "but now they understood that it meant any time. Their greatest difficulty would arise in the small villages. The Church of England had its school in every village, and that school was now to be placed entirely upon the rates and taxes. There was great irritation already throughout the country upon this question. The people in a village would be able to say "Here is a building which we have no particular use for; we can get an average attendance of thirty, and we can have it put upon the grant list. He thought the Government proposal was highly objectionable, for the reasons urged by his hon. friend the Member for North West Ham. The Secretary to the Board of thought this difficulty would not arise, but the fact that they had a Church school established in every
  50
  village would cause Nonconformists to turn every stone possible to find some means of having their own schools. All they had got to do was to bring forward the building at any date, and the Board of Education had no alternative but to say that the school was necessary, and the result must be that in many villages in Wales, and in Nonconformist districts generally there would be two schools each half empty, neither properly organised, extravagant to the locality, and educationally absurd. He appealed to the Government to drop all the words of the Clause after the word "but." or if they would not do that it should be so amended as to apply only to schools actually in existence at the passing of the Bill.
  MR. HENRY HOBHOUSEsupported the appeal of his hon. friend the Member for North West Ham to omit the concluding words of the Clause. In the first place these words would impose a quite unnecessary restriction upon the Board of Education; secondly, it might very well be a hardship on the ratepayers and the local authority to maintain schools which were in fact unnecessary; thirdly, it might be a serious injury to the Board of Education to be compelled to maintain unnecessary schools; and fourthly, it might cause a false standard of necessity to be set up. Moreover, he thought that the language of the Clause they were discussing was by no means clear. If the Government thought it necessary to give protection to the small schools actually in existence, they ought to accept the Amendment.
  MR. BROADHURSTsaid he had no idea that the Amendment was so important until he heard the speech was a direct invitation to every religious section of the community to try to obtain a little school with thirty scholars in it. The right hon. Gentleman mentioned two bodies not connected with the Church of England—Roman Catholics and the Jews. There were a dozen other Non-conformist bodies in this country; all of them, having regard to the invitation given them by the right hon. Gentleman, would undoubtedly set at once to try and provide their little schools. Schools

  51
  of this size must be disastrous to educational efficiency and could only supply employment to teachers employed under Article 68. It would be impossible for schools of thirty scholars to engage and maintain an efficient teacher for so small a number of children. The Wesleyans had now raised a special fund of a million, and intended to devote a large portion of it to providing schools where necessary in order that the people of their faith might have a school in which their children should be taught their doctrines. If the Wesleyans in Lincolnshire, in Norfolk, in Cambridgeshire, in Cornwall, and in other counties where Wesleyanism was particularly strong, determined to have their denominational teaching at the public expense, and devoted a quarter of a million for the provision of the schools and their maintenance for one year, did the Prime Minister not see what the Clause would lead to? It would end disastrously to invite universal division in educational work. He should not have taken part in the debate but for the most alarming and revolutionary disastrous speech made by the right hon. Gentleman in his invitation. Swedenborgians, Plymouth Brethren, Congregationalists, Methodist Free Church, and a dozen other denominations would read his speech, and do their best to have their own little school and have it maintained out of public funds. It was only in the interests of sound and efficient education that the Amendment was moved.
  SIR WILLIAM ANSONsaid he only rose to correct an extraordinary misapprehension which the hon. Member for North West Ham appeared to be under. He appeared to think that under this Clause it would be possible for persons or bodies in some surreptitious way to foist a school on the community, and then to call on the local education authority to say that it should not be considered unnecessary, and that therefore there should be a school maintained unnecessarily at the public expense. The hon. Member seemed to have entirely forgotten what had over and over again been pointed out by the Attorney General, that we were dealing in this Clause with public elementary schools, and that the whole of Clause 9 dealt with the conditions under which
  52
  public elementary schools could be established. Under that Clause, if the local authority, or any other persons, proposed to provide a new public elementary school they must get permission to do so. Where was the possibility of a little school being started with ten, fifteen or twenty children, suddenly sprung on the ratepayers, and established in that condition of permanence such as the hon. Member feared? He did hope that hon. Members would not cherish the superstition that these schools spring up unobserved and would be suddenly thrown upon the ratepayers.
  SIR EDWARD GREYsaid the debate had clearly shown that either the Clause was not so readily intelligible as hon. Members who had spoken for the Government seemed to suppose, or some Members of the Committee on both sides of the House were more than usually stupid. The Parliamentary Secretary had been good enough to call them superstitious, but he thought that the Clause did really seem obscure. He frankly admitted that he had had considerable difficulty in understanding it. He did not realise that the word "school," where it was first used at the beginning of the Clause did not refer to a new school. He did not see why the Clause should not be made clear as it stood. He thought the best thing by far would be to trust the Board of Education, and to omit those lines altogether. It would not mean that the Government were giving up anything they were contending for. It would only be giving a little more discretion to the Board of Education. If the Government could not take that course, he would suggest that they should take the course suggested by his hon. friend, and, at any rate, prescribe to the Board of Education that those proposing to provide a new school should comply with certain regulations. But if the Government would not have either of these courses, he would ask them to make it clear in the Bill, so that people, not having the advantage of explanations from the Attorney General, could rightly understand the meaning. The hon. Member for North West Ham had expressed himself in doubt

  53
  as to what a school "actually in existence" might mean. He understood the Government contention to be that a school recognised as necessary no wand receiving a grant should not be considered unnecessary in future if it had thirty scholars.
  MR. A. J. BALFOURthought it should not be difficult to understand the Clause. No new school could be called into existence without due notice, full inquiry, and the sanction of the Board of Education. Therefore, every school in existence would be a necessary school. Suppose a rate-provided school was established. For some reason or another the circumstances of the district slowly changed, and there was a strong desire for a denominational school. Permission was granted for that school, and it emptied the rate-provided school of pupils whose parents preferred denominational teaching. Precisely the same thing would happen in a converse case. Suppose there was a rate-provided school started in competition with, or in the neighbourhood of the denominational school, a large number of pupils might prefer the teaching of the denominational school, and it was quite clear that it would be a burden to maintain both schools. It was evident they could not deal with machinery below a certain point. They wished that every child should have the teaching which the parents would like to give it, but there were limits, and they could not consider all the claims of that kind even with existing schools. The point was at what particular number they were to fix the limit at which the school was to cease to have a claim to public support. How far were they going to allow the process of depletion to go on so as to beat a school out of the educational ground. The number thirty had been fixed upon—a number they found buried in the Act of 1870. There was, therefore, Parliamentary sanction for it, and it seemed a reasonable number; but let it he understood at what stage they were going to kill an existing school.
  MR. ERNEST GRAYsaid that the words were really not clear; they were incorporated from another document
  54
  which had no reference to the case before the Committee now. But the Clause, as it stood, also covered the position already covered by the words of the Code. On the formation of a school, and its having obtained thirty scholars, was the Board of Education to recognise it or not? He was afraid they might all read a different interpretation of the words in the Clause. What was wanted was that the words should be made so clear that there would be only one interpretation.
  SIR EDWARD GREYsaid that that was the point which he strongly supported. The sort of change he wanted was to strike out the words "actually in existence" and to substitute the words "a school which has once been recognised as a public elementary school."
  MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid he would be quite prepared to accept that.
  MR. DUKEthought the words "a school once already recognised" had no definite meaning, but there was a form of words which would get rid of the difficulty. He suggested "a school actually in existence at the passing of this Act, or hereafter to be provided under Section 9." [Cries of "No, no."]
  MR. M'KENNAsaid that Article 80 in the Code stated "A school is not to be deemed unnecessary if at the date of the application for an annual grant it is recognised as a certified efficient school and has an average attendance of thirty scholars." He thought the insertion of these two words, "certified efficient," before school would meet the difficulty.
  MR. BRYCEsuggested that the words should be "a school once recognised as entitled to maintenance."
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid he could not agree that the words of the Prime Minister fairly covered the case, and they should be subject to the most careful scrutiny.
  MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid the Committee would do well to get at the form of the Amendment; he proposed there-

  55
  fore, to accept it in the following shape—"A school already recognised as a public elementary school." He said he did so subject to careful consideration as to the drafting. There could be no mistake as to the policy of the Government on the point of principle.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Amendment made—
  "In page 4, line 14, by leaving out the words, 'actually in existence,' and inserting the words, 'already recogidsed as a public elementary school.'"—(Mr. A. J. Balfour.)
  MR. BRYNMOR JONESsaid he did not wish to raise any lengthy discussion on his Amendment, to leave out the word "thirty" at the end of the Clause and insert "hundred." The Prime Minister had very justly observed that on any Clause of this kind arguments might be used either for increasing or diminishing the number, and he had indicated that the limitation of 30 occurred in the Code under the Act of 1870. But he submitted to the right hon. Gentleman that whatever might have been adopted with propriety in 1870 was too small a nullifier under a new administration. The First Lord had enlarged on the rights of parents, and had stated throughout that his object was, as far as possible, to secure equality by giving all parents the opportunity of getting a school in which the doctrines of their faith would be taught to their children. For himself he would have much preferred if the Bill had dealt with the new schools to be provided by the local education authority, without raising the question of existing voluntary schools. He maintained that 30 was much too limited a number and he did not propose 100 as better than 110, but because he thought it would be more convenient. He begged to move.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In pare 4, line 17, to leave out the word 'thirty,' and insert the words 'one hundred.'"—(Mr. Brynmor Jones.)
  Question proposed '"That the word "thirty' stand part of the Clause."
  SIR ROBERT FINLAYsaid that the hon. Gentleman had put his argument
  56
  very fairly. After all, however, the question was, what was a suitable number. He submitted that 100 was distinctly too large. If there .were 30 it showed that there was a sensible demand for a school. He would point out that the Clause did not say that 30 was a hard and fast limit. It was possible for a school already recognised to have a smaller number of scholars. But so long as it retained 30 it would not be struck off the list if it had once got on.
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTONsaid he understood that the limit of 30 had been adopted from the Code following the Act of 1870, but the circumstances now were very different from those when that Code was drawn up. He understood from the Attorney General that the Clause might be extended by the Board of Education to schools with only ten or twelve children.
  MR. WHITLEYappealed to the Government to give a little consideration to this matter. His hon. friend who moved the Amendment had, he thought, gone to the other extreme by fixing the limit at 100, but a school with only 30 children, or even less, meant necessarily a very inefficient school. It was impossible for one teacher to teach children from the age of three to the age of thirteen, and from Standard I. up to Standard VII. At an earlier stage he had made a suggestion which would get over the inefficiency of small schools. In America they had adopted a system of amalgamating small schools and providing public conveyances to carry the children to the consolidated school when it was at too great a distance for them to walk. The inspectors of the American Education Department had reported how very great was the increase of efficiency by adopting a system of that kind. If such a scheme were adopted here no obstinate body of managers who preferred their own school could block the way to educational reform in the small schools. He appealed, in the cause of good education, to the Secretary to the Education Department to give them some encouragement and, if the hon. Gentleman could not agree to fix the number at 100 to accept 50 or 60. He

  57
  was sorry the right hon. Member for Cambridge University was not in the House, because he knew that that right hon. Gentleman held the same views as he did on this question and had often expressed them.
  SIR FRANCIS POWELLsaid it seemed that this question had been considerably altered by the change of language adopted by the Government, because they had accepted the words "already recognised." The number 30 had been accepted by Parliament in the Code for thirty years, and it would be, he thought, a hardship on many schools to alter it. The point he wished to emphasise was that these schools would not be recognised and receive the grants unless they were efficient. He himself was by no means a friend of the small schools, and he had visited many of them; but at the same time, in many thinly populated districts, the children could only receive education in small schools, and there they were necessary. He thought it would be an act of injustice to abolish these small schools.
  MR. BRYCEsaid that the argument of his hon. friend who had just sat down had been entirely nullified by the statement of the Attorney General, who had admitted that schools with only ten or twelve children ought to be maintained.
  SIR ROBERT FINLAY: In special circumstances.
  Mr. BRYCE: Yes, in special circumstances. The reason why they objected to 30 was that that number would prove an obstacle to consolidation. Small schools might be efficient in the sense to he entitled to receive a grant, and yet they might be far less efficient and be far less able to serve a district effectively than one large, strong school, but the amour proper of the managers might induce them to resist consolidation of the weaker schools. If they were to fix a limit it should be much higher than 30, say 60 or 70. If his hon. friend persisted in his Amendment he ought to be supported.
  MR. CHANNINGsaid that it had escaped the attention of hon. Members that sub-Section 2 of Clause 19 in the Act of 1870, which enabled State grants
  58
  to be made to small schools where the number of children was smaller than that mentioned by the Attorney General, was not repealed by this Bill, and therefore the Board of Education would be enabled to authorise grants to these very small schools where they were necessary. He should leave the question of the limit of numbers to be absolutely elastic. He entered a protest against the insertion of any words in the Bill which would seem to raise unnecessary difficulties to the process of consolidation. He had paid many visits to the United States and had on every occasion studied the working of the school system there. The extraordinary thing was that in the most progressive State, Massachusetts, despite the great advances made by education, the total number of public elementary schools had actually diminished during the last ten years. That had been done by deliberate Act of the Legislature and the local authorities. The number of small and usually inefficient schools had been limited, and splendid buildings erected with many class-rooms, with the best possible staff and facilities for pupils being passed on to higher studies, a policy which enabled the children to obtain educational advantages which they could not have commanded in very small schools. He would much prefer if his hon. friend withdrew his Amendment limiting the number of children, or add to his Amendment words of a nature to convey what was in the minds of everyone who had considered this question, as, for instance, "or such other number as is, in the opinion of the Board of Education, consistent with efficiency of education in the district to be served." He hoped, in any case that in the administration of this Bill, if it passed into law, which he certainly hoped it would not, the hon. Gentleman who was now Secretary to the Board of Education would not encourage this fatal policy of multiplying small schools, or discourage in any way the consolidation of weak and inefficient schools into large, strong, and efficient schools.
  MR. YOXALLsaid that so far the matter had been considered on the lines of rural schools. It was not alone a matter of rural schools, but a matter of how to deal

  59
  with denominational schools in urban areas. In the area of Liverpool there were about twice as many voluntary schools as board schools, but less than half the children in that area were educated in them. The voluntary schools there were practically less than half the size of the board schools, school for school. In the parishes of a county city like Liverpool there would sure to be a school in connection with each parish church, and in areas of this character, where the parishes were close together and did not each occupy a large space, he thought where the two voluntary schools were in close proximity, one with a large building half empty and the other with a small building quite full, the local education authority should have power o bring all the children to the large school and close the small one. In that case there would be one large school where education would be more economically and efficiently carried on. No harm
  would be done to the denominations in the city, but there would be a great gain to education. If the proposal of the Clause as it was held good it would be in the power of the managers of a small school like this to insist upon their school remaining on the grant list and being maintained so long as there were thirty children in it. In rural areas the difficulties of distance and thinness of population no doubt justified the number of thirty, but in urban areas the number ought not to be maintained. Every Member of the House would feel that the question of putting new burdens on the ratepayers for denominational schools ought to be considered from an economical as well as a political point of view. At present it had not been considered from that point of view.
  (6.3.) Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes, 230; Noes, 124. (Division List No. 471.)

  AYES.

  Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. (Birm.

  Flannery, Sir Fortescue

  Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

  Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

  Fletcher, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

  Allhusen, Augustus H'nry Eden

  Chapman, Edward

  Flower, Ernest

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Charrington, Spencer

  Forster, Henry William

  Archdale, Edward Mervyn

  Clive, Captain Percy A.

  Foster, Philip S(Warwick, S.W.

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Coclnane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E.

  Galloway, William Johnson

  Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.

  Coghill, Douglas Harry

  Garfit, William

  Arrol, Sir William

  Cohen, Benjamin Louis

  Gibbs, Hon. Vicary (St Albans)

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

  Godson, Sir Augustus Frederick

  Bailey, James (Walworth)

  Colomb, Sir JohnCharlesReady

  Gordon, MajEvans-(T'rH'ml'ts

  Bain, Colonel James Robert

  Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole

  Gore, Hon. S. F. Ormsby-(Linc.)

  Baird, John George Alexander

  Compton, Lord Alwyne

  Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon

  Balcarres, Lord

  Cox, Irwin Edward Bainbridge

  Goschen, Hon. Geo. Joachim

  Balfour, Rt. Hon. A.J. (Manch'r

  Cripps, Charles Alfred

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey)

  Cross, Alexander (Glasgow)

  Graham, Henry Robert

  Balfour, Rt Hn Gerald W.(Leeds

  Cross, Herb. Shepherd (Bolton)

  Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

  Banbury, Frederick George

  Crossley, Sir Savile

  Greene, SirEW(B'rySEdm'nds

  Bartley, George C. T.

  Cubitt, Hon. Henry

  Grenfell, William Henry

  Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

  Dalrymple, Sir Charles

  Greville, Hon. Ronald

  Bignold, Arthur

  Davenport, W. Bromley-

  Groves, James Grimble

  Bill, Charles

  Davies, Sir Horatio D (Chatham

  Guthrie, Walter Murray

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Denny, Colonel

  Hain, Edward

  Bond, Edward

  Dewar, Sir T.R.(TowerHamlets

  Hall, Edward Marshall

  Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-

  Digby, John K. D. Wingfield-

  Halsey, Rt. Hon. Thomas F.

  Boulnois, Edmund

  Dixon-Hartland, Sir Fred Dixon

  Hambro, Charles, Eric

  Bowles, Capt. H. F. (Middlesex)

  Dorington, Rt. Hon. Sir John E.

  Hanbury, Rt. Hon. Robert W m.

  Bowles, T. Gibson (King's Lynn

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Harby, Laurence (Kent, Ashf'rd

  Brassey, Albert

  Duke, Henry Edward

  Hare, Thomas Leigh

  Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

  Dyke, Rt. Hn. Sir William Hart

  Harris, Frederick Leverton

  Brown Alexander H. (Shropsh.)

  Faber, George Denison (York)

  Haslam, Sir Alfred S.

  Brymer, William Ernest

  Fardell, Sir T. George

  Haslett, Sir James Horner

  Bull, William James

  Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward

  Hatch, Ernest Frederick Geo.

  Butcher, John George

  Fergusson, RtHn. Sir J.(Manc'r

  Hay, Hon. Claude George

  Campbell, Rt. Hn J. A. (Glasgow

  Finch, George H.

  Heaton, John Henniker

  Carew, James Lawrence

  Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyny

  Helder, Augustus

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Henderson, Sir Alexander

  Carvill, Patrick Geo. Hamilton

  Fison, Frederick William

  Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T.

