I beg to move, in page 16, line 1, to leave out from the beginning to the word "all," in line 9.
This is one of a series of Amendments which have the same object in view. The right hon. Gentleman has submitted a scheme, which has been approved, to hand over the work of the education authorities to the county councils and the large burgh councils in Scotland. He is giving something to Scotland worse than is being given to England under the general scheme, and in connection with administration he is also giving us something which is not as good as the English system. In the Education Act, 1921, Section 4 (1) provides:
Every council having powers under this Act shall have an Education Committee…
Sub-section (2) provides that:
Subject to the provisions of Sub-section (2) of Section seven of the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries Act, 1919,
(a) all matters relating to the exercise by the council of their powers under this Act, or of any powers connected with education conferred by or under any other Act, scheme or order on the council expressly as a local education authority or as a council having powers under this Act, except the power of raising a rate or borrowing money, shall stand referred to the education committee…
The proposals in the Bill would make it possible for the newly constituted education authorities, the county councils on the one hand and the burgh councils
on the other, to approve schemes which might be relegated or delegated by them to the education committees of the counties or the burghs, but only a portion of the work which is laid down for them to do. The series of Amendments which we seek to move would delegate all powers associated with education administration to the education committees of the county councils or of the burgh councils. It may be argued by the Secretary of State for Scotland in his reply, that I am asking for something more than even the English education committees have got. I am prepared to admit that at once. You have given us a different system from the English system. You have given us only 30 education committees for the 33 counties in Scotland, and I submit that, in view of the larger areas which they have got to administer, I am not asking too much when I ask for greater powers for these education committees than have been given to the English education committees. The whole of the Amendments —the others being consequential upon the one I am now moving—if taken in sequence on the Order Paper, would make the paragraph read:
All matters relating to the exercise by a county council or the town council of a burgh being a county of a city of their functions (other than functions relating to the raising of money by rate or loan) relating to education (including all matters relating to the giving of instruction in religion to children whose parents do not object to the instruction so given), shall be delegated to the education committee.
That, I admit at once, is entirely different from the proposals which are in the Bill, which would give no uniformity as far as Scottish education is concerned. I think we are entitled to get at least as large powers for the education committees as they have got in England, but we are being given something less under this scheme. I would like to draw the particular attention of the Secretary of State and the Under-Secretary to a memorandum in connection with the Education Act, 1921, issued by the English Board of Education, which summarised the position of the council with regard to the education committees then being set up. It said:
The council must refer every educational matter to the committee except the raising a rate or borrowing money;
May, in case of urgency, act without awaiting the report of the Committee;
May delegate, on any terms it pleases, its powers under the Act to the Committee; but
Must not delegate its powers of raising a rate or borrowing money.
I want to emphasise the fact that under the English scheme they must refer educational matters to the committee, except the raising a rate or borrowing money. Under the Clause now before the Committee it does not follow that the council must delegate or refer to the education committee all matters dealing with education. Now that this Committee has abolished the ad hoc authority, I want education, as far as its administrative side is concerned, to be delegated to the education committees that are to be set up in accordance with the provisions of this Bill. I believe that even my bitterest opponents in this House will admit that I know something about education administration, and, recognising that we have done some bad things in connection with it, and wanting now to make as good a job as possible of the work still left for us to do, I am submitting this, not merely on my own behalf, but as the unanimous decision of those representing the executive of the education authorities. If you do not retain the ad hoc principle, then we want the powers dealing with education to be delegated to the education committee which are to be set up.
I have, therefore, much pleasure in moving this first Amendment which, as I have said, is one of a series which seeks to give us a little more powers than are given to the English authorities, but powers which we are justified in demanding, the only difference being in the further Amendment of mine which says that matters shall "be delegated" instead of merely "stand referred." With this explanation, I trust the Secretary of State will be able to meet us. He has refused up to the present any of the requests made by the executive of the education authorities, and has refused to meet any of the demands made by the education authorities themselves. He can rest assured that I am speaking on behalf of the whole of the education authorities in Scotland in making this request, and I trust that on this matter of administration solely and wholely of education we shall not be hampered in our work by the county council, but that full powers will be delegated to the education committees.
This Clause represents the wreckage of all that is known as the basis of Scottish life. We are to-day starting out amongst the ruins that have been left, due to what has taken place by previous votes in this Committee. The desire of Members on these benches is, if possible, from the wreckage still to get a grip upon some of the most important parts that have been rent asunder, and to keep as much direct control as possible, even if it only be in one or two places, realising that after the smash which has been made by this Government we shall not be able, even with these Amendments, to get anywhere near what we would like to see in a Bill. The whole of the ideal has been smashed, and to-day, when we are dealing with this small Amendment to try to tie things together, we realise, quite sincerely, that the smash has been such that the educational system we have known in Scotland has gone until some Government comes to rebuild it. Since there are so many Amendments, and since the more important in relation to Clause 12 follow this one, I will content myself by asking the Secretary of State for Scotland just to keep in mind that when he is dealing with this to-day he is dealing with something more than sentiment, and that a great deal depends on what he is going to do.
It is just because we are dealing here with something much more important than sentiment, that I am unable to accept this proposal. It is clear from what the hon. Member for Springburn (Mr. Hardie) has said, that this proposal is aimed at endeavouring to tie up, as he said, as much as possible the remnants of the ad hoc system for a body which is to be charged with the duties of carrying on education. The hon. Gentleman who moved this Amendment said—and I think said truly—that none of his opponents—I hope the word "bitter" may be dropped out—would deny that he knew a great deal about education and the educational machine. I agree, and I am sure those who know my hon. Friend will also agree. But what is the practical side of this question? The hon. Gentleman has not really explained what he means by education. I would point out that the intention in this Bill is to let matters which concern the ordinary conduct of education—pure education—be referred to the education committee. But there are other problems such as the feeding of children, provision of recreation and playing fields for children, and it would be most unfortunate if the new bodies which we are creating in the great cities and in the counties did not deal with them as a whole. I visualise, for instance, the possibility of a joint committee dealing with the question of recreation in a great city like Glasgow, and avoiding some of those difficulties which have arisen in practice where the ad hoc authorities actually built upon the playground of one of the schools, lessening the lamentably small number of playgrounds in the great city of Glasgow by putting up a building which, if there had been reasonable cooperation between the bodies charged with education and health services, would have been avoided.
I would plead with this Committee to realise, whatever those ad hoc education authorities may claim for their past work, that in the interests of the children it would be lamentable if there were ruled out in this new scheme the complete possibility of working with the health authority of the city on the question of school feeding or on the question of recreation. These matters are all linked with education. Some of them are the main foundations which make it possible for the children to benefit by education, but how can you, in words which will be sufficiently clear, avoid hampering all co-operation, which is essential for the full development of these services, if we accept the proposal of the hon. Gentleman? I think, on all those grounds, the Committee will agree that it would be unreasonable to accept the Amendment.
May I point out that the English Act says:
All matters relating to the exercise by the council of their powers under this Act, or of any powers connected with education conferred by or under any other Act, scheme or order on the council expressly as a local education authority or as a council having powers under this Act, except the power of raising a. rate or borrowing money, shall stand referred to the education committee.
I am prepared to accept, on behalf of the executive of the education authorities, instead of the words "to be delegated" the words, "shall stand referred to," which is in conformity with the English Act. Will he explain how it cannot work in Scotland?
Sir J. GILHMOUR:
I am frequently accused of being dragged at the heels of England, and with being the messenger boy of the English Minister. What appears to be the complaint now is that I have struck out a line of my own, and that I choose to look at this matter from a purely Scottish point of view. All I would say to the hon. Member and his friends is this, that I think my scheme gives much greater freedom and elasticity, and the possibility of much greater benefit to those who, after all, we are considering, and whose interest we are considering, than by tying them up by a definition as in the English Bill. It is for that reason alone that I advise the Committee not to accept this Amendment.
The Secretary of State made a reference to a building undertaking in Glasgow. In such a case, first of all, there is the scarcity of land. Secondly, if it is a densely populated industrial area and there is not space on which to build schools to accomodate the children, the moment you seek to go outside the area you are faced with the question of the transfer of the children to and from the area.
The hon. Member has surely chosen a most unfortunate defence of the Amendment. The hon. Member who moved the Amendment and who spoke with a great deal more intimate knowledge of education, is not prepared to defend that Glasgow transaction. There was no question of a shortage of land. There was no question of a possible transfer of children. There was available an open space across the street. This was in the possession of the public health authority, which was desirous of giving ample accommodation for the school building. The building, however, was put up in the playground of the old school, so increasing the already lamentable shortage of playground space.
I accept what has been said, but I would point out that the school could not have been built on the playground without the consent of the Education Department. That Department had the right to veto the scheme. I am glad to hear the suggestion of the Under-Secretary of State, because I am having a fight at Kirkcaldy now, where even some of the parents are seeking to have a building put up in the playground of a certain school. Now I shall be able to go from the House of Commons and tell them that there is no possibility of their encroaching on the playground space.
That is precisely what we are dealing with in the Bill—to give local powers to meet the local demands, so that the matter should not be referred to the bureaucracy in Edinburgh or in London for the determination of such a difficulty between two bodies which are levying on the same ratepayers' purse in Glasgow. The power to resolve the difficulty should have been left in the City of Glasgow, and it should not have been brought for decision to the bureaucracy in Edinburgh or in London. That is what we maintain.
I am one who is profoundly convinced of the rightness of the ad hoc system of educational control. That question was argued the night before last, and I shall not go over the old ground. Nor am I in any way shaken in my belief by the facts of the dispute over the regrettable incident in Glasgow. I am certain that if we had retained the ad hoc system it would not pass the wits of the Secretary of State or his advisers to devise measures which would prevent the possibility of such an occurrence in the future. But as we have destroyed the ad hoc system I must say that I find it impossible to support the Amendment in its original form. Having abandoned the ad hoc. system, let us, at any rate, get the maximum amount of benefit we can from the ad omnia system. Let us in every possible way avoid such overlapping as has occurred in the past, and use this new but worse system for what it is worth. I understand, however, that my hon. Friend who moved the Amendment is willing to accept a lessening of it. The Secretary of State is desirous that there should be the utmost co-ordination, the utmost putting of ideas into a common stock. If that is to be done, surely the education committee should be consulted on every occasion about all matters which might have any educational bearing at all? Surely that is the way in which to get the maximum advantage? The opinion of the education committee on each and all of these matters would be at the disposal of the ad omnia authority of county or burgh or city when the time came to make a decision. If my hon. Friend will alter his Amendment to say that these matters shall be referred instead of delegated to the committee, I shall support him.
There is a misunderstanding. According to Sub-section (3, a), there are different things that might not be delegated or referred to the committee, and I am seeking to delete these things.
There are other Amendments on the Paper relating to the questions that are to be delegated or to "standard referred," and it will be still open to you to call those Amendments.
Let us be quite clear, so that there may be no misapprehension. The hon. Member has referred to this as part of a scheme, and has suggested the substitution of the word "delegated" for "referred." Does he wish to move that this be left out without reference to the rest of his proposal?
No. On page 550 of the Amendment Paper there is an Amendment, in page 16, line 15, to leave out the words "stand referred," and to insert instead thereof the words "be delegated." When we come to that Amendment, if we do not move it, the result will be that all the schemes will stand referred to the Committee.
The desire and intention of the Government are that all purely educational matters shall stand referred to the education committee. It is equally the Government's desire that it should be open to the town council or county council to say that on such a matter as the feeding of school children or the erection of school buildings or the provision of playgrounds, the matter should be referred, in the first instance, to the more appropriate committee other than the education committee, whichever it happens to be. It is in order to keep that open that we have put in the words "save as otherwise provided." They are very wide words, but it is difficult to give a definition more closely. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will give the assurance that in the administrative schemes that shall be made quite clear. But he wants to leave what I have mentioned open to the discretion of the respective authorities, town or county; for instance, that the question of school buildings should be referred to the building committee. They must necessarily lay the plans before the education committee. That is just the type of thing in regard to which you want to know how it will work out best for the local authority. That is the reason why my right hon. Friend is 10th to accept the Amendment, and why he is able to give the assurance which I have suggested on his behalf with regard to purely educational matters.
After the very fan-statement which has been made by the Lord Advocate it seems that we are not at cross purposes. It is really a question of trying to have technically defined what is to be the work of the education committee and what should be definitely delegated or referred to that committee. If I can get an assurance from the right hon. Gentleman, we might tome to some agreement as to what ought to go out of the hands of even the committee that is to be set up, and to be handed over to a joint committee or a health committee of the county council. I realise the difficulties in administration. If we could have an assurance that there is a desire to meet us before the Report stage, we might be able to get a satisfactory Amendment or Clause drafted so as to meet the particular point that we are both trying to argue at the moment.
If we get an assurance that the Government are ready to meet, once move, the representatives of the existing authorities to see if it is possible to devise a scheme, which can be put into the Bill and which will ensure that purely educational matters such as questions of curriculum and staff shall be referred to the Education Committee, I feel sure we would be able to come to some arrangement.
I beg to move, in page 16, to leave out from the word "education" in line 5, to the end of line 7.
We now come to what is, I am sure, to all hon. Members from Scotland a very important matter, namely, religious instruction in schools, and, with the permission of the Committee, I propose to deal with the whole subject suggested by some five Amendments which appear on the Paper in the name of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and also one or two Amendments in the names of other hon. Members. It may be convenient if I draw attention to the Amendments to which I refer.
If the Lord Advocate is going to traverse this wide range of Amendments—and I recognise the reasonableness of the suggestion—will it follow that the field is opened now for a, general discussion on this question of religious instruction in schools?
Whatever field is opened by the Lord Advocate, with the consent of the Committee, will be opened to the hon. Gentleman also, but, of course, he may not open a second gate in another field.
