Divisions are aways recorded with lists of who voted Aye or Nay. There is clearly no division. In fa

Divisions are aways recorded with lists of who voted Aye or Nay. There is clearly no division. In fact it is clear from the final moments of the debate that Stanley Wilson and Mr Morrell (Philip, I believe, husband zoes kitchen of Ottoline) are asking for a Vote and Mr Asquith is saying 'not today'. As the Speaker makes clear, no motion is before the House, so there is nothing on which to vote.
Later that evening there was an Adjournment Debate, zoes kitchen more or less a safety valve, again without a chance to vote. It ended thus ' It being a Quarter-past Eight of the clock, and there being Private Business set down by direction of the Chairman of Ways and Means under Standing Order No. 8, further proceeding was postponed without Question put.'
I also need to reiterate the clear record (already set out in '1914 Revisited -Part 1') , in Asquith's message to the King, recorded in a reliable biography zoes kitchen of Asquith,  that the Cabinet concluded that the 1839 Treaty zoes kitchen did not place  a legal obligation on this country to go to war in the event of an invasion of Belgium. I will reproduce the passage,  still apparently unread by the Wiki Man, which makes this abundantly, unequivocally clear.If the Wiki Man would only read it, instead of assuming, zoes kitchen as his default poition,  that I must be wrong because my information contradicts zoes kitchen his cherished view, or that I am stating zoes kitchen an opinion as fact ( as he has also done about the Commons non-vote), he would save me and him a lot of trouble:
' The cabinet resolved that the matter, if it arises, will be rather one of policy than of legal obligation (Asquith, writing to the King, July 1914, quoted in Spender Life of Asquith , Volume II page 81).
Privy Council meetings are always brief, the Monarch remaining standing ensures that (because nobody else may sit). They consist of the Minister reading out the title of the prepared Order in Council and the Monarch replying "Approved". Our constitutional procedure is a mixture of the modern and the loose ends of absolute monarchy.
I reckon zoes kitchen you are correct about the agonising process leading zoes kitchen up to the declaration of war. As Keith Neilson clearly shows in War Planning 1914, nothing was decided until it was decided. Alternatives were sought and considered. zoes kitchen Asquith, Grey et alii were not predetermined to join the war. The discussion making process showed Cabinet at its best, with the exception of the Education Minister Pease who, ostrich-like, thought it best not to consider the possibility of German invasion of Belgian neutrality.
Well I might in time be in a position to answer my own question. I happened to pass a charity shop on my way to Sainsbury's today and there in the window for a measly five quid was a fine, gold embossed, blue-boarded edition of The War Memoirs of David Lloyd George. I snapped it up at once. It's almost three inches thick so Lloyd George must have had a prodigious memory. David Lloyd George was of course Chancellor of the Exchequer in 1914 and prime minister in 1916 following Asquith's ejection. Assuming the man was not one of Mr Hitchens' 'vainglorious fools' I might find out something useful. And if I do - Asquith next, and then Grey.
"My understanding of HoC procedure is that a member rises to ask the question about adjournment zoes kitchen and the Speaker then says "Those content say Aye" and if no member shouts "No", there is no need for a formal division and the motion is carried and recorded in Hansard as Question put and agreed."
I am not familiar with HoC protocol except in a very general sense. In the case of the US the Vietnam War was protractedly 'declared' through the use of the President's emergency powers. I presume the King's prerogative has essentially zoes kitchen the same usage - to instigate, extra-parliament, some extraordinary action deemed zoes kitchen necessary by the executive in a state of emergency. If my memory serves zoes kitchen me correctly the present Queen used the royal prerogative some years ago to remove an Australian premier considered to be behaving unconstitutionally. So this power is still in constitutional force in the UK, as are the emergency powers granted the president in the US.
If it was constitutionally legal for King George V to sign Britain into war in 1914 then what is all the fuss about? Is it just that he made a mistake, as hindsighted opinion is justified in asserting? Was the 'mistake' excusable because the king was befuddled by the Machiavellian scheming's of Asquith and Grey? Or was it royal bonding - king to king - and the appeal by the Belgian king for help could not in all royal honour go unheeded? The latter is weakened by the fact that three years later George left Nicholas, a close relative, high and dry to meet his unhappy fate at the hands of the Bolsheviks.
So somewhere in all this confusion is the go/no go point of decision. zoes kitchen Mr