  Cavendish, V. C. W.(Derbyshire

  FitzGerald, Sir Robert Penrose-

  Hobhouse, Henry (Somerset, E.

  Cayzer, Sir Charles William

  Fitzroy, Hon. Edward Algernon

  Hogg, Lindsay

  Hope,. J. F. (Sheffield, Brightside

  More, Robt. Jasper (Shropshire)

  Seton-Karr, Henry

  Houston, Robert Paterson

  Morgan, David, J(Walthamst'w

  Sharpe, William Edward T.

  Howard, John (Kent, Fav'rsh'm

  Morrell, George Herbert

  Simeon, Sir Barrington

  Howard. J. (Midd, Tottenham)

  Morrison, James Archibald

  Sinclair, Louis (Romford)

  Hozier, Hon. James Henry Cecil

  Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer

  Smith, James Parker(Lanarks.)

  Hudson, George Bickersteth

  Mount, William Arthur

  Spencer, Sir E. (W. Bromwich)

  Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse

  Murray, RtHn A. Graham (Bute

  Stanley, Edward Jas. (Somerset

  Jeffreys, Rt. Hon. Arthur Fred.

  Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

  Sturt, Hon. Humphry Napier

  Johnstone, Heywood

  Myers, William Henry

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Kemp, George

  Nicol, Donald Ninian

  Talbot, RtHn. J. G. (Oxf'dUniv.

  Kenyon, Hon Geo. T.(Denbigh)

  Nolan, Col. John P. (Galway, N.)

  Thorburn, Sir Walter

  Kenyon-Shiney, Col. W.(Salop.

  Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Kimber. Henry

  Percy, Earl

  Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.

  King, Sir Henry Seymour

  Pierpoint, Robert

  Tritton, Charles Ernest

  Knowles, Lees

  Platt-Higgins, Frederick

  Tufnell, Lieut.-Col. Edward

  Lambton, Hon. Frederick. Wm.

  Plummer, Walter R.

  Valentia, Viscount

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Vincent, Sir Edgar (Exeter)

  Lawrence, Sir, Joseph (Monm'th

  Pretyrnan, Ernest George

  Walker, Col. William Hall

  Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool)

  Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

  Walrond, Rt,Hn, Sir William H.

  Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead)

  Purvis, Robert

  Wanklyn, James Leslie

  Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

  Pym C. Guy

  Webb, Colonel William George

  Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

  Quitter, Sir Cuthbert

  Welby, Lt-Col. A.C.E (Taunton

  Long, Co1. Charles W.(Evesham

  Randles, John S.

  Welby, Sir Charles G. E. (Notts.

  Long, Rt. Hn. Walter(Bristol,S

  Rankin, Sir James

  Wharton, Rt. Hon. John Lloyd

  Lowe, Francis William

  Rasch, Major Frederic Carne

  Whiteley, H (Ashton-und. Lyne

  Loyd, Archie Kirkman

  Rattigan, Sir William Henry

  Williams, RtHn J Powell-(Birm

  Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft)

  Ridley, Hn. M. W. (Stalybridge

  Wilson, J. W. (Worcestersh. N.

  Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsmouth

  Ridley, S. Forde (BethnalGreen

  Wilson-Todd, Wm. H. (Yorks

  Macdona, John Cumming

  Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson

  Wodehouse, Rt. Hn. E. R. (Bath

  M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

  Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)

  Worsley-Taylor, Henry Wilson

  M'Iver, Sir Lewis (EdinburghW

  Robinson, Brooke

  Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Sturt-

  M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire)

  Rothschild, Hon. Lionel Walter

  Wylie, Alexander

  Manners. Lord Cecil

  Round, Rt. Hon. James

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  Maxwell, RtHn Sir H. E (Wigt'n

  Royds, Clement Molyneux

  Wyndham-Quin, Major W. H.

  Maxwell, W J H (Dumfriesshire

  Rutherford, John

  Younger, William

  Meysey-Thompson, Sir H. M.

  Sackville, Col. S. G. (Stopford-

  Middlemore, John Throgmort'n

  Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

  Mildmav, Francis Bingham

  Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse)

  Sir Alexander Acland-

  Milner, Rt. Hn. Sir FrederickG.

  Saunderson, RtHn. Col. Edw. J.

  Hood and Mr. Anstruther.

  NOES.

  Allan, Sir William (Gateshead)

  Fuller, J. M. F.

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Allen, Charles P (Glone., Stroud

  Furness, Sir Christopher

  M'Arthur, William (Cornwall)

  Asquith, Rt. Hon. HerbertHenry

  Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbt. John

  M'Kenna, Reginald

  Atherley-Jones, L.

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  M'Laren, Sir Chas. Benjamin

  Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)

  Grant, Corrie

  Mansfield, Horace Rendall

  Bell, Richard

  Grey. Rt. Hon. Sir E.(Berwick)

  Mappin, Sir Frederick Thorpe

  Bolton, Thomas Dolling

  Griffith, Ellis. J.

  Markham, Arthur Basil

  Brigg, John

  Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

  Mather, Sir William

  Broadhurst, Henry

  Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Sir William

  Mellor, Rt. Hon. John William

  Brown, George M. (Edinburgh

  Harmsworth, R. Leicester

  Morgan, J. Lloyd (Camarthen)

  Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson

  Harwood, George

  Morley, Charles (Breconshire)

  Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

  Hayne, Rt. Hon. Chas. Seale-

  Moulton, John Fletcher

  Buxton, Sydney Charles

  Hayter, Rt. Hn. Sir ArthurD.

  Newnes, Sir George

  Caine, William Sproston

  Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H.

  Norton, Capt. Cecil William

  Caldwell, James

  Holland, Sir Wm. Henry

  Nussey, Thomas Willans

  Cameron, Robert

  Hope, John Deans (Fife,West)

  Palmer, Sir Charles M. (Durham

  Causton, Richard Knight

  Horniman, Frederick John

  Partington, Oswald

  Cawley Frederick

  Humphreys-Owen, Arthur C.

  Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)

  Channing, Francis Allston

  Jacoby, James Alfred

  Perks, Robert William

  Cremer, William Randal

  Kearley, Hudson E.

  Philipps, John Wynford

  Dalziel, James Henry

  Kinloch, Sir John Geo. Smyth

  Pickard, Benjamin

  Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)

  Kitson, Sir James

  Priestley, Arthur

  Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

  Labouchere, Henry

  Rea, Russell

  Dunn, Sir William

  Lambert, George

  Reckitt, Harold James

  Edwards, Frank

  Langley, Batty

  Rickett, J. Compton

  Ellis, John Edward

  Leese, Sir JosephF (Accrington)

  Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

  Emmott, Alfred

  Leng, Sir John

  Robertson, Edmund (Dundee)

  Farquharson, Dr. Robert

  Levy, Maurice

  Robson, William Snowdon

  Fenwick, Charles

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Runcinman, Walter

  Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond

  Lloyd-George, David

  Schwann, Charles E.

  Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)

  Logan, John William

  Shackleton, David James

  Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

  Lough, Thomas

  Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)

  62

  63

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Thomas, F. Freeman-(Hastings

  Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

  Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)

  Thomas, J A (Glamorgan, Gower

  Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

  Sloan, Thomas Henry

  Toulmin, George

  Williams, Osmond (Merioneth

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  Wallace, Robert

  Wilson, Henry J. (York, W. R.)

  Soares, Ernest J.

  Walton, J. Lawson (Leeds, S.)

  Woodhouse, SirJ T (Huddersf'd

  Spencer, Rt Hn. C. R (Northants

  Warner, Thos. Courtenay T.

  Yoxall, James Henry

  Stevenson, Francis S.

  Wason, Eugene

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  Weir, James Galloway

  Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)

  White, George (Norfolk)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

  Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

  White, Luke (Yuck, E. R)

  Mr. Brynmor Jones and

  Thomas, David Alfred(Merthyr

  Whiteley, Geo. (York, W.R.)

  Mr. Herbert Roberts.

  Mr. A. J. BALFOURrose in his place and claimed to move, "That the Question, 'That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill' be now put."
  Question put, "That the Question 'That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill' be now put."
  The Committee divided:—Ayes, 224; Noes, 123. (Division List No. 472.)

  AYES.

  Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

  Cox, Irwin Edward Bainbridge

  Hain, Edward

  Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

  Cripps, Charles Alfred

  Hall, Edward Marshall

  Allhusen, AngustusH'nryEden

  Cross, Alexander (Glasgow)

  Halsey, Rt. Hon. Thomas F.

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Cross, Herb. Shepherd (Bolton

  Hambro, Charles Eric

  Archdale, Edward Mervyn

  Crossley, Sir Savile

  Hanbury, Rt. Hon. Robert Wm.

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Cubitt, Hon. Henry

  Hardy, Laurence(Kent, Ashf'rd

  Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.

  Dalrymple, Sir Charles

  Hare, Thomas Leigh

  Arrol, Sir William

  Davenport, William Bromley-

  Harris, Frederick Leverton

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Davies, Sir HoratioD.(Chatham

  Haslam, Sir Alfred S.

  Bailey, James (Walworth)

  Denny, Colonel

  Haslett, Sir James Horner

  Bain, Colonel James Robert

  Dewar, Sir T. R. (TowerHamlets

  Hatch, Ernest Frederick Geo.

  Baird, John George Alexander

  Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

  Hay, Hon. Claude George

  Balcarres, Lord

  Digby, John K. D. Wingfield-

  Heaton, John Henniker

  Balfour, Rt. Hon. A.J. (Manch'r

  Dixon-Hartland, Sir Fr'd Dixon

  Helder, Augustus

  Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey)

  Dorington, Rt. Hon. Sir John E.

  Henderson, Sir Alexander

  Balfour, Rt Hn Gerald W.(Leeds

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T.

  Banbury, Frederick George

  Duke, Henry Edward

  Hobhouse, Henry(Somerset, E.

  Bartley, George C. T.

  Dyke, Rt. Hn. Sir William Hart

  Hogg, Lindsay

  Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

  Faber, George Denison (York)

  Hope, J.F. (Sheffield, Brightside

  Bignold, Arthur

  Fardell, Sir T. George

  Houston, Robert Paterson

  Bill, Charles

  Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward

  Howard, John (Kent, Faversh'm

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Fergusson Rt HN Sir J. (Manc'r

  Howard, J. (Midd., Tottenham

  Bond, Edward

  Finch, George H.

  Hozier, Hon. James HenryCecil

  Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-

  Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

  Hudson, George Bickersteth

  Boulnois, Edmund

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse

  Bowles, Capt. H. F. (Middlesex

  Fison, Frederick William

  Johnstone, Hey wood

  Brassey, Albert

  FitzGerald, Sir Robert Penrose-

  Kemp, George

  Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

  Fitzroy, Hon. Edward Algernon

  Kenyon, Hon. Geo. T. (Denbigh

  Brown, Alexander H. (Shropsh.

  Flannery, Sir Fortescue

  Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W. (Salop

  Brymer, William Ernest

  Fletcher, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

  Kimber, Henry

  Bull, William James

  Flower, Ernest

  King, Sir Henry Seymour

  Butcher, John George

  Forster, Henry William

  Knowles, Lees

  Campbell, Rt Hn. J.A. (Glasgow

  Foster, Philip S (Warwick,S. W.

  Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.

  Carew, James Laurence

  Galloway, William Johnson

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward H.

  Garfit, William

  Lawrence, Sir. Joseph (Monm'th

  Carvill, Patrick Geo. Hamilton

  Gibbs, Hon. Vicary (St. Albans

  Lawrence, Wm F. (Liverpool)

  Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbysh're

  Godson, Sir Augustus Frederick

  Lecky, Rt. Hn. William Edw. H.

  Cayzer, Sir Charles William

  Gordon, Maj Evans-(T'rH'mlets

  Lee, Arthur H. (Hants, Farebam

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J.(Birm.

  Gore, Hn G. R. C. Ormsby-(Salop

  Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead)

  Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

  Gore, Hon. S.F. Ormsby-(Line.

  Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

  Chapman, Edward

  Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon

  Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

  Charrington, Spencer

  Goschen, Hon. (George Joachim

  Long, Col. CharlesW. (Evesham

  Clive, Captain Percy A.

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (Bristol, S.

  Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E.

  Graham, Henry Robert

  Lowe, Francis William

  Coghill, Douglas Harry

  Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

  Loyd, Archie Kirkman

  Cohen, Benjamin Louis

  Greene, Sir EW (Bry S Edm'nds

  Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft

  Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

  Greene, Henry D. (Shrewsbury

  Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsmouth

  Colomb, Sir John Charles Ready

  Grenfell, William Henry

  Lyttelton, Hon. Alfred

  Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole

  Grevilie, Hon. Ronald

  Macdona, John Cumming

  Compton, Lord Alwyne

  Groves, James Grimble

  M'Iver, Sir Lewis (Edinburgh W

  Cook, Sir Frederick Lucas

  Guthrie, Walter Murray

  M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire

  Malcolm, Ian

  Quilter, Sir Cuthbert

  Talbot, Rt. Hn. J. G (Oxf'dUniv.

  Manners, Lord Cecil

  Randles, John S.

  Thorburn, Sir Walter

  Maxwell, W J H (Dumfriesshire

  Rankin, Sir James

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Meysey-Thompson, Sir H. M.

  Rasch, Major Frederic Carne

  Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.

  Middlemore, J'hn Throgmorton

  Rattigan, Sir William Henry

  Tritton, Charles Ernest

  Mildmay, Francis Bingham

  Ridley, Hon M.W. (Stalybridge

  Tufnell, Lieut.-Col. Edward

  Milner, Rt. Hn. Sir Frederick G.

  Ridley, S. Forde (Bethnal Green

  Valentia, Viscount

  Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

  Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson

  Vincent, Col. SirCEH(Sheffield

  More, Robt. Jasper (Shropshire

  Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)

  Vincent, Sir Edgar (Exeter)

  Morgan, David J. (Walth'mst'w

  Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

  Walker, Col. William Hall

  Morrell, George Herbert

  Robinson, Brooke

  Walrond, RtHonSirWilliam H.

  Morrison, James Archibald

  Rothschild, Hon.Lionel Walter

  Wanklyn, James Leslie

  Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer

  Round, Rt. Hon. James

  Webb, Colonel William George

  Mount, William Arthur

  Royds, Clement Molyneux

  Welby, Lt-Col. A.C.E.(Taunton

  Murray, Rt Hn A. Graham (Bute

  Rutherford, John

  Welby, Sir Charles G.E.(Notts.

  Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

  Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-

  Wharton, Rt. Hon. John Lloyd

  Myers William Henry

  Sadler Col. Samuel. Alexander

  Whiteley, H. (Asht'n und.Lyne

  Nicholson, William Graham

  Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse)

  Williams, Rt Hn J Powell-(Birm

  Nieol, Donald Ninian

  Saunderson, Rt. Hn. Col Edw. J.

  Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E. R.

  Nolan, Col. John P. (Galway, N.

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Wilson-Todd, Wm. H. (Yorks.)

  Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay

  Seton-Karr, Henry

  Wodehouse,. Rt. Hn.E. R.(Bath

  Peel, Hn. Wm Robert Wellesley

  Sharpe, William Edward T.

  Worsley-Taylor, Henry Wilson

  Pemberton, John S. G.

  Simeon, Sir Barrington

  Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart-

  Percy, Earl

  Sinclair, Louis (Romford)

  Wylie, Alexander

  Pierpoint, Robert

  Smith, James Parker (Lanarks.

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  Platt-Higgins, Frederick

  Spencer, Sir E. (W. Bromwich

  Wyndham-quin, Major W. H.

  Plummer, Walter R.

  Stanley, Hon. Arthur (Ormskirk

  Younger, William

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Stanley, Edward Jas. (Somerset

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Stewart, Sir Mark J. M'Taggart

  Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

  Stone, Sir Benjamin

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

  Purvis, Robert

  Sturt, Hon. Humphry Napier

  Sir Alexander Acland-

  Pym, C. Guy

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Hood and Mr. Anstruther.

  NOES.

  Allan, Sir William (Gateshead

  Griffith, Ellis J.

  Norton, Capt. Cecil William

  Allen, Charles P(Glone.,Stroud

  Gurden, Sir W. Brampton

  Nussey, Thomas Willans

  Asquith, Rt, Hn. Herbert Henry

  Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Sir William

  Palmer, Sir Charles M. (D'rh'm

  Atherley, Jones, L.

  Harmsworth, R. Leicester

  Partington, Oswald

  Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)

  Harwood, George

  Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)

  Bell, Richard

  Hayne, Rt. Hon. Charles Seale-

  Perks, Robert William

  Bolton, Thomas Dolling

  Hayter, Rt. Hn. Sir Arthur D.

  Philipps, John Wynford

  Brigg John

  Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H.

  Pickard, Benjamin

  Broadhurst, Henry

  Holland, Sir William Henry

  Priestley, Arthur

  Brown, George M. (Edinburgh

  Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)

  Reckitt, Harold James

  Brunner, Sir .John Tomlinson

  Horniman, Frederick John

  Rickett, J. Compton

  Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

  Humphreys-Owen, Arthur C.

  Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

  Bart, Thomas

  Jacoby, James Alfred

  Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

  Buxton, Sydney Charles

  Jones, David Brynmor(Swansea)

  Robertson, Edmund (Dundee)

  Caine, William Sproston

  Kearley, Hudson E.

  Robson, William Snowdon

  Caldwell, James

  Kinloch, Sir John George Smyth

  Runciman, Walter

  Cameron, Robert

  Kitson, Sir James

  Schwann, Charles E.

  Causton, Richard Knight

  Labouchere, Henry

  Shackleton, David James

  Cawley, Frederick

  Lambert, George

  Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)

  Channing, Francis Allston

  Langley, Batty

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Cremer, William Randal

  Leese,Sir Joseph F. (Accrington

  Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)

  Dalziel, James Henry

  Leng, Sir John

  Sloan, Thomas Henry

  Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)

  Levy, Maurice

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Soares, Ernest J.

  Dunn, Sir William

  Lloyd-George, David

  Spencer, Rt Hn. C.R.(Northants

  Edwards Frank

  Logan, John William

  Stevenson, Francis S.

  Ellis, John Edward

  Lough, Thomas

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  Emmott, Alfred

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.

  Farquharson, Dr. Robert

  M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool

  Thomas, Alfred (Glamorgan, E.

  Fenwick, Charles

  M'Kenna, Reginald

  Thomas, David A. (Merthyr)

  Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond

  M'Laren, Sir Charles Benjamin

  Thomas, F. Freernan-(Hastings

  Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.

