§ Order read for further consideration of Resolution:—
§ "That, for the purposes of any Act of the present session to make further provision with respect to University education in Ireland, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament—(a) of the remuneration of the Secretary to the Commissioners, and of any persons appointed or employed by them, and of any Expenses incurred by the Commissioners in the execution of such Act; and (b) of grants for the purposes of either of the new Universities, or of the constituent colleges of the new University at Dublin, or of the governing bodies thereof."
§ MR. CHARLES CRAIG
, in moving a provisso that no part of the moneys authorised to be spent by this Resolution should be used or applied for the purposes of denominational education, said that four or five weeks ago when the Irish Universities Bill, was under discussion, the Chief Secretary, in his First Reading speech, left hon. Members in every part of the House, with the exception of the Ulster Members, under the impression that the Universities proposed to be set up were to be not only absolutely academic Universities, but, as far as possible under the circumstances of Ireland, undenominational in their character. It was quite true, as the Chief Secretary had pointed out the previous day, that he mentioned that under the charter it would be possible to affiliate to such Universities, colleges like Magee and Maynooth. Since the First Reading speech of the right hon. Gentleman a great deal had happened. In the first place, the Bill with which this Resolution dealt had been sent upstairs to a Grand Committee, but very little had been 1824 heard of what had happened in the Committee-Room. He might point out that two Bills, non-contentious and comparatively unimportant, had since been sent to a Committee of the Whole House in direct contradiction to the understanding of last year as to the appointment of Standing Committees. In the Standing Committee on the Irish Universities Bill it had been the duty of the Ulster Members, including himself, to endeavour to safeguard the intersts of undenominational education in Ireland. He regretted to-gay that their efforts up till now had been entirely unsuccessful, and the Bill as it stood, and he was afraid as it would leave the Committee, would permit to grow up in Ireland a system of denominational and sectarian education of the most advanced type. His object in moving the Amendment was once more to draw the attention of the House to that cardinal fact in the Bill If the British House of Commons said clearly and distinctly that it was prepared once and for all to set up in Ireland a University which in all respects answered to the general description of a purely sectarian and denominational University he had little more to say on the subject. He fully recognised the fact that it rested with the House to make up its mind to what he had indicated, and if so, all the protest he could make would have no-effect on the Bill in the long run. However, he had still hopes that when hon. Members on the other side of the House fully realised what they were lending themselves to, and what effect the Bill would have in Ireland if passed, they might raise some feeble protest against the reversal of the policy they professed to have pursued for so many years. The ground of his argument was that, either by this sectarian and denominational Bill or directly or indirectly by means of a charter, the great Roman Catholic seminary of Maynooth would be incorporated in the Dublin University as soon as the present Royal University of Ireland was done away with and the new Dublin University set up. He did not know whether the House fully realised what 1825 that meant. Maynooth College, he might tell the House if they did not know it already, was a purely ecclesiastical institution where a large proportion, at any rate, of the persons who subsequently entered the Roman Catholic Church as priests received their education.
§ MR. JOHN REDMOND (Waterford)
asked whether it was in order on the Report of a Resolution to discuss the merits of the Bill, or the merits of a draft charter which was before neither the House nor the Stending Committee.
MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr. CALD-WELL,) Lanarkshire, Mid.
said that the ton. Member was going rather widely into the Bill. The Resolution was simply an enabling one, while the application of the money would have to be dealt with and discussed subsequently in a Bill. He must refer to the Resolution or confine himself to his Amendment. To go into the details as the hon. Member was now doing was going beyond the scope of the Resolution or Amendment.
§ MR. CHARLES CRAIG
said he would endeavour to confine himself to the Amendment, but he thought it necessary for the purpose of convincing the House to show that if the Resolution was passed the money authorised would be used for denominational purposes, and that Maynooth College, which was a purely sectarian institution, would be incorporated as part of the Dublin University.
§ MR. JOHN REDMOND
pointed out that there was nothing in the Bill about Maynooth or about the use of the money sanctioned by the Resolution for denominational purposes. If the hon. Gentleman man was in order he would be entitled to canvass the whole merits of the Bill.
§ MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKER
said that the hon. Member was only entitled to deal with the Resolution as regarded the money in a general way, and not to anticipate a discussion which would be appropriate to the Bill.
§ SIR F. BANBURY, on the point of order, said that the reason for the Amendment was that the money to be 1826 voted should not be applied to any denominational purpose. As the hon. Member for Waterford had said, there was nothing in the Bill about Maynooth, and it was just because of that that the Amendment had been moved.
§ MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKER
The hon. Member must deal with the general question in the Resolution, and may combine with, it the Amendment, that the money should not be applied for denominational purposes.
§ MR. CHARLES CRAIG
said he would argue as generally as he could. If he could show that the inclusion of Maynooth or any denominational institutions like the numerous Roman Catholic diocesan colleges which existed in Ireland, could be affiliated to either the University to be set up in Belfast or to the University in Dublin, and derive all the benefits from the money proposed to be granted by the Resolution, then, he submitted, he would have proved that this was setting up a denominational system of education. Maynooth College had almost as many students as the three Queen's Colleges to be incorporated by the Bill. The Chief Secretary informed them on the First Reading of the Bill that there were 760 students in the three Queen's Colleges, and there were 600 students in this one sectarian institution at Maynooth. He only took Maynooth because it happened to be the most striking example he could adduce. If Maynooth were affiliated, they would actually have a greater number of students in the affiliated institutions than there were in the parent University at Dublin. Not only did this proposed affiliation include the granting of degrees to the students of the affiliated colleges, but it also proposed to give to them the benefits of matriculated students of the University. If, therefore, Maynooth College were affiliated, its students would have practically the use of all the buildings, the libraries and the laboratories, of every part of the University, thus placing them to all intents and purposes on the same footing as the ordinary matriculated students of the University. Maynooth College was put up for the express pur- 1827 pose of students who were to become Roman Catholic priests, and Magee College for students who were to become clergy of the Presbyterian Church, and if these and similar sectarian institutions were to become practically part and parcel of the new University, then it could not be called by any other name than a denominational institution, and as such it would be contrary to the policy pursued in this country for many years, and especially and loudly advocated by hon. Gentlemen opposite, that no public money should be voted for the purpose of denominational education either in the elementary or higher branches. He did not know that he had any reason to hope that he might carry the Amendment, but for the reasons he had mentioned he thought it his duty to bring before the House of Commons once more the fact that they were setting up two Universities, one of which would be as denominational as, and the other, probably, more denominational than any other University on the face of the globe.
§ SIR PHILIP MAGNUS (London University)
said he was very glad to have the opportunity of seconding the Amendment, and he trusted the Government would be willing to accept it. There was nothing in it in any way contradictory to the declarations which were made by the Chief Secretary when introducing the Bill. He had always supported the Bill because he believed that it was intended to set up undenominational Universities in Ireland, and there was nothing in it to indicate that they would be of a denominational character. He, therefore, saw no reason whatever why the Government should not accept the Amendment. It would make it perfectly clear that no part of the money to be spent would be used for denominational purposes. He did not second the Amendment altogether in the same spirit in which it was moved. He had no reason to believe there was any intention on the part of the Chief Secretary to set up denominational Universities in Ireland; he accepted his word that they were to be thoroughly undenominational; and for that reason he trusted the Government would accept the Amendment. There was nothing in the 1828 Bill to suggest that Maynooth College would become an affiliated college to the University, but, even if it should ultimately become an affiliated college, he assumed it would only be affiliated in its arts faculty and not in its theological faculty. They would have something to say as to the terms on which any college or institution should be affiliated to the new University; and he hoped and believed they would be able to safeguard the undenominational character of the Universities; but he saw no reason, having regard to the distinct statements of the Chief Secretary, why the Government should hesitate for a moment to accept the Amendments proposed. If they accepted it, they would show distinctly that they confirmed the statement already made by the Chief Secretary; but, if they refused to accept it, it would be somewhat impossible for those who had hitherto supported the Bill to continue to do so to the same extent. They would suspect that all sorts of changes might be introduced in the charters which they would have no opportunity of discussing and which were not in the Bill. He, therefore, hoped the Government would accept the Amendment. He had every reason to believe the statement made by the Chief Secretary that these Universities were to be of a thoroughly undenominational character, and his faith in that statement was confirmed by the fact that the Universities contained no faculty for theology in connection with which the Maynooth or Magee Colleges could be affiliated.
