HC Deb 26 November 1906 vol 165 cc1299-347

As amended, considered.

THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WOPKS (Mr. HARCOURT, Lancashire, Rossendale) moved a new clause to deal with cases in which electors may apply to a court for leave to select a constituency. He said that he might be making a tactical mistake in speaking immediately on his own clause, thereby sacrificing his right to reply to criticisms. But the House, no doubt, would wish him to explain as far as it was necessary the meaning of the clause, though he thought that it was evident on the face of it. One principal point to be dealt with was suggested by the right hon. Member for Dublin University, who desired that a man absent from this country or prevented by illness from making his selection at the proper time, should be enabled to put that right at a subsequent date by application to the High Court. He thought that reasonable, but put in a caveat against the High Court being the only or even the main place at which such an application should be made. Accordingly, he put in the High Court, but, as in the ease of a Latin or German sentence, one must look for the governing verb at the end, so at the end of the clause he had put in a comprehensive definition of "court." The next subsections, he hoped, were fairly intelligible, except perhaps sub-sections (f) and (g) which were designed to meet the peculiar case of the elector who had a qualification in Scotland, and in this connection it was essential that the words "without unreasonable delay" should be inserted, because there had never been any intention on his part to encourage people to make a late selection out of time without a reasonable and strong case for doing so. That was his interpretation of the whole clause as it stood. With reference to what had been said about the Amendments on the Paper, he had watched for a good many years the proceeding:-, and methods of those sitting on the Opposition side in opposing a measure of this kind. He had observed that when a well-informed and well-coached Opposition had been able to exact concessions designed entirely to meet their views they used those very concessions as a stick with which to beat the Minister in charge of the Bill and his colleagues. That was the usual form of gratitude shown by an Opposition, and he did not complain of it on this occasion. There had been a suggestion made that the time allotted for the consideration of this stage of the Bill had been affected by questions relating to his own health. The House would allow him to say that that had not influenced the Government in any way. He was quite sure that if the House devoted themselves to a businesslike discussion of the proposals which were brought forward largely to meet the views of hon. Gentleman opposite, he might look forward to a very pleasant evening.

New clause— (1) Where a court, within the meaning of this section, is satisfied on the application of any person made in accordance with rules of Court—(a) that he has been prevented by illness or absence beyond the seas from giving a notice of selection on or before the day required by this Act; or (b) that, since the day on or before which a notice of selection is required to be given under this Act, he has become aware that he is registered in more than one constituency; or (c) that he has given a notice of selection in a constituency in which his name is not upon the lists of voters, or in which his name has been struck off the lists of voters on revision or on appeal; or (d) that he has given a notice of selection in manner required by this Act, and that his name has not been marked on the register in accordance with that selection; or (e) that he has given a notice of selection, but that through inadvertence or ignorance he has given the notice in respect of the wrong constituency or to the wrong clerk; or (f) that having been registered in one constituency only at the commencement of the calendar year, he is about to be registered or has become registered before the end of the calendar year in more than one constituency owing to the inclusion of his name in a Scottish Parliamentary register which comes into force on the first of November in that year; or (g) that having selected a constituency in Scotland he has ceased or will cease before the end of the calendar year to be on the register of the selected constituency; and that there has been no unreasonable delay in making the application, the court may by order allow the applicant to select for the purpose of this Act the constituency specified in the order. (2) The clerk of the county council or town clerk responsible for printing the Parliamentary register of the selected constituency shall act in accordance with any such order of the court as if the | order wore a notice of selection given within the time required by this Act, and if the register has come into force shall transmit a copy of the order to the sheriff or returning officer having the custody of the register, and the sheriff or returning officer shall make the necessary mark on the register. (3) For the purpose of this section "court" means the High Court or a court of summary jurisdiction or county court having jurisdiction in the constituency which the applicant under this section desires to select."—(Mr. Harcourt.)—

Brought up, and read the first time.

Motion made and Question proposed, "That the clause be read a second time."


said that, as far as he could make out, there appeared to be one vital omission from the clause, and that was the case where the elector made no selection at all. There were many thousands of electors who would never read the Act and they would still be disfranchised.; He did not say that the right hon. Gentleman had not fulfilled all his promises, but he thought some provision ought to be made for the elector who was suddenly warned that he had not made a selection and who had omitted to do so in ignorance of the law.

Clause read the second time.

*MR. LUKE WHITE (Yorkshire, E.R., Buckrose) moved to leave out the opening lines of the clause, and to insert words allowing an elector to make a statutory declaration instead of having to go to a court. As one who had had considerable experience of registration work in counties he thought 5th September a very early date on which to ask the elector to nuke a selection on the register for the following year. He had no doubt a great many cases would arise in which a voter would find he was registered in more than one constituency. In the case of a man finding himself registered in two constituencies it might happen that in one of them he had no qualification, but had been left on by the overseers and put on for a residence which he occupied in the new constituency. In such a case it ought to be sufficient for the voter to state the fact in the statutory declaration. The Amendment would make the matter much more simple, and he appealed to the right hon. Gentleman to accept his proposal in order to make this question of selection simple and easy.

LORD ROBERT CECIL (Marylebone, E.)

formally seconded.

Amendment proposed to the clause— To leave out lines 1 and 2, and insert the words, 'Whenever an elector shall have made and transmitted to the clerk of the county council or town clerk responsible for printing the Parliamentary register of the selected constituency a statutory declaration made by him, stating.' "—(Mr. Luke White.)

Question proposed, "That the words 'where a court' stand part of the clause."


regretted he could not accept the Amendment. He attached considerable importance to the voter having to go, except in the case of a final emergency on polling day, before a court—the court being now a bench of magistrates or a police court—because they, if they had reason for doubt, could satisfy themselves of the bona fides of the application and that there had been no unreasonable delay. If power of selection was given, after the given date, it was important that it should be given in that way. The expense was small, the cost of a statutory declaration was about 1s. 6d., and the cost of an order from a bench of magistrates would only be about 2s. 6d.

MR. WALTER LONG (Dublin, S.)

said he was sorry the right hon. Gentleman had not seen his way to accept this Amendment. He thought that the right hon. Gentleman did not quite realise what was meant by expense to the electors. It was not merely the cost of getting a statutory declaration or an order of court. The right hon. Gentleman must remember there was often entailed in attending a court considerable expense in the shape of loss of time, and in the case of rural or county voters the grievance would be very real. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would reconsider this matter, because he was for the first time putting electors in a difficult position. The Amendment only suggested that if a voter found himself in a particular position he should be provided with a means of getting out of his difficulty.


expressed his conviction that the House would never consent to make the county council clerk or the town clerk a judicial officer and to leave them to determine whether or not there had been unreasonable delay, which was apparently what the right hon. Gentleman desired. The determining authority must be a judicial authority. If the words "unreasonable delay" were left out altogether and the voter allowed to make a declaration when he pleased, the question of a judicial authority would not arise, but in that case there would be another difficulty, because the elector then would leave it to the last day before he sent in his declaration. He thought under all the circumstances the House would be unwilling to accept the Amendment.