  Mappin, Sir Frederick Thorpe

  Thomas, J A (Glaamorgan, Gower

  Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

  Markham, Arthur Basil

  Toulmin, George

  Fuller, J. M. F.

  Mather, Sir William

  Wallace, Robert

  Furness, Sir Christopher

  Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen

  Walton, John Lawson (Leeds,S.

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  Morley, Charles (Breconshire)

  Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

  Grant, Corrie

  Moulton, John Fletcher

  Wason, Eugene

  Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir E. (Berwick)

  Newnes, Sir George

  Weir, James Galloway

  66

  67

  White, George (Norfolk)

  Williams, Osmond (Merioneth

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

  White, Luke (York, E. R.)

  Wilson, Henry J. (York, W.R)

  Mr. Herbert Gladstone and

  Whiteley,George (York, W. R.

  Woodhouse, Sir. JT (Huddersf'd

  Mr. William M'Arthur.

  Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

  Yoxall, James Henry

  Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

  (6.33.) Question put accordingly.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes, 250; Noes, 126. (Division List No. 473.)

  AYES.

  Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

  Denny, Colonel

  Howard, John (Kent, Faversh'm

  Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

  Dewar, Sir T. R.(TowerHamlets

  Howard. J. (Midd., Tottenham

  Allhusen, Augustns Hn'ry Eden

  Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P

  Hozier, Hon. James Henry Cecil

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Digby, John K. D. Wingfield-

  Hunson, George Bickersteth

  Archdale, Edward Mervyn

  Dixon-Hartland, Sir Fred Dixon

  Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Dorington, Rt. Hon. Sir John E.

  Jeffreys, Rt. Hon. Arthur Fred.

  Arnold-Forster, Hugh. O.

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Johnstone, Heywood

  Arrol, Sir William

  Duke, Henry Edward

  Kemp, George

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Dyke, Rt Hon. Sir William Hart

  Kenyon, Hn. Geo. T. (Denbigh

  Bailey, James (Walworth)

  Faber, George Denison (York)

  Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W. (Salop

  Bain, Colonel James Robert

  Fardell, Sir T. George

  Keswick, William

  Baird, John George Alexander

  Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward

  Kimber, Henry

  Balcarres, Lord

  Fergusson Rt Hn. Sir J (Manc'r

  King, Sir Henry Seymour

  Balfour, Rt. Hon. A.J.(Manch'r

  Finch, George H.

  Knowles, Lees

  Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey)

  Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

  Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.

  Balfour, Rt Hn Gerald W (Leeds

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow

  Banbury, Frederick George

  Fison, Frederick William

  Lawrence, Sir Joseph (Monm'th

  Bartley, George C. T.

  FitzGerald, Sir Robert Penrose-

  Lawrence, Win. E. (Liverpool)

  Beckett, Ernest William

  Fitzroy, Hon. Edward Algernon

  Lecky, Rt Hon. William Edw. H

  Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

  Flannery, Sir Fortecue

  Lee, Arthur H (Hants, Fareham

  Bignold, Arthur

  Fletcher, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

  Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead)

  Bill, Charles

  Flower, Ernest

  Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Forster, Henry William

  Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

  Bond, Edward

  Foster, Philip S.(Warwick,S.W

  Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham

  Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-

  Galloway, William Johnson

  Long, Rt. Hon Walter(Bristol, S

  Boulnois, Edmund

  Garfit, William

  Lowe, Francis William

  Bowles, Capt. H. F. (Middlesex

  Gibbs, Hon. Vicary (St.Albans)

  Loyd, Archie Kirkman

  Brassey, Albert

  Godson, Sir Augustus Frederick

  Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft

  Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

  Gordon, Maj Evans-(T'rH'ml'ts

  Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsmouth

  Brown, Alexander H. (Shropsh.

  Gore, Hn. G R. C. Ormsby-(Salop

  Lyttelton, Hon. Alfred

  Brymer, William Ernest

  Gore, Hon. S. F. Ormsby-(Linc.

  Macdona, John Cumming

  Bull, William James

  Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir ,John Eldon

  M'Iver, Sir Lewis (Edinburgh W

  Butcher, John George

  Goschen, Hon. George Joachim

  M'Kiliop James (Stirlingshire)

  Campbell, Rt Hon J A (Glasg'w

  Goulding Edward Alfred

  Malcolm, Ian

  Carew, James Laurence

  Graham, Henry Robert

  Manners, Lord Cecil

  Carson, Rt. Hn. Sir Edw. H.

  Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

  Maxwell, Rt Hn Sir H E. (Wigt'n

  Carvill, Patrick Geo. Hamilton

  Greene, Sir E W(B'ry S Edm'nds

  Maxwell, WJH (Dumfriesshire

  Cavendish, V.C.W.(Derbyshire

  Greene, Henry D.(Shrewsbury)

  Meysey-Thompson. Sir H. A.

  Cayzer, Sir Charles William

  Grenfell, William Henry

  Mildmay, Francis Bingham

  Cecil., Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Greville, Hon. Ronald

  Milner, Rt. Hon. Sir Frederick G

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich.

  Groves, James Grimble

  Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J.(Birm)

  Guthrie, Walter Murray

  More, Robt. Jasper (Shropshire)

  Chapman, Edward

  Hain, Edward

  Morgan, David J. (Walth'mst'w

  Charrington, Spencer

  Hall, Edward Marshall

  Morrell, George Herbert

  Clive, Captain Percy A.

  Halsey, Rt. Hon. Thomas F.

  Morrison, James Archibald

  Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E.

  Hambro, Charles Eric

  Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer

  Coghill, Douglas Harry

  Hanbury, Rt. Hn. Robert Wm

  Mount, William Arthur

  Cohen, Benjamin Louis

  Hardy,Laurence(Kent,Ashf'rd

  Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.

  Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

  Hare, Thomas Leigh

  Murray, Rt Hn A. Graham(Bute

  Colomb, Sir John Charles Ready

  Harris, Frederick Leverton

  Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

  Colston Charles Edw. H. Athole

  Haslam, Sir Alfred S.

  Myers, William Henry

  Compton, Lord Alwyne

  Haslett, Sir James Horner

  Nicholson, William Graham

  Cook, Sir Frederick Lucas

  Hatch, Ernest Frederick Geo.

  Nicol, Donald Ninian

  Cox, Irwin Edward Bainbridge

  Hay, Hon. Claude George

  Nolan, Col. John P. (Galway, N.)

  Cripps, Charles Alfred

  Heaton, John Henniker

  Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay

  Cross, Alexander (Glasgow)

  Helder, Augustus

  Peel, HnWm. Robert Wellesley

  Cross, Herb. Shepherd (Bolton)

  Henderson, Sir Alexander

  Pemberton, John S. G.

  Crossley, Sir Savile

  Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T.

  Percy, Earl

  Cubitt, Hon. Henry

  Holhousee, Henry (Somerset,E.

  Pierpoint, Robert

  Dalrymple, Sir Charles

  Hogg, Lindsay

  Platt-Higgins, Frederick

  Davenport, William Bromley-

  Hope, J.F.(Sheffield, Brightside

  Plummer, Walter R.

  Davies, Sir Horatio D,(Chatham

  Houston, Robert Paterson

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Walrond, Rt. Hn. Sir Wm. H.

  Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

  Seton-Karr, Henry

  Wanklyn, James Leslie

  Purvis, Robert

  Sharpe, William Edward T.

  Webb, Col. William George

  Pym, C. Guy

  Simeon, Sir Barrington

  Welby, Lt.-Col. A.C.E (Taunton

  Quilter, Sir Cuthbert

  Sinclair, Louis (Rounford)

  Welby, Sir Charles G. E. (Notts.

  Randles, John S.

  Smith, James Parker(Lanarks.)

  Wharton, Rt. Hn. John Lloyd

  Rankin, Sir James

  Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand)

  Whiteley, H. (Ashton und. Lyne

  Rasch, Major Frederic Carne

  Spencer, Sir E. (W. Bromwich)

  Williams, Rt Hn J Powell-(Birm

  Rattigan, Sir William Henry

  Stanley, Hn. Arthur (Ormskirk)

  Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E.R.)

  Ridley, Hon. M.W.(Stalybridge

  Stanley, Edward. Jas. (Somerset

  Wilson-Todd, Wm. H. (Yorks.)

  Ridley, S. Forde (Bethnal Green)

  Stewart, Sir Mark J. M'Taggart

  Wodehouse, Rt. Hn, E.R.(Bath)

  Ritchie, Rt.Hn.Chas.Thomson

  Stone, Sir Benjamin

  Worsley-Taylor, Henry Wilson

  Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)

  Sturt, Hon. Humphry Napier

  Wortley, Rt. Hon. C.B. Stuart-

  Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Wylie, Alexander

  Robinson, Brooke

  Talbot, Rt.Hn.J.G.(Oxf'd Univ

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  Rothschild, Hon. Lionel Walter

  Thorburn, Sir Walter

  Wyndham-Quin, Major W. H.

  Round, Rt. Hon. James

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Younger, William

  Royds, Clement Molyneux

  Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.

  Rutherford, John

  Tritton, Charles Ernest

  Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-

  Tufnell, Lieut.-Col. Edward

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

  Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander

  Valentia, Viscount

  Sir Alexander Acland-

  Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse)

  Vincent, Sir Edgar (Exeter)

  Hood and Mr. Anstruther.

  Saunderson, Rt. Hn. Col. Edw. J

  Walker, Col. William Hall

  NOES.

  Allan, Sir William (Gateshead

  Hayter, Rt. Hon, Sir Arthur D.

  Rickett, J. Compton

  Allen, Charles P.(Gloue., Stroud

  Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H.

  Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

  Asquith, Rt Hn. Herbert Henry

  Holland, Sir William Henry

  Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

  Atherley-Jones, L.

  Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)

  Robertson, Edmund (Dundee)

  Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)

  Horniman, Frederick John

  Robson, William Snowdon

  Bell, Richard

  Humphreys-Owen, Arthur C.

  Runciman, Walter

  Bolton, Thomas Dolling

  Hutton, Alfred E. (Modey)

  Schwann, Charles E.

  Brigg, John

  Jacoby, James Alfred

  Shackleton, David James

  Broadhurst, Henry

  Jones, David Brymnor(Sw'nsca

  Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)

  Brown, Geo. M. (Edinburgh)

  Kearley, Hudson E.

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson

  Kinloch, Sir John Geo. Smyth

  Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)

  Bryce, Rt. Hon James

  Kinson, Sir James

  Sloan, Thomas Henry

  Burt, Thomas

  Labouchere, Henry

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  Buxton, Sydney Charles

  Lambert, George

  Soares, Ernest J.

  Caine, William Sproston

  Langley, Batty

  Spencer, Rt Hn C.R.(Northants

  Caldwell, James

  Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington

  Stevenson, Francis S.

  Cameron, Robert

  Leng, Sir John

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  Causton, Richard Knight

  Levy, Maurice

  Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen,E.

  Cawley, Frederick

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Thomas, Sir A.(Glamorgan,E.

  Channing, Francis Allston

  Lloyd-George, David

  Thomas David Alfred(Merthyr

  Cremer, William Randal

  Logan, John William

  Thomas, F. Freeman-(Hastings

  Dalziel, James Henry

  Lough, Thomas

  Thomas, J A (Gl'morgan, Gower

  Davis, Alfred (Carmarthen)

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Toulmin, George

  Dilke, Rt. Hon.. Sir Charles

  M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

  Wallace, Robert

  Dunn, Sir William

  M`Kenna, Reginald

  Walton, John Lawson(Leeds,S.

  Edwards, Frank

  M`Laren, Sir Reginald Benjamin

  Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

  Ellis, John Edward

  Mansfield, Horace Rendall

  Wason, Eugene

  Emmott, Alfred

  Mappin, Sir Frederick Thorpe

  Weir, James Galloway

  Farquharson, Dr. Robert

  Markham, Arthur Basil

  White, George (Norfolk)

  Fenwick, Charles

  Mather, Sir William

  White, Luke (York, E.R.)

  Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond

  Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

  Whiteley, George (York, W. R.

  Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)

  Morley, Charles (Breconshire)

  Whitley, J. H (Halifax)

  Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

  Moulton, John Fletcher

  Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

  Fuller, J. M. F.

  Newnes, Sir George

  Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)

  Furness, Sir Christopher

  Norton, Capt. Cecil William

  Wilson, Fred. W. (Norfolk, Mid.

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  Nussey, Thomas Willans

  Wilson, Henry J. (York, W. R.)

  Grant, Corrie

  Palmer, Sir Charles M.(Durham

  Woodhouse, Sir J T (Huddersf'd

  Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir E. (Berwick)

  Partington, Oswald

  Yoxall, James Henry

  Griffith, Ellis J.

  Pease, J A. (Saffron Walden)

  Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

  Perks, Robert William

  Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Sir William

  Philipps, John Wynford

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

  Harmsworth, R. Leicester

  Pickard, Benjamin

  Mr. Herbert Gladstone

  Harwood, George

  Priestley, Arthur

  and Mr. William M`Arthur.

  Hayne, Rt. Hon. Charles Seale-

  Reckitt, Harold James

  Clause, as amended, agreed to
  Clause 11:—
  MR. LOUGHmoved to insert after "authority," in line 1, the words, "or any body of

  71
  managers." He said the object of the Clause was to give the Board of Education the power of compelling the local education authority to carry out its duties. He thought other bodies on whose shoulders responsibilities rested should also be compelled to do their part.
  THE CHAIRMAN: I do not think it will do to propose such an Amendment here. That matter has already been discussed on Clause 8, sub-Section (a), and if the managers fail to carry out their duties under this Act certain things are to happen. The Committee have considered that case and laid down what is to happen.
  MR. LOUGH: I am thinking specially of Section 9.
  MR. M'KENNAsaid that if any persons other than the local education authority proposed to provide a new public elementary school and failed to carry out their proposal, the Board of Education should have power to compel them to do so. The Amendment was therefore in order.
  THE CHAIRMAN: What does that matter? I understand that other persons can come forward and say that they are prepared to provide a new school, but that is not a duty under the Elementary Education Acts. Therefore it would not be right to insert these words in the way proposed. I do not say the proposal of the hon. Member is not a proper one to make; far from it. What I say is that you cannot assume that persons other than the local education authority have certain duties under the Elementary Education Acts. Of course they have not.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid that under Clause 8 certain consequences were to follow if the managers did not perform their duties, but did that exclude their being subject to another penalty? The local education authority were subject to mandamus.
  SIR ROBERT FINLAYsaid that a mandamus was not given as a remedy if there existed another remedy. Under
  72
  Clause 8, if the managers failed to discharge their duties, the local education authority were, in addition to their other powers, to have power to carry out the original intention as if they were managers.
  SIR JOHN BRUNNERsubmitted that it would be very much more convenient if the managers carried out the duty under mandamus than if the local authority-did it.
  MR. LOUGHsaid the words he proposed to insert would make the Clause clearer.
  SIR ROBERT FINLAYsubmitted that the hon. Member was not entitled to bring in. the words here with reference to Clause 9, which was perfectly explicit. If the managers did not carry out their undertaking to provide a school the Board of Education might require them to do it, but that would rest between them and the Board.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  SIR WILLIAM ANSONmoved an Amendment, with the object of making it quite clear that failure on the part of the local authority to provide the necessary additional school accommodation was to be brought under the sanction of a mandamus, which was to issue if the local authority in any respect failed in its duty. It would he impossible for the Board of Education to come down upon a County Council and say that they proposed to substitute persons of their own nomination for the purpose of providing the elementary school accommodation which the area required, and so this failure to provide school accommodation must, in correspondence with other failures by the local authority, be brought under the sanction of a mandamus.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 4, line 20, after the word 'Act,' to insert the words 'or fail to provide such additional public school accommodation as is in the opinion of the Board of Education necessary.'"—(Sir William Anson.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid it would be interesting if the Attorney General would give the Committee information as to what was going to happen under a mandamus. If the County Councils were not to be the judges of what accommodation was required for secular education it was possible, indeed it was highly probable, that some of the Councils would say that they would not apply the rates to the purposes which formed the subject of a mandamus. That would be dealing with the rates in a manner which he thought would be disadvantageous to education. Of course the promoter, who might be called the executive officer, would be the Secretary to the Board of Education. He really thought that these great local education authorities should be warned beforehand, so that they might understand how the Secretary in London was going to prosecute them and for what. Was the Attorney General going to prosecute them in cases where they appropriated the rates in a manner which they thought would be advantageous to the ratepayers? He thought that all that should be made clear before mandamus.
  SIR ROBERT FINLAYsaid that the procedure by mandamus, where local authorities were concerned, was quite clear. The right hon. Gentleman must be aware that there was a procedure of mandamus in the Public Health Act by which the local authority was, for instance, compelled to carry out a scheme of drainage. The modus operandi was this. Those members of a local authority who refused to perform their statutory duties were liable to be proceeded against; and if they disputed the mandamus, then it might be enforced against their person and property. The remedy was against those who were guilty of disregarding the injunction which was laid upon them. He did not in the slightest degree agree with the observation of the right hon. Gentleman as to the position of the local authority in the Bill.
  DR. MACNAMARAsaid that this was a very necessary matter, but it seemed to him that there was some
  74
  little conflict between the Clause proposed by the Secretary to the Board of Education and Section 18 of the Act of 1870. The Clause said that if the local education authority failed to fulfil any of their duties, etc., the Board of Education might, after holding a public inquiry, make such order as they thought necessary, etc. But the Act of 1870 said that the Board of Education was only to proceed if the School Board "failed from time to time" to provide such additional accommodation as was necessary. In order that there might not be conflicts in the courts of law the Attorney General should consider whether the words unrepealed under the Act of 1870 should not be struck out.
  SIR ROBERT FINLAYsaid he thought that the effect of the words in the Clause would be to over-ride the Section of the Act of 1870 referred to by the hon. Gentleman, but the point would be fully considered, and, if it was found desirable to modify the Clause, that could be done at a later stage.
  MR. M'KENNAsaid he wished to move as an Amendment to the Amendment the insertion after the word "authority" of the words, "or other persons mentioned in Section 9." By Clause 9, not only the education authority, but "any other persons" might propose to provide a new public elementary school. By the Amendment of the Secretary to the Board of Education, the Department would have power to compel the local authority to provide the school if they failed in that duty, but there was no power to compel those "other persons" to carry out their proposal. Other persons ought not to be allowed to come up and offer to provide a school, and having stopped the local authority from carrying their scheme, to say six months afterwards, "We are sorry we have not found the money and cannot go on with our proposed school." He maintained that if the Board of Education, having determined that a proposed new school was necessary, and those other persons having defeated the local authority, they should be compelled to carry out their proposal.
  Amendment proposed to the proposed Amendment—
  "After the word 'or,' to insert the words, 'if the local education authority or other persons under Section 9.'"—(Mr. M'Kenna.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted in the proposed Amendment."
  SIR ROBERT FINLAYsaid that the Amendment was not one that could possibly be accepted. It was barely intelligible, and even if it were capable of being understood at all, it would not be flattering to the intelligence of the Committee if they adopted it.
  SIR CHARLES DILKEsaid the Committee had got into trouble because they had been closured last night, and again today. The great danger of Clause 9 was that there would be paper promises which would prevent the real operation of the Section. These paper undertakings would not be kept. The proper way of dealing with the point was by the Amendment of the hon. Member for Liverpool, the discussion of which was stopped by the closure. It could not be raised again now, and therefore they were forced to try and adopt a less desirable Amendment.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid that the Amendment of the Government dealt with those who failed to provide sufficient accommodation. If the local authority failed to provide sufficient accommodation they were to be punished, but if the managers proposed to afford additional accommodation in their own schools, and failed, they were let go scot-free. It was assumed that the managers had no duties, only privileges. They could compel the authority to give them the rates and Parliamentary grants, but the moment they came to the local authority or the Board of Education it was said that they had no reciprocal duty at all. What his hon. friend proposed was that if the Board of Education
  directed that the managers should increase the school accommodation, and make it more satisfactory, and they refused to carry out that order, they should be subject to the same liability as the local education authority. If the local education authority refused to carry out the direction of the Board of Education they could be sent to Holloway gaol. Why not those other persons, the managers? Why should not they mandamus the clergyman of the parish? It was because he was a privileged person. This was another illustration of the way in which one section was favoured at the expense of another. How could hon. Members defend this discrimination between the denominational managers and the local authority? If the managers had duties under the Act, why should they not be compelled to perform them? The only answer was that they could withdraw the grants and close the denominational schools. But they could also withdraw the grants and close the schools of the local authority, and why should not that be sufficient for the latter as well as for the former? There was one law for the sectarian school, and another for the local authority; mandamus for representatives of the people, Holloway prison for the County Council, but none for the clerical manager. He objected to this and to the whole thing, because he maintained that the principle was had to discriminate in favour of a privileged sect rather than in favour of the ratepayers.
  SIR JOHN BRUNNERsaid he thought it was due to the Committee that the Attorney General should tell them if he would either now, or in some other place, provide against the danger which had been shown by his hon. friend to exist. The difficulty described by the hon. Member for North Camberwell was a real one, and a hindrance to the progress of education.
  (7.18.) Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes, 116; Noes, 243. (Division List, No. 474.)