In line 9, at end, to add the words 'Provided that no part of the moneys authorised by this Resolution shall be used or applied for the purposes of denominational education.'"—(Mr. Charles Craig.)
§ Question proposed, "That those words be there added."
§ MR. DILLON (Mayo, E.)
said he desired to emphasise the fact that the hon Member for London University had seconded the Amendment, as he said himself, in a spirit totally different from that in which it was moved, but at the same time he would venture to express his astonishment 1829 that the hon Gentleman had seconded it at all. He had been a constant attendant at the meetings of the Committee, he knew the character of the Bill, he had listened to the statements made by the Chief Secretary, and he admitted that neither in the charters nor in the Bill was there anything to which he objected on the ground of the use of public money for denominational purposes. Was it fair therefore to bring forward an Amendment of this character, absolutely without precedent, and insulting to the Chief Secretary in his absence, because he naturally and rightly supposed the Resolution would go through without any opposition.
§ MR. CHARLES CRAIG
said the right hon. Gentleman knew perfectly well that the Amendment was on the Paper.
§ MR. DILLON
said that was so, but the Chief Secretary had no idea that any opposition would come from any other than Members who were determined, if they could, to wreck the Bill on its merits, and who up to this had not obtained any support of a serious character in their campaign against the Bill. The right hon. Gentleman was therefore entitled to treat a notice coining from that quarter as not of a very serious character. The hon. Member who seconded recognised that the Chief Secretary had given distinct pledges on the matter, and he said he trusted his word and had no fault to find with the discussion in Committee or with the text of the charters or of the Bill. Yet he said that if the Amendment were not accepted they would suspect all sorts of things. Was it fair or reasonable to treat a Minister in charge of a Bill in that way—to say they thoroughly trusted his word, that they had no fault to find with the Bill or with the discussion which had taken place in Committee, and still to say that if an Amendment, absolutely without parallel in the history of similar Resolutions, was not accepted by the Government, all kinds of suspicions would arise? Suspicions of what? Suspicions that the Chief Secretary would go back upon his word, suspicions that in the speeches they made on the First and Second Reading they were, in 1830 conspiracy with the Chief Secretary, concealing the purpose which they intended carrying into effect after the Bill had been passed by altering the charters? That was the only ground on which the Amendment had been supported. He thought they had some cause to resent it. The Amendment was part of the campaign to wreck the Bill.
§ MR. DILLON
said he had drawn the distinction between the mover and seconder of the Amendment because the hon. Member was friendly to the Bill and supported it; but the Amendment was grossly insulting to the Chief Secretary, and the Irish Party, because they had acted honourably by the House and meant all they said. The hon. Member in making a desperate effort to enlist the sympathies of hon. Members opposite had drawn an absolutely false picture of the effect of the Bill and the charter. Even if Maynooth were affiliated not a farthing of public money would go to its benefit. The only effect would be to put Maynooth in regard to the new University on exactly the same footing as it stood in regard to the Royal University to-day, a University which was in the enjoyment of public endowments, but nobody had found fault with the fact that the Maynooth students were at this moment enjoying the advantages of the Royal University in Ireland. But the affiliation of Maynooth had not been determined on in the Committee, and he did not believe it would be discussed except by hon. Gentlemen who discussed every point under the sun. All they asked was that the same liberty which they had given to the Universities of Birmingham, Liverpool, and London should be accorded to the new University of Dublin. Was it to be tolerated that an hon. Gentleman in the name of religious liberty should propose by this insulting and utterly unprecedented Amendment that this University should be subjected to restrictions of its liberty to which no modern University in this country was subjected? He was an advocate of liberty, and he would be no party to asking for any privilege which was not enjoyed to the fullest extent by 1831 the Universities of this country, and he thought the hon. Member would find that he was approaching an unsympathetic audience in imposing restrictions of this character. This was a wrecking Amendment, an Amendment of insult. He believed that if it were passed it would have no effect of any sort on the Bill; it was simply an Amendment designed for the purpose of insulting them.