I desire to suggest to the Committee that we should deal with this question as a whole on this Clause. I was about to draw attention to the various Amendments which appear later on the Paper relating to this subject. The second Government Amendment is in page 16, to leave out from the word "education" in line 12 to the word "shall" in line 14. The third Government Amendment proposes to insert, in page 16, line 20, at the end, the words:
(b) All matters relating to the provision of instruction in religion in terms of Section seven of the Education (Scotland) Act, 1918, shall stand referred to the education committee.
The fourth Government Amendment proposes to leave out from the word "including" in page 16, line 39, to the word "including" in page 17, line 1, and to insert instead thereof the words:
(i) in all cases at least two persons interested in the promotion of religious instruction in terms of Section seven of the Education (Scotland) Act, 1918, to be recommended by a meeting of representative of the churches or denominational bodies (other than those having a right to recommend as hereinafter in this paragraph provided for) having duly constituted charges within the area, and the scheme shall prescribe the constitution of the meeting and the manner of convening it; and (ii).
A fifth Government Amendment appears on the Paper proposing to leave out from the word "person" in page 16, line 40, to the word "and" in page 17, line 1, and to insert instead thereof the words:
interested in the promotion of religious instruction in terms of Section seven of the Education (Scotland) Act, 1918.
That Amendment by mistake has not been taken off the Paper. It is superseded by the Amendment which I have just read and which was put down last night, and it may be struck out. Then there
are two Amendments, one in the name of the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Sir R. Hamilton), to leave out from the word "least" in page 16, line 40, to the word "and" in page 17, line 1, and to insert instead thereof the words:
three persons who shall represent the churches on denominational bodies in the area other than those connected with the transferred schools
and the other in the name of the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. J. Brown) which is practically identical in terms with the Government Amendment at page 16, line 39. I shall point out the difference later.
I am sure the Committee will forgive me if I try to approach this question primarily from a historical standpoint. I need hardly remind the Committee that the question of religious instruction in schools has always been a very active question in Scotland. In 1872, when the school boards were set up, Section 68— the "conscience Clause" as it was called was inserted. It assumed that religious instruction was to continue to be given according to use and wont in the schools which were then set up, provided that every parent who did not want religious instruction to be given to his child should be entitled to withdraw that child from the religious instruction, and that the child was not to be prejudiced in its secular education by such withdrawal. That continued until the Act of 1918 when the important change made was the enlargement of the educational administrative areas.
Those who were in the House of Commons in 1918, and many of those who were not here then, will remember the extraordinary difficulty which arose over this very question. One of the most difficult points arose from a certain move to try to have religious; instruction made mandatory. We are all glad to think that that was avoided in the end, and that the formula was arrived at which is embodied in Section 7 of the Act of 1918. As a lawyer, and a person who is familiar to some extent with Acts of Parliament, I may say that this is a very striking illustration of vagueness in legislation. Hon. Members will recollect that everyone was extremely anxious and doubtful as to how that formula would carry out the wishes of the country as a whole. May I say at once that it has proved a complete success. Everyone will agree upon that point. That success has been due to the good will of everybody, but, above all, to the good will of the teachers of Scotland. Everyone may be congratulated on the way in which what is known as the "use and wont clause" in the 1918 Act, has been carried out.
We are now changing the authority from an ad hoc authority to an ad omnia authority. Two difficulties have been suggested in that connection. The first suggested difficulty was about the continuance of Section 7 and the second was as to the effect of the change from an ad hoc to an ad omnia authority, regarded from the angle of what the hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton) has very rightly called "the religious inspiration and drive" which is at the back of education in Scotland. We have endeavoured—and I hope to persuade the Committee that we have done so with some success—to safeguard both these points. I wish to make clear at once that this Bill, while it changes the constitution of the education authority, in no way touches or alters the statutory provisions for the carrying out of education under the 1918 Act. For instance, Section 7 stands untouched by this Bill. I may add, because some anxiety has been expressed on the point, that Section 18 relating to transferred schools also stands untouched by this Bill in any respect. It is important to make that quite clear. In order to make the first point about Section 7 doubly clear, this first Amendment is proposed. The second Government Amendment takes out the words
(including all matters relating to the giving of instruction in religion to children whose parents do not object to the instruction so given)
which are a not too happy paraphrase of Section 7. Then by a further Amendment already mentioned, we propose in place of those words to introduce a direct reference to Section 7 in order to make it quite clear that Section 7 is still alive, should there be any doubt about it. By the Amendment which we propose to page 16, line 20, we place this question of religious instruction under a separate sub-heading "(b)" and thus avoid applying to it the words "save as otherwise provided." That means that
religious instruction must stand as not qualified by those opening words. I hope the Committee will agree that the effect of these Amendments will be to put beyond any doubt, first, that the "use and wont Clause" of Section 7 of the Act of 1918, still remains a real protection with regard to general religious instruction in schools; and, second, that matters relating to religious education must and shall stand referred to the education committee under the scheme. There is no "save as otherwise provided" to alter that provision. I think that deals with the first point.
The second and more important point is the effect of the change from an ad hoc to an ad omnia constitution of the authority. How is one going to preserve the "religious inspiration and drive"? The Section in the 1918 Act which gives the transferred schools certain rights in regard to religious instruction in schools, stands untouched. Therefore, it was admittedly right that some of the co-opted membership on the education committee should represent those transferred schools with the idea of carrying out the agreement—as I think it may be called— arrived at under the Act of 1918. Then there are other members who represent the remaining religious interests in the area. How are they to be provided for? Originally we had some words which I think were not too happy about persons conversant with the custom in giving religious instruction, and I hope the Committee will agree that those words are improved upon by the Amendment on the Paper in which the words "interested in the promotion of religious instruction" are used as showing the type of men we desire. There remains the question of what is to be the minimum number in each case—and this is only the minimum number for the scheme.
They are all minimum numbers. The reason for the minimum number, and the reason against raising it, was that you might find in certain small areas—because every extra co-opted person means another elected person—that there would have been a difficulty in finding enough elected members for the committees. For that reason we were anxious not to alter the minimum, although the intention is that
greater numbers should be added, subject, of course, to the statutory limit on the total number. We have now come to the conclusion that it would not be unsafe from that point of view to put in "two" and there is an Amendment on the Taper which I have already quoted and which alters the original "one" to "two." There is still the question of how you are going to select this representation and I welcome the very striking words which fell from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Shettleston (Mr. Wheatley) and the hon. Member for Bothwell (Mr. Sullivan) two days ago on this point. The hon. Member for Bothwell said:
I have always advocated religious instruction in the schools, and I have taken part in the work of the examinations. I regret to say that some people who ought to have done the work have not been as keen in doing the work as in talking. The complaint has been made from time to time that in the transferred schools they have a guarantee under the 1918 Act which is not given in connection with the public schools. I believe that at that time the Government never believed that it was necessary to put it in the Bill; I do not think that it is necessary yet, but there is no reason why it should not be inserted in the Bill, always provided that, if a parent does not want any form of religious instruction for his child, he should be able to say so. He must give that liberty, and he must give the same right in the public schools as in the transferred schools."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 5th February, 1929; col. 1691, Vol. 224.]
The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Shettleston (Mr. Wheatley) said:
At the present moment I have two petitions from parish churches in my own constituency. They are anxious, like all the people in Scotland, to have guarantees for the continuance of religious instruction in the schools. The right hon. Gentleman has met them as far as that part of their demand is concerned, but they also ask—-and I, who am not a Protestant, think they are quite justified in asking—that, just as the other religious bodies, the Catholics and Episcopalians, are to have co-opted representation on the education committee, they should have representation also.
It is said that there is no need for representation in their case because they are in a majority now, and it is not necessary to protect the majority against a minority, If they are in a majority now, as they undoubtedly are, what possible harm could be done by giving to them an additional representative? A majority can never become more powerful by the addition of one member. The present Tory Government have not exhibited any strength because they have had a majority of 200. Every time an election is fought, they go out and put up a candidate to try to get one more. I sub-
mit, and I think it is proper that it should come from me, that the parish churches of Scotland are as much entitled to representation as any other religious denomination, and I demand it on behalf of the parish church people in the constituency that I represent. I hope that the Secretary of State will accede to my request, and will not give it out, that under the provisions of his Bill, as far as co-option is concerned, no Protestant need apply."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 5th February, 1929; cols. 1661–62, Vol. 224.]
It is natural to find that the right hon. Gentleman has put his name also to the Amendment to which I referred standing in the name of the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. J. Brown). What we propose is that:
in all cases at least two persons interested in the promotion of religious instruction in terms of Section seven of the Education (Scotland) Act, 1918, to be recommended by a meeting of representatives of the churches or denominational bodies (other than those having a right to recommend as hereinafter in this paragraph provided for) having duly constituted charges within the area, and the scheme shall prescribe the constitution of the meeting and the manner of convening it.
The term "duly constituted charges" is of course a technical ecclesiastical term, and that provides for representation for religious bodies other than those who have a right to representation in respect of the transferred schools. The provision for them is; at least two. Having got so far, I would like to say a word as to a certain distinction between this Amendment and the Amendment of the hon. Member for South Ayrshire. There is a small difference about a provision that the constitution of the meeting must be prescribed, but the only real difference is the use of the word "nominated" instead of the word "recommended." In adjusting our Amendment, I had the alternatives before me, and I do not think that there is any real material difference between the two words. My reason for using the word "recommended" is that it is the word used as regards the transferred schools. If the Committee, for reasons satisfactory to itself, prefers the word "nominated" to the word "recommended," we are perfectly willing to agree, the only condition being that it should go in at both places. In common with everyone in this Committer and the whole people in Scotland, one is only anxious that the
religious instruction of our children should be preserved where it is desired to have it preserved and conducted on the lines on which it has been so successfully carried on during the last 10 years.
There remains another point which I have not dealt with yet and which is proposed in a new Clause, and that is the question of discontinuance of "use and wont." In Section 7 of the Act of 1918 it was within the discretion of the education authority to discontinue "use and wont" if they so settled. That meant, of course, that, as long as they were proper and reliable administrators, they would not be likely to do it unless the electors of their area wanted them to do it. Under the change of body which we have here, from the ad hoc to the ad omnia, authority, it has been observed quite naturally that in the case of the persons who are elected on the ad omnia basis, education becomes one of a number of things, and religious education becomes even less a part of the general programme on which they are elected. Having that in view, we have devised what I hope the Committee will regard as the best safeguard that can be conceived for settling that question, recognising that the people who ought to be entitled to settle this question, and are best entitled to settle it, are the electors in the area concerned. If we could have a plebiscite or a poll or a referendum on that question and that question only, we could get at the wishes of the electors on this most important subject, untrammelled with any consideration of any other matters which may enter into the ordinary election of a town council or a county council. I suggest that this is the wisest and best safeguard that Parliament can give to the people of Scotland for making sure that "use and wont" shall not be discontinued unless the people of the area are anxious, or the majority of them, that it should be so discontinued and that this is the fairest way of providing the safeguard. That proposal is contained in the new Clause. I am very hopeful that we are really all at one in what we desire to do in this matter. I am hopeful that the proposals of the Government, subject to the alteration of the word "recom- mended" if the Committee desires it, will meet the general sense and. desire of the Committee, and that we may be able to dispose of this very important and vital matter by general agreement.
I am sure that all of us, interested as we are in religious education, have listened with close attention to what the Lord Advocate has said. I was particularly pleased with the recognition by the Lord Advocate of the inspiration to be derived from religious instruction. It did not seem to me, however, that that part of the appeal was acquiesced in by the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland. I think in his argument he rather compared the corpus sanum with the mens sana. I think, and I hope every Member of the Committee will agree, that, however necessary and essential health may be, the spiritual aspect is the best; after all. If you have a spiritual drive, then the other things will naturally follow. In the Amendment the word "two" remains. We had in our Amendment the word "two" also, and that has been accepted, but, had I known and if I had had my way, we would have asked for the larger number. I believe that three would have been preferable. It is true that we may get three or four, but everybody knows who deals with these things that the minimum always tends to become the maximum. I am pleased that the Amendment which stands in my name is seconded by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Shettleston (Mr. Wheatley). We want to show that in Scotland, whether we are Presbyterians or Catholics, we are anxious for religious teaching. I do not care what the denomination is, and I claim to be a good Presbyterian—no, I claim to be a Presbyterian—in those days we welcome every denomination which is anxious to uphold religious instruction for the youth of the country. Therefore, I am particularly glad that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Shettleston and the learned Lord Advocate and my own humble self are in agreement that this will be a good thing for Scotland.
The only thing is the method of selection, and I am not going to dwell upon that; but I will be very glad indeed if the Committee takes a hint from the Lord Advocate and allows us to use the Word "nominated" instead of "recommended." I agree that there is very little in it, but the learned Lord Advocate, as a lawyer, will allow that some little stress may be laid on the meaning read into it. The word "nominated" is stronger; many people might refuse a recommendation but they would hardly refuse a nomination. I hope the Committee will agree and will give us this word, so that there will be no dubiety. After the concessions have been made, I can confidently say that there will be no opposition from our side.
My only excuse for intervening in this Debate is that the topic about which we are now speaking is one in which I am very deeply interested. I do not know whether the Committee will remember that I raised this question on the Second Reading of the Bill and ever since, as the Lord Advocate and the Secretary of State for Scotland know, I have been very assiduous—perhaps too assiduous—in trying to press the point of view which I am glad to find I bold in common with a large number of the Committee with regard to the necessity for the recognition of religious instruction in the schools of Scotland. There were, it appears, in the beginning, deficiencies in the Bill itself and these, I know, did not arise out of any neglect on the part of the Secretary of State or the Lord Advocate in regard to this question, but they arose out of difficulties of draftsmanship. Having special regard to the provisions of previous Acts of Parliament, it was very troublesome indeed to find the best solution and the best form of expression which could meet the needs which we all recognise. First of all, the Lord Advocate found a way of returning to the Act of 1918, by which he brought in the principle which we all desire to see recognised, and then, by very ingenious methods, he has devised a form of plebiscite for making it quite certain that never shall there be taken away the right to have religious instruction in the schools of Scotland according to the "use and wont" Clause without a direct reference to the people affected. That is a matter upon which we ought to congratulate him.