  AYES.

  Allan, SirWilliam (Gateshead)

  Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)

  Brown, George M. (Edinburgh)

  Allen, Charles P(Glouc., Stroud

  Bolton, Thomas Dolling

  Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson

  Asquith, Rt Hon Herbert Henry

  Brigg, John

  Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

  Atherley-Jones, L.

  Broadhurst, Henry

  Burns, John

  Burt, Thomas

  Kitson, Sir James

  Runciman, Walter

  Buxton, Sydney Charles

  Lambert, George

  Schwann, Charles E.

  Caine, William Sproston

  Langley, Batty

  Shackleton, David James

  Caldwell, James

  Leese, Sir Joseph F.(Accrington

  Shaw, Charles Ed W. (Stafford)

  Cameron, Robert

  Leng, Sir John

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Causton, Richard Knight

  Levy, Maurice

  Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)

  Cawley, Frederick

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Sloan, Thomas Henry

  Channing, Francis Allston

  Lloyd-George, David

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  Cremer, William Bandal

  Logan, John William

  Soares, Ernest J.

  Davies, Alferd (Carmarthen)

  Lough, Thomas

  Spencer, Rt Hn C R.(Northants)

  Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Stevenson, Francis S.

  Dunn, Sir William

  M'Arthur, William (Cornwall)

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  Edwards, Frank

  M'Laren, Sir Charles Benjamin

  Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)

  Emmott, Alfred

  Mansfield, Horace Rendall

  Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

  Farquharson, Dr. Robert

  Mather, Arthur Basil

  Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr

  Fenwick, Charles

  Mather, Sir William

  Thomas, J A (Glam'rgan, Gower

  Fergnson, R. C. Munro (Leith)

  Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

  Toulmin, George

  Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)

  Morley, Charles (Breconshirc)

  Wallace, Robert

  Father, J. M. F.

  Newnes, Sir George

  Walton, John Lawson (Leeds.S)

  Gladstone. Rt Herbert John

  Norman, Henry

  Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

  Goldard, Daniel Ford

  Norton, Capt. Cecil William

  Wason, Eugene

  Grant, Corrie

  Nussey, Thomas Willans

  Weir, James Galloway

  Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir E. (Berwick)

  Palmer, Sir Charles M.(Durham

  White, George (Norfolk)

  Griffith, Ellis J.

  Partington, Oswald

  White, Luke (York, E. R.)

  Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

  Pease, J. .N. (Saffron Walden

  Whiteley, George (York, W.R.)

  Harmsworth. R. Leicester

  Perks, Robert William

  Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

  Harwood, George

  Phililpps, John Wynford

  Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

  Hayne, Rt. Hon. Charles Seale-

  Pickard, Benjamin

  Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)

  Hayter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur D.

  Priestly, Arthur

  Wilson, Fred. W. (Norfolk, Mid

  Hemphill. Rt. Hon. Charles H.

  Rea, Bussell

  Wilson, Henry J. (York, W. R.

  Holland, Sir William Henry

  Reckitt, Harold James

  Woodhouse, Sir J T. (Huddersf'd

  Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)

  Rickett, J. Compton

  Yoxall, James Henry

  Horniman, Frederick John

  Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

  Humphreys-Owen, Arthur C.

  Roberts, John H. (Denbighs)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

  Hutton, Alfred F. (Morley)

  Robertson, Edmund (Dundee)

  Mr. M'Kenna and Mr.

  Jacoby, James Alfred

  Robson, William Snowdon

  Brynmor Jones

  NOES.

  Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

  Cayzer, Sir Charles William

  Fardell, Sir T. George

  Agnew. Sir Andrew Noel

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward

  Aillmsen, Angustu, Hendry Eden

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

  Fergusson, Rt Hn. Sir J. (Manc'r

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J.(Brim.

  Finch, George H

  Archdale, Edward Mervyn

  Chapman, Edward

  Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Charrington, Spencer

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.

  Clare, Octavius Leigh

  Fison, Frederick William

  Arrol, Sir William

  Clive, Captain Percy A.

  FitzGerald, Sir Robert Penrose-

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H.A. E.

  Fitzroy, Hon Edward Algernon

  Bai y, James (Walworth)

  Coghill, Douglas Harry

  Flannery, Sir Fortescue

  Bain, Colonel James Robert

  Cohen, Benjamin Louis

  Fletcher, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

  Baird, John George Alexander

  Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

  Flower, Ernest

  Balcarres, Lord

  Colomb, Sir John Charles Ready

  Forster, Henry William

  Balfour, Rt. Hon, A.J.(Manch'r

  Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole

  Foster, Philip S (Warwick, S.W

  Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey)

  Compton, Lord Alwyne

  Galloway, William Johnson

  Balfour, RtHn GeraldW (Leeds

  Cook, Sir Frederick Lucas

  Garfit, William

  Ba bury, Frederick George

  Cox, Irwin Edward Bainbridge

  Gibbs, Hon. Vicary (St.Albans)

  Bar ley, George C. T.

  Cranborne, Viscount

  Godson, Sir Augustus Frederick

  Beckett, Ernest William

  Cripps, Charles Alfred

  Gordon Maj Evans-(T'rH'mlets

  Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

  Cross, Alexander (Glasgow)

  Gore, Hn G.R.C. Ormsby-(Salop

  Bignold, Arthur

  Cross, Herb. Shepherd (Bolton)

  Gore, Hon. S.F. Ormsby-(Linc.

  Bill, Charles

  Crossley, Sir Servile

  Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon)

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Cubitt, Hon. Henry

  Goschen, Hon. George Joachum

  Bond, Edward

  Cust, Henry John C.

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Bwen, Arthur Griffith-

  Dalrymple, Sir Charles

  Graham, Henry Robert

  Bowles, Capt. H. F. (Middlesex)

  Davenport, William Bromley-

  Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

  Bowles, T. Gibson (King's Lynn

  Davies, Sir HoratioD(Chatham

  Greene, Sir E W (B'ryS Edm'nds

  Brassey, Albert

  Denny, Colonel

  Greene, Henry D.(Shrewsbury

  Brodrick, Rt. Hon, St. John

  Dewar, Sir T.R. (Tower Hamlets

  Grenfell, William Henry

  Brown, Alexander H.(Shropsh.

  Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

  Greville, Hon. Ronald.

  Brymer, William Ernest

  Digby, John K. D. Wingfield-

  Groves, James Grimble

  Bull, William James

  Dixon-HartlandSirFredDixon

  Guthrie, Walter Murray

  Butcher, John George

  Dorington, Rt. Hon. Sir John E.

  Hain, Edward

  Carew, James Laurence

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Hall, Edward Marshall

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

  Duke, Henry Edward

  Halsey Rt. Hon. Thomas F.

  Cavendish, V.C.W.(Derbyshire

  Faber, George Denison (York

  Hanbury, Rt. Hon. Robert Wm.

  78

  79

  Hardy, Laurence (KentAshford

  Maxwell, W J H (Dumfriesshire

  Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse)

  Hare, Thomas Leigh

  Meysey-Thompson, Sir H. M.

  Saunderson, Rt. Hn. Col. Edw. J

  Harris, Frederick Leverton

  Milner, Rt. Hn. Sir Frederick G

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Haslam, Sir Alfred S.

  Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

  Sharpe, William Edward T.

  Hatch, Ernest Frederick Geo.

  More, Robt. Jasper (Shropshire)

  Simeon, Sir Barrington

  Heaton, John Henniker

  Morgan, DavidJ (Walth'mst'w

  Sinclair, Louis (Romford)

  Helder, Augustus

  Morrell, George Herbert

  Smith, James Parker (Lanark)

  Henderson, Sir Alexander

  Morrison, James Archibald

  Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand

  Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T.

  Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer

  Spencer, Sir E. (W. Bromwich

  Hogg, Lindsay

  Mount, William Arthur

  Stanley, Hon. Arthur(Ormskirk

  Hope, J.F. (Sheffield, Brightside

  Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.

  Stanley, Edward Jas.(Somerset

  Howard, John (Kent, Faversh'm

  Murray, Rt Hn A Graham (Bute

  Stewart, Sir Mark J. M'Taggart

  Howard, J. (Midd., Tottenham

  Murray, Charles J. (Coventry

  Stone, Sir Benjamin

  Hozier, Hn. James Henry Cecil

  Myers, William Henry

  Sturt, Hon. Humphry Napier

  Hudson, George Bickersteth

  Nicholson, William Graham

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse

  Nicol, Donald Ninian

  Talbot Rt. Hn. J.G. (Oxf'd.Univ

  Jeffreys, Rt. Hn. Arthur Fred.

  Nolan, Col. John P.(Galway,N.

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Johnstone, Heywood

  Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay

  Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.

  Kemp, George

  Parker, Sir Gilbert

  Tritton, Charles Ernest

  Kenyon, Hon. Geo. T. (Denbigh

  Peel, Hn. Wm. Robt. Wellesley

  Tufnell, Lieut.-Col. Edward

  Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W.(Salop

  Pemberton, John S. G.

  Valentia, Viscount

  Keswick, William

  Percy, Earl

  Vincent, Col. Sir CEH(Sheffield

  Kimber, Henry

  Pierpoint, Robert

  Walker, Col. William Hall

  King, Sir Henry Seymour

  Platt-Higgins, Frederick

  Walrond, Rt. Hn. Sir William H

  Knowles, Lees

  Plummer, Walter R.

  Wanklyn, James Leslie

  Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Webb, Colonel William George

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Welby, Lt.-Col. A.C.E.(Taunt'n

  Lawrence, Sir Joseph (Monm'th

  Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

  Welby, Sir Charles G. E. (Notts.

  Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool

  Purvis, Robert

  Wharton, Rt. Hon. John Lloyd

  Lecky, Rt. Hn. William Edw. H

  Pym, C.Guy

  Whiteley, H. (Ashtonund. Lyne

  Lee, Arthur H(Hants, Fareham

  Quilter, Sir Cuthbert

  Williams, RtHnJ Powell-(Birm

  Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead)

  Rankin, Sir James

  Williams, Colonel Rt. (Dorset)

  Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

  Rasch, Major Frederic Carne

  Willox, Sir John Archibald

  Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie

  Rattigan, Sir William Henry

  Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E.R.)

  Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  Wilson-Todd, Wm. H. (Yorks.)

  Long, Col. Charles W (Eversh'm

  Ridley, Hon. M. W (Stalybridge

  Wodehouse, Rt. Hn. E. R. (Bath

  Long, Rt. Hn. Walter(Bristol, S.

  Ridley, S. Forde (Bethnal Green

  Worsley-Taylor, Henry Wilson

  Lowe, Francis William

  Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson

  Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart-

  Loyd, Archie Kirkman

  Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  Lucas, Col. Francis(Lowestoft)

  Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

  Wyndham-Quin, Major W.H.

  Lucas, Reginald J.(Portsmouth

  Robinson, Brooke

  Younger, William

  Lyttleton, Hon. Alfred

  Rothschild, Hn Lionel Walter

  Macdona, John Cumming

  Round, Rt. Hon. James

  M'Iver, Sir Lewis (EdinburghW

  Royds, Clement Molyneux

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

  M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire

  Rutherford, John

  Sir Alexander Acland-

  Malcolm, Ian

  Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-

  Hood and Mr. Anstruther.

  Manners, Lord Cecil

  Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander

  Question put, and agreed to.

  Question again proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  It being after half-past Seven of the clock, and objection being taken to further proceeding, the Chairman left the Chair to make his Report to the House.
  Committee report Progress; to sit again this evening.

EVENING SITTING.

  SUPPLY — MOTION TO SET UP COMMITTEE TO CONSIDER VOTE FOR SOUTH AFRICA.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. RITCHIE, Croydon): In moving that the House do tomorrow, at 9 o'clock, resolve itself into Committee of
  80
  Supply is my duty to inform the House, as a Minister of the Crown, that exceptional circumstances have arisen which render it necessary for the Crown to apply to the House for a further grant in Committee of Supply, to the amount of eight millions, the Estimates for which I have laid on the Table of the House. As the House will no doubt know, the proposal which I make is one of a very exceptional character, and can only be justified by very exceptional circumstances. The exceptional circumstances which have arisen, calling for this exceptional proceeding on our part, are connected with the terms of surrender which were arranged at the conclusion of the war with the Boer leaders. One of these terms was that there should be an amount of three millions sterling given to the Boers for purposes of repatriation and

  81
  certain other purposes named in the terms of surrender. Now, I think it may be very fairly said in regard to this matter, why—if this was so—was not a Vote for the purpose proposed at the ordinary time when the Estimates were taken, before Committee of Supply was closed, and before the Appropriation Bill was introduced? Well, the reason why we did not propose this Vote at that time I will shortly state to the House. It was understood by his Majesty's Government, when these conditions were arranged, that this grant of three millions of money was not to be given out of the Imperial Exchequer, but that it should be part of any Transvaal loan winch should be floated on behalf of South Africa; and, of course, if that view had been so, there would have been no necessity at all for applying to Parliament for any grant; it would, of course, have been met out of the loan when that loan was put upon the market. But, while the Government hold that that would have been a carrying out of the agreement with the Boers, still we had to consider views placed before us in connection with the matter by the Boer leaders, and it was urged upon us that this would not be a compliance with the spirit, at any rate, of the terms which had been agreed upon at the time of surrender. It was urged, and I think not without force, that a free gift by His Majesty's Government meant that the money would be found, not out of the Transvaal revenue, but out of the revenue of the United Kingdom. Well, as I have said, we considered the matter, and arrived at the conclusion that this particular item of the conditions did undoubtedly lend itself to so me extent to that contention on behalf of the Boers, although I still maintain that the understanding at the time of the arrangement was that the money should be found out of the Transvaal loan. Well, that was the position of things when I assumed the office I have the honour to hold. In these circumstances His Majesty's Government had to consider what course they should adopt, and the House will see that one thing incumbent on us was to avoid, if possible, any legitimate feeling of dissatisfaction on the part of those who had been our enemies. The worst thing that could happen would be to give them a legitimate grievance, to
  82
  give tm any solid ground for the contention that we had got them to agree to terms of surrender under false pretences, or that, having agreed to terms of surrender, we had interpreted those terms in the sense most favourable to ourselves and least favourable to the Boers. This would have been a grave risk to run, and a risk which His Majesty's Government did not feel themselves called upon to run. We believe we are acting most in accord with the interests of South Africa, most in accord with the feelings of the people of this country, and, I believe, with the feeling of the House, in taking this burden on ourselves.
  That being so, the matter could no longer be disposed of in the way we originally proposed—namely, by taking this money out of the loan which was to be floated on behalf of the Transvaal; and it is therefore necessary for us to come to Parliament to ask Parliament to authorise us to pay out of the revenues of this kingdom the amount of three millions which we have undertaken to give to the Boers, and, although it formed no part of the terms of surrender, we propose to treat the loyalists of South Africa in a similar manner. I am sure the House would certainly not be satisfied with any arrangement by which the Boers were to receive a considerable sum for repatriation and other matters under the terms of surrender, and the loyalists would not receive a corresponding advantage. After consideration, we have come to the conclusion to appropriate to the loyalists two millions in a similar manner, and that this will meet the justice of the case. It therefore follows that, if a free gift should come out of the revenue for the Boers, then the two millions for the loyalists should also come from the revenues of the United Kingdom. Therefore we have to come to the House now, and ask it to go into Committee of Supply for the purpose of enabling us to pay over for repatriation and other kindred purposes three millions to the Boers and two millions to the loyalists. But, in addition to this, one of the terms of surrender was that a certain sum should be advanced at a low rate of interest for similar purposes, and we have estimated that sum at three millions. That sum is a sum to come legitimately out of the Transvaal loan when it is put upon