§ MR. CHARLES CRAIG
On a point of order. The hon. Member has used the word "insulting" on three separate occasions. He applied it twice to the Amendment and now he has applied it directly to me. I ask you if that is right.
§ MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr. CALDWELL)
The use of the word "insulting" applied to the Amendment is in order. Used towards a Member of the House it would be rather out of order:
§ MR. DILLON
I withdraw and apologise as far as I used it towards the hon. Member. I retain it as regards the Amendment.
§ MR. CHARLES CRAIG
I am sure the House will allow me to say that in moving the Amendment I had no intention of insulting hon. Members below the gangway or any member of their Church.
§ MR. DILLON
said he accepted the hon. Member's statement, but he adhered to his description of the Amendment. The hon. Member had no right to convey the entirely false impression that under the Bill and the charters as they stood it was possible to apply public money and use it for denominational institutions. It was absolutely untrue.
§ MR. CHARLES CRAIG
said that under the Charter and under the Bill it was open to the governing body of the University to affiliate Maynooth to-morrow, and once Maynooth was affiliated it would get the advantage of the new University and necessarily the advantage of the money.
§ MR. DILLON
said it would get, as affiliated, precisely the same advantage it now got in the Royal University, and 1832 not an atom more. It was absolutely false to suppose that if it were affiliated the Government would be using public money for the purpose of endowing denominational institutions any more than public money was now used for that purpose. The only advantage that could be offered would be the power to take degrees, and no man, he thought, would say that was using public money for the advantage of denominational institutions. What he desired particularly to impress upon the House was that neither under the charters nor under the Bill as it stood, was there a single privilege or liberty towards endowing or giving any advantage to a denominational college that was not enjoyed by all the Universities of this country. There was not a shadow of justification for this Amendment, which was one without precedent in his experience of the House, and he earnestly appealed to Members opposite to vote against it, remembering the spirit in which it was moved.
§ CAPTAIN CRAIG
said he desired to reassure hon. Members below the gangway in one respect at all events. They had quite misconceived the idea of the Amendment. There was no mention of one denomination more than another. There was nothing in the Amendment which applied to one Church more than another. It was simply to carry out the promise made by the Chief Secretary that the Bill was undenominational. Why, therefore, should the House be asked to apply money for any other purpose than to carry out an undenominational system of University education in Ireland? That was the whole point. The hon. Member had tried to confuse the House. Hon. Members were strictly muzzled and dared not say a word, when they were asked whether they were in favour of undenominational education or not. The hon. Member twitted them with attacking the Chief Secretary in his absence. But the Chief Secretary had run away. Were they to go looking for him? The Amendment was on the Paper that morning, but this was the very part of the Bill the right hon. Gentleman himself did not like, and he had determined, therefore, to keep out of the discussion. He said the Bill was undenominational. 1833 Would he vote, if he were present, for an Amendment which said that money was only to go towards undenominational teaching? He could not do that, and therefore had gone away, fearing that he would be in rather an awkward position. It was not their fault that he had gone. It was his duty to stay there and defend his position, which he could not do. It was a very simple Amendment. There was nothing complicated about it. Everyone could understand what it meant, and know exactly what he was going to vote for, and if he voted against the Amendment he was voting for denominational teaching in this University. No distinction was drawn in favour of and no privileges were claimed for Protestants above their Roman Catholic fellow countrymen. What they desired was to secure for the Roman Catholic laity the same education as they desired for the Protestant laity. What they feared was that all the money voted by the House of Commons would not be devoted towards the education of the laity whether Roman Catholic or Protestant in Ireland. If hon. Members below the gangway would declare themselves and say that they wanted the laity of their faith educated then they would clear the air. The Nationalist Party wanted a particular denominational education, not only in Ireland, but in England as well, in regard to its elementary branches, and therefore their attitude was one in favour of denominational education all through the higher grades of education. If the Resolution passed without this Amendment the money might be used in the way he had suggested. The laity were suffering from too much clericalism; they should allow themselves to be educated and then they could march in the light of day. There was a cloud of clericalism resting over all branches of education in Ireland, and it was clogging the advancement of the people. He was speaking with reference to all denominations in Ireland. All 1834 religions were pushing forward so much that there was too much of the clerical element. He could not conceive why any hon. Member should object to this Amendment. It was necessary to have this matter threshed out in the House of Commons, and not allow it to be hidden away in a Committee upstairs. The Opposition were now doing their best to secure undenominational teaching in Ireland. This Amendment afforded the House an opportunity not of granting a. special favour but of affirming what the Chief Secretary for Ireland had said in the House.
THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. CHEERY,) Liverpool, Exchange
said it occurred to him that the matters which had been discussed for the last half-hour wars matters which ought not to be discussed at all at this stage, because they were distinctly matters for the Committee. This Amendment was of a very unusual character; it was almost unprecedented; he had not been able to find a single instance where any such Amendment had been added to a financial Resolution. Why was it being done now? What was the special reason for it? He could understand the attitude of the hon. Member for East Antrim, who was anxious to destroy the Bill and was consequently anxious to introduce an embarrassing addition to the financial Resolution, but he could not understand why the hon. Member for London University had seconded the Amendment. The hon. Member had given them very great assistance on the Committee upstairs; he was a true friend of the Bill and had shown himself most anxious that the business of the Committee should be facilitated as much as possible. The hon. Member had said there was nothing in the Amendment which was contradictory to the declaration of the Chief Secretary when he said that no portion of this money 1835 would be applied to denominational purposes in Ireland. That declaration was binding upon the Chief Secretary and the Government. It had not been suggested that the Government intended to introduce any clause or alter any clause so as to give the colleges dealt with a denominational character. He wished to point out that every penny of the money voted went to those colleges. The only other money covered by the Resolution was the expenses of the Commissioners, and that was necessary to put these two Universities on their legs and give them a start. It was utterly impossible that there could be any attempt to apply this money for denominational purposes. Maynooth, as the hon. Member for East Mayo had pointed out, would not get any grant of money under the Bill. The only advantage which the affiliated colleges or institutions would get was that residence within their walls would be accepted by the University as equivalent to residence and attendance upon lectures in one of the colleges of the University. That was really a burden rather than an advantage, because the institutions would have the expense of maintaining them and providing lectures for which no public grant of money whatever was made. Whether that was a foolish arrangement or not was not a question which should be discussed now. It might be discussed in Committee upstairs, or when the Bill came back to the House on Report. He asked the House to reject the Amendment as being unusual, unprecedented, and unnecessary.
§ MR. RAWLINSON
asked why the right hon. and learned Gentleman had called this an embarrassing Amendment.
§ MR. CHERRY
said that what he stated was that the hon. Gentleman who introduced it thought it was an embarrassing Amendment.
§ MR. RAWLINSON
asked why the Government did not accept it if it was not embarrassing. The Amendment was in identical terms with one handed in when the financial Resolution was before the Committee of the House. Directly the hon. Member get up to move it the closure was moved by a Member of the Government, so that the question was not discussed on the Committee Stage at all. If, as the Attorney-General for Ireland had suggested, there was really no harm in the Amendment, the Government ought to accept it at once. The point was that it should be made plain that no part of the money would be used for denominational teaching in Ireland. Rightly or wrongly a large number of people thought that the Bill would involve subsidising denominational teaching in Ireland. If it did not, why should the Government hesitate to accept the Amendment which put into exact parlance what the Attorney-General for Ireland said was the intention of the Government? On Thursday morning The Times made the announcement that an arrangement had been come to by the Government by which Maynooth should be affiliated with Dublin University, and the hon. and learned Gentleman had not contradicted that. Assuming that such an arrangement existed, they had this position—that it was quite conceivable that the affiliated colleges would have voting power and all the privileges of matriculated students in the Universities. The religious question over here was not in such an acute stage as in Ireland, and if a member of one denomination had voting power in the London University, or any of the other great English Universities, it was exceedingly unlikely that it would be used for denominational purposes.