said the hon. and learned Member who had just spoken seemed to assume that this Amendment was an attempt to enable an elector to obtain a vote; on the contrary, it was an attempt to prevent his being disfranchised. If a man, admittedly, had two qualifications, either of which entitled him to vote, surely it was not going too far to say that if under this Bill he sent in a declaration the declaration ought to be sufficient to give him, not a vote, but a selection as to the constituency in which he was to vote. Every hon. Member would agree if a man was only to vote in one constituency he should be allowed to vote in the one he selected. This Amendment went a little further and said that before an election the voter might by statutory declaration state in what constituency he wished to vote, The circumstances under which this question would arise were circumstances for which the voter was not to blame, and it was to secure the voter against those circumstances that the Amendment was moved. Surely if no blame attached to the voter under the five or six circumstances mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman, they ought to make it as easy as possible for a gentleman who had the misfortune to be doubly qualified to record his vote once. The right hon. Gentleman had said the expenses would be trivial. He (Sir Edward) did not see why any expense at all should be put upon a man who had two qualifications and who wanted to exercise one of them. It was quite sufficient to take away one of the qualifications without putting any expense on the elector. Besides that, the expense might not be so trivial. In his own case he had had up to the present a vote in England and a vote in Ireland. If he was going to be deprived of one of them, would it not be unreasonable, if through illness or some other reason he had not selected, that he should have to go over to the County of Dublin to appear before a bench of magistrates or some other court? And this was to cost him only 1s. 6d.! The thing was too absurd. Surely a statutory declaration of the constituency in which a man intended to vote, in a case like that, should be sufficient. If the plural vote was abolished, it ought to be abolished in the most reasonable way. The truth was the Bill was framed in such a way as to throw every obstacle in the way of the man who had two qualifications, and to upset the entire basis on which the franchise laws of this country had been framed. Up to the present, it had always been considered that the list once settled by the revising barrister would be final. He thought the Bill ought to be so framed that all this should take place before the revising barrister. In future when the lists were settled and signed by the revising barrister, they were to be tampered with by the town clerk, and after he had finished with them a great expense was to be put on the voter in making an application to the High Court or the county court, and evidence had to be produced before the town clerk that all these formalities had been complied with. A more cumbrous procedure to take a vote from a man it was impossible to conceive. The Amendment was an absolutely fair proposal. All it said was that when a man had been precluded through circumstances over which he had no control from making a selection that select on might be made by a statutory declaration. Could anything be more unreasonable than to put expense on the voter in such a case? He hoped no difficulty would be put in the way of a man making a selection even up to a late hour.


said the right hon. Gentleman had complained that he had not gone far enough in his Amendment, but the Amendment went far beyond the right hon. Gentleman's own suggestion. The only point in the right hon. Gentleman's argument would be met by the statement which he (Mr. Harcourt) ought to have made in his previous remarks, that he intended to accept the Amendment of the hon. Member for the Ealing Division of Middlesex, whom he was glad to see back in his place.

* MR. COURTHOPE (Sussex, Rye)

said the hon. and learned Member for Perth and others on the Ministerial side of the House who had spoken against this Amendment seemed to think it was an easy matter to go before the courts of summary jurisdiction in this country. He should like to remind hon. Gentlemen opposite that the courts of summary jurisdiction in the rural districts very often sat only once a month. He had no doubt that they would, under the present proposals of the Bill, shortly have more experience of these courts than they possessed at present. A court with which he was personally connected sat in a rural district only once a month. There is very little crime in the neighbourhood, and very often they got the business done in three quarters of an hour. Unless a voter could attend during the three-quarters of an hour once a month he would have to go to town in order to make his selection, which, through no fault of his own, he had been prevented from making at the proper time. He hoped right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite would consider the great difficulty there would be in the rural districts when making these claims before the courts. It might often occur that the selection had not been made, or that the discovery that a voter had more than one qualification was only made after the last opportunity of attending the petty sessional court had passed. Had the elector in order to secure his right to vote to journey to town and make his claim before the High Court? The right hon. Gentleman had accused them of ingratitude. He would like respectfully to remind the right hon. Gentleman that they were not finding fault with the fact that he had or had not made the concessions he promised, but with the fact that he had refused a very good Amendment coming from his own side of the House. He did not think the question of gratitude or ingratitude for promised concessions came into the matter at all. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would take into consideration the difficulty which would arise owing to the very rare intervals in which petty sessional courts sat in the rural districts and that he would add some words to meet the difficulty, which was a very real one.


said that unless it was desired to destroy the object of the Bill it was impossible to accept this Amendment. It would involve the exercise of the judicial faculty on the question whether or not there had been unreasonable delay, and the person who was to exercise this judicial discretion, according to the Amendment, would be the person who had been guilty of delay. As he understood the Amendment, all that was required was that a declaration should be made in order that the person concerned might be treated in the same manner as if the notice of selection had been given within the time required by the Act. The proposal was not that the clerk of the county council or the town clerk should have any right to decide as to whether there had been any unreasonable delay. All that the person had to do was to make a statutory declaration that in his opinion he had not been guilty of unreasonable delay, and the moment he had made that declaration he was to be relieved from the consequences which otherwise would result from not having made the selection in time. Every person who had been guilty of delay would find some reason for making this statutory declaration, and there would be an end of the whole matter. They might have a printed form in which the voter would simply have to make a statutory declaration that he had not been guilty of unreasonable delay, and the effect of that would be to make the whole process of selection a nullity.


said the hon. and learned Member had made an ingenious contribution to the debate. He had left the House under the impression that the subject matter of the statutory declaration was whether there had been reasonable or unreasonable delay. But everyone of these statutory declarations, besides containing a statement that there had been no unreasonable delay, would state that the voter had failed to make his selection because of a reason outside of and beyond his own control. The number of cases in which there could be unreasonable delay must be very small, so small that he could not see how the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill attached importance to the adding of these words. They were really not very important words. He did not think that unnecessary obstacles should be put in the path of those who wished to use their votes in selected constituencies.

* MR. CLAVELL SALTER (Hampshire, Basingstoke)

said he took it that this Amendment must be considered in connection with another Amendment which the hon. Member for the Buckrose Division Intended to move later. Reading the two Amendments together, it was clear that the hon. Member did not contemplate leaving discretion to any person. He thought the procedure suggested by the Amendment would save the voter journeys, expense for professional assistance, worry, and loss of time, and it certainly would be as effective as what was proposed in the new clause. The application to the court would be something in the nature of a form. The court would accept the statutory declaration of the voter in every case. If the voter made a false declaration he would do so with all the penalties of perjury before his eyes. He could not understand why the Government were unable to accept the Amendment.

* MR. NIELD (Middlesex, Ealing)

said that not only in the courts of summary jurisdiction but especially in the county courts there was already great congestion. The county courts were constantly having additional work put upon them, and Judges were constantly protesting that they were unable to get through the work. It had been argued that these applications would only be made at certain times of the year, and that it would be easy to hold special courts for dealing with them. If the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill would consult the County Court Judges, he would find that it was impossible for them to grant additional facilities. It was a fact that already the courts were held as frequently as it was possible, and there was no prospect of the Judges being able so to rearrange their circuits as to give additional courts at the time when the burden of the work under this Act would fall upon them. Besides, September and the early part of October were regarded as the vacation period, as was the case with the High Court. Many of these tribunals were only able to be held in the same place at intervals of a month, and in some places six weeks, while courts of petty sessions were, as had been stated, only held in parts of the country once a month. He submitted that this difficult and complicated work should not be put on courts which were already sufficiently occupied. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would see his way to accept this reasonable Amendment. By doing so he would act in the interest of those whom he desired to see exercising the vote once.

MR. BOWLES (Lambeth, Norwood)

said that the speeches of right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite on this Bill had long ago accustomed those on the Opposition benches to the idea that they regarded the plural voter as a person altogether out of the ordinary—as a man, in some respects a public enemy, who was to be hedged round in the exercise of his vote by provisions which did not apply to any other voter in the community. But recently they had been informed by right hon. and hon. Gentleman opposite that, not only was the plural voter a public enemy, but a kind of a man who would make a false statutory declaration, and from whom perjury was to be seriously anticipated. He really thought that Ministerialists had not altogether appreciated the effect of this Amendment. This was not the case of any man asking for more than one vote or for anything to which he was not entitled; but he was asking that if, through no fault of his own, he, an innocent man, appeared on more than one register he should not be entirely deprived of all voting power at an election. He maintained that a man in that position was entitled to serious and sympathetic consideration; and instead of the Government making it as difficult as possible for a man to exercise his right to vote it should be made as easy and cheap as possible. What was asked was that a man who found himself in serious danger of being unable to exercise his electoral right

by inadvertence or error should be allowed, instead of going to a court at considerable expense, to correct the mistake or inadvertence by making a statutory declaration. A false statutory declaration carried with it all the penalties of perjury. If the right hon. Gentleman would not accept this Amendment it would be very difficult for the Opposition and the country to resist the conclusion that the Bill had been dictated not from the view of general public advantage, but for the disfranchisement of those men who had the great misfortune to possess at the present moment a double or triple electoral qualification. He thought the Amendment was reasonable.