  83
  the market, but until that loan is put upon the market we have to find the money for this purpose, and this sum is also included in the Vote we shall ask the House to consider tomorrow. But that will not form any permanent obligation on the British Treasury; it will be merely an advance out of the balances of the Treasury to be repaid to the balances when the Transvaal loan is floated.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: A loan for the Transvaal and the Orange Colony?
  MR.RITCHIE: Oh, yes; where I have spoken of the Transvaal I must ask the House to take it that I also include the Orange River Colony. I may say in regard to this incidentally that the reason why we ask the House to go into Committee of Supply to vote the money which will he repaid is because we consider that the present time is not a good time for floating a Transvaal loan; we hope and believe that in the Spring there will he a much more favourable opportunity. Therefore, in the Vote we shall ask the House to consider we include this advance to the Transvaal and Orange Colony. Now, my hon. friend the Member for King's Lynn, with whom on matters of this kind I always differ with great hesitation, because I know he makes a special study of matters of procedure, says:—This may be all very well; it may be quite right to do what you intend, but you are not adopting the proper mode of procedure. It is an unprecedented thing, or almost unprecedented, at any rate it has not occurred for 150 years, that the House of Commons has been asked after Supply is closed, and after the passing of the Appropriation Bill, to go into Committee of Supply for a purpose of this kind. Committee of Supply, he says, being once closed ought not to be re-opened by subsequent procedure such as we adopt. There has been no precedent for any such proposal for the last 150 years. I confess I think we shall be able to show, in justification of this procedure, that the circumstances are very exceptional. The present position of the House is exceptional. I do not think that such a combination of exceptional circumstances has arisen in the last 150 years. This House has met for an
  84
  Autumn Sitting, and there has been an exceptional demand by the Crown for a grant of money. I contend that these exceptional circumstances justify the procedure I now ask the House to adopt. One thing, undoubtedly, is necessary in matters of this kind, and that is that, whatever funds may be thought to be necessary, all grants of money ought to be based on a request from the Crown. I have made it my business to make inquiries upon this matter, and I feel sure that, having in my capacity as a Minister of the Crown made on behalf of the Crown such a request, I have acceded to the principle, and it has been practically complied with, that the Crown should, through the mouth of the Minister, state the demands of the Crown to the House. That is the justification which I have to make for the Motion I now make that the House should, at nine o'clock tomorrow evening, resolve itself into Committee of Supply.
  Motion made and proposed, "That this House will tomorrow, at Nine of the Clock in the evening, resolve itself into a Committee to consider the Supply to be granted to His Majesty."—(Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer.)
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: I the trust House will afford me its indulgence while I address it on a question which I deemt o be of the most serious importance. The right hon. Gentleman, in his capacity of Minister of the Crown, has asked this House for Supply to be granted to the Crown. I know of no such proceeding as that which the right hon. Gentleman has asked the House to follow. The demand of the Crown for Supply is always, always has been, and always should be, a most formal and solemn act. It should be embodied in a Speech from the Throne, or, when that is not possible, by a Message signed, as the journals of this House always record, by His Majesty's own hand. It may be said that that is a formal matter. It is more than a formal matter; it is a testimony to the respect which the Sovereign himself owes to this House. It is not right to make a serious demand upon this House in an informal and slovenly way. If that is to be allowed, a Royal Message

  85
  superseded by a mere statement of a Minister of the Crown may be further superseded, and we may have the demand for supplies made merely by a newspaper paragraph. I attach much importance to the formalities of this House, and especially to those which testify to the respect not only of the people, but of the Sovereign of this country. They are none of them unimportant. Therefore I cannot admit that the statement which the right Hon. Gentleman has now made is sufficient to oust the necessity for a proper Message from the Crown.
  The right hon. Gentleman tells us that this Supply was not asked for in May, only because His Majesty's Ministers had mis-understood the terms of the peace they had made with the Boers. That is what his statement amounts to. He says they understood that the three millions grant was to come out of a Transvaal loan, but that since then the Boers have explained to them that they were mistaken in their view, and that the three millions were intended to be, as no doubt it was, and as most people understood, a payment by Great Britain, recoverable, perhaps from the Transvaal, but certainly payable immediately by this country to the Boers. I really do not think that such a reason can fairly and properly be addressed to the House for the failure on the part of the Government to submit their demand for Supply, while Supply was still open, and while the Appropriation Bill was unpassed. There are still', more serious matters of question which I will pass by. But now as to the question of Order. There was a Sessional Order on Supply passed by this House on the 28th April. I must presume that since the Minister has made this demand, he has consulted the authorities of the House, and that they have admitted and allowed that it is not inconsistent with that Sessional Order. But I myself cannot reconcile the language of the Order wit h this procedure. The Sessional Order limits the number of days to be allotted, and provides that those days must end at the 5th August. Besides these, it allows for other days unallotted. This new service may be appropriate to the unallotted days, but allotted or unallotted, the rule clearly lays it down that any additional Estimate for any new matter not included in the original
  86
  Estimates shall be submitted for consideration in Committee of Supply on some day not later than two days before the Committee is closed. I cannot understand how, after Supply has closed, after the Report of Supply has been agreed to, and after the guillotine has fallen and brought to an end allotted and unallotted days alike, this new matter can be submitted now. if, indeed, it is to be held—as I must assume it is—that this Rule does not apply to present circumstances, if indeed we are held to be outside the Rule of Supply which was passed as a Sessional Order on the 28th April last, then the whole Rule goes by the board. For instance, the Rule limits the discussion of Supply to a certain number of days. That limit goes if the Rule goes. The Rule provides for the guillotine at the end of the number of days. The conditions go and the guillotine also goes, and we may engage in unlimited discussion on the Supply now presented to us.
  But I am not careful to insist on the formal Rule or the interpretation of it. For I have a much more serious matter to submit. Will the House permit me to say what in my opinion the right method of Supply is? Standing Order 54 indicates the course which should be adopted. It provides—
  "That this House will appoint the Committees of Supply and Ways and Means at the commencement of every Session as soon as the Address fins been agreed to in answer to His Majesty's Speech."
  I am far from saying that that precludes Supply being set up at any other time than that specified by the Standing Order; but I do say that that Standing Order indicates to the House the proper and only regular mode of procedure in regard to setting up Supply. There is a formal and solemn demand by the Crown for Supply addressed to the House of Commons, and power is given to move Amendments to the King's Speech in order to consider grievances. No Supply can be set up until those grievances have been disposed of and until the Address in reply to the gracious Speech has been agreed to. That is what enshrines the principle that Grievance shall come before Supply. And when the Committee of Supply has done its work it reports to the House, the Report is agreed to, and the final act of the Session is the passing

  87
  of the Appropriation Bill. The control of Parliament over national finances rests solely on the Appropriation Act. It is not Votes in Supply that gives the Government money to spend. It is the Appropriation Act, which is the only legal authority to the Ministry to spend a farthing of the money voted in Supply. Votes in Supply are after all only resolutions of this House, but the Appropriation Act is the Act of Parliament, not of this House only but of the other House as well, which has power it not to originate, yet to right it, and the Act of the Sovereign who gives his assent. So true is it that the Act and the Act alone is the authority, that if a session be prorogued before and without the Appropriation Act being passed, every Vote of the House of Commons becomes thereby voided and null as though it had never been passed. I desire to read a few extracts from the greatest authority on this most important constitutional point, because it is the foundation of my argument, that nothing is anything except the Appropriation Act. I will quote from the very best work on the constitution of this country. viz., "Law and Practice of the Constitution," by Sir William Anson, whose authority is not in the least lessened by his having left the uncertain emoluments of literature for the more secure position of Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education. He says—
  "The sums voted to meet the army, navy, and civil service estimates cannot be legally paid until they are embodied in the Appropriation Act, and the House of Commons, in order to get the Supplies of the whole year into one Bill, reserves the Appropriation Bill until the close of the session."
  And again—
  "It is not the need of Supply, but of the appropriation of Supply and of the Army Act which makes it legally necessary for Parliament to sit every year. If Parliament did not appropriate the Supplies of the year to specific purposes, the money which comes in on account of the various items of taxation could not legally he paid out to meet the services of the year, except in the case of such charges upon the revenue as are permanently authorised by statute."
  Let me for a moment ask the House to observe the extreme importance of this. I have said that the Government cannot spend a farthing legally without the authority of the Appropriation Act. It may receive very large revenues indeed
  88
  without the annual interposition of this House, and without its permission, but it cannot spend the money. Let us consider what revenue it does receive, without the annual consent of the House, through permanent Acts of Parliament. In this year, 1902–1903, the Government estimate to raise a revenue of £161,700,000; of that sum £112,500,000 is permanent revenue raised by taxes imposed on the nation by permanent Acts of Parliament, and for not one penny of which, therefore, the Government need come to the House. Why, you could run an Empire on £112,500,000. My belief is that the German Empire is run on less. But, although they obtain that £112,000,000, not one farthing of it can the Government spend without the sanction of an Appropriation Act. Were it otherwise the Government need never call Parliament together at all. I think I have shown, therefore, that it is the Appropriation Act and not votes in Supply that is important. Now, if the House will permit me, I will read one or two more quotations to show the importance of retaining the Appropriation Act until the end of the session. Here is what that great financial authority, Sir George Cornwall Lewis, said before the Committee of Public Accounts in 1857—
  "The Appropriation Act at the end of the session gathers together the whole of the Votes in Supply and the grants already authorised out of the Consolidated Fund to meet in part the Supplies voted; the balance of ways and means required to cover all the sums charged on the Supplies of the year is set forth in this Act, which thus completes the financial proceedings of this session.… The final grant of ways and means to cover the whole of the Supplies voted in the session is always reserved for the Appropriation Act; thus, although the House of Commons, at an early period of the session, might have voted the whole of the Supplies of the year, they could still hold their constitutional check upon the Minister."
  Another eminent authority, who has also been removed to a higher sphere, Sir Courtenay Ilbert, says in his work "Legislative Methods and Forms"—
  "When all the Supply of the session has been voted, an Appropriation Act is passed providing the balance of ways and means required for the session and appropriating in detail the various sums voted out of the Consolidated Fund to the different purposes specified in the Resolutions passed in the Committee of Supply as agreed by the House. The Act includes all the Supply voted in the session for the service of whatever year may be intended."

  89
  Finally I may quote what the Speaker of this House said in 1841—
  "The Appropriation is always reserved for the end of the session, tend it is irregular to introduce any Clause of Appropriation into a revenue or other Bill passing through Parliament at an earlier period."
  Of course, the House is aware that what are called Consolidated Fund Acts are often passed before the Appropriation Act, but not one of those Acts appropriates; they are merely Acts to enable the Treasury to issue money, and the money so issued and all other moneys are brought into the one final Appropriation Act for the reasons I have given. The House, so long as it has the control of the Appropriation Act, has control of the Ministers. Now let me give one last quotation as to this from "Hallam." He says, in language which I can ill approach, but which I earnestly commend to the House—
  "A House of Commons would be deeply responsible to the country if, through supine confidence, it should abandon that high privilege which has made it the arbiter of Court factions and the regulator of foreign connections."
  My argument is that that is virtually what we are asked to do. We are asked to abandon that. The Appropriation Act, as I think I have shown, always has been and always should be, if this House is to retain its power over the Ministers, the very last Act of the Session. It is, as it were, the sessional last will and testament of the House; and just as the testator reserves to the last moment of his life the power of varying and changing his will and thus retaining his control over his own property, this House should retain its power over the Appropriation Bill to the end of the Session.
  Now it may be said, "If there be such virtue in an Appropriation Bill, why should we not have two, and thereby increase the virtue?" That argument reminds me of the young lady who was asked whether she would not have a nice decent husband of fifty, and who replied that she would rather have two of twenty-five. It is a trifling illustration, and I hope the House will pardon it. But why not have two Appropriation Bills? If I were endeavouring to persuade a convinced Tory permeated with sound constitutional feelings and full of reverence for the forms and traditions of the House—without which no man ever became a great Parliamentarian—I would
  90
  reply to that question by saying that the answer is sufficient that the House had never done otherwise than have one Appropriation Bill, and one only. But if I were trying to persuade those who are children in these matters I would say that the reason why we can not properly have two Appropriation Bills in the same Session is because it is absolutely essential to the financial control of the House that the whole finances of the year should be submitted to Parliament in one complete scheme embodied in one Appropriation Bill. Without this the House loses all control. Let the House consider. The Budget presents in one picture all the financial needs and all the financial resources of the year. It is upon that picture that the House judges whether it will agree that to new taxes or to the remission of old taxes; whether it will submit to new burdens being placed not only on itself, it may be, but on posterity. It is upon that one financial statement that the House judges of the financial affairs of the nation. The Budget is, as it were, a Pandora's box, full of taxes, evils and miseries; yet at the bottom is Hope, in. the shape of an Appropriation Bill. But if this Pandora's box, has a false bottom and we find that below the false bottom there are other taxes, miseries and evils and no complete Appropriation Bill covering all of them, then you have not only extorted the taxes on false grounds, but have also departed from the invariable and most necessary practice of finance in this House. Of course I admit at once that there are emergencies which cannot be foreseen in the Budget. Wars may arise and new expenditure may become necessary, that could not be foreseen. But there is proper provision made for dealing with those. There are well-known provisions. There are Votes of credit. Votes of Credit have been indulged in more than once, but never after the passing of the Appropriation Act. Then there is the system of the Supplementary Votes—a most nefarious system. I know of nothing more calculated to enable a Minister to destroy the system of finance of this country than that of Supplementary Estimates. But these are the methods which can be resorted to before the Appropriation Act in Committee of Supply. One Committee of Supply, one Budget and one

  91
  Appropriation Act. Depart from that, and you immediately come into financial chaos and the loss of all power of this House over the Ministers.
  No doubt, as the right hon. Gentleman has said, we are sitting here at this time under very unusual and extraordinary circumstances. This has been called an Autumn Session. I submit it is nothing of the kind. It is a series of supplemental sittings tacked on to the ordinary session, which, as I say, expired for all practical and certainly for all financial purposes when the Appropriation Act was passed. There is no doubt that a bisected session, with a second half devoted to supplementary sittings after the passing of the Appropriation Act is a very rare thing indeed. So far as I can trace it, such a thing has only, occurred three times in the last 100 years. There were supplementary sittings in 1820 in order to pass a Bill of Attainder against Queen Caroline; there were supplemental sittings in 1882 in order to pass the Procedure Rules; and in 1893 in order to pass the Local Government Act. Now, Sir, on all those occasions—and I believe they are the only occasions that can be found in the last 100 years or in the last 200 years—the same conditions were observed. Each one of these series of supplemental sittings was reserved to the sole, single and specific purpose for which it was intended; and in none was an attempt made to set up a new Committee of Supply after the Appropriation Act had been passed. Therefore what is proposed to be done now is an entirely new thing; new to the ordinary practice of the House; new even to the exceptional practice of the House under which we are sitting here today; entirely new and entirely unknown. In 1882 so strongly was it felt that you could not properly proceed with matters of this kind after the Appropriation Act had passed, that the very first thing that occurred on the meeting of the House in October, was that Lord Randolph Churchill moved the adjournment of the House on the ground that it was the settled Constitutional principle that when once the Appropriation Act had been passed the House could not proceed to do any other business whatsoever. The noble Lord was followed into the lobby by
  92
  my right hon. friend the Member for Cambridge University, my right hon. friend the First Lord of the Treasury—whom I am sorry not to see in his place—the present Lord Chancellor, and by my right hon. friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. They were all of opinion that it was impossible to do any business of any kind whatever after the Appropriation Act. It is true that that was in the young and enthusiastic days of the first Lord of the Treasury, when he was a shining light and a Member militant of the Fourth Party. It is true that in those days the right hon. Gentleman did not hold quite the same views he holds now, for he denounced these sittings and also denounced the closure as a reckless tampering with the Constitution, and especially the closure by the Chairman of Committees as a provision which struck deep at the dignity of Parliament. Of course the right hon. Gentleman has reformed now. He has, I believe, entirely repudiated his connexion with the Fourth Party; he has turned his back on his poor relations, and the last of them is now relegated to a seat below the gangway. But at that time, in 1882, it was the view of the great legal authority who now presides over the Courts of the land, it was the view of the Fourth Party, and it was the view of Sir Stafford North-cote, that no business whatever should be done after the Appropriation Act was passed. Now, Sir, I do not go so far as that. I am a moderate man; I am not like my right hon. friends the First Lord of the Treasury and the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I do not claim to stop all business, but I do go this far—that with regard to these irregular supplemental sittings, you ought to limit them strictly to the purposes for which they are called; in this case the passing of the Education Bill. I call upon the First Lord of the Treasury to support me here, because—on the very ground that these are sittings for a special purpose—the right hon. Gentleman refused the Irish Members a day to consider the undoubtedly important matter of the suspension of Constitutional guarantees in Ireland. and I equally claim his adhesion to my other proposition that if any other than the special business is to be taken in such irregular sittings as these, at any rate no business in Supply ought to be taken. I say that for financial

  93
  purposes the time has gone by, and it is contrary to the very safety and power of this House to attempt to set up Supply afresh, after the Appropriation Act has been passed. It is sufficient for me to say, having regard to the special character of these sittings, in reply to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that never in such a state of things as this has Supply ever been attempted to be set up.
  Of course I am the first to admit, even though we are in a very irregular and unusual position, and even if it be proved up to the hilt that the fault of our being in this position lies with the Treasury Bench, that it is absolutely necessary for the honour of the country, that these £3,000,000 should be paid to the Transvaal—not out of the Transvaal, not out of some doubtful loan, but out of our own pockets; out of our own money. I fully agree to that, and in this irregular situation in which I find myself, I ask myself what could he done. I think the resources of procedure are not yet exhausted. I think there are methods by which the necessary money might be found for meeting this pressing expenditure. There are two methods of meeting the difficulty. The first is that the expenditure of this money should be sanctioned by an Address originating in the House—a method such as was adopted in the case of the retiring allowance to Mr. Speaker Peel—an Address to the Sovereign requesting that the money might be provided and undertaking that it should be made good. That is not I think for this purpose a good method. But there is another. The King may send a Message setting forth some new necessity, and then there may be an Address to the King requesting him to authorise the issue of the necessary sums and undertaking to make them good. Then they would be made good in the Supplementary Estimates of the next session and so appear in the Appropriation Bill of next year. That is the clear and the right way to provide such sums. Let me point out to the House that these £3,000,000 have been pledged by an Act of the Prerogative of the Crown. The Crown has made a treaty and undertaken to do the things under that treaty necessitating this expenditure. It is a natural thing
  94
  under these circumstances that the Sovereign should, in a proper and formal way, notify these engagements to the House, and call upon the House to make them good, and that the House should address a Message in reply, and say it will make them good. That was the procedure adopted in 1721, when the King made a treaty with Sweden, and came under some financial engagements. That was the course that was pursued then; a Message came to this House and it was printed in the Journals, where it can be seen, and thus it was in the year 1748, when the hereditary jurisdiction of Scotch Lairds was abolished. As I am speaking here, somewhat presumptuously I am afraid, as a financial purist, I may say that I am not enamoured of dealing with these matters in this way, by a sort of Parliamentary promissory note. It is only in my endeavour to assist the Chancellor of the Exchequer that I suggest this way out, and it is owing to the right hon. Gentleman insisting upon going his own wicked other way that I am obliged to make this speech tonight.
  It will be seen that my objections to the course pursued tonight are objections not to the form, but to the substance. Not only is it contrary to all the usages and the settled practice of this House, but it is calculated to diminish the power of the House of Commons itself. It not only completely abolishes the doctrine of grievance before Supply, but it is Supply without any grievance at all. There is no King's Speech, no proper demand for Supply, so far as I can admit, and it is therefore Supply without grievance. Standing Order 56, which I presume will be followed, says that whenever Supply stands as an Order of the day Mr. Speaker shall leave the Chair without Question put, unless on first going into Committee of Supply an Amendment is put down or a question raised with regard to the Estimates. As you, Sir, are "first going into Committee of Supply" again, I presume a Motion will be made that you leave the Chair, and that any Amendments limit down or questions raised will he duly debated.
  But I have yet another objection to this fresh practice. It sets up a new precedent, and you never quite know where new precedents are going to lead