The second thing was to correct the anomaly which had grown out of the Act of 1918. For when all these things had been put right, there still remained the fact that there was an apparent slur left upon the great bodies of the Presbyterians in Scotland in respect that they had no right of recommendation and nomination of members to be co-opted upon the education committees in the same way as those who hold transferred schools. There was no such right of recommendation or nomination on the part of the great majority of the Presbyterian communities of Scotland. I greatly appreciate the speech that was made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Shettleston (Mr. Wheatley) in that matter because, as we know, he does not belong to the same communion as we do, but he recognises with the same ardour and earnestness the propriety of religious instruction in our schools, and the very great value it has in the building up the character of our people. Accordingly, we now have what was in the main—and we ought to give him credit for it—the design produced by a very eminent divine in Scotland who has done more than any man in recent times to bring together the great communions which for long have been divided. We now, I think, are in a position to thank the Secretary of State and the Lord Advocate for the previsions which they have made to meet the desires which we all cherish.
It only remains for me to say—and I am not raising it in any spirit of controversy, but only to correct an apparent misapprehension—that in the course of the Debate two days ago the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Shettleston twitted me, as a son of the manse, for being prepared to surrender the position that in Scotland we should be entitled to have religious instruction in the schools. Of course, the right hon. Gentleman must have been speaking in entire forgetfulness of what I insisted upon in the Second Reading Debate, and he also must have failed to read a public speech present of mine in Glasgow in which I said that, if in any way the position was being endangered, I would be prepared to vote against the Government proposals and to adhere to the ad hoc system in order that religious instruction might be safeguarded.
The right hon. Gentleman has entirely misunderstood my attitude on this matter, and also my origin and upbringing. I am one of those who is not only a son of the manse but is also a child of the board school system of Scotland. I spent all my young life in the board school, and I was given religious instruction there. I was fortunate enough to have as head master a man who was one of those who remained after the system of parish schools came to an end, and were taken over by the School Board. They were men of learning and culture and in the true sense of piety and, long before there was any popular election for the educational authorities of the schools of Scotland, they created a position for our schools which put us in the forefront of all the world. I admit, however, that the Shorter Catechism on which we were brought up was rather strong meat for children. It was a most interesting work, but it was too full of metaphysics and theology for a child to understand. But it had its effect, and any Scotsman brought up on the Shorter Catechism would be undismayed if he had to confront an explanation of Einstein's theory of relativity. We were at least taught our Bible, and in my time we learnt by heart very many of the most beautiful chapters of the Scripture. These taught us not only to appreciate undented English, but also implanted in our memories for our guidance passages that not only moulded the character of many of us but, I am sure, helped us in the dark times of our lives. For these reasons, I am glad that the Secretary of State and the Lord Advocate have found this admirable way of solving the problem with which we are faced.
I wish to support the tributes of admiration which have been paid to the Lord Advocate for the able and lucid speech with which he opened this discussion, but there are two points in the right hon. Gentleman's statement on which I wish to say a few words. I agree with the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. J. Brown) and I would prefer the word "nominate" to the word which is on the Paper. Then, as regards the methods of representation, the Lord Advocate said he felt it would be unsafe from the point of view of the balance of the new committees to include three.
No, Sir, the hon. Baronet is mistaken. I said that, as for every additional co-opted person it is provided that there must be another elected member of the committee to maintain the balance, in the smaller towns or areas there would be a difficulty in dividing up the committees and providing room in them for more than the limit that there is in the Bill. It is a difficulty of numbers.
This is a very important question, particularly in the Highlands of Scotland—and I am speaking for the Highlands—for there you have not only the parish church but, in a great many parishes, in fact, in most parishes, you have the United Free Church in a majority. That may be overcome by the union of the churches but, further than that, in a number of parishes the Free Church is in the majority, and in some parishes the Free Presbyterian Church is in the majority. There are also other important bodies, such as the Baptists and the Congregationalists, and other religious denominations. For these reasons I would beg the Lord Advocate to take this into consideration, and see if it would not be possible, at any rate in the Highlands of Scotland, to ensure that there should be three representatives.
I would like to congratulate my right hon. Friend on the work that has been done, and to say that I also hope that the word "nominated" will be substituted for the word "represented." I want to point out only one other element in the solution that has been come to, which seems to me to be very fruitful, and to be of future value to the Scottish community, namely, that, in the selection of the two co-opted members of whom we are speaking at present, the whole of the religious community and the whole of the various churches will come together for the purpose of nominating these two members. There, again, I think the solution arrived at has, in its own small way, been one in favour of union, and it expresses what is undoubtedly one of the strongest feelings in Scotland at present with regard to all denominational questions. I am sure that such a view will appeal to the ecclesiastical statesman to whom the House is so much indebted for the solution now before it, and so much of whose life has been spent in furthering church union. The extreme care and importance of the contribution made by the ecclesiastical statesman to whom I have referred, and the assistance he has given to Members of this House, seems to be a very happy example of the relations which should exist between Church and State.
I should like, first of all, if I may, to give a little information to the hon. Member for Maryhill (Mr. Couper), one of whose constituents I am, and who, in this particular matter as in some others, does not accurately represent my views. I may inform the Committee that the Free Presbyterian Church —and I think my hon. Friend the Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) has one of the largest churches of any denomination attached to it in his division—was formed in the year 1392 and consists of those who were opposed to the passing of the Declaratory Act in the Free Church of Scotland. I am sure the Committee is enlightened by that statement.
We are in very placid waters here to-day, and we rejoice that we are, but I should like to remind the Committee for a moment that the waters outside are not just so placid and that there has been something of stormy water and of stormy weather on this question outside; and even in this hour of congratulations—and I will congratulate as heartily as any the Lord Advocate on his statement here this afternoon—I think the Government have not been without blame in their handling of this matter. The right hon. Gentleman has succeeded beyond all his predecessors in uniting, in opposition to or in criticism of what was the former attitude; of the Government on this matter, two parties that never were united before. The Orange Lodges in the West of Scotland have passed resolutions against the position and have threatened even Conservative Members of this House that they will not have their votes unless satisfactory assurances are obtained on this matter; and, on the other hand, the Roman Catholics some time ago felt in the same way in regard to the treatment which they were receiving, and in a headline of one of their papers they had of
this Bill, "Catholics contemptuously treated." Not only so, but the members of the right hon. Gentleman's own communion were up in arms; and I should like, without treading further on this ground on this particular matter, so that we may know the storms that there has been, if we are into the calm now, to take the liberty of reading to this Committee the words of the Rev. J. A. Swan, of St. David's Parish Church, Glasgow, who was echoing the position and speaking, not for himself only, but generally, I think, with the support of his Presbytery, of the Government's former mishandling of this question. He said:
This new insult and affront to the soul of the people of Scotland was felt very acutely and deeply. Something more ought to be done to give expression to a feeling which was shared, not merely by ministers and elders, but by everybody in whom Scottish blood flowed. If the people of Scotland allowed this th:ng to go through they were unworthy of their history, their traditions, and their descent.
I am glad that we have come into a better understanding, and I think it is due to the action taken by other parties in the House as well as to the supporters of the right hon. Gentleman. Now I entirely agree with the Lord Advocate's resume of history and particularly, to begin with, regarding religious instruction not having been mandatory in the past. Even before 1872 it was not mandatory. That is reflected, of course, right down to the Act of 1918, where the 7th Section puts the matter on custom, and says that the
education authorities shall be at liberty to continue the said custom.
It is interesting to note that in 1872, when a motion was carried in the Free Assembly of the Church of Scotland, really against a mandatory Clause, the official and successful motion was carried by a well-known minister of that day, Dr. Elder, and he took up the various Acts in Scotland, 1567, 1696, 1808 and 1861, and pointed out that religion was not made mandatory in the sense of a positive statute in any one of these. In fact, in a measure, the Act of 1872 was a compromise. It neither proscribed nor prescribed religious instruction; that is to say, it did not make it obligatory on those who did not desire to receive it and it certainly did not proscribe it.
I agree with the right hon. Gentleman in the settlement he has made, as pro-
posed here to-day, and I agree with him also that it would have been a mistake to insist, as some desired, on a mandatory Clause. The effect of that would have been what no one, I think, in this House desires. It would have made our education less national and more denominational. In Scotland in past generations great sacrifices have been made to build up a national system, and although it is quite true that in the Act of 1918 there was a certain denominational settlement, so far as the transferred schools were concerned—and I am glad to think that no one to-day proposes to interfere with that settlement—the real desire still was and has been to keep our scheme national in every possible way. The next effect of it would have been that it would have made our schools less educational and more dogmatic. The right hon. Member for Hillhead (Sir R. Horne) paid a tribute to the instruction in the Bible that he had received, and it is the high educational value of the Bible that gives it its place in the national system of Scotland. The work of instruction in it is splendidly done by our teachers, and I say that after 11 years on the school board of Glasgow, going from class to class while that instruction was given. I should like to read to the Committee, on the educational value of the Bible, which I maintain is the ground on which it holds its place in the national system, words that were used by one from whom you might hardly have expected them. Dr. Huxley, it is well known, was a member of the school board of London from its establishment in 1870, and Dr. Huxley said:
The higher feelings could best be cultivated by a study of the Bible, with such grammatical, geographical, and historical explanations by a lay teacher as my be needful.
There is one other point that would have followed the inbringing of a mandatory system. You could not have had it without imposing tests on teachers. These were abolished in 1861, but you cannot set up a system, enforced by Statute, of particular doctrines without taking measures to ensure that these doctrines are carried out, and I believe that the day is past when beliefs or tests will be imposed on any part of the population or on any part of our national service.
Now we come to the question of safeguards, and, of course, the real safeguard that the people of Scotland had for religious instruction was in the ad hoc system, in which they had the full power of representation, in which they had also the full freedom and the benefits of minority representation; and the prime responsibility for all the trouble has been in the departure from the ad hoc system. I think it was the Lord Advocate who said that the administrative scheme still stood, that we were carrying over entirely the system of the past, and he used the words that if we had a proper and reliable administration, then the people could directly affect a question like this. I think that what has been said to-day, and the expedients to which the Government have resorted— and I am supporting them—are the best proof that you are not having the old direct control of education either in this or any other regard that might be mentioned. I now come to the particular two safeguards that have been indicated, only one of which, I take it, we shall be free to discuss this afternoon. The first is the election of these two persons on the part of the churches that are outside the transferred system. If any of us had any reluctance about this provision, it was because, having freely criticised co-option, we did not feel altogether free to take a pan in setting up this system of co-option, but I think at the same time, now that the old system has been departed from, we have to make, as my hon. Friend said, the best of the situation and to have the best system of co-option that we possibly can have.
Then, in the next place, as has been pointed out, when you have the churches connected with the transferred schools having this right of making nomination, it is impossible to withhold it from, and it is right that it should be given to, the other churches on similar terms, and I think we are gratified that the friends who represent the transferred schools and the other churches are in agreement with us in that matter. There was a further kind of fear, and it is not altogether absent from my mind, that if the churches came in in this way in considerable numbers, or came in even in their representation, there might be a disposition to press on catechisms and formularies representing the churches more than has been done in the past. It is an interest
ing fact that while the Shorter Catechism is taught largely in Scotland, there are some cities, like Dundee, and other districts, that have confined themselves to biblical instruction and have never used the Catechism as a formulary in the schools. There was also this, that there was a pressure on the part of some for supervision of the religious instruction, even on the part of the churches, and I believe that that would have brought alienation as between the teachers and the churches, and would not have been for the good of this question. If I might give one more quotation in this regard, I think the words that were uttered by Principal Martin, of the United Free Church of Scotland, were exceedingly apposite and well chosen. He said:
The great teaching profession did not need any interference or supervision from the Church, and the profession met the ministry of the Church in Scotland on level terms in this matter or any other.
I do not propose, this afternoon, to enter on the question of the plebiscite, because that will come up for discussion otherwise. I am very glad, however, as one who has had a considerable amount to do with another plebiscite in another matter, to know that the Government are coming round to think of the value of plebiscites in this matter. I do not enter into that at all, but while you are putting up safeguards, it is more to ease the situation, it is more to show that we pass on a system and that we are assured that it will continue in the hands of the people of Scotland and by their decision. I do not always agree with the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for Scotland, but I would like, on this particular matter, to quote with approval words that he used. He said this, in his letter to Dr. John Whyte, on the 17th November last:
The real bulwark of religious instruction in Scottish schools is not proportional representation. It is the serious conviction of an overwhelming proportion of Scottish public opinion. It is inconceivable to me that that bulwark should ever disappear. But, if it did, what value would attach to any paper security?
Dr. Lyon Playfair in 1872, in a discussion in this House, said:
Scotland is, undoubtedly, a religious country; but it is so because religion has welled up from the hearts of the people, not because it has been squirted over them by Acts of Parliament.
Without all your safeguards, I believe that religion would have been safe, even in the hands of the reconstituted county councils without any plebiscite. Like others, I have been anxious to see this matter harmoniously and unanimously settled, and although on different points we may have preferred another solution, I do not believe that any opposition will be pressed from this side, although we will feel free to state our opinions, and even our objections, in regard to the prebiscite. In some quarters, not among those who have spoken to-day, but in parts of Scotland, are those who say that there must be safeguards against the day when Labour would come into rule in county councils and elsewhere, but we on this side are moved also by those high aspirations and the driving power to which reference has been made. I have pleasure, therefore, in taking part in the harmonious settlement of this question. There is a sphere for the public school and a sphere for the Christian Church, and I sometimes think that some of my friends in the Church seem to desire to roll over to others too much of the work that properly appertains to them; and the Christian Church cannot too soon realise that she has some great obligations to the young people of the land of which she can never divest herself nor hand over to others. There is a sphere for the home and for the Church, and when the home and the Church both realise their duty towards the Christian upbringing of the young, it will be as life from the dead to both home and church.