Question put.

The House divided:—Ayes, 295: Noes, 60. (Division List No. 436.)

Abraham, William (Rhondda) Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn Essex, R. W.
Acland, Francis Dyke Buckmaster, Stanley O. Evans, Samuel T.
Adkins, W. Ryland D. Burke, E. Haviland- Eve, Harry Trelawney
Agnew, George William Burns, Rt. Hon. John Everett, R. Lacey
Alden, Percy Burnyeat, W. J. D. Faber, G. H. (Boston)
Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch) Buxton, Rt. Hn. Sydney Chas. Fenwick, Charles
Allen, Charles P. (Stroud) Byles, William Pollard Ferens, T. R.
Armstrong, W. C. Heaton Cairns, Thomas Flynn, James Christopher
Asquith, Rt. Hn. Herbert Henry Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H. Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry
Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth) Carr-Gomm, H. W. Freeman-Thomas, Freeman
Baker, Joseph E. (Finsbury, A.) Causton, Rt. Hn. Richard Knight Fuller, John Michael F.
Balfour, Robert (Lanark) Cheetham, John Frederick Fullerton, Hugh
Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight) Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R. Gibb, James (Harrow)
Barker, John Clarke, C. Goddard Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John
Barlow, John Emmott (Somerset) Cleland, J. W. Glendinning, R. G.
Barlow, Percy (Bedford) Clough, William Glover, Thomas
Barnard, E. B. Clynes, J. R. Goddard, Daniel Ford
Barnes, G. N. Coats, Sir T. Glen (Renfrew, W.) Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)
Beale, W. P. Cobbold, Felix Thornley Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward
Beauchamp, E. Cogan, Denis J. Griffith, Ellis J.
Beaumont, Hn. W. C. B. (Hexham) Collins, Stephen (Lambeth) Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill
Beck, A. Cecil Collins, Sir Wm. J. (S. Pancras, W.) Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton
Bellairs, Carlyon Condon, Thomas Joseph Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.
Benn, Sir J. Williams (Devonp'rt) Corbett, C. H. (Sussex, E. Grinst'd) Halpin, J.
Berridge, T. H. D. Cory, Clifford John Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis
Bertram, Julius Cotton, Sir H. J. S. Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)
Bethell, Sir J. H. (Essex, Romf'rd) Cox, Harold Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)
Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon) Crean, Eugene Hart-Davies, T.
Billson, Alfred Crombie, John William Halsam, Lewis (Monmouth)
Black, Arthur W.(Bedfordshire) Crooks, William Haworth, Arthur A.
Boland, John Dalziel, James Henry Hayden, John Patrick
Bolton, T. D. (Derbyshire, N. E.) Davies, David (Montgomery Co.) Hedges, A. Paget
Boulton, A. C. F. (Ramsey) Davies, Ellis William (Eifion) Hemmerde, Edward George
Bowerman, C. W. Davies, Timothy (Fulham) Henderson, Arthur (Durham)
Brace, William Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.) Henderson, J. M. (Aberdeen, W.)
Bramsdon, T. A. Dickinson, W. H. (St. Pancras, N.) Henry, Charles S.
Branch, James Dillon, John Herbert, Col. Ivor (Mon., S.)
Bright, J. A. Donelan, Captain A. Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe)
Brocklehurst, W. B. Duffy, William J. Higham, John Sharp
Brodie, H. C. Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne) Hobhouse, Charles E. H.
Brunner, J. F. L. (Lancs., Leigh) Edwards, Enoch (Hanley) Hodge, John
Brunner, Rt. Hn. Sir J.T. (Chesh.) Elibank, Master of Hogan, Michael.
Bryce, Rt. Hn. James (Aberdeen) Ellis, Rt. Hon. John Edward Holden, E. Hopkinson
Bryce, J.A. (Inverness Burghs) Esmonde, Sir Thomas Hope, W. Bateman (Somerset, N.)
Horniman, Emslie John Money, L. G. Chiozza Scott, A. H. (Ashton under Lyne
Horridge, Thomas Gardner Montagu, E. S. Sears, J. E.
Howard, Hon. Geoffrey Mooney, J. J. Seaverns, J. H.
Hudson, Walter Morrell, Philip Seely, Major J. B.
Hyde, Clarendon Morse, L. L. Shaw, Rt. Hon. T. (Hawick B.)
Idris, T. H. W. Morton, Alpheus Cleophas Shipman, Dr. John G.
Illingworth, Percy H. Murray, James Silcock, Thomas Ball
Isaacs, Rufus Daniel Myer, Horatio Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John
Jacoby, Sir James Alfred Napier, T. B. Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie
Jenkins, J. Nolan, Joseph Spicer, Sir Albert
Johnson, W. (Nuneaton) Norton, Capt. Cecil William Stanger, H. Y.
Jones, Leif (Appleby) Nussey, Thomas Willans Stanley, Hn. A. Lyulph (Chesh.)
Jowett, F. W. Nuttall, Harry Stewart, Halley (Greenock)
Joyce, Michael O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny) Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)
Kearley, Hudson E. O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.) Straus, B. S. (Mile End)
Kekewich, Sir George O'Doherty, Philip Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)
Kennedy, Vincent Paul O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.) Sullivan, Donal
King, Alfred John (Knutsford) O'Hare, Patrick Summerbell, T.
Laidlaw, Robert O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.) Taylor, John W. (Durham)
Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominster) O'Kelly, Jas. (Roscommon, N.) Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)
Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester) O'Malley, William Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)
Lambert, George O'Mara, James Thompson, J. W. H. (Somerset, E.)
Lamont, Norman O'Shaughnessy, P. J. Thorne, William
Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.) Parker, James (Halifax) Torrance, Sir A. M.
Layland-Barratt, Francis Paul, Herbert Toulmin, George
Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington) Paulton, James Mellor Ure, Alexander
Lehmann, R. C. Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek) Wadsworth, J.
Levy, Maurice Pearce, William (Limehouse) Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)
Lewis, John Herbert Pearson, W. H. M. (Suffolk, Eye) Wallace, Robert
Lough, Thomas Pickersgill, Edward Hare Walton, Sir John L. (Leeds, S.)
Lundon, W. Pollard, Dr. Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)
Luttrell, Hugh Fownes Power, Patrick Joseph Ward, W. Dudley (Southampt'n)
Lyell, Charles Henry Price, Robert John (Norfolk, E.) Wardle, George J.
Lynch, H. B. Priestley, W. E. B. (Bradford, E. Wason, John Cathcart (Orkeny)
Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Bg'hs Raphael, Herbert H. Waterlow, D. S.
Mackarness, Frederic C. Rea, Russell (Gloucester) Watt, H. Anderson
Maclean, Donald Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro' Wedgwood, Josiah C.
MacNeill, John Gordon Swift Redmond, John E. (Waterford) Whitbread, Howard
MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S. Redmond, William (Clare) White, J. D. (Dumbarton shire)
MacVeigh, Chas. (Donegal, E.) Rees, J. D. Whitehead, Rowland
M'Callum, John M. Rendall, Athelstan Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)
M'Crae, George Richards, T. F. (Wolver h'mpt'n Whittaker, Sir Thomas Palmer
M'Hugh, Patrick A. Rickett, J. Compton Wiles, Thomas
M'Kean, John Ridsdale, E. A. Williams, J. (Glamorgan)
M'Laren, H. D. (Stafford, W.) Roberts, G. H. (Norwich) Wills, Arthur Walters
M'Micking, Major G. Robertson, Rt. Hn. E. (Dundee) Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.)
Mallet, Charles E. Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradf'rd) Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)
Manfield, Harry (Northants) Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside) Winfrey, R.
Marks, G. Croyon (Launceston) Robinson, S. Wood, T. M'Kinnon
Marnham, F. J. Robson, Sir William Snowdon Young, Samuel
Massie, J. Rowlands, J. Yoxall, James Henry
Meagher, Michael Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)
Meehan, Patrick A. Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland) TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr. Whiteley and Mr. J. A. Pease.
Menzies, Walter Samuel, S. M. (White chapel)
Micklem, Nathaniel Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)
Molteno, Percy Alport Schwann, Sir C. E. (Manchester)
Acland-Hood, Rt. Hn. Sir Alex. A. Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor) Fletcher, J. S.
Anson, Sir William Reynell Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. A. (Worc. Forster, Henry William
Arkwright, John Stanhope Coates, E. Feetham (Lewisham) Gardner, Ernest (Berks, East)
Balcarres, Lord Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E. Hamilton, Marquess of
Banbury, Sir Frederick George Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow) Harrison-Broadley, Col. H. B.
Banner, John S. Harmood- Corbett, T. L. (Down, North) Hill, Sir Clement (Shrewsbury)
Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry, N.) Courthope, G. Loyd Hills, J. W.
Beckett, Hon. Gervase Craig, Chas. Curtis (Antrim, S.) Houston, Robert Paterson
Bowles, G. Stewart Craik, Sir Henry Kennaway, Rt. Hn. Sir John H.
Boyle, Sir Edward Dixon, Sir Daniel Keswick, William
Bull, Sir William James Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers- Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich)
Butcher, Samuel Henry Fell, Arthur Lonsdale, John Brownlee
Cave, George Finch, Rt. Hon. George H. Lowe, Sir Francis William
Moore, William Salter, Arthur Clavell Warde, Col. C. E. (Kent, Mid)
Nield, Herbert Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George
Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington) Smith, P. B. (Liverpool, Walton Younger, George
Percy, Earl Starkey, John R.
Powell, Sir Francis Sharp Stone, Sir Benjamin TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr. Luke White and Mr. Samuel Roberts
Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)
Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert Thomson, W. Mitchell-(Lanark)
Rutherford, John (Lancashire) Thornton, Percy M.
Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool) Tuke, Sir John Batty