  95
  you. I can see one direction in which it must inevitably lead. At present you have in one session one Budget, one Committee of Supply, one Appropriation Act. Once agree that there should be two Budgets, two Committees of Supply, and an unlimited number of Appropriation Acts in one session, and there is absolutely no reason why you should prorogue Parliament at all; there is no reason why you should not go on adjourning time after time, and keep the one session open during the whole continuance of a Parliament. That might mean a session of seven years. That is conceivable, and would be very inviting. See what a revolution it would mean: one King's Speech, one only in seven years, and in seven years one set of grivances only to be raised on Amendments to the King's Speech! In the hands of the casual occupants of the Treasury Bench an unlimited opportunity would be afforded for passing the most revolutionary measures, which could not possibly, be entertained in one ordinary session, but which then might be passed in sevenths, one-seventh this year, another seventh next year, and so on. In the next Parliament, or the next session consisting of one Parliament, the next casual occupants of that Bench would have the same facilities for repealing the Act of their predecessors. A nice sort of see-saw might go on! Let not the House think that finance is a mere form. Finance lies at the bottom of all government. When you have had finance you have had everything. Bad finance brought about the fall of Rome, and led to the French Revolution. Bad finance always leads to either ruin or revolution.
  Let me beg the House to beware how they agree to this proposal. During the last thirty years one financial security after another has been pared away, and you now have false accounts of your expenditure, an entirely incomplete control of your issues and receipts, a system of audit which I believe to be altogether illusory, and a very much diminished control by this House over expenditure. It is time to make some stand in regard to this procedure. Our rules are in a very chaotic condition. Some are in a fragmentary state, others have been proved to be wholly ill-considered, and, although perhaps adapted to the exigencies of the Government at the time they were
  96
  adopted, calculated to lead to very serious results under other circumstances. Let not this House agree to be formalists for Members and anarchists for Ministers. If there are pit-falls consisting of inverted commas, references to newspapers, and so forth, which trip a Member up when he wishes to ask a Question, let us not disregard the settled traditions of this House when it is a question of keeping Ministers in order. Of course, I can understand the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Allowance must be made for him; he is a "sturdy beggar" by profession; it is his business to be so. But the First Lord of the Treasury—where is he? He is the Leader of this House, the proper guardian of its rights, privileges and powers. He is also the head of the Conservative Party, pledged to resist every innovation not justified by necessity. That he should be a party to what I consider to be a very serious infringement of the rights and powers of this House, and yet be absent when the matter is being discussed, is, I think, somewhat surprising.
  The rules and traditions of this House are the inheritance of the people of England, whose representatives we are. They have grown up out of experience founded on reason. It is most dangerous to touch them, or to set up new precedents in contradiction of them. The formalities of this House are not, and never have been, merely formal. They represent the necessities of the case and. embody the protection and defence of Members of this House. It is the formalities, traditions, and rules of this House that enable the minority to debate and persuade; it is they that ensure that in Parliament the Members should be allowed to parley with the Minister before the Act of State is done. One after another I have seen the opportunities of debate taken from us; one after another I have seen taken away the occasions upon which any Member might touch upon any other subjects than those the Government choose to put down. I have no hope whatever of prevailing in my argument tonight, but I warn the House-that if it allows its forms and traditions one by one to be broken down, and the sanctions of its power to be destroyed, it will end by being not the glory, but the reproach and the by-word, of the Empire. This House has resisted and destroyed

  97
  the tyranny of Monarchs, it has survived and emerged from the corruption of Ministers and of Members; and it has done so because, although sometimes it may have wanted virtue, it has never yet wanted spirit. If now it does want spirit its end as a useful institution of this country is near; and it will not merely have suffered, it will have invited and deserved the doom that will befall it.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: It is a refreshing circumstance to hear constitutional doctrine preached from the Benches of the constitutional party. We seldom hear it in words; we never see it in practice. What the hon. Member for King's Lynn has said is perfectly true, that the proposal made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer is an unexampled one. I do not say that we have not as much right to make precedents as our predecessors, and therefore I am not going to take any narrow ground upon that subject; but it is very useful and very necessary that the House of Commons should have respect for the practice which it has followed for generations and even for centuries. Above all, as the hon. Member has justly said, it is in matters of finance, which he at the root of all good government (and never was there a time when the expenditure of this country had risen to so unprecedented a height) that we ought to be the more careful in regard to any deviations from the securities which this House has established for their regulation and control. That is a proposition which I think will be accepted by both sides of the House. Therefore, if we are to enter upon a new and unexampled course we ought to be amply satisfied that there is some unexampled and exceptional reason for taking this course which is without precedent.
  Now, what is the exceptional circumstance here? We are asked to go into Supply for the purpose of authorising the Government to expend money which they did not ask for before the Appropriation Bill. But all the circumstances which make them ask for it now were perfectly well known to them for months before the Appropriation Bill. This is expenditure which
  98
  arises out of the terms of peace made between the Government and the Boer generals. That was in the month of May. The Appropriation Bill was taken in the beginning of August, and during the whole of the time from the month of May to the beginning of August His Majesty's Government was in possession of all the circumstances upon which they now found this demand. Why was not this demand made in June, in July, or the beginning of August? In these circumstances there is no justification for departing from the established practice of the Constitution with reference to Supply and the Appropriation Bill. The demand was as urgent then as it is now. What account have they to give of their unintelligible neglect—I do not wish to say an offensive word, so I will not say blundering—in not taking that course in June and July, and in not taking the ordinary course in the House of Commons with reference to finance, and asking for the money in the proper manner and at the proper time? Let us see how the matter stands. In April, when the first Budget was brought in by the late Chancellor of the Exchequer, he asked this pertinent question—
  "Perhaps I may be asked what is to happen if peace should come in a few weeks, and if the Large sums of fifty-six or fifty-seven millions I have suggested should not be all required for the purpose of the war?"
  Then the Chancellor of the Exchequer indicated various things that would happen, but what is to the present purpose is this. Having provided for the immediate consequences of the war, he said:
  "Means will have to be provided for something more, something which, I am sure, will be more agreeable to the minds of all of us than expenditure on war. Means will have to be provided for the relief and resettlement of the two colonies which have been so terribly devastated by the war; means will have to be provided for rebuilding and restocking the farms—the farms, I should hope, not only of those who have been our friends in the war, and who have fought on our side, but also of those who have boldly and honestly been our enemies in the war, and whom we hope to make our friends in future."
  That, is a contemplation of the very things which constitute the two principal articles of the £5,000,000 which is the Estimate we are now asked to go into

  99
  Committee of Supply to vote. Then he said:
  "I think the House of Commons, if peace is made on terms which we believe will be satisfactory, enduring, and safe, will be generous in these matters, and yet I do not believe that they need involve any great charge on this country."
  Therefore, the contemplation of the Government from the first was that these matters so referred to were not to be a great charge on the country—that is, the British taxpayer.
  "I am convinced," continued the late Chancellor of the Exchequer, "looking at the remarkable prowess which has been already made even during the war in the restoration of industrial prosperity in the goldfields, and in the more important centres of the Transvaal, that it will be perfectly possible for the Transvaal and the Orange River Colony, if we were to advance to them a loan for the purposes have described (for railway extension, and so on), to repay such advances, both capital and interest, on terms which would be eminently satisfactory to the taxpayers of this country."
  Therefore, the policy of the Government on these points from the beginning of the war down to now, that it would cost this country very little, was in respect of these very particulars. In the Budget, the Chancellor of the Exchequer held forth the hope that, if peace were made these things would be provided for, but that they would not be provided for at the expense of the British taxpayer. But then the Chancellor of the Exchequer came forward in June, after the peace was made, after all these conditions were known, after it was known that this was to be a free gift on the part of the Government to the Boer generals with an amended balance-sheet. He made a speech on that occasion, and, having shown what would be the altered condition of things in consequence of peace, he said—
  "I referred in the Budget speech to the measures in the Transvaal and Orange River Colony for the relief and resettlement of the population, for the rebuilding and restocking of farms, and for other purposes. We may very possibly have to make temporary advances of that kind, but as soon as the civil administration is established in the colonies, and the necessary arrangements can be made, we shall ask Parliament to aid in this matter, not by direct advances, but by guaranteeing a loan to be raised by the colonies for the purposes I have named, and such other objects," and so on.
  100
  Therefore, here was the declaration of the Government by their financial representative after peace was made, after the terms were known, and more than two months before the Appropriation Bill, as to the course they intended to take. What is the meaning now of the Government coming forward and saying, "We did not know"? We have been told, at the beginning of the war, "How could we know?" so how could you know in June, July, and August what was the real meaning of the terms you were making with the Boers, and whether the charge was to fall on the Transvaal, or whether it was to fall on the British taxpayer. Now in October you come to correct the blunders you made in June and July.
  That is the situation of the Government in this matter. There is not a circumstance they know now which they did not know in June and July. The terms of peace were known, and the undertaking they had come to with the Boer Generals was that the payment should be by the British taxpayer and not by loan on the Transvaal; and yet they have been holding out the prospect that a good part of the expenses of the war would be borne by the gold mines and the people of the Transvaal. They now come round to the position I have always maintained, that the whole cost will fall on the British taxpayer, and the British taxpayer alone. But with reference to this procedure, the Government, through the late Chancellor of the Exchequer say:—
  "These are to be temporary advances, and I would therefore ask the House to leave my hands tree in that matter, with the distinct understanding that if it is possible all these six millions shall be devoted to the reduction of our present Debt."
  How has the House been dealt with in this matter? You obtain in June, though the peace had been made, power to raise a loan of £30,000,000, on a distinct representation as to what was to be done with that loan—a loan far beyond what was wanted for the purposes of the war—and, on certain representations as to what would be done with the excess of that loan if the House authorized it. If there is anything perilous in this world, it is that the House of Commons should be induced by the Executive Government

  101
  to grant them money, whether in the form of Supply or a loan, on conditions which are not fulfilled.
  MR. RITCHIE: The right hon. Gentleman will pardon me; surely that is a matter for discussion when we come to the Vote, it cannot be germane to the present proposal.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: Certainly it is germane to the present proposal. What justification is there in the plea of exceptional circumstances when you knew everything two months before the Appropriation Bill, which would have called upon you to ask the House of Commons through Committee of Supply to get authority for this money? You got the money before the Appropriation Bill upon the representation that it would nut fall upon the British taxpayer, but that it would fall upon the Transvaal. I have in my hand the Paper laid before Parliament on June 9th, as the corrected Budget statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer—a most formal, a most authoritative document—in which it is represented in dealing with the Supply and in dealing with the loan that the deficit is to be met out of the proceeds of the Consol loan of £29,000,000, and then there is this note—
  "Leaving available for contingencies and redemption of unfunded Debt, £5,996,000."
  That is an undertaking to this House that that would be dealt with for the purpose of reducing the British Debt. Now this is a proposal that, instead of using that money, which was pledged for the redemption of the Debt, it is to be taken out of the revenue of the year. The Government pledged themselves to place this money on a loan upon the Transvaal, and, instead of carrying out their declared intention regarding the redemption of the British Debt, the charge is to fall upon the British taxpayer. That is the situation. I say it is a most formidable situation in dealing wit h finance at any time, above all at a time when you are adding £50,000,000 to your Debt and you have your taxation at the point which it has reached. Was there ever a time when a Government was less justified in departing from the
  102
  strict rules which govern finance? The Government came forward and represented to the House that it was represented to them that these particular charges would, if it were necessary to ask for them as temporary advances, be repaid by a guaranteed loan chargeable upon the gold mines of South Africa. I suspect very much that it is not so much the difficulty that the Boers have raised in this matter as the refusal of the gold mines to bear the charge which lay at the bottom of the whole thing.
  For the last three years I have maintained that the idea that you were going to obtain the cost of this war, or any part of it, out of the gold mines which were to benefit, we were told, so enormously, was illusory. Day by day it becomes more and more clear that the idea that you were going to get any relief whatever for the British taxpayer from sources of this kind was a complete delusion. Then I ask what justification have the Government in this case? What do they say? They found out—when did they find out?—the truth in regard to these statements. Who was it who informed them what was the meaning of their own agreement with the Boers? How was it that they came forward in the month of June, and said, they were only bound to make a temporary advance, and that that would be recouped as soon as the regular Government was established and be available for the reduction of the British Debt. A regular Government had been established. When did this enlightenment come upon the Government as to the real meaning of the peace they had made That is the whole question. The Government say, It is true we contemplated this temporary advance, but we found that we had made a peace we did not understand, and we cannot fulfil the pledges which in an absolutely formal way were laid in an authoritative document on the Table of Parliament. You call this an exceptional situation. But the facts of the case are today exactly what they were in the month of June, when the statement was made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer to which I have called attention. But, if that was immediately after the peace, there was the whole of June, the whole of July, in which the Government might have devoted themselves to the study of their own peace. Then they might have

  103
  come forward with this Motion before the Appropriation Bill, and there would have been no departure from the constitutional financial practice of this country. That is the situation.
  We must, of course, fulfil faithfully the terms of peace. We must do that, but what we do complain of is that the responsible Government should come to this House and misrepresent—I do not say intentionally but from their own ignorance—the terms of peace. The idea that the £5,000,000 or £6,000,000 would not fall upon the British tax payer, but would be raised upon a Transvaal loan, was a delusion and an illusion. I am far from saying that the Government intentionally misled the House, but it is the business of the Government to understand their own business, and they should know upon whom the charge falls, whether upon the British taxpayer or elsewhere. Now we have got to the present month, and we have gone on up to this time in the belief that the statement of the Government was true and that there would be out of the revenue of this year £6,000,000 capable of being devoted to the reduction of the British Debt. Now we have found, on the Government's own confession, that all that £6,000,000 is to go on the taxation of the year, and consequently will fall upon the British taxpayer. That is the history of this proposal. I agree with the hon. member for King's Lynn that it is very objectionable, when you are creating a new precedent, to proceed in the happy-go-lucky, slip-slop manner in which this proposal has been introduced tonight. You are creating a new Committee of Supply, because the Committee of Supply of the Session has been closed in the proper manner. Of course we all know that if there is a case of unforeseen emergency the House of Commons will always be prepared to meet it. But this is not an unforeseen emergency. The emergency was foreseen, and might have been foreseen by everybody—except His Majesty's Government; it was there and could easily have been dealt with. The proper course would have been that there should be a formal message from the Crown. These things are not unimportant. I am old-fashioned enough to believe that it is a great disadvantage to depart from the well-established relations between the Crown and the House of Commons. Trifling with
  104
  matters of this kind is not a sound doctrine and it is not good finance. But I am an old Constitutionalist. These are views which are now called "worn out shibboleths," which it is the fashion nowadays to despise. If you are going to establish a new financial practice, you cannot be too careful in preserving the principles upon which the established practice has been founded. Of course the whole of our Supply and financial proceedings rest on a Message from the Crown.
  People say, "What does it matter what the Crown does or what the House of Commons does?" But this way- of dealing with such matters is very mischievous and dangerous, especially in the present financial position in which we find ourselves. Although I perfectly agree that we ought to keep faith with the Boer generals, I say that we ought to have kept faith with thorn before the Appropriation Bill was passed. I regret that we should appear tonight in such a ridiculous position, for which the Government are entirely responsible, having misled the House by laying down in a series of financial statements entirely contradictory representations in regard to the people on whom this burden would ultimately fall. I wish even now that the Government would take pains to present the matter in the proper form to the House, that it should be presented to the House as what it properly is, a new Committee of Supply, and that it should be presented in regular form as a Committee of Supply. It would then come before you, Mr. Speaker, upon the Motion that you leave the chair, and we should be placed in the ordinary and regular position of a Committee of Supply. That would be to show some respect for the fit uncial safeguards by which we have surrounded and protected the taxpayers of this country. I say nothing about the new Rule—because it has been broken almost as soon as it is made. I do not value the new Rule. You may break the new Rules as you please, and the sooner they are broken, I think, the better. A few months ago it was provided by the Rule—
  "That any additional Estimate for any new service or matter not included in the Estimate for the year shall he submitted for consideration in Committee of Supply on some day not later than two days before the Committee is closed."
  Of course, this is a "new matter." This arose out of a peace made with the