I am glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell (Mr. Bare) has addressed the Committee in spite of the arrangement that has been come to by the Lord Advocate, because had he not spoken, I should not have had the great pleasure which the hon. Member's remarks always give me whenever he speaks in this House. I do not want to bring a further blush to the face of the Lord Advocate, but I wish to say that the arrangement which he and the right hon. Gentleman made to-day will remove a weight from the religious minded people of Scotland such as has never been done for many years past; and I can honestly say that it has given an encouragement to the Presbyterian churches of Scotland which will be a driving force and inspiration in their work of which we in Scotland will feel the benefit. I hope that the word "nomination" will be accepted instead of the word "recommendation." Men of every denomination gathered together to make a decision are the people who know, and it would be a very ill thing if a committee outside that body were able to reject a recommendation, which obviously they could. "Nomination" is, I think, the correct term, and I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will accept it.
I intervene for the first time in the discussions on this Bill. I have listened to most of the speeches on this question with mixed feelings. I cannot say that I look back to my religious upbringing, which was of the very strict and narrow order, with the same degree of happiness as the right hon. Member for Hillhead (Sir R. Horne). I do not want to enter the rights or wrongs of the settlement of this religious dispute; I am only glad that at last a settlement has been made. I wish to raise a point with regard to the calling of the conference. The conference is to be called by the clerk of the education authority, and all religious denominations have to be summoned to it. I do not know whether I represent a constituency different from others, but in my constituency there are, without exaggeration, 12 religious denominations. There are the Free Presbyterians, the Original Secessionists, the Wee Frees, the United Frees, the Parish, the Methodists, the Baptists, the Jewish community and also a section of the Jewish people who do not quite accept the orthodox Jewish outlook. Is it the purpose of the Secretary of State for Scotland to ensure that, when this conference is called, the Jewish community will be summoned with the others? As I understand the Amendment proposed by the Lord Advocate, all religious denominations will be summoned.
In Glasgow there are at least 4,000 Jewish children, and an increasing number attending the schools of that faith. The Jewish community have asked me to raise the point, and to ascertain whether they are entitled to be summoned to the conference, and to take part in the election. Quite recently the Edinburgh Education Authority issued a circular on the subject of religious education. That letter was quite satisfactory from the point of view of 99.9 per cent. of the population, but it was not one with which the Jewish community could claim to be in agreement. In some respects it rather insulted their faith, although not intentionally, and it is fair to say that immediately the attention of the Education Committee was drawn to it, they withdrew the circular. Is there any safeguard in the calling of this conference to secure that in districts like my own, where the Jewish people represent a section of the population, they will have the right to be summoned?
The test of the right to send representatives to the meeting is whether the churches or denominational bodies have duly constituted charges within the area. I understand that that undoubtedly includes the Jewish faith.
Not only the Scottish Members of the Committee, but the people of Scotland generally, will be pleased and proud at the manner in which this discussion has been conducted. We could have had no better prelude to our discussion than the speeches of the Lord Advocate, the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. J. Brown) and the right hon. Member for Hillhead (Sir R. Horne); and I wish to express what all Members feel, a sense of indebtedness to them for having so well expressed the feeling of Scotland on this great matter. It is a particular satisfaction to me that the arrangement embodied in the Act of 1918 is to be carried into the future. It was my privilege at that time to take a leading part in a conference with members of the various churches, and after considerable discussion we came, as in the present instance, to an amicable solution, and the parties having settled the matter among themselves, the Government wisely assented to the arrangement and embodied it in the Act.
The Lord Advocate has made an appreciative reference to the part that the teachers have played in this matter, and I thank him for it. I wish to thank also the right hon. Member for Hillhead for the tribute he has paid to the teachers of a past generation. I know that I am speaking for the great body of the teaching profession when I say that they consider the opportunity of giving re- ligious instruction not as a task laid upon them, but as a valuable privilege, and I am sure that the arrangement come to to-day will be received by them with pleasure. I would also express my appreciation of the ingenuity which invented the method of the referendum, but I am sure that not in the lifetime of any of us will it be called into use. Once more I thank the Government for having come to this arrangement, which appears to be satisfactory to all parties, and I trust that this question of religious differences of opinion will never enter as a matter of controversy into the public life of Scotland.
I also want to congratulate the Government, and the churches, too, in having accepted the formula submitted by the Labour party in order to get out of this difficulty. On Tuesday, when we were discussing this Bill, I made a challenge to the Secretary of State to tell us how he was going to get out of the difficulties. He was not able to respond to the challenge, nor was there any response to it until the Order Paper appeared this morning. I am pleased in a humble way to say that the Labour party have been able to get the Government and the churches out of the difficulties, and now we have complete harmony in the problem of religious instruction and representation. These are facts known to those who have been associated with the work, and I am pleased to have been a humble instrument in God's hand in helping to bring about some solution of the problem which seemed to me beyond the solution of the Government and even of the churches.
The people of Scotland are deeply interested in religious instruction, and as a Member of this House I would have done everything possible to retain the right of having that instruction in our schools, because I have a very pleasant recollection of the manner in which religious instruction was given to me. I believe that but for religious instruction, which would have been in danger unless we had the compromise which has been satisfactorily agreed to, I might not have been on this side of the House. Possibly I might have been on the other side of the House, because I can well remember how the teacher, deeply interested in the giving of religious instruction, made the whole class of which I was a member repeat for half-an-hour "The earth is. the Lord's and the fulness thereof." When we had finished he said, "Remember, not the landlord's, but the Lord's." It was a good message to me and I have remembered it ever since.
Then the same teacher gave us one of the Commandment: "Thou shalt not steal." He kept us repeating that for half-an-hour, and followed it up with a little lesson. He said, "You in this class must know that that means three things. It means that you, the members of the class, shall not steal; you shall be honest in after life, honest with your fellow men, and honest, with your fellow women and honest in the discharge of the duties which you are called upon to undertake. But it also has a second meaning; not only that thou shalt not steal, but that thou shalt not be stolen from." That helped to make me a rebel. Then he said, "It has also a third application. It means that those who have stolen shall restore that which they have taken." That religious instruction has remained with me in after life and has been of tremendous use in helping me in the work in which I have been engaged.
The Amendment which is immediately before us provides for two things. We have got over our difficulties so far as regards the continuance of religious instruction, but the Amendment also determines that there shall be at least two representatives on the newly-constituted education committees to see that religious instruction is given in the way in which the Churches desire it to be given. And not only the Churches. That was the snag which the Churches found them-selves up against from the start. They did not include other denominational bodies in any of the formulas which were suggested for the consideration of the Secretary of State. I should have the greatest difficulty in my own home in selecting an individual to represent it in the matter of religious instruction, because one of us is a Baptist, another belongs to the Brethren, a third belongs to the Salvation Army and there is one who goes to church, so we have practically all the denominations represented. [Interruption.] We are a united church at home. The Churches themselves, as a result of the discussion which took place either on Tuesday or Wednesday, agreed that these representatives were to be not merely representatives of the Churches but representatives of the other denominations which have charges in the respective areas, so that under the Amendment which has been submitted by the Lord Advocate not only will representatives of the orthodox Church—the Free Church, the Established Church and the others—but also representatives of the Salvation Army or of any other constituted denomination having a charge in a particular area be called to the meeting from which the nomination is made of representatives on the education committee. I am glad this is to be left to the free consideration of the Committee, which has already expressed the view that it prefers that it should be a nomination instead of a mere recommendation, because that will be more emphatic. I have the greatest pleasure, particularly after the bitter way in which I attacked these proposals on the Second Reading of the Bill, in supporting the proposals now submitted.
I wish to say a few words on this Amendment, because as I have been a grouser I do not wish it to appear as if I am the only party out of tune. It seems that we cannot do any better. We have been asked to try what we can do, and as the formidable party with which I am in a sense associated appears to be satisfied I do not suppose I should succeed in doing anything better. I would like to support what the hon. Member for Motherwell (Mr. Barr) said about the unity which has now been brought about after the difficult situation in which the religious bodies found themselves placed by the action of the Government. It was a very awkward predicament in which they were placed, having regard to the manner in which the Government had flouted religious feeling in Scotland, and the reverend Dr. Whyte had much difficulty in dealing with it, but now, at any rate, there seems to be unity of opinion. In the true sense, religion wells up from the heart of the people, but I am afraid, notwithstanding this arrangement for sustaining religious education in the schools, that the people of Scotland are drifting away from a recognition of the Bible as a factor in building up the nation in righteousness. A perilious situation is confronting the nation in these days. All the Churches are being faced with a decreasing membership. The grounding we have had has, no doubt, been very satisfactory from the theoretical standpoint, but the essential thing to be borne in mind is that whatever the grounding we have had there is a sorry falling off, an utter failure to apply those religious principles which alone will enable us to grapple with the mighty issues which are confronting our country to-day.
I wish to intervene for a minute or two because I have been informed—I am sorry that I was not in the House at the time—that the Lord Advocate, in the course of his speech in support of the Amendment, made use of a quotation from a speech of mine as a plea for the continuation of sectarian religious education in the Scottish schools. I feel I should not be playing an honest part towards the Committee and my electors if I let the impression go out that I believed that religious education of a sectarian nature in schools was a factor making towards human perfection. I have had my share of religious instruction in Scottish schools, and I have given my share of religious instruction in Scottish schools, and personally I do not believe that the attempt to teach either the Higher Catechism or the deeper theological truths to undeveloped minds between five and 14 years of age can aid the development of those child minds, and I look forward to an early date when a plebiscite will be taken of the Scottish people and when instead of sectarian religious instruction and Biblical knowledge being part of the curriculum in a Scottish school there will be an attempt in the whole environment—in the whole attitude of the teachers towards the pupils and in the attitude of the community towards education—to produce a better and a more intelligible ethical standard throughout the Scottish nation than has ever been achieved by sectarian religious instruction.
There is one point I wish to raise in this connection. My name is also down to these Amendments. A reference was made to the use of school buildings and school playgrounds, and I want to get the matter cleared up. The question is as to the relation between one body and another in the use of these buildings. If, however, the Under-Secretary thinks that it would not be appropriate to deal with it now, but that it should be raised on the Question of the Clause as a whole standing part of the Bill, I will give way.
In page 16, leave out from the word "including," in line 39, to the word "including" in page 17, line 1, and insert instead thereof the words-
(i) in all cases at least two persons interested in the promotion of religious instruction in terms of Section seven of the Education (Scotland) Act, 1918, to be nominated by a meeting of representatives
of the churches or denominational bodies (other than those having a right to nominate as hereinafter in this paragraph provided for) having duly constituted charges within the area, and the scheme shall prescribe the constitution of the meeting and the manner of convening it; and (ii)."—[Sir J. Gilmour.]
I beg to move, in page 17, line 17, to leave out Sub-section (5).
I am afraid that this Sub-section will mean the addition of a large number of members to the committees. I want to know exactly what powers the members of a county or town council will have in regard to this question of co-option. Supposing a majority of the members of a committee who are not members of the council carry some resolution. I want to know would that resolution be obligatory on the council and would the council be compelled to put it into effect? Then there is the suggestion with regard to poor relief. The proposal is that one or more members should be co-opted who have had previus experience of Poor Law administration. In this case the Government seem to be preserving the old fabric and at the same time adding one or two more members to the committee.
In regard to the co-opting of members of these committees the ultimate control is in the hands of the council. Under Section 3 of the Education (Scotland) Act, 1918, the council is required or empowered to appoint persons who have a special knowledge or experience of the functions of the committee up to an extent not exceeding one half of the members. As regards co-option on any committee except the education committee it does not exist in the county at all and it is only in the towns that it is possible. It is permissible for the town council to say whether they want co-option or not. Those councils which do not wish to co-opt need not do so.
Sub-section (5) says:
Any committee of a county or town council (other than an education committee or a school management committee under Section 3 of the Education (Scotland) Act, 1918) which such council is required or empowered to appoint.
If you except the committees under 1918 what other committees have to be appointed?
The whole matter of co-option is at the discretion of the authority. If they desire co-option they can settle the length of service. That will be settled by the scheme, or subsequently by taking advantage of what is merely an enabling power.
The fact remains that authority is given to town councils to co-opt members on any committee. Take for example the Corporation of Glasgow with its many committees. No matter what the number of the committees may be their functions remain the same, and most of those committees must remain separate entities. You are now proposing to give to the members of the Glasgow Corporation power to co-opt members for any period that they may think fit. It may happen as in Glasgow that the members of both parties are approaching equality but the number of Socialist members on the town council is growing and the time may not be far distant when they may be in a majority.
Here you are giving the councils power to appoint members for any period of time that the majority of the council think fit.
They can alter the composition of the committee any day they choose as regards the co-opted members. The co-opted member has no statutory right to remain if the town council does not want him to remain.
I cannot understand the meaning of it. It may be that my intelligence is of such a low order that the words put down here arc beyond my comprehension. The Lord Advocate tells me that it is within the power of the town council to appoint these members for any period—
They cannot bind their successors. No statutory right is given to the co-opted member on his appointment, and, equally, no existing town council can make an appointment of a co-opted member which would bind any subsequent town council to retain that co-opted member. In the same way, if a town council, having appointed a co-opted member, desires to make a change, it can do so: there is no question of any right.