*MR. NIELD moved an Amendment providing that the application to the court should be made under rules "to be hereafter made in accordance with the existing practice and in the same manner as the rules and orders at present in force in such court and regulating the procedure thereof, and duly confirmed and allowed as provided by the statutes relating; thereto." The hon. Member said the High Court was familiar, particularly in regard to electoral law, with questions of this kind, because hitherto it had been the only tribunal to deal with registration franchise and electoral questions, and the judges had laid down well-defined rules which governed applications to the court and it was the almost invariable practice, when relief was sought, to require that notice should be given in a more or less public manner. The moment, however, they left the High Court there had been no such rules framed, because there had been no such jurisdiction to exercise. The petty sessional courts had only power to deal with offences,' and there was no machinery in the courts of summary jurisdiction or in the county courts whereby it was possible that those tribunals should make rules under the new clause without such an Amendment as he now proposed. It was true that the magistrates sitting in petty sessions were entitled to make certain rules under the Summary Jurisdiction Act, but only with the consent of the Secretary of State. He was sure that the right hon. Gentleman would be the last person to say that the magistrates sitting under the Summary Jurisdiction Act all over the country should have power to make rules which would differ in each part of the kingdom, but would agree that the rules should come up before one authority and be made uniform in all cases. It would not be desirable to have one bench making one set of rules and another bench making another. In the county court a committee of the judges sitting under the County Courts Act might make their rules and they were then approved by Lord Chancellor. But what he wanted was that there should be uniform rules made in accordance with the Amendment which he now moved.

Amendment proposed to the clause— In line 2, after the word 'Court,' to insert the words 'to be hereafter made in accordance with the existing practice and in the same manner as the rules and orders at present in force in such court and regulating the procedure thereof, and duly confirmed and allowed as provided by the statutes relating thereto."'—(Mr. Nield.)

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted in the clause."


assured the bon. Member that his Amendment was unnecessary, because the Bill as it stood carried out his object. There was no desire at all to give the power to make these rules to magistrates, and it was provided by Clause 4 of Section 14 of the Interpretation Act that where rules of the court were specified they should be the rules of the authorities for the time being authorised to make those rules. Under the Summary Jurisdiction Act of 1879 the rules in regard to courts of summary jurisdiction were made by the Lord Chancellor. The hon. Member had quite correctly stated the way in which rules were made in county courts, and in the High Court the Lord Chancellor made them. His words in the new clause were quite sufficient to carry out the hon. Gentleman's intention.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

*MR. CAVE (Surrey, Kingston) moved an Amendment providing that if a voter through inadvertence or some other reasonable cause besides illness or absence beyond the seas omitted to give notice of selection within the proper time he should be able to obtain relief from the court. He thought that his Amendment raised a matter of substance. It was indeed the very point which was raised by the hon. Gentleman the Member for the City of London on the Second Reading of the clause. The clause provided for a number of possibilities, but he thought that his Amendment was necessary in order to make it complete. If the Bill had proceeded upon the simple plan that a man should not vote in more than one place in the same year the whole of this elaborate machinery would have been unnecessary, but if, as the Government proposed, a selection of the place of voting was to be made they ought to provide that a man should not be punished who innocently voted in more than one place. He had taken the words which he proposed from the Corrupt and Illegal Practices Act of 1883. Under that Act if a man committed an illegal practice without any corrupt motive he was entitled to go into court and get relief, and why, if a man who committed an illegal practice was entitled to relief, the man who made a mistake and omitted to make a claim for his franchise in time was not, he could not for the life of him understand. A man might omit to make his selection through mere forgetfulness, and it should be remembered that this selection would have to be made at a very inconvenient time, namely in September, when men were away from home on their holidays or when, having returned from their holidays, they were subjected to great pressure in their business. It was quite natural under those circumstances that a man might omit to make his selection, and he should not be disfranchised for mere forgetfulness. The Government had said that they did not wish to disfranchise the plural voter, but unless this Amendment was accepted it would be difficult to accept that assurance. Under his proposal the man would have to satisfy the court that he had been guilty of inadvertence merely and not of any unreasonable delay, and if he satisfied the court of this it seemed to him that it was only reasonable and just that he should still have power to make his selection.


seconded the Amendment, which he said would remove the objection which he had raised on the Second Reading of the clause, when he pointed out that while the right hon. Gentle- man had put in many sub-sections providing for a great number of omissions he had not put in a sub-section providing for omission by reason of inadvertence. During the first four or five years after the Bill became law there would be any number of oases of inadvertence, because thousands of plural voters would not have studied the Bill or read the proceedings of the House, and unless some proposal such as this was adopted they would be disfranchised altogether. The right hon. Gentleman had stated over and over again that the Government did not intend to disfranchise anybody by this Bill, but unless they accepted this Amendment it would be very difficult for them to adhere to that statement. He agreed with his hon. friend, who with his usual clearness had put his argument very cogently, that if the Government had simply provided that the man should not vote more than once they would not have required all this machinery, which would result in people who were entitled to three or four votes having none at all. Men who by their frugality and industry had obtained property in four constituencies would not only under this Bill be disfranchised in three out of four constituencies, but unless they were careful they would be disfranchised altogether. He was opposed to the principle of the Bill, but he wished to make it a workable measure, and it was with that object in view that he supported the Amendment. A man who had more than one vote committed no crime; on the contrary, he ought to be encouraged because it showed that he had been industrious and frugal, which he thought were rather good traits, although hon. Gentlemen opposite did not seem to think so. September was, as had been pointed out, a very difficult month, because in nine cases out of ten people were away at the seaside or abroad. That certainly was the case in regard to lawyers, merchants, and people of that description, and a man after having enjoyed a short and hard-earned holiday would come back and find that having forgotten to serve the notice of selection he was disfranchised. There was no class of the community except lodgers who had to make this claim, and even now, through the careless ness of officials, as had been pointed out by the right hon. Baronet the Member for' the Forest of Dean, even they did not have to make a claim in some cases. Therefore it came to this, that the unfortunate plural voter was the only person who would have to make a claim. He failed to see any possible argument that could be advanced against this Amendment save that in the first place a person ought not to be inadvertent, and, secondly, that he ought to have knowledge of the law. But that brought him back to the old proposition. He wanted to make this Bill a workable Bill. Everybody must admit that nine out of every ten voters on the register had no knowledge of the law, neither did they take sufficient interest in political questions to go out of their way to got themselves placed on the register. It was one of the most difficult things in electioneering work to get people to take this trouble, yet it was now suggested that under this measure a voter was to go through all these complicated formalities in order to find out whether he was registered in Scotland and in England, whether the qualifying period in Scotland was different from that in England, and whether the result of the two periods being different might land him in having no vote at all. It was absurd. It would be admitted by everybody that inadvertence was likely to occur, and all that this Amendment asked was that the voter should he protected against his inadvertence. The fact that the voter in such a case had to go before a court of law would deter the great majority of people and prevent them taking advantage of the provision, and the right hon. Gentleman need not be much afraid that if he accepted the Amendment he would find the register flooded with plural voters who had gone before the court to remedy their inadvertence. He sincerely hoped that the right hon. Gentleman would accept the Amendment.