  105
  Boers in the month of May last. There was plenty of time between the conclusion of peace and the month of August, before the Committee of Supply closed, to bring forward this "new- matter," and, therefore, this is a deliberate breach of the Rule you have made. I think you might have the grace to suspend the Rule for tomorrow, because your present action is in flagrant and ridiculous violation of your own new Rule. There does not seem to me to be any justification for the course you have pursued. In my opinion, the House of Commons, with reference to this matter, and, what is still more important, the people represented by the House of Commons, that is, the taxpayers of this country, have been deluded by representations that this was a charge which would not fall upon them, but would justly tall upon those whom we were told have so largely benefited by the peace that was made, and, therefore, it was only just that those men who had benefited by the gold mines should bear this burden. We were told even more emphatically by the Colonial Secretary that the mine-owners had ample means to bear this burden, and that they ought to bear it to a considerable degree. Now, apparently this very first item which you undertook to place upon the Transvaal alone is not to be so placed. It is a most unfortunate thing that the House of Commons, and the taxpayers as represented by the House of Commons, should have been misled in this matter, and that there should have arisen the necessity for this unprecedented proceeding in respect of the Votes in Supply of this House.
  MR. RITCHIE: The right hon. Gentleman who has just sat down has not lent any considerable amount of support to the argument of my hon. friend the Member for King's Lynn. My hon. friend devoted the main part of his speech to the question of procedure. The right hon. Gentleman devoted a very small portion of his speech to the question of procedure, and a very large portion to the merits of the Vote.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: To the procedure of His Majesty's Government.
  MR. RITCHIE: But with special reference to the merits of the Vote, as to whether or not the Government were justified, after the declaration they had made, in coining down to the House and asking them to put on the British taxpayer a burden which they had understood previously to be on the taxpayers of the Transvaal. That was the argument of the right hon. Gentleman, and that is what I meant by saying that his speech was directed not so much to the question of procedure as against the lathes of the Government for having first stated t hey were going to provide this money in one way and then coming to the House and asking it to provide it in another. That was not the point to which my hon. friend the Member for King's Lynn devoted his speech. The speech of my hon. friend, if I may he permitted to say so, was much more germane to the Motion which I have made tonight than was the speech of the right hon. Gentleman, which, I think, would more properly be dealt with when we come to discuss this matter in Committee of Supply. But before I sit down I shall devote some attention to the remarks winch the right Gentleman made. My hon. friend the Member for King's Lynn has, as we expected him to do, devoted his time to showing the House what an extremely careful and critical examination he has made of the historical circumstances which are in any degree analogous to the proposition which we are now making. Without entering into all the points which he has raised, I think I am right in saying that the main burden of his speech was that, after the Appropriation Bill, no further business ought to have been carried on, and certainly there ought not to be any further Vote in Committee of Supply.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLESdissented.
  MR. RITCHIE: But my hon. friend did make a considerable point about the taking of any other business after the closing of Supply, and I think he quoted some votes in 1882 which were given by myself, by the Leader of the Government, and by other members of the Government, as showing that we concurred in his view that no business ought to have been taken.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: I beg the right how Gentleman's pardon, but I distinctly said that that was not my view. I did not go so far as the right hon. Gentleman himself. I did not say that no business should be taken.
  MR. RITCHIE: Then I fail to understand why my bon. friend quoted our votes, because that was the particular question which was before the House in 1882.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: I quoted them to show that the right hon. Gentleman went much further and was less moderate than myself.
  MR. RITCHIE: I think my hon. friend will remember that he endeavoured to make a considerable point of the fact that we did give our votes in the direction which he approved of. If he had pursued his investigation a little further he would have found that the right hon. Gentleman who has just sat down, the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition, the right hon. Gentleman who sits next to him, and many other right hon. Gentlemen and hon. Gentlemen who now sit upon that side of the House, voted directly against the proposition which my hon. friend is now supporting. Therefore, if he is able to quote our votes, I may quote the votes of nearly the whole of the Front Bench opposite against the proposition which my hon. friend has made—namely, that business ought not to be taken after the Committee of Supply has been closed.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: It did not apply to the question of Supply.
  MR. RITCHIE: My hon. friend made a much larger proposition than that.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: My right hon. friend is unconsciously entirely and absolutely misrepresenting me. I told the House, and I quoted the votes that
  108
  the right hon. Gentleman and the Fourth Party voted in 1882, that no business whatever should be taken after the Appropriation Act. I stated that I did not go so far as that, and what I contended was that only the special business for which these supplemental sittings were called should be taken, and certainly there should be no reopening of Committee of Supply.
  MR. RITCHIE: I am sorry I did not take down my hon. friend's words. I confess I fail to understand why my hon. friend gave himself the trouble of quoting our votes. It is not important, and I need not carry it any further. What is my hon. friend's argument? It is that no Government, whatever may be the circumstances that require it, ought ever to come forward at an Autumn sitting and ask for further Supply after the Appropriation Bill has been passed, unless they adopt a particular course which he has set up—namely, that there should be a Message from the Sovereign. He explained that by that he meant a Message under the Sign Manual. He also went the length of saying that the Message ought to be replied to by the House by an Address to the Crown, and, in fact, that we ought to have a new session. In point of fact, what he intended to say, and what he himself believed in, was that Committee of Supply should not again be set up in one session after the Appropriation Bill had been passed. That means that, whatever circumstances might arise, however much might be the demand for Supply, if there is an Autumn sitting no Supply should be granted, but the session ought to be wound up and a new session begun with a Speech from the Throne and an Address from the Douse. Now, Sir, I think that is not borne out by anything which has happened in the past. My hon. friend has referred to some authorities. I will quote from Sir Erskine May—the eighth edition. He says this:
  "When the supplies for the service of the year have all been granted, the Committee of Supply discontinues its sittings; but care must he taken not to close the Committee until all the necessary votes have been taken;

  109
  for, if designedly closed, it can only be regularly reopened by a demand for further supplies from the Crown by Message, or the communication of additional estimates.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: May I ask why the right hon. Gentleman makes a point of the date?
  MR. RITCHIE: Because I think it is the last edition edited by Sir Erskine May. In accordance with that dictum I have conveyed to the House, as a Minister of the Crown, a Message to the effect that the Crown requires further Supplies, and I have also presented an additional Estimate, so that I have complied with both of the requirements set forth by Sir Erskine May.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: Not as to the Message.
  MR. RITCHIE: Sir Erskine May does not say that there should be a Message under the Sign Manual. Well now, what is proposed by my hon. friend '? My hon. friend, after stating that, in his opinion, there was only one proper way of meeting the difficulty—namely, a new session—added that he could have told the Government two other ways in which they might have acted and which would have been proper ways. He named one—an address by the House—only to dismiss it as not being applicable, and as being open to many objections. The other was that the Crown should send a Message to the House, and that the House should then declare its readiness to make good the necessary Supplies. In that event I understand no Vote could be taken by the House until the following session. I ask the House whether they consider that that would be as satisfactory a manner of dealing with the question as that which I now propose. After all, this Vote is for part of the expenditure which has been made during the year. I maintain that either of the proposals of my hon. friend would have been open to ten-fold more objection than can
  110
  be legitimately brought against the proposal I have made, and although, as I have admitted at the commencement, this is a most unusual proceeding, yet, having regard to the unusual circumstances, I contend that it is the proceeding most in accordance with the best traditions of the House of Commons, and infinitely superior to the methods suggested by my hon. friend. It was essential that we should come to the House, If we had provided the money without coming to the House at all, we should have been properly condemned. We chose what we considered the right and proper course of immediately coming to the House and asking for a vote of money. The only other alternative was not to give the money at all till next session and to have delayed finding the money for these purposes would have been the most fatal course of all in the interests of peace and prosperity in South Africa. Therefore, though I do not pretend that this course is free from objection, I say it is freest from objection of any course we could have taken.
  The right hon. Gentleman has objected to our proceedings on very different grounds. He said that we had no business to come to the House of Commons at all. He says that we made up our minds quite properly in May or June that this money was not to be got out of the pockets of the British taxpayer, but by way of a loan on the Transvaal; and that, having come to that decision, we ought to adhere to it.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: I did not say that at all. I charged the Government with misunderstanding and misrepresenting to the House their obligations under the Treaty. I did not say that you must adhere to a statement which was contrary to your pledges. But I said that you had departed from the settled practice of the House by not having brought forward this Vote before the Appropriation Bill.
  MR. RITCHIE: Then what is the meaning of the right hon Gentleman's

  111
  observation to the effect that the main reason why we have altered our minds was that we found ourselves unable to get the money out of the mine-owners of the Transvaal, as we ought to have done? I His opinion was that instead of asking the British taxpayers to pay the Money we ought to have got it out of the mine-owners of the Transvaal. I understand now that the right hon. Gentleman does not object in principle to the taxpayers being called upon to pay this sum.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: I do not object, because you are bound to do it. While you were misrepresenting your obligations, you found out that you must charge the taxpayers.
  MR. RITCHIE: We never found out anything of the kind. I do not think the right hon. Gentleman was in the House when I made a short statement at the beginning in bringing the Motion before the House. This course was not decided on because we thought that we had misunderstood or misinterpreted the terms of surrender. On the contrary, I stated distinctly that in our opinion the terms of surrender were perfectly compatible with the view that this money was to be paid out of sums to be raised by way of loan on the Transvaal.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: Do you call that a free gift?
  MR. RITCHIE: It was a free gift to the Boers.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: How could it be when they were the people on whom the loan was to be charged? I would be levied upon them in the way of taxation.
  MR. RITCHIE: If a present is made to the right hon. Gentleman of a large sum from the Exchequer, will he say that it is not a free gift to him because it is paid for out of taxation? Surely, Sir, it was a fair interpretation of the terms of surrender that we were
  112
  to give a free gift to the Boers, who had suffered by the war, although it was raised out of the taxation of the Transvaal. I contend that the terms would have been amply satisfied if we had taken this money out of the Transvaal loan, and that was our understanding, and that continued to be our understanding. That was the reason why no Vote was asked for in June or July when we were in Committee of Supply. But it came to our knowledge that the Boers had understood this particular article of the terms of surrender in a different way, and that they had understood that this money was to be paid for out of the British Exchequer. That being so, I contend, that we were acting perfectly rightly—in order to avoid any misunderstanding of the action we took, and in order to take away from the Boers any feeling of a grievance which they might otherwise have had—we were acting perfectly right in saying, "In these circumstances we will not ask the taxpayers of the Transvaal to pay this money; we will ask the British taxpayers to pay it." And I understand that the right hon. Gentleman does not himself object to. that.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: Of course I say that when you promise to do a thing you must do it. But I say that you ought not to misrepresent to the House of Commons the promise you have made.
  MR. RITCHIE: Yes; but the right hon. Gentleman knew what the terms of surrender were. They were published. He knew as well as we did that the money was to be raised from the Transvaal.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: Because you said so.
  MR. RITCHIE: But surely the right hon. Gentleman does not always believe what we say?
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: I have always tried to believe what the Chancellor of the Exchequer says. I hope I always shall.
  MR. RITCHIE: Well, my contention is simply this, that the right hon. Gentleman had these terms of surrender before him, and he, like the Government, believed that this grant which was to be made to the Boers was to be taken out of the loan which was to be raised from the Transvaal. That was what the Government believed, and that was what the right hon. Gentleman believed when he saw the terms of surrender. But I put this to the right hon. Gentleman. If he had keen in my position, and it had been represented to him and to his Government that the Boers had signed the terms of surrender in the full belief that this money was to be provided by the British Exchequer, whatever his own views and the views of his Government hail been, would he or would he not have imperilled the good feeling which we hope to establish between ourselves and the Boers by rigidly insisting upon Ins own interpretation of those terms, and by disregarding the view which the Boers took? I say if we had done so, and if in consequence we had created a sore on their part which was not likely to be healed for years, instead of establishing, as we hoped to establish, a feeling of friendship and co-operation, notwithstanding our full belief that we were right in our interpretation of these articles of surrender, we should have been deservedly blamed. We said "We will let you have the money out of the British Exchequer instead of putting it upon the Transvaal," and I am satisfied that we are taking a course which is right and which the right hon. Gentleman and those around him would themselves have pursued if they had been in the same position as we are. I maintain, first of all, there-
  114
  fore, that although the course which we have adopted has been an exceptional course, the circumstances are so exceptional as to have justified us in taking that course, and that any other course that we could have adopted would have been attended with the greatest difficulty and been open to as much objection as the course we have now taken. And I also contend that, as far as the merits of the case were concerned, we were perfectly justified in our original contention—that this money should be provided for out of the Transvaal loan, and also that we were perfectly justified in departing from that understanding of ours rather than create ill-feeling between ourselves and the Boers with regard to a matter upon which there was, we admit, a legitimate misunderstanding. I hope the House-will now come unanimously to the conclusion that the course we have taken ought to be approved, and that they will consent to the Motion.
  Resolved, "That this House will tomorrow, at nine of the clock in the evening, resolve itself into a Committee to consider of the Supply to be granted to His Majesty."—(Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer.)

  CIVIL SERVICES, 1902–3 (ADDITIONAL ESTIMATE).
  Ordered, That the Additional Estimate, presented 3rd November, be referred to the Committee of Supply.—(Mr. Hayes Fisher.)

  WAYS AND MEANS.
  "Resolved, That this House will tomorrow, at nine of the clock in the evening, resolve itself into a Committee to consider of the Ways and Means for raising the Supply to be granted to His Majesty."—
  (Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer.)

  EDUCATION (ENGLAND AND WALES) BILL.
  Considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  [MR. J. W. LOWTHER (Cumberland, Penrith) in the Chair.]
  Clause11:—
  (11.8.) Amendment proposed—
  "In page 4, line 20, after the word 'Act,' to insert the words 'or fail to provide such additional public school accommodation as is in the opinion of the Board of Education necessary.'"—(Sir William Anson.)
  Question again proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
  MR. M'KENNAsaid that before allowing the Clause to stand part of the Bill, the Committee should get an explanation as to whether the proposal to proceed by mandamus could under the circumstances prove satisfactory. He should, therefore, be glad of a statement from the Attorney General as to the power of the Court
  116
  under a mandamus to compel the local authority to carry out such a general order as the provision of sufficient school accommodation.
  SIR ROBERT FINLAYsaid the case would be analogous to that of the Public Health Act, where there was a provision for compelling the public health authority to exercise the powers of the Act. The order under the Section would be in specific form, such as the Board of Education deemed necessary, and the Court would be asked to enforce the direction of the Board of Education making an order. If this should be disobeyed, the recalcitrant individuals might be proceeded against, and made liable in person or property.
  MR. BRYCEasked whether under the Clause, taken with Clause 12, the mandamus would lie against the local authority or the education committee. The committee would be, in the first instance, the party who would make default, and he should like the views of the Attorney General on that point.
  SIR ROBERT FINLAYsaid if lie were to enter into details on that question, he would be anticipating the discussion upon Clause 12. The question of the right hon. Gentleman involved another question, and that was what would be the precise relations between the education committee and the local education authority. If the education committee were merely to be the creature of the local education authority, then, undoubtedly, the mandamus would be directed against the education authority; but if, on the other hand, the education Committee had come independent of the

  117
  statutory power conferred on them, the answer might be different. Until the Committee had settled Clause 12 he did not think a more definite answer could be given.
  MR. BRYCEsaid he asked the question on the basis of Clause 11 as it stood. The Attorney General was the proper exponent of the meaning of the Clause; and he was obliged to ask for an interpretation of it now, as vital Amendments to Clause 12 might be closured.
  MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid that if the right hon. Gentleman would second the Government in their earnest desire to get on with the Bill, he need be under no misapprehension as to an opportunity being given for the discussion of important points in Clause 12.
  SIR CHARLES DILKEsaid that if the Government proposal in Clause 12 stood and the work was deputed to be done through or by a committee, that Committee would have to have a contiuning statutory existence. What they wanted to know was how the remedy of mandamus could possibly be applicable to a continuing indisposition on the part of that Committee to carry out the Act. An Act of that complicated character could not be enforced in all its points, when the only remedy was a mandamus.
  MR. EDMUND ROBERTSONsaid he wished to ask if they were to regard the answer of the Attorney General as an undertaking from the Government that they had an open mind with reference to Clause 12.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: A quite open mind.
  MR. EDMUND ROBERTSONsaid be given. that then it would be open to the Committee to discuss, without any forcible abbreviation of their time, whether the education committee should be independent of the local authority.
  LORD EDMUND FITZMAURICE (Wiltshire, Cricklade)said the statement of the Government that they had an open mind with reference to Clause 12 was a most important one; and he would ask whether, considering that statement, they should proceed with the discussion of Clause 12 at that late hour and open up a new chapter in the Bill. Would it not be wiser to come with fresh minds to its consideration tomorrow.
  MR. LOUGHsaid there was one point about Clause 11 which he wished to put to the First Lord of the Treasury. The object of the Clause was to provide power to enforce the carrying out of the duties to be conferred under the Act, and his objection was that the Clause did not provide such power. The words of the Clause were entirely restricted to the local education authority, but there were other persons who would have new duties under the Act. Therefore, he thought that the Prime Minister or the Attorney General might consider whether power similar to the power in Clause 11 should not be provided in some other part of the Bill against the boards of management would be set up. Before the Clause passed from the ken of the Committee that aspect of it ought to be considered.

  119
  He agreed with his hon. friend that a mandamus was not a suitable way of dealing with cases where there was a neglect of duty on the part of the local authority.
  MR. CHANNINGsaid that the First Lord of the Treasury at an earlier stage had expressed his readiness to provide, in some part of the Bill, a means of enforcing a guarantee that the other persons who might undertake to provide a school should carry out their undertaking, and do so without unreasonable delay. He thought he was, therefore, entitled to ask whether the right hon. Gentleman would now give some indication of where and in what way such a proposal would be introduced into the Bill guaranteeing the community against fraudulent and unfair proposals, which might conceivably be made under the Bill as it stood, and which the right hon. Gentleman himself frankly and fairly admitted was an evil which ought to be met. He wished to know how such unfair transactions on the part of private providers of schools would be dealt with.
  SIR JOSEPH LEESEasked whether it would be in order to discuss on Clause 12 the power to compel the education authority to carry out its duties by a mandamus,
  THE CHAIRMAN: The reply of the Attorney General was that that depended on the relations which would be established between the local authority and the education committee.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The mandamus will lie against the responsible persons.
  MR. SAMUEL EVANS (Glamorganshire, Mid)said that the answer of the First Lord of the Treasury meant nothing at all. The right hon. Gentleman said that the mandamus would he against the persons responsible, but that begged the question as to who would be the persons responsible. [MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Quite so.] As he understood it, the intention of the Clause was to provide certain powers for enforcing duties to be given to certain persons or bodies under the Act, but such powers should be given with reference to every person who would have duties under the Act. He was not sure whether the managers of denominational schools would have duties under the Act. Probably their position would be that they had privileges without any particular duties; but if any duties were to be imposed on them, they too ought to be dealt with in the Clause before the Committee. It was proposed under Clause 12 that the education authority was to act through an education committee, but it was essential, before they provided for compulsion, that they should know what were to be the relations between the local authority and the education committee. Otherwise they would be entirely at sea. He thought the Committee did not quite appreciate what a mandamus meant. The Education Department could not issue a mandamus. Someone would have to commence an action in the High Court for a mandamus to compel the persons who had duties to perform to exercise them. He appreciated the vagueness of the Clause quite as much as the Prime Minister, and he was not at all sure that vagueness was not the object of the

  121
  Government; but he felt quite certain that they ought not to insert a provision compelling the performance of duties until they had fully defined what the duties were, and by whom they were to be carried out. Further, the Clause was too limited, as it only directed that the mandamus should issue against the local education authority, leaving everyone else who had duties to perform outside. He could not understand why they were asked to pass the Clause at all, until they knew what the relations between the local education authority and the education committee were to be. After the local education authority had appointed the education committee, so far as he could see they would have no other duty to perform.
  [An HON. MEMBER: Agreed, agreed.] What was the hon. Member agreed about? He was trying to understand the Bill, and if the hon. Gentleman was able to throw any light upon it, he would be very willing to resume his seat. He maintained, however, that the Committee should not pass Clause 11 until they had discussed Clause 12.
  MR. A. J. BALFOURrose in his place and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."
  Question put, "That the Question be put."
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 200; Noes, 87. (division List No. 475.)