It may be that that is the correct interpretation, but there are many people on the town councils in our country who will interpret it in the way that I have, and, unless this be amended, it will, I submit, lead to confusion. The Lord Advocate may shake his head, but suppose that this is done, and that the members are appointed and they carry on, as has been done in other cases. I was a member of a committee similar in character to this—the Blind Persons Committee of the Corporation of Glasgow. Certain persons were appointed to that committee by Act of Parliament, and, unless my memory is at fault, it was not possible for us to put them off when they had served our purpose. Thank goodness, the Glasgow-Corporation has not used these powers to any great extent, and I do not think that any town council in our country will be willing to have these powers thrust upon it. So far as I am aware, the leading corporations of Scotland have not desired to appoint any co-opted persons at all.
Again, when the town council has assumed the functions of the parish council under the Poor Law, one or more persons are to be associated with it— for how long? If we are only to have them for a year, as the town council may want them, what is the use of appointing them at all? Common sense, to me at any rate, would seem to indicate that the placing of co-opted persons on town councils will only be throwing a bone of contention among the various members of the council, and will serve no useful purpose whatever. I speak from knowledge and experience, and I can say that as a rule the co-opted persons had had no training in town council work when they came to us, and, in consequence, were not of so much value as they otherwise would have been, and the council would have been glad to be rid of them. Therefore, I hope that this Amendment will be pressed and carried to a Division.
In the case of a town council like that of Glasgow, where one-third of the members retire every year, you cannot get what may be called an election period which would determine what the length of service of a co-opted member is to be. There is nothing in this Clause to indicate that, once a co-opted member is there, he has any particular period to serve, or that it is possible to remove him from his appointment. There is nothing even to indicate that the parent body which makes the co-option shall at any time take powers to remove a co-opted member should he prove to be unsuited for the work of the committee to which he has been appointed. This question must be faced if the Measure is to be made workable. The question of an election period must go by the board, since only one-third of the members of the council are elected every year; there is never a general election unless there is some change in the burgh area or something of that kind.
With regard to the possibility of the co-opted members being in a majority, I can conceive of that happening in the absence of a sufficient number of elected members. It is all very well to say that the parent body would deal with that, but this is a point which must be considered if the Bill is to work efficiently. Suppose that a committee meets on a very special question, and the number of co-opted members present is greater than the number of elected members, and they come to some decision, no matter whether it involves finance or not. Supposing that that decision is taken on the day after the council meeting, it will not be until 30 days afterwards that the decision of the committee will come before the council. I admit that under the Bill the parent body has the control of finance, but the decision may relate to a matter which they cannot control from the point of view of knowledge.
Of course, if there is a difficulty about this provision, I am perfectly ready to look into it again, although a very similar procedure is now followed in other cases whore there are no specific conditions as to the time of service of co-opted members. My recollection is that town council committees are reconstituted annually after the election each year, and it is on that basis that I have assumed that a reconsideration of these appointments would take place every year. What I want to emphasise is that the individual co-opted member has no statutory right to stay in office if the town council do not wish him to remain. Moreover, the question whether there shall be a system of co-option at all is for the individual town council to decide, and it is perfectly easy for them to lay down the conditions under which they will exercise co-option, including, if you like, the retirement of co-opted members every year. Therefore, it does not seem to be necessary to provide for that in the Bill. I am, however, quite willing to consider the matter, because we only want to get at the most workable system. We believe that this may be a useful power for town councils to have. Hon. Members opposite, and some on my own side also, frequently say, "Why do you object to putting this into the Bill? It may be of use, and what harm does it do?" On this occasion I am returning the compliment, and saying that I think that this may be a use- ful power to put into the Bill, because it is already in existence as a common form for constituting a committee, and I suggest that we should be wise to retain it in the Bill. Hon. Members opposite are rather assuming that these co-opted members are going to be unbusinesslike people.—
No, I have not, but I have been a member of many committees of very varying kinds, and some of the best business has come out of committees which were apparently the most irreconcilable at the beginning, because very often that means keenness on a common object. I should hope that that would be true even on the footing suggested by the hon. Member. You must rely on the business being conducted in a proper manner by these committees, and it is hardly likely that an epidemic of influenza, or whatever might happen to cause a chance majority of co-opted members at one meeting, will result in upsetting the whole apple-cart, especially when we know that an emergency meeting of the council would be sufficient to put it right, while, at any rate, it could be put right at an ordinary meeting. I do not, therefore, think that that is a very practicable criticism.
No, Sir. At present I am quite content with it, but I am quite willing to have some further conversation with the hon. Member, and to reconsider it. I cannot promise more than that. At present I am not moved by any preference for anything else.
I find myself in some difficulty in regard to this matter. The Committee will have observed that we have some Amendments down with regard to the Poor Law, and, the ad hoc authority having been got rid of, we are in the dilemma that for the purposes of the Poor Law, persons are to be appointed who have some knowledge of the administration of that vast service. While we are against co-option, nevertheless, the elective basis having been got rid of, I cannot sec how at the beginning persons with the necessary knowledge of the service are to be obtained unless it be by some method of co-option. I take it that the term "town council" includes both the town council of a large burgh and that of a small burgh. We have here two powers. In the first place, the large burgh, which itself has been charged with the administration of the Poor Law and other services, will have, on the one hand, the right to co-opt two committees, and, on the other hand, a mandate as regards poor relief; but in the case of the small burghs in a county I take it that this is one of the powers which may be delegated under Clause 13.
I hope we shall have the promised conversations, but there is one point I want to put before the Lord Advocate finally makes up his mind. This is undoubtedly a sop to those who have been serving on parish councils, which the Government have now destroyed. I suppose they are convinced that under their system it will be possible to administer the Poor Law without very much difficulty. The point I want to put is this: In reply to a question by the hon. Member for North Aberdeen (Mr. W. Benn) yesterday on the point of large burghs not being able to undertake all the duties without increasing the number of the councillors, the Lord Advocate said he would consider the insertion of a provision which would enable a town council to increase the number of its members. If that is so, what is the case for having co-opted members? By increasing the numbers the difficulty can be met. I do not see the case for co-option. It is certain that, even though the provision is allowed to remain in the Bill, very few town councils, if they have any respect for themselves, will go in for co-option. They will consider that, if the Government have thought fit to give them this duty, they are capable of undertaking it without having co-opted members in their rank. I feel sure the Lord Advocate, on reconsideration, will agree that there is nothing to be said for opposition to having co-opted members on these larger town councils, in view of the fact that they are not likely to be welcomed. I hope the Lord Advocate will agree, before Report, to have such conversations as have been promised with a view to getting over the difficulty.
I think there is more substance in the point of my hon. Friend the Member for Leith (Mr. E. Brown) than the Lord Advocate appeared to admit. If we leave out, as we are going to do presently, the words "county or," any committee of a. town council may-co-opt under this. I cannot see that there is any limit on that. If it was only intended to apply to large burghs it would say, "Any committee of a town council or a large burgh."
The next Government Amendment makes it clear. It will then read "Any Committee of a town council other than" so and so "which is appointed for the purpose of any function to which an administrative scheme under this Act applies." None but large boroughs can have administrative schemes.
Would it not be possible to say "of a large burgh" to make that quite clear? With regard to the system of co-option, all those who have spent their lives in public and municipal life dislike it. There seem to me to be only two possible defences for it. One is that there may not be enough people elected on the council to do the work. There is a good deal of feeling among a number of the big corporations —the City Council of Aberdeen is one— that if they are to have all these powers thrown upon them- education, the duties of parish councils and so forth— their numbers ought to be enlarged. I hope that will be considered at a later stage, but it ought not to be done by co-option but by direct election.
Then there is another point. You wish to include on the councils people who have special knowledge of Poor Law administration. You art; doing away with parish councils and you want to mitigate that disadvantage to some extent by getting on to the councils people of experience. As a matter of fact, under this Clause we are only getting one on in each council. Why not leave it that you have that one or, if you like, two co-opted for that purpose in the first council? But that is not an argument for a permanent power of co-option. There are two parts of the Clause. One gives an instruction that within a year after the commencement of the Act the committee 3hall include one or more members of the outgoing parish council. But that is only a temporary instruction. The power of co-option is permanent, and that is what is objected to by us, and by all the great municipal corporations. The argument that the Lord Advocate has used that it is necessary to bring in the representative of the old parish council, does not apply to this permanent power of co-option. I am glad to hear that the Lord Advocate is willing to consult with Members of the House on the question of re-drafting the Clause, and if he would undertake to consider all these points that we have urged I should be willing to see the Amendment withdrawn.
I am afraid neither the Lord Advocate nor most of those who have spoken have concentrated on the real point at issue. There are two principles involved in this Sub-section. The whole of the town councils have already intimated that they have no desire for co-option. They want to be able to carry out their own work properly. In almost every town council which will be affected by this change you have individual members who have been connected with poor Law administration. Why talk about co-option now? Even some of the large county councils—Fife, for instance—have rejected the principle.
But there is something worse in connection with this Sub-section. It is so indefinite, so badly drafted, that there is no time limit to the length of service of the co-opted members. You have an illustration of what goes on in England, where they arrange for their aldermen so that they can pass on their powers to those who are of their way of thinking just before an election comes round, and they are left in control of certain services, irrespective of what the immediate result of the election may be. Surely no one can justify a thing like that. Again, it says "any committee of a county or town council," so that an education committee will have a right to co-opt.
If it comes in a subsequent Sub-section, you have the same principle in mind of allowing subcommittees to go in for co-option. In some of our work we have had representatives from the town council on the education committee appointed for three years and they were independent of the elected representatives, and were working contrary to them. If you are going to allow co-option, there ought to be a maximum period of office. It is rather a pity that we should have to divide now that we are getting on towards agreement, but it is impossible, in the frame of mind the Government are in, to avoid taking a Division.
I hope the principle of co-option will not be accepted by anyone on this side, whatever modification is proposed by the Lord Advocate. He has been arguing throughout for the acceptance of a principle which is entirely opposed to the principle of co-option. He has said that for the purposes of education and Poor Law no special qualifications are desired, that education does not stand by itself and, equally, that the Poor Law does not stand by itself, but is linked up with the other activities and functions of local government. If that is true, it follows that any member of a local authority is quite qualified to undertake educational and Poor Law administration. I am entirely opposed to the principle of co-option; I see no virtue in it. For example, the Government are proposing that a town council which may be composed of 30 members should have one-third—that is provided for in a subsequent Amendment—of co-opted members, which means that 10 out of the 30 members are to be co-opted. What is the principle underlying that? Are we to assume that a person who may have special experience is entitled to be on a body merely because of that experience, entirely apart from the wishes of the electors? Surely, that is a most vicious principle, and I am amazed that any member of the Committee, should accept it. We are not prepared to accept the principle of co-option in respect of this House. No one would dare to suggest such a thing. Nevertheless, it is proposed to impose that pernicious principle on local authorities, whether town or county councils.
I seriously suggest to the Members of the Committee that if they accept this principle now, it will extend and develop until, eventually, it will be the accepted practice in local government in Scotland and, may be, on this side of the Border. I am entirely and definitely opposed to it. I was a member of a town council for a number of years, and on that body every member was well qualified to undertake the various activities associated with local government. It would have been possible at that time to select at least two-thirds of the members, although they were not appointed specially to undertake educational or Poor Law functions, who would have been qualified to deal with educational and Poor Law matters. As that state of affairs applied then, it can apply now. Would the Lord Advocate seriously suggest that he could not find on the Glasgow Corporation, members well qualified to deal in an expert fashion with educational matters or with any function that might be transferred to them?
If it be true that members of local authorities can be found to discharge those functions, there is no case for accepting the principle of co-option.
The Lord Advocate has been arguing against it. He has said, quite definitely, that we do not want a separate education authority, that we do not want a separate Poor Law authority, because those are not things that stand apart from questions affecting local government. The Under-Secretary of State, for Scotland argued, the other night, that education was not confined to the mere curriculum, to the mere instruction of the child, but that it was a question of building, rating, finance, health and the like. Those are all local government functions, and any average town councillor in Scotland is competent to deal with matters of that kind. Therefore, the case for co-option falls to the ground. The Government have no right to impose co-option. I hope that hon. Members on this side will go into the Division Lobby against the Government, in spite of any compromise or proposed modification that may be suggested by the Lord Advocate.