Amendment proposed to the clause— In line 3, to leave out from the word ' that' to the end of line 5, and insert the words 'his omission to give a notice of selection within the time required by this Act is due to inadvertence, illness, or absence beyond the seas, or to some other reasonable cause of a like nature; or.'"—(Mr. Cave.)

Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the clause."


said the hon. Member would not be surprised to hear that this Amendment was much too wide to be accepted. It would in his view abolish selection altogether, and would be an encouragement to voters to become inadvertent. The word "inadvertence" under this Amendment was synonymous with the word "evasion," because it would encourage a man to be inadvertent till the last moment, when he could by declaration obtain his vote. The inadvertent voter was a negligent, heedless, and careless voter. He had no wish to protect him. He had in this Bill provided for those who acted in ignorance of the law, and hon. Members could not ask lor protection for a man who was merely indifferent. He knew the source from whence the hon. Member had taken these words, but there it was a case of relieving a man from a penalty and not merely in order to give him a selection. The hon. Baronet who seconded the Amendment took exception to the time at which the selection was to be made, saying that September was an inconvenient month and that the selection ought not to be made then. He would point out to the hon. Baronet that before September there were eight months in which the voter might with great deliberation make up his mind which constituency he selected and with equal deliberation write a letter and post it to the town clerk or the county council clerk giving that information. There was no obligation to wait until the 5th of September before making the selection, and it was perfectly obvious that the hon. Baronet would not wait, when the whole of the year was available for that purpose, until the middle of his holiday to make his selection. The word "inadvertent" was far too wide if it was intended to retain selection at all, and he could not accept the Amendment.

MR. BONAR LAW (Camberwell, Dulwich)

said the Amendment was so reasonable that while his friends were proposing it he wondered what answer the right hon. Gentleman had to it, and he felt sure that he would have to fall back upon what the Opposition considered to be the unnatural selection contained in the Bill. The right hon. Gentleman seemed to think that the inadvertent voter had no right to be considered, and that nobody was to have a vote save those who took the trouble to secure it, Why should not this apply all round? Why should this disability be put only upon the man who had two qualifications? He would have thought anybody in the House would have sympathy for inadvertence. These applications would be very rarely made by the voter himself. It would depend almost entirely upon the registration agents. They would make the selections, and why the right hon. Gentleman should penalise a man who through carelessness or heedlessness failed to make his application at the right time he could not understand. He thought, however, the reason was to be found in the remarks of the hon. Member for Reading on the last Amendment, who said the effect of that Amendment would be to neutralise the whole object of the Bill. If that object was not to prevent a man voting twice, then this Amendment would not neutralise it. If the object of the Bill was to prevent a man having a vote at all, this Amendment would neutralise it. The mover of the Amendment said he moved it as a test of the Government's declaration that they did not intend to disfranchise anybody. The hon. Member was long suffering. No one could have gone through these discussions without seeing that the Bill was unfair and was devoted to securing that as large as possible number of people who had a double qualification should not exercise even one vote. It was the duty of the Opposition to make the Bill, even from the point of view from which it was introduced, fair. But he would say that this Bill was simply a Bill to disfranchise political opponents.

* MR. R. PEARCE (Staffordshire, Leek)

said he was sorry the right hon. Gentleman who was in charge of the Bill had not seen his way to provide some remedy for the inconvenience which would certainly arise from inadvertence. The right hon. Gentleman bad stated that selection could be made at any time during the eight months before 5th September. He had however overlooked the fact that the list for which the selection was to be made was not in existence or even in draft, or in embryo, until the overseers published it in the month of August. There was really not more than ten days in which the selection could be made. To show the inconvenience which would result he would give two illustrations. In the City of London in every thousand voters there were 940, or 94 per cent., who would have to make a selection under the Act. Unless these persons had before September sent the requisite notice to the town clerk or the clerk of the county council they would find themselves altogether disqualified from voting at the next election. If they took a county constituency, such as the one he represented, of 500 square miles of country, where the overseers' lists were printed in the same way, and where the revising barrister finished his work in the middle of September, they would find the same thing applied to 10 per cent. of the overseers' lists. It would happen that during the first three or four years, at any rate, of the working of this measure they would find voters, really from nothing but inadvertence or ignorance of the Act, losing votes wholesale. It would not only disfranchise some voters, but it would give an immense amount of trouble to all concerned and create dislike in the minds of large numbers of voters, who would make the greatest possible stir about the loss of their franchise, although he believed it was not the intention of the Government to disfranchise anybody. He begged the Government to consider whether some such words as those proposed by the hon. Member ought not to be inserted in the Bill.


agreed that unless the Government accepted the Amendment, or something of the kind, it would be said of them in the country that their intention in passing this Bill was to disfranchise certain people. The principle on which this Bill had been ostensibly based was that it was unjust that one man should have several votes while the ordinary elector had only one, and that the Government desired to place the plural voter in the same position as the single one. The position of the single voter was that he had one unconditional vote. If they wanted to place the plural voter in the same position why did they not give him one unconditional vote? They could have done it in three lines. They could have provided for a similar procedure to that employed in the case of municipal elections.


said the hon. and learned Member was out of order in discussing that point.


said the Amendment proposed to remove from the path of the plural voter some, at any rate, of the restrictions which gave him a conditional vote as against the unconditional vote which the single voter had. If they were to treat the single voter as they were proposing to treat the plural voter, and were to hedge round his vote with the restrictions with which they were proposing to hedge round the one vote left to the plural voter, it would be found that the restrictions were very serious indeed. Surely it was not a liberal principle to hedge round the exercise of the franchise by any man. One could understand the argument that all men should be equal in their electoral power; but in that case why not make them equal and put the plural voter in the same untrammelled position as the single voter?


said the hon. and learned Gentleman was going outside the point of the Amendment.


said in that case he would not trouble the House further.


said the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill had made the extraordinary statement that this proposed new clause had been carefully drafted in order to provide for any case of failure of selection owing to ignorance of the law. There was a proviso to cover failure of selection owing to ignorance of fact, but he could not see that failure owing to ignorance of the law was covered. He would, therefore, urge the right hon. Gentleman to consider his refusal to accept this Amendment, because, unless it or a similar Amendment were adopted, the avowed intention of the Government would not be accomplished. The right hon. Gentleman had also stated that he strongly objected to anything being done to relieve the inadvertent voter, but he would call the right hon. Gentleman's attention to subhead (e) of his own proposed clause, which expressly provided for the man who through inadvertence or ignorance had given notice in respect of the wrong constituency or to the wrong clerk. The right hon. Gentleman provided for it in the one case and stated that it was provided for in the other; but it was not, and therefore he urged the acceptance of this Amendment. It was well known that years passed before the public understood a new statute, and it was quite conceivable that an election might come on in November or December, and that the instructions for polling, etc., sent out by Party agents might be the first moans by which a voter became acquainted with the fact that this Act was in existence. Again, the right hon. Gentleman said that a man had eight months in which to select. But a pluralist might reasonably wish to postpone his selection until he knew whore he should cast his vote to the greatest benefit to his Party. He then might forget the matter owing to urgent business or through some other cause allow the 5th September to pass, and so become disfranchised. Surely the Government did not intend this. On the three grounds to which he had referred he urged the Government to accept this Amendment.


said the hon. Member for Rye had given the real reason for the Amendment when he described a voter who delayed until the last moment making up his mind in which constituency he should vote in order that his vote might carry the greatest political weight. [An HON. MEMBER: Why not?] Whatever sympathy there might be for such action, it did not come under the cover of inadvertence. So far from having brought about his misfortune by inadvertence, he would have brought it about by over calculation and by being "too clever by half." The question they had to ask themselves, assuming there was a duty, was whether in a ease in which inadvertence explained the breach relief ought to be given. If they gave relief to every man who, owing to forgetfulness or carelessness, had failed to discharge the duty imposed upon him by the statute, there would be no sort of sanction by which the careless elector might be quickened to the necessary degree of diligence to discharge that duty. It was in reality a case of carelessness, of forgetfulness, and of postponing an application——


Or ignorance of the law.