§ MR. HOLT (Northumberland, Hexham)
asked whether the hon. and learned Gentleman suggested that Oxford and 1837 Cambridge were free from religious influences.
§ MR. RAWLINSON
said he was perfectly correct in stating that there had not been the slightest religious difficulty during years past in Oxford, Cambridge, or London, and, so far from their being controlled in any way at all by one denomination, he maintained that there had been absolute freedom for the member of any denomination to come into these Universities. The argument of the hon. Member for East Mayo was that the English Universities were on an undenominational basis. He thought the Government had given short shrift to hon. Members who objected to public funds being devoted to the formation of denominational Universities in Ireland.
§ MR. ADKINS (Lancashire, Middleton)
hoped that after the statement of the Attorney-General for Ireland the hon. Member would not press his Amendment. He understood his right hon. friend to say that the Government undertook that no money would be spent on denominational education under this Bill. If that was intended to include also what might be done under the charter, then those who thought that these Universities should not be devoted to the promotion of denominational education out of public funds might be satisfied. He should vote for the Government without hesitation.
§ SIR F. BANBURY
said that it was a very serious question. The answer given by the Attorney-General for Ireland was most unsatisfactory. It was that this question should be considered in Committee; but the Committee consisted of only seventy or eighty Members, whereas at the present moment it was in the power of the whole House to decide whether this money should or should not be devoted to denominational purposes. The right hon. Gentleman had said that there was no clause in the 1838 Bill which gave a denominational character to the education to be provided in the Universities; but there was no guarantee that such a clause might not be introduced in Committee later on. At the present moment they were the guardians of the taxpayers' money, and they were deciding to what purposes this sum of money was to be devoted. If the Amendment was carried they would decide that the money should not be devoted to any denominational purpose. If the Chief Secretary, the Attorney-General for Ireland, and the hon. Gentleman opposite desired what they said they desired, why did not the Chief Secretary accept the Amendment? If the Chief Secretary did not accept the Amendment, he asked the hon. Gentleman opposite how he could with any decency refuse to vote for it. During the last four years they had taken every possible means to deprive education in England of any sectarian character, and English taxpayers would have to provide part of the money now to be voted; yet the only reasons why hon. Gentlemen opposite refused to accept the plain and simple Amendment which defined their own desires was that there was an understanding between the Chief Secretary and hon. Gentlemen below the gangway, and that the Nonconformist consciences were rather desirous of shutting their eyes in order to support the Government. Under these circumstances he would have great pleasure in supporting the Amendment, and he would look with interest to see how those who called themselves Nonconformists voted upon it.
§ MR. CHERRY
said that he understood, as he believed all the House understood, that the pledge which his right hon. friend the Chief Secretary gave on a previous occasion applied both to the Charter and to the Bill, both to the colleges and to the University itself. There was no intention in the remotest degree on the part of the Government to violate that pledge.