It seems to me that it does need some alteration. Have the Government any idea how to meet the difficulty that may arise assuming that the existing Poor Law authority refuses to be co-opted I can well understand the hurt dignity of those who have devoted their attention to the Poor Law causing them to say that they will not be co-opted. In that case, there will be a deadlock. The Clause stipulates that the committee shall include one or more members of the outgoing parish councils. That position must be safeguarded in any re-drafting of the Clause.
|Division No. 180.]||AYES.||[6.51 p.m.|
|Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel||Dalkeith, Earl of||Hopkinson, Sir A. (Eng. Universities)|
|Albery, Irving James||Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)||Horlick, Lieut.-Colonel J. N.|
|Alexander, Sir Wm. (Glasgow, Cent'l)||Davies, Dr. Vernon||Home, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert S.|
|Allen, Sir J. Sandeman||Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)||Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.|
|Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.||Dawson, Sir Philip||Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer|
|Applin, Colonel R. V. K.||Eden, Captain Anthony||Jones, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert|
|Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.||Edmonson, Major A. J.||Jones, Sir G. w. H. (Stoke New'gton)|
|Atkinson. C.||Elliot. Major Walter E.||Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)|
|Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley||Everard, W. Lindsay||King, Commodore Henry Douglas|
|Barclay-Harvey, C. M.||Falle, Sir Bertram G.||Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement|
|Berry, Sir George||Fanshawe, Captain G. D.||Lamb, J. Q.|
|Betterton, Henry B.||Fielden. E. B.||Lister, Cunliffe, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip|
|Blundell. F. N.||Ford, Sir P. J.||Lloyd. Cyril E. (Dudley)|
|Brassey, Sir Leonard||Forestier-Walker, Sir L.||Locker-Lampson, Com.O. (Handsw'th)|
|Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive||Forrest, W.||Luce, Maj.-Gen. Sir Richard Harman|
|Briggs, J. Harold||Foster, Sir Harry S.||Mac Andrew, Major Charles Glen|
|Briscoe, Richard George||Frece, Sir Walter de||MacDonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart)|
|Brittain, Sir Harry||Fremantle. Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.||MacIntyre, Ian|
|Brocklebank, C. E. R.||Gadie, Lieut.-Col. Anthony||McLean, Major A.|
|Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.||Galbraith. J. F. W.||Macquisten, F. A.|
|Broun-Lindsay, Major H.||Ganzoni, Sir John||Mac Robert, Alexander M.|
|Burman, J. B.||Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John||Maitland, A. (Kent, Faversham)|
|Calne, Gordon Hall||Goff, Sir Park||Marriott, Sir J. A. R.|
|Campbell. E. T.||Gower, Sir Robert||Mason, Colonel Glyn K.|
|Carver, Major W. H.||Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)||Meller, R. J.|
|Cassels, J. D.||Grant, Sir J. A.||Merriman, Sir F. Boyd|
|Cautley, Sir Henry S.||Greene, W. P. Crawford||Meyer, Sir Frank|
|Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)||Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)||Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)|
|Cazalet, Captain Victor A.||Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.||Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.|
|Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)||Hacking, Douglas H.||Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)|
|Chapman, Sir S.||Hammersley, S. S.||Moreing, Captain A. H.|
|Charteris, Brigadier-General J.||Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry||Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)|
|Cobb, Sir Cyril||Harland, A||Neville, Sir Reginald J.|
|Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.||Harrison, G. J. C.||Newton. Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)|
|Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir George||Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)||Nicholson. Col. Rt. Hon. W. G. (Ptrsf'ld.)|
|Cohen, Major J. Brunel||Henderson, Cant. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)||Nuttall, Ellis|
|Colman, N. C. D.||Henn, Sir Sydney H.||Oakley, T.|
|Conway, Sir W. Martin||Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.||O'Connor, T. J. (Bedford, Luton)|
|Couper, J. B.||Hills, Major John Waller||O'Neill, Major Rt. Hon. Hugh|
|Courtauld, Major J. S.||Hilton, Cecil||Oman, Sir Charles William C.|
|Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)||Hoare. Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.||Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William|
|Craig, Sir Ernest (Chester, Crewe)||Hohier. Sir Gerald Fitzroy||Penny. Frederick George|
|Crooks, J. Smedley (Deritend)||Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)||Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)|
|Crookshank, Cpt.H.(Lindsey, Gainsbro)||Hopkins, J. W. W.||Perring, Sir William George|
|Pownall, Sir Assheton||Simms, Dr. John M, (Co. Down)||Warrender, Sir Victor|
|Price, Major C. W. M.||Skelton, A. N.||Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)|
|Radford, E. A.||Smith. Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)||Watts, Sir Thomas|
|Raine, Sir Walter||Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dins, C.)||Wayland, Sir William A.|
|Reid, D. D. (County Down)||Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)||Wells, S. R.|
|Remer, J. R.||Southby, Commander A. R. J.||White, Lieut.-Col. Sir G. Dairymple-|
|Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)||Spender-Clay, Colonel H.||Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)|
|Roberts, Sir Samuel (Hereford)||Stanley, Lieut.-Colonel Rt. Hon. G. F.||Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)|
|Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell||Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (westm'eland)||Windsor-Clive. Lieut.-Colonel George|
|Ropner, Major L.||Streatfeild, Captain S. R.||Withers, John James|
|Ruggles-Brise, Lieut-Colonel E. A.||Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C.||Womersley, W. J.|
|Rye, F. G.||Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)||Wood, Sir S. Hill- (High Peak)|
|Salmon, Major I.||Sugden, Sir Wilfrid||Woodcock, Colonel H. C.|
|Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)||Tasker, R. Inigo.||Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.|
|Sandeman, N. Stewart||Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)||Wragg, Herbert|
|Sandon, Lord||Tinne, J. A.|
|Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.||Titchfield, Major the Marquess of||TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—|
|Savery, S. S.||Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement||Captain Margesson and Captain|
|Shaw, Lt.-Col. A. D. McI. (Renfrew. W)||Turton, Sir Edmund Russborough||Bowyer.|
|Shepperson, E. W.||Ward, Lt.-Col. A. L. (Kingston-on-Hull)|
|Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)||Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney A Shetland)||Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.|
|Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)||Hardle, George D.||Ponsonby, Arthur|
|Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')||Harris, Percy A.||Potts, John S.|
|Ammon, Charles George||Hayday, Arthur||Purcell, A. A.|
|Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston)||Hayes. John Henry||Ritson, J.|
|Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)||Hirst, G. H.||Runciman, Hilda (Cornwall, St. Ives)|
|Barr, J.||Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)||Saklatvala, Shapurji|
|Bellamy, A.||Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)||Scrymgeour, E.|
|Bondfield. Margaret||Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)||Scurr, John|
|Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.||Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)||Shiels, Dr. Drurnmond|
|Briant, Frank||John, William (Rhondda, West)||Shinwell, E.|
|Broad, F. A.||Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)||Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)|
|Bromley, J.||Jones, W. N. (Carmarthen)||Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)|
|Brown, Ernest (Leith)||Kennedy, T.||Sitch, Charles H.|
|Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)||Kirkwood, D.||Smillie, Robert|
|Buchanan, G.||Lawrence, Susan||Stamford, T. W.|
|Charleton, H. C.||Lawson, John James||Stephen, Campbell|
|Clark, A. B.||Lee, F.||Stewart. J. (St. Rollox)|
|Cluse, W. S.||Livingstone, A. M.||Sullivan, Joseph|
|Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.||Longbottom, A. W.||Taylor, R. A.|
|Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock)||Lowth, T.||Thomas. R t. Hon. James H. (Derby)|
|Compton, Joseph||Lunn. William||Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)|
|Connolly, M.||Mackinder, W.||Tomlinson, R. P.|
|Cove, W. G.||Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)||Townend, A. E.|
|Dennison, R.||MacNeill-Weir, L.||Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles|
|Dunnico, H.||Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)||Wallhead, Richard C.|
|Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)||March, S.||Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)|
|Gardner, J. P.||Maxton, James||Wellock, Wilfred|
|Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.||Mitchell, E. Rosslyn (Paisley)||Welsh, J. C,|
|Gibbins, Joseph||Montague, Frederick||Westwood, J.|
|Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)||Morris, R. H.||Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.|
|Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)||Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)||Williams. T. (York, Don Valley)|
|Greenwood. A. (Nelson and Colne)||Mosley, Sir Oswald||Wilson. R. J. (Jarrow)|
|Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)||Murnin, H.||Windsor, Walter|
|Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)||Oliver, George Harold||Wright, W.|
|Groves, T.||Palin, John Henry|
|Grundy, T. W.||Paling, W.||TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—|
|Hall, F. (York, W.R., Normanton)||Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)||Mr. A. Barnes and Mr. Whiteley.|
|Division No. 181.]||AYES.||[7.1 p.m.|
|Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel||Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.||Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley|
|Aibery, Irving James||Applin, Colonel R. V. K.||Barclay-Harvey, C. M.|
|Alexander, Sir Wm. (Glasgow, Cent'l)||Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.||Berry, Sir George|
|Allen, Sir J. Sandeman||Atkinson, C.||Betterton, Henry B.|
|Blundell, F. N.||Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.||Perring, Sir William George|
|Brassey, Sir Leonard||Hacking, Douglas H.||Pilcher, G.|
|Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive||Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.)||Pownall, Sir Assheton|
|Brings, J. Harold||Hammersley, S. S.||Price, Major C. W. M.|
|Briscoe, Richard George||Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry||Radford, E. A.|
|Brittain, Sir Harry||Harland, A.||Raine, Sir Walter|
|Brocklebank, C. E. R.||Harrison, G. J. C.||Reid, D. D. (County Down)|
|Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.||Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)||Renter, J. R.|
|Broun-Lindsay. Major H.||Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxford, Henley)||Richardson. Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)|
|Burman, J. B.||Henn. Sir Sydney H.||Roberts, Sir Samuel (Hereford)|
|Burton, Colonel H. W.||Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.||Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell|
|Caine, Gordon Hall||Hills, Major John Walter||Ropner, Major L.|
|Campbell, E. T.||Hilton, Cecil||Ross, R. D.|
|Carver, Major W. H.||Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.||Ruggles-Brise, Lieut.-Colonel E. A.|
|Cassels, J. D.||Hohier, Sir Gerald Fitzroy||Rye, F. G.|
|Cautley, Sir Henry S.||Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)||Salmon, Major I.|
|Cayzer Sir C. (Chester, City)||Hopkins, J. W. W.||Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)|
|Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth. S.)||Hopkinson, Sir A. (Eng. Universities)||Sandeman, N. Stewart|
|Cazalet, Captain Victor A.||Horlick, Lieut.-Colonel J. N.||Sandon, Lord|
|Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)||Home, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert S.||Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.|
|Chapman, Sir S.||Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.||Savery, S. S.|
|Charteris, Brigadier-General J.||Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer||Shaw, Lt.-Col. A. D. McI. (Renfrew, W)|
|Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer||James, Lieut,.Colonel Hon. Cuthbert||Shepperson, E. W.|
|Cobb, Sir Cyril||Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)||Simms, Dr. John M. (Co. Down)|
|Cochrane. Commander Hon. A. D.||Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)||Skelton, A. N.|
|Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir George||King, Commodore Henry Douglas||Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)|
|Cohen, Major J. Brunel||Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement||Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)|
|Colman, N. C. D.||Lamb, J. Q||Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)|
|Conway, Sir W. Martin||Lister, Cunilffe-, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip||Southby, Commander A. R. J.|
|Couper, J. B.||Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)||Spender-Clay, Colonel H.|
|Courtauld, Major J. S.||Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (Handsw'th)||Stanley, Lieut.-Colonel Rt. Hon. G. F.|
|Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)||Luce, Maj.-Gen. Sir Richard Harman||Stanley, Hon. O. F. G.(Westm'eland)|
|Craig, Sir Ernest (Chester, Crewe)||Lumley, L. R.||Streatfeild, Captain S. R.|
|Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)||MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen||Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C.|
|Dalkeith, Earl of||Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart)||Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)|
|Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)||MacIntyre, Ian||Sugden, Sir Wilfrid|
|Davies, Dr. Vernon||McLean, Major A.||Tasker, R. Inigo.|
|Davison. Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)||Macquisten, F. A.||Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)|
|Dawson, Sir Philip||MacRobert, Alexander M.||Tinne, J. A.|
|Eden, Captain Anthony||Maitland, A. (Kent, Faversham)||Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement|
|Edmondson, Major A. J.||Margesson, Captain D.||Turton, Sir Edmund Russborough|
|Elliot, Major Walter E.||Marriott, Sir J. A. R.||Ward, Lt.-Col. A-L.(Kingston-on-Hull)|
|Everard, W. Lindsay||Mason, Colonel Glyn K.||Warrender, Sir Victor|
|Fade, Sir Bertram G.||Meller, R. J.||Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)|
|Fanshawe, Captain G. D.||Merriman, Sir F. Boyd||Watts, Sir Thomas|
|Fielden, E. B.||Meyer, Sir Frank.||Wayland, Sir William A.|
|Ford, Sir P. J.||Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)||Wells, S. R.|
|Forestier-Walker. Sir L.||Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.||Write, Lieut.-Colonel G. Dairymple|
|Forrest, W.||Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)||Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)|
|Foster. Sir Harry S.||Moreing, Captain A. H.||Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)|
|Frece, Sir Walter de||Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)||Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George|
|Fremantle, Lieut-Colonel Francis E.||Neville, Sir Reginald J.||Withers, John James|
|Gadie, Lieut.-Col. Anthony||Newton. Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)||Womersley, W. J.|
|Gaibraith, J. F. W.||Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W. G. (Ptrsf'ld.)||Wood, Sir S. Hill- (High Peak)|
|Ganzoni, Sir John||Nuttall, Ellis||Woodcock, Colonel H. C.|
|Gimour Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John||Oakley, T.||Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.|
|Goff, Sir Park||O'Connor, T. J. (Bedford, Luton)||Wragg, Herbert|
|Gower, Sir Robert||O'Neill, Major Rt. Hon. Hugh|
|Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)||Oman, Sir Charles William C.||TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—|
|Grant, Sir J. A.||Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William||Captain Bowyer and Major the|
|Greene, W. P. Crawford||Penny, Frederick George||Marquess of Titchfield.|
|Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)||Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)|
|Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)||Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.||Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)|
|Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)||Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock)||Hardie, George D.|
|Alexander. A. v. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')||Compton, Joseph||Harris, Percy A.|
|Ammon, Charles George||Connolly, M.||Hayday, Arthur|
|Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston)||Cove, W. G.||Hayes, John Henry|
|Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)||Dennison, R.||Hirst, G. H.|
|Barr, J.||Dunnico, H.||Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)|
|Bellamy, A.||Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)||Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)|
|Bondfield, Margaret||Gardner, J. P.||Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)|
|Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.||Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.||Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)|
|Briant, Frank||Gibbins, Joseph||John, William (Rhondda, West)|
|Broad, F. A.||Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)||Jones, W. N. (Carmarthen)|
|Bromley, J.||Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)||Kennedy, T.|
|Brown, Ernest (Leith)||Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Coine)||Kirkwood, D.|
|Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)||Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)||Lawrence, Susan|
|Buchanan, G.||Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)||Lawson, John James|
|Charleton, H. C.||Groves, T.||Leo, F.|
|Clark, A. B.||Grundy, T. W.||Livingstone, A. M.|
|Cluse, W. S.||Hall, F. (York, W.R., Normanton)||Lorgbottom, A. W.|
|Lowth, T.||Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.||Sullivan, J.|
|Lunn, William||Ponsonby, Arthur||Taylor, R. A.|
|Mackinder, W.||Potts, John S.||Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)|
|MacLaren, Andrew||Purcell, A. A.||Thorne. G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)|
|Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)||Ritson, J.||Tomlinson, R. P.|
|MacNeill-Weir, L.||Runciman, Hilda (Cornwall, St. Ives)||Townend, A. E.|
|Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)||Saklatvala, Shapurji||Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles|
|March, S.||Scrymgeour, E.||Wallhead, Richard C.|
|Maxton, James||Scurr, John||Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)|
|Mitchell, E. Rosslyn (Paisley)||Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)||Wellock, Wilfred|
|Montague, Frederick||Shiels. Dr. Drummond||Welsh. J. C.|
|Morris, R. H.||Shinwell, E.||Westwood, J.|
|Morrison, B. C. (Tottenham, N.)||Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)||Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.|
|Mosley, Sir Oswald||Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)||Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)|
|Murnin, H.||Sitch. Charles H.||Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)|
|Oliver, George Harold||Smillie, Robert||Windsor, Walter|
|Palin, John Henry||Stamford, T. W.||Wright, W.|
|Paling, W.||Stephen, Campbell|
|Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)||Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)||TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—|
|Mr. A. Barnes and Mr. Whiteley.|
I shall not detain the Committee more than one moment. I hope the Lord Advocate will enlighten me on one point. He is suggesting here that one-third should be substituted for one-half. I want to know why one-third is better than one-half. Does that in any sense vitiate the principle of co-option? If the principle of co-option is good, why not make it 100 per cent? Why say one-third Is it suggested as a compromise? We are entitled to some explanation from the Lord Advocate. If he believes that the principle of co-option is good, why stop at one-third? What is the virtue of that particular figure? We are entitled to some enlightenment from the Lord Advocate upon this point, and, until I have it, I am not prepared to waive my opposition on this matter.