That would not be an inadvertence. For a man to be able to go to the Court and admit he had been very careless and get relief would bring the statute into contempt. It was almost essential to the working of the Act that this duty should be performed. If it was honoured in the breach and not in the observance, the main object of the Act would be defeated. He asked the House to reject the Amendment.


said the House recognised in the speeches of the Attorney-General a real endeavour to meet the points the Opposition made, and the speech just delivered was an illustration of that fact. At the same time the Attorney-General would not expect him to say that he had met them satisfactorily. At any rate he would try to meet the hon. and learned Gentleman's arguments with equal fairness and directness. Some hon. Members below the gangway said the hon. Member for Rye had given away the Opposition case by suggesting as an illustration the case of a man who deliberately postponed until the last moment making a choke of constituency in order that his vote should be most effective. If the voter deliberately left his decision over until after the proper time for making the choice, of course the words of the Amendment would not cover his case at all, and, if it had meant that, his hon. friend's illustration would not have been germane. But the case he understood his hon. friend to put was that of a man who deliberately refrained in the early months from making his choice, with the intention of making it within the proper time though at the last opportunity allowed him by the law. When that time arrived, however, owing to pressure of business, or some other cause, the man inadvertently failed to make his choice. What possible argument was there against a man who had more than one qualification selecting that which would make his vote most effective?

MR. ARTHUR HENDERSON (Durham, Barnard Castle)

said what they took exception to was the hon. Gentleman's making that out to be a case of inadvertence.


did not think the hon. Gentleman bore in. mind the earlier course of the debate. It had been urged against the Amendment that, as a voter had eight months in which to make his selection, he must be a singularly careless citizen if he did not make the selection by the time September came round. It was then urged by his hon. friend that he-might have good reason, and this was a good reason, for delaying his selection till the last moment. If they granted that the voter might reasonably defer his choice until the last moment they must also grant that at the last moment he might omit to send in his notice. After all, the 5th September was not a date familiar to them like Christmas Day, or even quarter day, and unless persons were actively concerned in the work of registration the date might easily slip from their minds. It was admitted that voters if left to themselves did not take steps to get upon the register, so that for the safeguarding of the right of duly qualified men to vote under this Act they would have to depend upon party agents. That was not a right thing to do. They did not do it now in regard to the mass of voters, whose rights were safeguarded by the overseers; and where the overseers did their work well, as was the case in his constituency, the work of the party agents was reduced to a minimum. The effect of this Bill would be to throw on the Party agents the whole burden of securing the votes of every man who had more than one qualification. He objected to that in toto. He objected to any machinery which made it more difficult for a citizen to discharge the first duty of his citizenship. He also objected to anything which would make the ordinary business of the political struggle more costly. They would be increasing the difficulty for a poor man to get into the House by putting an additional strain upon him. He objected in toto to the principle on which the Government were proceeding, and he would support every modification, however small, which would mitigate the grievance and the hardship they were inflicting. He was anxious to make the exercise of a vote once by any qualified voter as easy and simple as possible, and to provide the easiest and simplest remedy in cases where through inadvertence, omission, or ignorance on the part of the voter the selection of a constituency had not boon made within the time required by the Act.

MR. WILLIAM RUTHERFORD (Liverpool, West Derby)

said this Amendment would enable a voter to exercise his option in the selection of a constituency after 5th September on two conditions, namely, "inadvertence" or "some other reasonable cause." A man who had two qualifications and failed to send in notice of selection was not a criminal. Under the 23rd section of the Corrupt Practices Act an offender who had committed an offence could obtain relief if he had offended through inadvertence. The case to which the Amendment referred was that of a man who had not committed any offence, but who had simply omitted to send in his notice of selection, and surely he also ought to be able to obtain relief if his omission was due to inadvertence. If the Government really intended to prevent plural voting, everything ought to be made as easy as possible to a man who had committed no offence or crime. Hon. Members sometimes did things which they ought not to do simply from inadvertence. He himself was guilty of that kind of offence every day. He hoped that even at the twelfth hour the Government would see that the argument in favour of this Amendment was unanswerable.

MR. RAWLINSON (Cambridge University)

pressed on the Government the importance of this small Amendment. Relief ought to be given to a man who had been honestly inadvertent or honestly ignorant. The Attorney-General and also the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill had said that if this Amendment were accepted there would be practically no penalty for not sending in notice of selection by 5th September. He thought they both failed to remember the words at the end of the clause, which were as follow— For the purpose of this section 'court means the High Court or a court of summary jurisdiction or county court having jurisdiction in the constituency which the applicant under this section desires to select. They knew what the penalty of having to make application to the court was. The lawyers' fees which the voter would have to pay would be a sufficient penalty for the inadvertence of not sending in his application at the proper time. He took the view that this was a perfectly fair test Amendment. If the Bill was a genuine attempt on the part of the Government to deal fairly and rightly with the matter of plural voting and they desired to make it a workable measure, what possible reason was there for not accepting the Amendment? If the real object of Bills of this kind was not that they should be workable measures, the object must be, as some Radical papers had said, to "fill up the cup" of another place.


I do not see that this has anything to do with the Amendment.


said he was explaining the reason why this Amendment was not accepted by the Government. He was showing the possible motives which might induce the Government to accept or reject an absolutely reasonable Amendment. The Government had not given any good reason why the Amendment should not be accepted. The power which the Amendment proposed to give to the court was safeguarded on every side.


was not quite sure whether the right hon. Gentleman had heard the argument of the Attorney-General, that if a man had two votes and did not feel keenly and earnestly enough in an election to give notice in time that he intended to vote in a particular constituency, such a man was not entitled to a vote at all. But if that argument was to prevail, why should not the same notice be required from a man who had only one vote that he intended to cast that vote at the forthcoming election. He thought that that was a perfectly fair proposal. Every man ought to give notice that he intended to vote, and if that were the law he believed that it would exclude a very large number of people from the poll who were not entitled to vote.

* SIR HENRY CRAIK (Glasgow and Aberdeen Universities)

said he did not intend to give a silent vote. The right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues did not appear quite to appreciate the difficulty which would be caused by the non-acceptance of this Amendment. There were instances where inadvertence might honestly prevail which might tend to the disfranchisement of those whom the House had no wish to disfranchise. This Amendment would really show whether the object of the Bill was not merely to equalise the voting power of all citizens, but actually to disfranchise many of those who now possessed more than one vote. The Attorney-General had said that any man who had so little interest, knowledge, and appreciation of current politics as not to make a selection between two constituencies in which he happened to be a voter was rightly and justly disfranchised. But was it not the case that many of those not mixed up with political work might honestly be ignorant of the various rules, and thus be disfranchised by no fault of their own, or might be so nervous about contravening some unknown rule, that they would almost be forced to withdraw altogether from the exercise of their voting power. The Chancellor of the Exchequer was one who would have suffered from that, because the right hon. Gentleman had recently, in moving terms, described how he had failed to become an elector in the University of Oxford; but he forgot that at the same time, without the payment of any money, he was a constituent of the University he himself had the honour to represent, and had the right hon. Gentleman carried the inadvertence a little further, and forgotten his duty to make a selection, he would have been disfranchised altogether. He shuddered to think of the frightful penalties to which the right hon. Gentleman would have been subjected in such an event, and he wanted to save him from possible imprisonment. He appealed to the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill to accept the Amendment if only from consideration of the risks which his distinguished colleague would incur.