§ Question put.1840
§ The House divided:—Ayes, 22; Noes, 149. (Division List No. 113.)1839
|Banbury, Sir Frederick George||Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-||Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staff'sh.)|
|Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry, N.)||Forster, Henry William||Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Lanark)|
|Beach, Hn. Michael Hugh Hicks||Hamilton, Marquess of||Warde, Col. C. E. (Kent, Mid)|
|Burnyeat, W. J. D.||Hazel, Dr. A. E.||Younger, George|
|Coates, Major E. F. (Lewisham)||Hedges, A. Paget|
|Cochrane, Non. Thos. H. A. E.||Lane-Fox, G. R.||TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr. Charles Craig and Sir Philip Magnus.|
|Corbett, C H (Sussex, E. Grinst'd||Morrison-Bell, Captain|
|Courthope, G. Loyd||Rawlinson, John Frederick Feel|
|Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)||Robinson, S.|
|Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.)||Gulland, John W.||Norton, Capt. Cecil William|
|Adkins, W. Ryland D.||Gwynn, Stephen Lucius||Nussey, Thomas Willans|
|Agnew, George William||Hall, Frederick||Nuttall, Harry.|
|Ainsworth, John Stirling||Harcourt, Robert V.(Montrose)||O'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary Mid|
|Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)||Harvey, A. G. C (Rochdale)||O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)|
|Armitags, R.||Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N. E.||O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)|
|Balfour, Robert (Lanark)||Haslam, James (Derbyshire)||Parker, James (Halifax)|
|Barnes, G. N.||Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)||Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.|
|Barran, Rowland Hirst||Haworth, Arther A.||Price, C. E. (Edinb'gh, Central)|
|Barry Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.)||Henderson, Arthur (Durham)||Priestley, W. E. B. (Bradford, E.)|
|Beale, W. P.||Herbert, Col. Sir Ivor (Mon., S.)||Radford, G. H.|
|Bennett, E. N.||Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe)||Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro'|
|Berridge T. H. D.||Higham, John Sharp||Redmond, John E. (Waterford)|
|Boland John||Hills, J. W.||Rendall, Athelstan)|
|Boulton, A. C. F.||Hodge, John||Richards, T. F. (Wolverh'mpt'n|
|Bowerman, C. W.||Holt, Richard Durning||Richardson, A.|
|Bramsdon, T. A.||Horniman, Emslie John||Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)|
|Brigg John||Hudson, Walter||Roe, Sir Thomas|
|Brodie, H. C.||Idris, T. H. W.||Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)|
|Burns, Rt. Hon. John||Illingworth, Percy H.||Seaverns, J. H.|
|Burt Rt. Hon. Thomas||Jones, William (Carnarvonshire||Seddon, J.|
|Carr-Gomm, H. W.||Kearley, Hudson E.||Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)|
|Causton, Rt. Hn. Richard Knight||Kekewich, Sir George||Shipman, Dr. John G.|
|Chance, Frederick William||Kettle, Thomas Michael||Silcock, Thomas Ball|
|Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.||Lambert, George||Simon, John Allsebrook|
|Clough, William||Lamont, Norman||Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John|
|Clynes, J. R.||Layland-Barratt, Francis||Spicer, Sir Albert|
|Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.||Lehmann, R. C.||Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N. W.)|
|Cremer, Sir William Randal||Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich||Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)|
|Devlin, Joseph||Lewis, John Herbert||Strachey, Sir Edward|
|Dewar, Sir J. A. (Inverness-sh.)||Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David||Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)|
|Dickinson, W. H. (St. Pancras, N||Lyell, Charles Henry||Summerbell, T.|
|Dillon John||Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.||Sutherland, J. E.|
|Duckworth, James||MacNeill, John Gordon Swift||Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton|
|Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness||Macpherson, J. T.||Tomkinson, James|
|Duncan, J. H. (York, Otley)||MacVeigh, Charles (Donegal, E||Toulmin, George|
|Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)||M'Crae, George||Verney, F. W.|
|Essex, R. W.||M'Killop, W.||Wadsworth, J.|
|Esslemont, George Birnie||Maddison, Frederick||Walsh, Stepehn|
|Evans, Sir Samuel T.||Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)||Waring, Walter|
|Everett, R. Lacey||Marnham, F. J.||Watt, Henry A.|
|Fenwick Charles||Micklem, Nathaniel||White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)|
|Ferens, T. R.||Middlebrook, William||Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)|
|Flynn, James Christopher||Montgomery, H. G.||Williamson, A.|
|Gladstone, Rt. Hn Herbert John||Mooney, J. J.||Wilson, Hon. G. G. (Hull, W.)|
|Glen-Coats, Sir T.(Renfrew, W.)||Morrell, Philip||Wilson, Henry J. (York, W. R.)|
|Glover, Thomas||Morse, L. L.||Wilson, W.T. (Westhoughton)|
|Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford||Murray, Capt. Hn A C. (Kincard)|
|Goulding, Edward Alfred||Myer, Horatio||TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Sir Joseph Pease and Master of Elibank.|
|Grant, Corrie||Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncast'r|
|Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward||Nolan, Joseph|
Resolution agreed to.
§ Adjourned at twenty-nine minutes after Eleven o'clock.