If you have 100 per cent., it will be co-option to the obliteration of election. Co-option does not necessarily imply that the majority of the body should be co-opted. It is invariably less than 50 per cent. and sometimes considerably less than 50 per cent. Already to-day we have had some arguments against the 50 per cent. In this particular case we think one-third a wise proportion.
|Division No. 182.]||AYES.||[7.15 p.m.|
|Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel||Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.||Cassels, J. D.|
|Albery, Irving James||Brassey. Sir Leonard||Cayzer Sir C. (Chester, City)|
|Alexander, Sir Wm. (Glasgow, Cent'l)||Brings, J. Harold||Cayzer. Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth. S).|
|Allen, Sir J. Sandeman||Briscoe, Richard George||Cazalet, Captain Victor A.|
|Applin, Colonel R. V. K.||Brittain. Sir Harry||Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)|
|Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.||Brocklebank, C. E. R.||Chapman, Sir S.|
|Atkinson, C.||Brooke. Brigadier-General C. R. L.||Charteris, Brigadier-General J.|
|Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley||Broun-Lindsay, Major H.||Cobb, Sir Cyril|
|Barclay-Harvey C. M.||Burman, J. B.||Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.|
|Berry, Sir George||Burton, Colonel H. W.||Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir George|
|Betterton, Henry B.||Calne, Gordon Hall||Cohen, Major J. Brunel|
|Blundell, F. N.||Carver, Major W. H.||Colman, N. C. D.|
|Conway, Sir W. Martin||Horlick, Lieut.-Colonel J. N.||Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)|
|Couper, J. B.||Horne, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert S.||Roberts, Sir Samuel (Hereford)|
|Courtauld, Major J. S.||Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.||Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell|
|Cowan, Sir Wm. Henry (Islington, N.)||Hudson, Capt. A. U. M.(Hackney, N.)||Ropner, Major L.|
|Craig, Sir Ernest (Chester, Crewe)||Hume, Sir G. H.||Ross, R. D.|
|Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)||Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer||Ruggles-Brise, Lieut.-Colonel E. A.|
|Dalkeith, Earl of||James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert||Rye. F. G.|
|Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)||Jones, Sir G.W.H. (Stoke New'gton)||Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)|
|Davies, Dr. Vernon||Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)||Sandeman, N. Stewart|
|Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)||King, Commodore Henry Douglas||Sanders, Sir Robert A.|
|Dawson, Sir Philip||Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement||Sandon, Lord|
|Dixey, A. C.||Lamb, J. Q.||Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.|
|Eden, Captain Anthony||Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)||Savery, S. S.|
|Edmondson, Major A. J.||Locker- Lampson, Rt. Hon. Godfrey||Shaw, Lt.-Col. A. D. McI. (Renfrew, W.)|
|Elliot, Major Walter E.||LocKer-Lampson, Com. O.(Handsw'th)||Shepperson, E. W.|
|Everard, W. Lindsay||Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harman||Simms, Dr. John M. (Co. Down)|
|Falle, Sir Bertram G.||Lumley, L R.||Skelton, A. N.|
|Fanshawe, Captain G. D.||MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen||Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)|
|Fielden, E. B.||MacDonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart)||Smith, R. W (Aberd'n & Kinc'dint, C.)|
|Forestier-Walker, Sir L.||MacIntyre, I.||Smithers, Waldron|
|Forrest, W.||McLean, Major A.||Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)|
|Foster, Sir Harry S.||Macquisten, F. A.||Southby, Commander A. R. J.|
|Frece, Sir Walter de||MacRobert, Alexander M.||Spender-Clay, Colonel H.|
|Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.||Maitland, A. (Kent, Faversham)||Stanley, Lieut.-Colonel Rt. Hon. G. F.|
|Gadie, Lieut.-Col Anthony||Margesson, Captain D.||Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland)|
|Galbraith, J. F. W.||Marriott, Sir J. A. R.||Streatfeild, Captain S. R.|
|Ganzoni, Sir John||Mason, Colonel Glyn K.||Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C.|
|Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John||Meller. R. J.||Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)|
|Goff, Sir Park||Merriman, Sir F. Boyd||Sugden, Sir Wilfrid|
|Gower, Sir Robert||Meyer, Sir Frank||Tasker, R. Inigo.|
|Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)||Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)||Tinne, J. A.|
|Grant, Sir J. A.||Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.||Tryon, Rt. Hon George Clement|
|Greene, W. P. Crawford||Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)||Turton, Sir Edmund Russborough|
|Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)||Moreing, Captain A. H.||Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.|
|Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.||Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)||Ward. Lt.-Col. A. L.(Kingston-on-Hull)|
|Hacking, Douglas H.||Neville, Sir Reginald J.||Warrender, Sir Victor|
|Hall, Capt. W. D.A. (Brecon & Rad.)||Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)||Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)|
|Hammersley, S. S.||Nuttall, Ellis||Watts, Sir Thomas|
|Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry||Oakley, T.||Wayland, Sir William A.|
|Harland, A.||O'Connor, T. J. (Bedford, Luton)||Welts, S. R.|
|Harrison, G. J. C.||O'Neill, Major Rt. Hon. Hugh||White, Lieut.-Col. Sir G. Dairymple-|
|Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)||Oman, Sir Charles William C.||Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)|
|Henderson. Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)||Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William||Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)|
|Henn, Sir Sydney H.||Penny, Frederick George||Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George|
|Hennessy. Major Sir G. R. J.||Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)||Womersley, W. J.|
|Hills. Major John Walter||Perring, Sir William George||Wood, Sir S. Hill- (High Peak)|
|Hilton, Cecil||Pilcher, G.||Woodcock, Colonel H. C.|
|Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.||Pownall, Sir Assheton||Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.|
|Hohier, Sir Gerald Fitzroy||Price, Major C. W M.||Wragg, Herbert|
|Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)||Radford, E. A.|
|Hopkins, J. W. W.||Raine, Sir Walter||TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—|
|Hopkinson, Sir A. (Eng, Universities)||Held, D. D. (County Down)||Mr. F. C. Thomson and Major the|
|Marquess of Titchfield.|
|Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)||Gardner, J, P.||Leo, F.|
|Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)||Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.||Livingstone, A. M.|
|Alexander. A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')||Gibbins, Joseph||Longbottom, A. W.|
|Ammon, Charles George||Graham, D. M. (Lanark. Hamilton)||Lowth, T.|
|Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston)||Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)||Lunn, William|
|Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)||Greenwood, A, (Nelson and Colne)||Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)|
|Barnes, A.||Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)||Mackinder, W.|
|Barr, J.||Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)||MacLaren, Andrew|
|Bellamy. A.||Groves, T.||Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)|
|Bondfield, Margaret||Grundy, T. W.||MacNeill-Weir, L.|
|Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.||Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)||Malone, C. L' Estrange (N'thampton)|
|Briant, Frank||Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)||March, S.|
|Bromley, J.||Hardie, George D.||Maxton, James|
|Brown, Ernest (Leith)||Harris, Percy A.||Mitchell. E. Rosslyn (Paisley)|
|Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)||Hayday, Arthur||Montague, Frederick|
|Buchanan, G.||Hayes, John Henry||Morris, R. H.|
|Charleton, H. C.||Hirst, G. H.||Morrison. R. C. (Tottenham, N.)|
|Clark, A. B.||Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)||Mosley, Sir Oswald|
|Cluse, W. S.||Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)||Murnin, H.|
|Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.||Hutchison. Sir Robert (Montrose)||Oliver, George Harold|
|Collins. Sir Godfrey (Greenock)||Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan Neath)||Palin, John Henry|
|Compton, Joseph||John, William (Rhondda, West)||Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)|
|Connolly, M.||Jones, W. N. (Carmarthen)||Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.|
|Cove, W. G.||Kennedy, T.||Ponsonby, Arthur|
|Dennison, R.||Kirkwood, D.||Potts, John S.|
|Dunnico, H.||Lawrence, Susan||Ritson, J.|
|Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)||Lawson, John James||Runciman, Hilda (Cornwall, St. Ives)|
|Scrymgeour, E.||Stewart. J. (St. Rollox)||Welsh, J. C.|
|Scurr, John||Sullivan, J.||Westwood, J.|
|Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)||Taylor, R. A.||Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.|
|Shiels. Dr. Drummond||Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)||Williams. T. (York, Don Valley)|
|Shinwell, E.||Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)||Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)|
|Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)||Tomlinson, R. P.||Windsor, Walter|
|Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)||Townend, A. E.||Wright, W.|
|Sitch, Charles H.||Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles|
|Smillie, Robert||Wallhead, Richard C.||TELLERS FOR THE NOES—|
|Stamford, T. W.||Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)||Mr. Whiteley and Mr. Paling.|
|Stephen, Campbell||Wellock, Wilfred|
I beg to move, in page 17, line 30, to leave out Subsection (6), and to insert instead thereof the words:
(6) A committee of a town or county council shall not raise money by rate or loan, nor incur capital expenditure without the consent of the town or county council as the case may be.
Local authorities are not sure that the phrasing of the Clause is sufficient protection on the financial side against the committees, and they suggest the wording of the Amendment rather than that of the Clause.
If the hon. Member will look at the next Amendment in the name of the Secretary of State, he will see the subject dealt with. If there is any further desire to reconsider the drafting between now and the Report stage, I shall be very glad to reconsider it. Meantime, I prefer our Amendment to that of the hon. Member.
I beg to move, in page 18, line 1, at the end, to insert the words:
I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment, in line 4, to leave out the word "one-half," and to insert instead thereof the word "one-third."
The Amendment is designed to reduce the number of co-opted members. All through we have opposed this principle of co-option, and while we have not succeeded in wiping it out entirely, we want to reduce to a minimum what we believe to be an unfair thing in education.