  AYES.

  Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

  Chapman, Edward

  Fitzroy, Hon. Edward Algernon

  Allhusen, Augustus H'nry Eden

  Charrington, Spencer

  Flower, Ernest

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Clive, Captain Perey A.

  Forster, Henry William

  Archdale, Edward Mervyn

  Cochrane. Hon Thos. H. A. E.

  Foster, Philip S (Warwick, S. W.

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Coghill, Douglas Harry

  Galloway, William Johnson

  Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.

  Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

  Garfit, William

  Arrol, Sir William

  Colomb, Sir John Charles Ready

  Gibbs, Hon. Vicary (St. Albans

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole

  Godson, Sir Angnstus Fredk.

  Bailey, James (Walworth)

  Compton, Lord Alwyne

  Gore, Hn G. R.C. Ormsby-(Salop

  Bain, Colonel James Robert

  Cox, Irwin Edward Bainbridge

  Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir. John Eldon

  Baird, John George Alexander

  Cranborne, Viscount

  Goschen, Hon. George Joachim

  Balcarres, Lord

  Cross, Alexander (Glasgow)

  Cray, Ernest (West Ham)

  Balfour, Rt. Hon. A J.(Manch'r

  Cross, Herb. Shepherd (Bolton

  Greene, Sir E W (B'rySEdm'nds

  Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey)

  Crossley, Sir Savile

  Greene, Henry D (Shrewsbury)

  Balfour, Rt Hn Gerald W (Leeds

  Cubitt, Hon. Henry

  Grenfell, William Henry

  Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christch.

  Cost, Henry John C.

  Greville, Hon. Ronald

  Banbury, Frederick George

  Dalrymple, Sir Charles

  Groves, James Grimble

  Bignold, Arthur

  Davies, Sir Horatio D (Chatham

  Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill

  Bigwood, James

  Denny, Colonel

  Halsey, Rt. Hon. Thomas F.

  Bill, Charles

  Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

  Hambro, Charles Eric

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Digby, John K. D. Wingfield-

  Hanbury, Rt. Hon. Robert Wm.

  Bond, Edward

  Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

  Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashford

  Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-

  Dorington, Rt. Hn. Sir John E.

  Hare, Thomas Leigh

  Bowles, Capt. H.F. (Middlesex

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Harris, Frederick Leverton

  Brassey, Albert

  Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

  Haslam, Sir Alfred S.

  Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

  Faber, George Denison (York

  Hatch, Ernest Frederick Geo.

  Bullard, Sir Harry

  Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward

  Hay, Hon. Claude George

  Batcher, John George

  Fergusson, Rt Hn Sir J.(Mane'r.

  Henderson, Sir Alexander

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

  Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

  Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T.

  Carvill, Patrick Geo-Hamilton

  Finch, George H.

  Hobhouse, Henry (Somerset, E.

  Cantley, Henry Strother

  Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

  Hogg, Lindsay

  Cavendish, V.C.W.(Derbyshire

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Hope, J.F.(Sheffield, Brightside

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Fison, Frederick William

  Hoult, Joseph

  Chamberlain, Rt Hon. J.(Birm.

  FitztGerald, Sir Robert Penrose-

  Howard, John (Kent, Fav'sham

  Hudson, George Bickersteth

  Morgan, David J(Walth'mstow

  Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-

  Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse

  Morrell, George Herbert

  Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander

  Johnstone, Heywood

  Morrison, James Archibald

  Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse

  Kenyon, Hon. Geo.T.(Denbigh)

  Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W.(Salop.

  Mount, William Arthur

  Sinclair, Louis (Romford)

  Keswick, William

  Murray, Rt Hn A. Graham(Bute

  Smith, James Parker (Lanarks,

  King, Sir Henry Seymour

  Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

  Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand)

  Knowles, Lees

  Myers, William Henry

  Stanley, Edward Jas.(Somerset

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)

  Newdegate, Francis A. N.

  Stewart, Sir Mark J.M'Taggart

  Lawrence, Sir Joseph (Monm'th

  Nicholson, William Graham

  Sturt, Hon. Humphry Napier

  Lee, Arthur H.(Hants, Fareham

  Nicol, Donald Ninian

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

  Nolan, Col. John P.(Galway,N.

  Talbot ,Rt Hn. J.G.(Oxf'dUniv,

  Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie

  Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

  Parker, Sir Gilbert

  Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.

  Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham

  Peel, Hn Wm. Robert Wellesley

  Tufnell, Lieut.-Col. Edward

  Long, Rt. Hon Walter (Bristol,S

  Pemberton, John S. G.

  Valentia, Viscount

  Lowe, Francis William

  Percy, Earl

  Walker, Col. William Hall

  Loyd, Archie Kirkman

  Platt-Higgins, Frederick

  Walrond, Rt. Hon. Sir Wm. H.

  Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft

  Plummer, Walter R.

  Welby, Lt-Col A.C.E.(Taunton

  Lucas, Reginald J.(Portsmouth

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Welby, Sir Charles G. E. (Notts.

  Lvttelton, Hon. Alfred

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Wharton, Rt. Hon. John Lloyd

  Macdona, John Cumming

  Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

  Whiteley,H(Asliton-und-Lyne

  Maconochie, A. W.

  Purvis, Robert

  Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)

  M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

  Pym, C. Guy

  Willox, Sir John Archibald

  M'Iver, Sir Lewis (Edinburgh W

  Rankin, Sir James

  Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E.R.)

  M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire

  Rasch, Major Frederic Carne

  Wilson-Todd, Wm. H. (Yorks.

  Majendie, James A. H.

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart-

  Malcolm, Ian

  Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson

  Wrightson, Sir Thomas

  Manners, Lord Cecil

  Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  Maxwell ,W J H (Dumfriesshire

  Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

  Wyndham-Quin, Major W. H.

  Meysey-Thompson, Sir H. M.

  Rothschild, Hon. Lionel Walter

  Mildmay, Francis Bingham

  Round, Rt. Hon James

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

  Milner, Rt. Hon Sir Frederick G.

  Royds, Clement Molynenx

  Sir Alexander Acland-

  More, Robt. Jasper (Shropshire

  Rutherford, John

  Hood and Mr. Anstruther.

  NOES.

  Abraham, William (Rhondda)

  Grant, Corrie

  Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

  Allan, Sir William (Gateshead)

  Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

  Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

  Allen, Charles P.(Gloue., Stroud

  Harmsworth, R. Leicester

  Runciman, Walter

  Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)

  Hayne, Rt. Hon. Charles Seale-

  Shackleton, David James

  Brigg, John

  Holland, Sir William Henry

  Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford

  Broadhurst, Henry

  Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Brown, George M. (Edinburgh)

  Humphreys-Owen, Arthur C.

  Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)

  Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson

  Jacoby, James Alfred

  Soares, Ernest J.

  Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

  Jones,David Brynmor (Sw'nsea

  Spencer, Rt Hn. C. R. (Northants

  Buxton, Sydney Charles

  Kearley, Hudson E.

  Stevenson, Francis S.

  Caldwell, James

  Kitson, Sir James

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

  Lambert, George

  Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)

  Causton, Richard Knight

  Langley, Batty

  Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

  Cawley, Frederick

  Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington

  Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr

  Channing, Francis Allston

  Leigh, Sir Joseph

  Thomas, F. Freeman-(Hastings

  Cremer, William Randal

  Leng, Sir John

  Thomas, J A (Glamorgan, Gower

  Dalziel, James Henry

  Levy, Maurice

  Toulmin, George

  Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)

  Lough, Thomas

  Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

  Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan

  M'Kenna, Reginald

  Wason, Eugene

  Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

  Mansfield, Horace Rendall

  White, George (Norfolk)

  Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)

  Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

  White, Luke (York, E. R.)

  Edwards, Frank

  Morley, Charles (Breconshire)

  Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

  Ellis, John Edward

  Norman, Henry

  Wilson, Henry J. (York, W.R.)

  Evans, Sir Francis H (Maidstone

  Pearson, Sir Weetman D.

  Woodhouse, Sir J T (Huddersf'd

  Evans, Samuel T. (Glamorgan)

  Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)

  Yoxall, James Henry

  Ferguson, R. C. Munro (Leith)

  Perks, Robert William

  Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmund

  Philipps, John Wynford

  Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)

  Priestley, Arthur

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

  Fuller, J. M. F.

  Rea, Russell

  Mr. Herbert Gladstone and

  Furness, Sir Christopher

  Reckitt, Harold James

  Mr. William M'Arthur

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  Rickett, J. Compton

  (11.43) Question put accordingly, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
  The Committee divided:—Ayes, 203; Noes, 87. (Division List No. 476.)

  Walrond, Rt, Hn. Sir William H

  Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  Warde, Colonel C. E.

  Willox, Sir John Archibald

  Wyndham-Quin, Major W. H.

  Welby, Lt.-Col. A.C.E.(Taunt'n

  Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E. R.

  Welby, Sir Charles G. E. (Notts.

  Wilson-Todd, Wm. H. (Yorks

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

  Wharton, Rt. Hon. John Lloyd

  Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart-

  Sir Alexander Acland-

  Whiteley, H (Ashton-und. Lyne

  Wrightson, Sir Thomas

  Hood and Mr. Anstruther.

  AYES.

  Agg-Gardner, John Tynte

  Finch, George H.

  Maconochie, A. W.

  Allhusen, Augustus H'nry Eden

  Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

  M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Fisher, William Hayes

  M'Iver, Sir Lewis (EdinburghW

  Archdale, Edward Mervyn

  Fison, Frederick William

  M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire)

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  FitzGerald, Sir Robert Penrose-

  Majendie, James A. H.

  Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.

  Fitzroy, Hon. Edward Algernon

  Malcolm, Ian

  Arrol, Sir William

  Flower, Ernest

  Manners, Lord Cecil

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Forster, Henry William

  Maxwell, W. J . H. Dumfriessh.

  Bailey, James (Walworth)

  Foster, Philip S.(Warwick, S.W

  Meysey-Thompson, Sir H. M.

  Bain, Colonel James Robert

  Galloway, William Johnson

  Mildmay, Francis Bingham

  Baird John George Alexander

  Garfit, William

  Milner, Rt. Hon. Sir Frederick G.

  Balcarres, Lord

  Gibbs, Hon. Vicary (St. Albans)

  More, Robt, Jasper (Shropshire)

  Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J. (Manch'r

  Godson, Sir Augustus Frederick

  Morgan, David, J (Walthamstow

  Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey)

  Gore, Hn G. R. C Ormsby-(Salop

  Morrell, George Herbert

  Balfour, Rt Hn. Gerald. W. (Leeds

  Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon

  Morrison, James Archibald

  Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christch).

  Goschen, Hon. George Joachin

  Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer

  Banbury, Frederick George

  Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

  Mount, William Arthur

  Bignold, Arthur

  Greene, Sir E. W. (B'ry SEdm'ds

  Murray, Rt Hn A. Graham (Bute

  Bigwood, James

  Greene, Henry D. (Shrewsbury)

  Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

  Bill, Charles

  Grenfell, William Henry

  Myers, William Henry

  Blundell Colonel Henry

  Greville, Hon. Ronald

  Newdegate, Francis A. N.

  Bond, Edward

  Groves, James Grimble

  Nicholson, William Graham

  Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-

  Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill

  Nicol, Donald Ninian

  Bowles, Capt. H. F. (Middlesex)

  Halsey, Rt. Hon. Thomas F.

  Nolan, Col. John P. (Galway, N.

  Brassey, Albert

  Hambro, Charles Eric

  Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay

  Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

  Hanbury, Rt. Hn. Robert Wm.

  Parker, Sir Gilbert

  Bollard, Sir Harry

  Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashf'rd

  Peel, Hn. Wm. Robt. Wellesley

  Butcher, John George

  Hare, Thomas Leigh

  Pemberton, John S. G.

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

  Harris, Frederick Leverton

  Percy, Earl

  Carvill, Patrick Geo. Hamilton

  Haslam, Sir Alfred S.

  Platt-Higgins, Frederick

  Cautley, Henry Strother

  Hatch, Ernest Frederick Geo.

  Plummer, Walter R.

  Cavendish, V.C.W.(Derbyshire

  Hay, Hon. Claude George

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Henderson, Sir Alexander

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J.(Birm.

  Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T.

  Pryce-Jones, L.-Col. Edward

  Chapman, Edward

  Hobhouse, Henry (Somerset, E.)

  Purvis, Robert

  Charrington, Spencer

  Hogg, Lindsay

  Pym, C. Guy

  Clive, Captain Percy A.

  Hope, J.F. (Sh'ffield, Brightside

  Rankin, Sir James

  Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E.

  Hoult, Joseph

  Rasch, Major Frederic Carne

  Coghill, Douglas Harry

  Howard, John (Kent, Faversh'm

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

  Hudson, George Bickersteth

  Ritchie, Rt. Hn Chas. Thomson

  Colomb, Sir John Charles Ready

  Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse

  Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)

  Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole

  Jeffreys, Rt. Hon. Arthur Fred.

  Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

  Compton, Lord Alwyne

  Johnstone, Heywood

  Rothschild, Hon. Lionel Walter

  Cox, Irwin Edward Bainbridge

  Kenyon, Hon. Geo. T. (Denbigh)

  Round, Rt. Hon. James

  Cranborne, Viscount

  Kenyon-Slaney, Col. (Salop)

  Royds, Clement Molyneux

  Cross, Alexander (Glasgow)

  Keswick, William

  Rutherford, John

  Cross, Herb. Shepherd (Bolton)

  King, Sir Henry Seymour

  Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-

  Crossley, Sir Savile

  Knowles, Lees

  Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander

  Cubitt, Hon. Henry

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow

  Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse)

  Cust, Henry John C.

  Lawrence, Sir. Joseph (Monm'th

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Dalrymple, Sir Charles

  Lee, Arthur H (Hants., Fareham

  Sinclair, Louis (Romford)

  Davies, Sir HoratioD(Chatham

  Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

  Smith, Jas. Parker (Lanarks)

  Denny, Colonel

  Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie

  Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand)

  Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

  Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

  Stanley, Edward Jas. (Somerset

  Digby, John K. D. Wingfield-

  Long, Col. Chas. W. (Evesham)

  Stewart, Sir Mark J. M'Taggart

  Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

  Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (Bristol, S

  Sturt, Hon. Humphry Napier

  Dorington, Rt. Hon. Sir John E.

  Lowe, Francis William

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Lowther, C. (Cumb. Eskdale)

  Talbot, Rt Hn. J.G.(Oxf'dUniv.

  Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

  Lloyd, Archie Kirkman

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Faber, George Denison (York)

  Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft)

  Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edward M.

  Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward

  Lucas, Reginald, J (Portsmouth

  Tufnell, Lieut.-Col, Edward

  Fergusson, Rt. Hn. Sir J.(Manc'r

  Lyttelton, Hon. Alfred

  Valentia, Viscount

  Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

  Macdona, John Cumming

  Walker, Col. William Hall

  NOES.

  Abraham, William (Rhondda)

  Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

  Roberts, John Bryn (Eition)

  Allan, Sir William (Gateshead)

  Harmsworth, R. Leicester

  Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

  Allen, Charles P (Glone., Strond

  Hayne, Rt. Hon. Charles Seale-

  Runciman, Walter

  Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)

  Holland, Sir William Henry

  Shackleton, David James

  Brigg, John

  Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)

  Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)

  Brown, George M. (Edinburgh)

  Humphreys-Owen, Arthur C.

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson

  Jacoby, James, Alfred

  Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)

  Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

  Jones, David Brynmor (Sw'nsea

  Soares, Ernest J.

  Buxton, Sydney Charles

  Kearley, Hudson, E.

  Spencer, Rt Hn C. R (Northants

  Caldwell, James

  Kitson, Sir James

  Stevenson, Francis S.

  Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

  Lambert, George

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  Causton, Richard knight

  Langley, Batty

  Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.

  Cawley, Frederick

  Leese, Sir Joseph F.(Accrington

  Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.

  Channing, Francis Allston

  Leigh, Sir Joseph

  Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr

  Cremer, William Randal

  Leng, Sir John

  Thomas, F. Freeman-(Hastings

  Dalziel, James Henry

  Levy, Maurice

  Thomas, J A (Glamorgan Gower

  Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)

  Lough, Thomas

  Toulmin, George

  Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan

  M'Arthur, William (Cornwall)

  Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

  Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

  M'Kenna, Reginald

  Wason, Eugene

  Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)

  Mansfield, Horace Rendall

  White, George (Norfolk)

  Edwards, Frank

  Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

  White, Luke (York, E. R.)

  Ellis, John Edward

  Morley, Charles (Breconshire)

  Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

  Evans, Sir Francis H (Maidstone

  Norman, Henry

  Wilson, Henry J. (York, E. R.

  Ferguson, R. C. Munro (Leith)

  Pearson, Sir Weetman D.

  Woodhouse, Sir J T(Hudd'rsfi'd

  Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond

  Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)

  Yoxall, James Henry

  Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)

  Perks, Robert William

  Fuller, J. M. F.

  Philipps, John Wynford

  Furness, Sir Christopher

  Priestley, Arthur

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

  Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John

  Rea, Russell

  Mr. Broadhurst and Mr.

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  Reckitt, Harold James

  Samuel Evans.

  Grant, Corrie

  Rickett, J. Compton

  Committee report Progress; to sit again tomorrow.

  BANKERS (IRELAND) ACT REPEAL BILL.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Motion made and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
  MR. CALDWELL (Lancashire, Mid)said that they ought to have some explanation o the Bill, all the more as the Irish Members were absent. If the Bill had the assent of the Irish
  128
  Members, so far as he was concerned he would not object to the Second Reading; but he hoped that in a matter of that kind—
  It being Midnight, the Debate stood adjourned.
  Debate to be resumed Tomorrow.
  Mr. SPEAKER,in pursuance of the Order of the House of the 16th October last, adjourned the House without Question put.
  Adjourned at two minutes after Twelve o'clock.