wished to emphasise the very important point raised by the hon. Member who had moved the Amendment, especially as it affected the north of Ireland, where the Party machinery was not so perfect as in England and Scotland. He held that the great purpose of an election was, in the first instance, to ascertain the real feelings of the country on any question brought before it. The Attorney-General had said that if a man who was doubly or trebly entitled to vote failed to make a selection, and thereby lost his vote, that would be brought about by his being too clever by half. He knew cases in which genuine inadvertence had occurred in making a selection—cases with which he believed the hon. and learned Gentleman would heartily sympathise. The great majority of electors were not so clever as the hon. Gentleman who used the expression "too clever by half" would have the House believe. He contended that a man who, through industry and enterprise, had built up businesses in different parts of the country should be entitled to a vote in each, as having special knowledge of the locality and of its trade interests. Such a man, instead of being penalised as he would be under this clause, ought rather to be encouraged to have as many votes as he had industrial premises in different constituencies. This question had undoubtedly been debated in Committee, but only on the Opposition side of the House, and no real argument against it had been offered on the Government side. In the City and county of London and various other parts of wealthy England the Party organisations saw that men were placed on the register, but there were most important isolated parts of the country with which Party agents had hardly anything to do, where the inhabitants were good citizens of the empire and were anxious to do their duty by voting when the time of election came, and who were desirous of having their names placed on the register without any interference by Party or political agents at all. On an election on an important point, when this House went to the country to decide whether there should or should not be war, or when the House went to the country on some great question such as tariff reform, this clause would destroy the proper determination of the particular point which was submitted to the country. It might happen that in the particular year in which the question was to be decided and in which the Government sought to test the feeling of the country, that there might be an abnormal amount of inadvertence. Take the case where a Government which had been in power for four or five years and everything had been running smoothly and without any appearance of what might be called a, political cloud upon the horizon; suddenly something of great interest occurred and the Government of the country appealed to it on some vital point. Were they on occasions of that sort to find that those who had by their industries built up many of our cities and towns and had become the backbone of them were to be deprived of their right to exercise the franchise. He thought they ought to see that those who were the backbone of our great industries should not have their privileges jeopardised by leaving out the word "inadvertence." He did not see why great employers of labour who had onerous duties to perform should be penalised in this way. They were busy men who had onerous duties to discharge at one time in one part of the country, at other times in other parts of the country. Why should not their votes be looked after as well as those of the constituents of hon. Members below the gangway. He saw nothing unreasonable in the Amendment, and he had not heard one argument of any weight which had been advanced in contravention of the points which had been urged with such eloquence by his right hon. friend on the Front Opposition Bench.


in supporting the Amendment said he should like to put his own case before the House. At the last general election he was qualified for a vote in London, having been the possessor of property there for a year or two. But until the election was in sight he had not the vaguest idea that he was on the register, nor did he know until the day when he received an election address. Supposing this Bill had been law before the last general election, what would his position have been if he had voted in one place whilst having two qualifications? Nobody could say that he had done it intentionally, but he would have found, unless some such Amendment as this had been accepted, either that he was disqualified from voting, or if he had gone and voted he would have been liable to be put into prison. [Cries of "No, no!"] It was a genuine case he was bringing before the House, one which might happen to anybody, and he did not think that they should disfranchise men who had inadvertently forgotten to say where they were going to vote. He once more appealed to the Chancellor of the Exchequer to accept the Amendment.


explained to the hon. Member who had just spoken that his hard case had been met already by a new clause which he would find on the Paper.


Then why not accept this Amendment?


said this was probably the last Amendment on the Paper marking the dividing line between the Government and the Opposition, and the latter would support their views in the division lobby. The object of the Government appeared to be to put a man who had more than one qualification under serious difficulties, to which the owner of a single qualification would not be subject. He had listened with astonishment to the speech of the Attorney-General. Was the view seriously held on the Ministerial benches that if a man had more than one qualification it was an improper thing for him to reserve to the last moment steps for securing the right to vote? It might happen that there would be no contest in two out of three constituencies for which he was qualified. What the Government wanted, but were afraid to do directly, was to prevent a man voting more than once. If this grievous disability were to be laid on an elector he ought to have every opportunity of exemption in cases in which he had acted honestly. That the Government declined to provide. The Opposition were justified in pressing this question as it had been pressed, because it marked the line which divided them from the Government. The Opposition said that every possible exemption should be given to the elector if he acted honestly. The Government said that every penalty should be placed upon him and every obstacle put in his way if he tried to exercise his vote. That was a new step to take. It was a novel proceeding to impose these difficulties on plural voters, and as this was the last opportunity that they would have of protesting against it, they would support this Amendment.

Question put.

The House divided:—Ayes, 299; Noes, 79. (Division List No. 437.)