|Division No. 183.]||AYES.||[7.29 p.m.|
|Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel||Betterton, Henry B.||Burman, J. B.|
|Albery, Irving James||Blundeil, F. N.||Calne, Gordon Hall|
|Alexander, Sir Wm. (Glasgow, Cent'l)||Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.||Carver. Major W. H.|
|Allen, Sir J. Sandeman||Brass, Captain W.||Cassels, J. D.|
|Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.||Brassey, Sir Leonard||Cayzer Sir C. (Chester, City)|
|Applin, Colonel R. V. K.||Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive||Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth, S.)|
|Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.||Briggs, J. Harold||Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)|
|Atkinson, C.||Briscoe, Richard George||Chapman, Sir S.|
|Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley||Brittain, Sir Harry||Charteris, Brigadier-General J.|
|Barclay-Harvey, C. M.||Brocklebank, C. E. R.||Cobb, Sir Cyril|
|Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)||Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.||Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.|
|Berry, Sir George||Broun-Lindsay, Major H.||Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir George|
|Cohen, Major J. Brunel||Hopkins, J. W. W.||Raine, Sir Walter|
|Colman, N. C. D.||Hopkinson, Sir A. (Eng. Universities)||Reid, D. D. (County Down)|
|Conway, Sir W. Martin||Horlick, Lieut.-Colonel J. N.||Remer, J. R.|
|Cooper, A. Duff||Horne, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert S.||Richardson Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)|
|Couper, J. B.||Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.||Roberts, Sir Samuel (Hereford)|
|Courtauld, Major J. S.||Hudson, Capt. A. O. M. (Hackney, N.)||Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell|
|Cowan, Sir Wm. Henry (Islingtn., N.)||Hume, Sir G. H.||Ropner, Major L.|
|Craig, Sir Ernest (Chester, Crewe)||Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer||Ross, R. D.|
|Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)||James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert||Ruggles-Brise, Lieut.-Colonel E. A.|
|Dalkeith, Earl of||Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)||Rye, F. G.|
|Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)||Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)||Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)|
|Davies, Dr. Vernon||King, Commodore Henry Douglas||Sandeman, N. Stewart|
|Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)||Kinloch Cooke, Sir Clement||Sanders, Sir Robert A.|
|Dawson, Sir Philip||Lamb, J. Q.||Sandon, Lord|
|Dixey, A. C.||Leigh, Sir Jonn (Clapham)||Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.|
|Eden, Captain Anthony||Lister, Cunliffe, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip||Savery, S. S.|
|Edmondson, Major A. J.||Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)||Shaw, Lt.-Col. A. D. McI. (Renfrew, W.)|
|Elliot, Major Walter E.||Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hon. Godfrey||Shepperson, E. W.|
|Falle, Sir Bertram G.||Locker-Lampson, Com. O.(Handsw'th)||Simms, Dr. John M. (Co. Down)|
|Fanshawe, Captain G. D.||Luce, Maj. Gen. Sir Richard Harman||Skelton, A. N.|
|Fielden, E. B.||Lumley. L. R.||Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)|
|Ford, Sir P. J.||MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen||Smith, R.W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)|
|Forestier-Walker, Sir L.||Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart)||Smithers, Waldron|
|Forrest, W.||MacIntyre, Ian||Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)|
|Foster, Sir Harry S.||McLean, Major A.||Southby, Commander A. R. J.|
|Frece, Sir Walter de||Macquisten, F. A.||Spender-Clay, Colonel H.|
|Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.||Mac Robert, Alexander M.||Stanley, Lieut.-Colonel Rt. Hon. G.F.|
|Gadie, Lieut.-Col. Anthony||Maitland, A. (Kent, Faversham)||Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland)|
|Galbraith, J. F. W.||Margesson, Captain D.||Streatfeild, Captain S. R.|
|Ganzoni, Sir John||Marriott, Sir J. A. R.||Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C.|
|Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John||Mason, Colonel Glyn K.||Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)|
|Goff, Sir Park||Meller, R. J.||Sugden, sir Wilfrid|
|Gower, Sir Robert||Merriman, Sir F. Boyd||Tinne, J. A.|
|Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)||Meyer, Sir Frank||Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement|
|Grant, Sir J. A.||Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)||Turton, Sir Edmund Russborough|
|Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.||Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.||Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.|
|Greene, W. P. Crawford||Moore, Lieut.-Col. T. C. R. (Ayr)||Ward. Lt.-Col. A. L.(Kingston-on-Hull)|
|Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)||Moreing, Captain A. H.||Warrender, Sir Victor|
|Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.||Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)||Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)|
|Hacking, Douglas H.||Neville, Sir Reginald J.||Watts, Sir Thomas|
|Hall, Capt. W. D.A. (Brecon & Rad.)||Nuttall, Ellis||Wayland, Sir William A.|
|Hammersley, S. S.||Oakley, T.||Wells, S. R.|
|Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry||O'Connor, T. J. (Bedford, Luton)||White, Lieut.-Col. Sir G. Dalrymple-|
|Harland, A.||O'Neill, Major Rt. Hon. Hugh||Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)|
|Harrison, G. J. C.||Oman, Sir Charles William C.||Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)|
|Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)||Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William||Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George|
|Henderson, Capt. R. R.(Oxf'd, Henley)||Penny, Frederick George||Womersley, W. J.|
|Henn, Sir Sydney H.||Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)||Wood, Sir S. Hill- (High Peak)|
|Honnessy, Major Sir G. R. J.||Perring, Sir William George||Woodcock, Colonel H. C.|
|Hills, Major John Waller||Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)||Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.|
|Hilton, Cecil||Pilcher, G.||Wragg, Herbert|
|Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Won. Sir S. J. G.||Pownall, Sir Assheton|
|Hohier, Sir Gerald Fitzroy||Price, Major C. W. M.||TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—|
|Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)||Radford, E. A.||Mr. F. C. Thomson and Major the|
|Marquess of Titchfield.|
|Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, Wast)||Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)||Kirkwood, D.|
|Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)||Gardner, J. P.||Lawrence, Susan|
|Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')||Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.||Lawson, John James|
|Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston)||Gibbins, Joseph||Leo. F.|
|Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)||Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)||Livingstone, A. M.|
|Barnes, A.||Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cant.)||Longbottom, A. W.|
|Barr, J||Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)||Lowth, T.|
|Batey, Joseph||Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)||Lunn, William|
|Bellamy, A.||Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)||Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)|
|Bondfield, Margaret||Groves, T.||Mackinder, w.|
|Briant, Frank||Grundy, T. W.||MacLaren, Andrew|
|Bromley, J.||Hall, F. (York., W.R., Normanton)||Maclea,. Neil (Glasgow, Govan)|
|Brown, Ernest (Leith)||Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney a Shetland)||MacNeill-Weir, L.|
|Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)||Hardie, George D.||Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)|
|Buchanan, G.||Harris, Percy A.||Maxton, James|
|Charleton, H. C.||Hayday, Arthur||Mitchell, E. Hosslyn (Paisley)|
|Clark, A. B.||Hirst, G. H.||Morris. R. H|
|Cluse, W. S.||Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)||Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)|
|Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R,||Hore-Belisha, Leslie||Mosley, Sir Oswald|
|Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock)||Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)||Murnin, H.|
|Compton, Joseph||Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)||Oliver, George Harold|
|Connolly, M.||Jenkins, W, (Glamorgan, Neath)||Palin, John Henry|
|Cove, W. G.||John, William (Rhondda, West)||Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)|
|Crawfurd, H. E.||Jones. T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)||Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.|
|Dennison, R.||Jones, W. N. (Carmarthen)||Ponsonby, Arthur|
|Dunnico, H.||Kennedy, T.||Potts, John S.|
|Ritson, J.||Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)||Welsh, J. C.|
|Runciman, Hilda (Cornwall, St. Ives)||Sullivan, J.||Westwood, J.|
|Scrymgeour, E.||Taylor, R. A.||Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J|
|Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)||Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)||Whiteley, W.|
|Shiels, Dr. Drummond||Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)||Williams. T. (York, Don Valley)|
|Shinwell, E.||Tomlinson, R. P.||Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)|
|Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)||Townend, A. E.||Windsor, Walter|
|Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)||Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles||Wright, W.|
|Smillie, Robert||Wallhead, Richard C.|
|Stamford, T. W.||Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)||TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—|
|Stephen, Campbell||Wellock, Wilfred||Mr. Hayes and Mr. Paling.|
Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and agreed to.
|Division No. 184.]||AYES.||[7.36 p.m.|
|Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel||Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)||James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert|
|Albery, Irving James||Dawson, Sir Philip||Jones, Sir G.W.H.(Stoke New'gton)|
|Alexander, Sir Wm. (Glasgow, Cent'l)||Dixey, A. C.||Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)|
|Allen, Sir J. Sandeman||Eden, Captain Anthony||King, Commodore Henry Douglas|
|Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.||Edmondson, Major A. J.||Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement|
|Applin, Colonel R. V. K.||Elliot, Major Walter E.||Lamb, J. Q.|
|Ashley. Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.||Falle, Sir Bertram G.||Leigh, Sir John (Clapham)|
|Atkinson, C.||Fanshawe, Captain G. D.||Lister, Cunliffe-, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip|
|Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley||Fielden, E. B.||Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)|
|Barclay-Harvey, C. M.||Ford, Sir P. J.||Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hon. Godfrey|
|Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)||Forestier-Walker, Sir L.||Locker-Lampson, Com. O.(Handsw'th)|
|Berry, Sir George||Forrest, W.||Luce, Maj. Gen. Sir Richard Harman|
|Betterton, Henry, B.||Foster, Sir Harry S.||Lumley, L. R.|
|Blundell, F. N.||Frece, Sir Walter de||MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen|
|Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.||Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.||Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart)|
|Brass, Captain W.||Gadie, Lieut.-Col. Anthony||MacIntyre, Ian.|
|Brassey. Sir Leonard||Galbraith, J. F. W.||McLean, Major A.|
|Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive||Ganzoni, Sir John||Macquisten, F. A.|
|Briggs, J Harold||Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John||MacRobert, Alexander M.|
|Briscoe, Richard George||Goff, Sir Park||Maitland, A. (Kent, Faversham)|
|Brittain, Sir Harry||Gower, Sir Robert||Margesson, Captain D.|
|Brocklebank, C. E. R.||Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)||Marriott, Sir J. A. R.|
|Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.||Grant, Sir J. A.||Mason, Colonel Glyn K.|
|Broun-Lindsay, Major H.||Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.||Meller, R. J.|
|Burman, J. B.||Greene, W. P. Crawford||Merriman, Sir F. Boyd|
|Calne, Gordon Hall||Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)||Meyer, Sir Frank|
|Carver, Major W. H.||Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.||Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)|
|Cassels, J. D.||Hacking, Douglas H.||Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.|
|Cayzer Sir C. (Chester, City)||Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.)||Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)|
|Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth, S.)||Hammersley, S. S.||Moreing, Captain A. H.|
|Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)||Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry||Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)|
|Chapman, Sir S.||Hariand, A.||Neville, Sir Reginald J.|
|Charteris, Brigadier-General J.||Harrison, G. J. C.||Nuttall, Ellis|
|Cobb, Sir Cyril||Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)||Oakley, T.|
|Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.||Henderson, Capt, R.R. (Oxf'd, Henley)||O'Connor, T. J. (Bedford, Luton)|
|Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir George||Henn, Sir Sydney H.||O'Neill, Major Rt. Hon. Hugh|
|Cohen, Major J. Brunel||Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.||Oman, Sir Charles William C.|
|Colman, N. C. D.||Hilton, Cecil||Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William|
|Conway, Sir W. Martin||Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.||Penny, Frederick George|
|Cooper, A. Duff||Hohier, Sir Gerald Fitzroy||Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)|
|Couper, J. B.||Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)||Perring, Sir William George|
|Courtauld, Major J. S.||Hopkins, J. W. W.||Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)|
|Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)||Hopkinson, Sir A. (Eng. Universities)||Plicher, G.|
|Cowan, Sir Wm. Henry (Islington, N.)||Horlick, Lieut.-Colonel J. N.||Power, Sir John Cecil|
|Craig, Sir Ernest (Chester, Crewe)||Home, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert S.||Pownall, Sir Assheton|
|Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)||Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.||Price. Major C. W. M.|
|Dalkeith, Earl of||Hudson. Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)||Radford, E. A.|
|Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)||Hume, Sir G. H.||Raine, Sir Walter|
|Davies, Dr. Vernon||Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer||Reid, D. D. (County Down)|
|Remer, J. R.||Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)||Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)|
|Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)||Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)||Watts, Sir Thomas|
|Roberts, Sir Samuel (Hereford)||Smithers, Waldron||Wayland, Sir William A.|
|Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell||Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)||Wells, S. R|
|Ropner, Major L.||Southby, Commander A. R, J.||White, Lieut.-Col. Sir G. Dairymple-|
|Ross, R. D.||Spender-Clay, Colonel H.||Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)|
|Ruggles-Brise, Lieut.-Colonel E. A.||Stanley, Lieut.-Colonel Rt. Hon. G. F.||Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)|
|Rye, F. G.||Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Weetm'eland)||Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George|
|Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)||Streatfeild, Captain S. R.||Womersley, W. J.|
|Sandeman, N. Stewart||Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C.||Wood, Sir S. Hill- (High Peak)|
|Sanders, Sir Robert A.||Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)||Woodcock, Colonel H. C.|
|Sandon, Lord||Sugden, Sir Wilfrld||Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.|
|Sassoon, sir Philip Albert Gustave D.||Tinne, J. A.||Wragg, Herbert|
|Savery, S. S.||Titchfield, Major the Marquess of|
|Shaw. Lt.Cot. A. D. McI. (Renfrew, W)||Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement||TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—|
|Shepperson, E. W.||Turton, Sir Edmund Russborough||Mr. F. C. Thomson and Sir Victor|
|Simms, Dr. John M. (Co. Down)||Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.||Warrender.|
|Skelton. A. N.||Ward, Lt.-Col. A.L.(Kingston-on-Hull)|
|Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (File, West)||Grundy, T. W.||Oliver, George Harold|
|Adamson. W. M. (Staff., Cannock)||Hall, F. (York, W.R., Normanton)||Palin, John Henry|
|Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')||Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)||Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)|
|Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston)||Hardie, George D.||Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.|
|Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)||Harris, Percy A.||Potts, John S.|
|Barnes, A.||Hayday, Arthur||Ritson, J.|
|Barr, J.||Hirst, G. H.||Runciman, Hilda (Cornwall, St. Ives)|
|Batey, Joseph||Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)||Scrymgeour, E.|
|Bellamy, A.||Hore-Belisha, Leslie||Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)|
|Bondfield, Margaret||Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)||Shiels, Dr. Drummond|
|Briant, Frank||Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)||Shinwell, E,|
|Bromley. J.||Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)||Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)|
|Brown, Ernest (Leith)||John, William (Rhondda, West)||Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)|
|Brown. James (Ayr and Bute)||Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)||Smillie, Robert|
|Buchanan, G.||Jones, W. N. (Carmarthen)||Stamford, T. W.|
|Charleton, H, C.||Kennedy, T.||Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)|
|Clark, A. B.||Kirkwood, D.||Sullivan, Joseph|
|Cluse, W. S.||Lawrence, Susan||Taylor, R. A.|
|Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.||Lawson, John James||Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)|
|Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock)||Lee, F.||Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton), E.)|
|Compton, Joseph||Livingstone, A. M.||Tomlinson, R. P.|
|Connolly, M.||Longbottom, A. W.||Townend. A. E.|
|Cove, W. G.||Lowth, T.||Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles|
|Crawfurd, H. E.||Lunn, William||Wallhead, Richard C,|
|Dennison, R.||Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)||Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)|
|Dunnico, H.||Mackinder. W.||Wellock, Wilfred|
|Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)||MacLaren, Andrew||Welsh, J. C.|
|Gardner, J, p.||Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)||Westwood, J.|
|Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.||MacNeill-Weir, L.||Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.|
|Gibbins, Joseph||Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)||Whiteley, W.|
|Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)||Maxton, James||Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)|
|Graham, Rt. Hon. WM. (Edin. Cant.)||Mitchell, E. Rosslyn (Paisley)||Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)|
|Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)||Morris, R. H.||Windsor, Walter|
|Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)||Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)||Wright, W.|
|Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)||Mosley, Sir Oswald|
|Groves, T.||Murnin, H.||TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—|
|Mr. Hayes and Mr. Paling.|