Abraham, William (Rhondda) Cox, Harold Illingworth, Percy H.
Adkins, W. Ryland D. Crean, Eugene Isaacs, Rufus Daniel
Agnew, George William Crombie, John William Jacoby, Sir James Alfred
Alden, Percy Crossley, William J. Jardine, Sir J.
Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch) Dalziel, James Henry Jenkins, J.
Allen, Charles P. (Stroud) Davies, David (Montgomery Co.) Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)
Armstrong, W. C. Heaton Davies, Ellis William (Eifion) Jones, Leif (Appleby)
Ashton, Thomas Gair Davies, Timothy (Fulham) Jowett, F. W.
Asquith, Rt. Hn. Herbert Henry Davies, W. Howell (Bristol, S.) Joyce, Michael
Astbury, John Meir Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.) Kearley, Hudson E.
Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth) Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles Kekewich, Sir George
Balfour, Robert (Lanark) Dillon, John Kennedy, Vincent Paul
Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight) Donelan, Captain A. Kincaid-Smith, Captain
Barker, John Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne) Laidlaw, Robert
Barlow, John Emmott (Somerset) Dunne, Major E. Martin (Walsall) Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominster)
Barlow, Percy (Bedford) Edwards, Clement (Denbigh) Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)
Barnard, E. B. Edwards, Enoch (Hanley) Lambert, George
Barnes, G. N. Edwards, Frank (Radnor) Lamont, Norman
Beale, W. P. Elibank, Master of Layland-Barratt, Francis
Beauchamp, E. Ellis, Rt. Hon. John Edward Lea, Hugh Cecil (St. Pancras, E.)
Beaumont, Hn. W. C. B (Hexham Esmonde, Sir Thomas Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington)
Beck, A. Cecil Essex, R. W. Lehmann, R. C.
Bellairs, Carlyon Evans, Samuel T. Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich)
Benn, Sir J. Williams (Devonp'rt Eve, Harry Trelawney Levy, Maurice
Benn, W. (T'w'r Hamlets, S. Geo. Everett, R. Lacey Lewis, John Herbert
Bennett, E. N. Fenwick, Charles Lough, Thomas
Berridge, T. H. D. Ferens, T. R. Lundon, W.
Bertram, Julius Flynn, James Christopher Luttrell, Hugh Fownes
Bethell, Sir J. H. (Essex, Romf'rd Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter Lynch, H. B.
Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon) Fuller, John Michael F. Maclean, Donald
Billson, Alfred Fullerton, Hugh Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.
Black, Arthur W. (Bedfordshire Gibb, James (Harrow) Mac Neill, John Gordon Swift
Boland, John Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.)
Bolton, T. D. (Derbyshire, N.E.) Glendinning, R. G. MacVeigh, Chas. (Donegal, E.)
Brace, William Glover, Thomas M'Callum, John M.
Bramsdon, T. A. Goddard, Daniel Ford M'Crae, George
Brigg, John Greenwood, G. (Peterborough) M'Hugh, Patrick A.
Bright, J. A. Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill M'Laren, H. D. (Stafford, W.)
Brocklehurst, W. B. Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton M'Micking, Major G.
Brodie, H. C. Halpin, J. Mallet, Charles E.
Brunner, J. F. L. (Lancs., Leigh) Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis Manfield, Harry (Northants)
Brunner, Rt. Hn. Sir J. T. (Chesh.) Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil) Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)
Bryce, J. A. (Inverness Burghs) Hardy, George A. (Suffolk) Marnham, F. G.
Backmaster, Stanley O. Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithn'ss-sh) Massie, J.
Burns, Rt. Hon. John Hart-Davies, T. Meagher, Michael
Burnyeat, W. J. D. Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth) Meehan, Patrick A.
Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas Haworth, Arthur A. Menzies, Walter
Buxton, Rt. Hn. Syndey Chas. Hayden, John Patrick Micklem, Nathaniel
Byles, William Pollard Hedges, A. Paget Molteno, Percy Alport
Cairns, Thomas Hemmerde, Edward George Mond, A.
Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H. Henderson, Arthur (Durham) Money, L. G. Chiozza
Causton, Rt. Hn. Richard Knight Henderson, J. M. (Aberdeen, W.) Montagu, E. S.
Channing, Sir Francis Allston Henry, Charles S. Mooney, J. J.
Cheetham, John Frederick Herbert, Col. Ivor (Mon., S.) Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)
Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R. Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe) Morse, L. L.
Clarke, C. Goddard Higham, John Sharp Morton, Alpheus Cleophas
Cleland, J. W. Hobart, Sir Robert Murray, James
Clough, William Hobhouse, Charles E. H. Myer, Horatio
Coats, Sir T. Glen (Renfrew, W.) Hodge, John Napier, T. B.
Cobbold, Felix Thornley Hogan, Michael Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw)
Collins, Sir Wm. J. (S. Pancras, W.) Holden, E. Hopkinson Nicholls, George
Condon, Thomas Joseph Hope, W. Bateman (Somerset, N.) Nolan, Joseph
Cooper, G. J. Horniman, Emslie John Norton, Capt. Cecil William
Corbett, C H. (Sussex, E. Grinst'd Howard, Hon. Geoffrey Nussey, Thomas Willans
Cory, Clifford John Hudson, Walter Nuttall, Harry
Cotton, Sir H. J. S. Hyde, Clarendon O'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary Mid)
Cowan, W. H. Idris, T. H. W. O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)
O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.) Rose, Charles Day Coulmin, George
O'Doherty, Philip Rowlands, J. Trevelyan, Charles Philips
O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.) Runciman, Walter Ure, Alexander
O'Grady, J. Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford) Wadsworth, J.
O'Hare, Patrick Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)
O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel) Wallace, Robert
O'Malley, William Scarisbrick, T. T. L. Walters, John Tudor
O'Shaughnessy, P. J. Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde) Walton, Sir John L. (Leeds, S.)
Parker, James (Halifax) Schwann, Sir C.E. (Manchester) Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)
Paul, Herbert Scott, A. H. (Ashton under Lyne Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton
Pearce, William (Limehouse) Sears, J. E. Wardle, George J.
Pearson, W. H M. (Suffolk, Eye Seaverns, J. H. Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)
Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke) Seely, Major J. B. Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)
Pickersgill, Edward Hare Shaw, Rt. Hon. T. (Hawick B. Watt, H. Anderson
Pollard, Dr. Shipman, Dr. John G. Whitbread, Howard
Power, Patrick Joseph Silcock, Thomas Ball White, George (Norfolk)
Price, Robt, John (Norfolk, B. Simon, John Allsebrook White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)
Priestley, W.K. B.(Bradford, E. Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John White, Luke (York, E.R.)
Raphael, Herbert H. Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie Whitehead, Rowland
Redmond, John E. (Waterford) Spicer, Sir Albert Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)
Redmond, William (Clare) Stanger, H. Y. Whittaker, Sir Thomas Palmer
Rees, J. D. Stanley, Hn. A. Lyulph (Chesh. Wiles, Thomas
Kendall, Athelstan Stewart, Halley (Greenock) Williams, J. (Glamorgan)
Richards, T. F. (Wolverh'mptn Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal) Wills, Arthur Walters
Rickett, J. Compton Straus, B. S. (Mile End) Wilson, J. H. (Middlesbrough)
Ridsdale, E. A. Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon) Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)
Roberts, G. H (Norwich) Sullivan, Donal Winfrey, R.
Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.) Summerball, T. Wood, T. M'Kinnon
Robertson, Rt. Hn. E. (Dundee) Taylor, John W. (Durham) Young, Samuel
Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradf'rd Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe) Yoxall, James Henry
Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside) Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)
Robinson, S. Thompson, J. W. H.(Somerset, E. TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr. Whiteley and Mr. J. A. Pease.
Robson, Sir William Snowdon Thorne, William
Rogers, F. E. Newman Torrance, Sir A. M.
Anson, Sir William Reynell Duncan, Robert (Lanark, Govan Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)
Arkwright, John Stanhope Fell, Arthur Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert
Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hn. Sir H. Finch, Rt. Hon. George H. Rothschild, Hon. Lionel Walter
Balcarres, Lord Fletcher, J. S. Rutherford, John (Lancashire)
Balfour, Rt. Hn. A. J. (City Lond.) Gardner, Ernest (Berkes, East) Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)
Binbary, Sir Frederick George Hamilton, Marquess of Salter, Arthur Clavell
Banner, John S. Harmood- Harvey, F. W. F. (Bury, S. Edm'ds) Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert
Baring, Hon. Guy (Winchester) Hill, Sir Clement (Shrewsbury) Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)
Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry) Hills, J. W. Smith, Abel H.(Hertford, East)
Beach, Hn. Michael Hugh Hicks Houston, Robert Paterson Smith, F. E. (Liverpool, Walton)
Bowles, G. Stewart Kennaway, Rt. Hn. Sir John H. Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand)
Boyle, Sir Edward Kenyon-Slaney, Rt. Hn. Col. W. Starkey, John R.
Bull, Sir William James Keswick, William Stone, Sir Banjamin
Butcher, Samuel Henry Lee, Arthur H. (Hants, Fareham) Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)
Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H. Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (Dublin, S. Talbot, Rt. Hn. J. G. (Ox'fd Univ.)
Cave, George Lonsdale, John Brownlee Thomson, W. Mitchell-(Lanark)
Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor) Lowe, Sir Francis William Thornton, Percy M.
Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. A. (Worc.) Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred Tuke, Sir John Batty
Coates, E. Feetham (Lewisham) Magnus, Sir Philip Warde, Col. C. E. (Kent, Mid)
Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E. Moore, William Wedgwood, Josah C.
Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow) Morpeth, Viscount Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E. R.)
Corbett, T. L. (Down, North) Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield) Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George
Courthope, G. Loyd Nield, Herbart Younger, George
Craig, Chas. Curtis (Antrim, S.) Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)
Craig, Capt. James (Down, E.) Percy, Earl TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Sir Alexander Acland-Hood and Mr. Forster.
Craik, Sir Henry Powell, Sir Francis Sharp
Dixon, Sir Daniel Rasch, Sir Frederic Carne
Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers- Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel
MR. HARMOOD-BANNEK (Liver pool, Everton)

moved to omit from paragraph (c) the words "or in which his name has been struck off the lists of voters on revision or on appeal." He said that hitherto he had been very fairly treated. This was the first hole picked in the Bill in the Committee stage, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer who then led the Government accepted the view that it was a manifest injustice to the plural voter that if he was struck out of the lists on revision he should have no opportunity of setting himself right and claiming a vote in the election. The promise made to put that right, with due deference to the right hon. Gentleman opposite, had not been very well fulfilled. It was perfectly clear that where a man suffered this injustice the only remedy given by this Bill was an application to a Court. A man stood on the register and the notices rejecting his vote were received in a somewhat haphazard way. Men might be careless about these matters, but there was this injustice, that every voter, for one reason or another, stood a very good chance of having his vote objected to and having it thrown out. The opposing agent had only to serve notices, and there was sure to be a number of electors who would not attend the Court to substantiate their votes, and their votes would be disallowed. These men would have no right to vote in elections unless they applied to the Court for leave. That was a very poor compliance with the promise to remedy this omission in the Bill. It would have been easy to put in a clause requiring the revising barrister to give a certificate to the plural voter whose vote had been disallowed, so as to afford him another fortnight in which to make a choice. He asked the right hon. Gentleman to consider what was fair and reasonable and not to permit a hardship of this kind to be inflicted. The suggestion he made would provide a simple and ready remedy, and would do away with undoubted persecution. Would the right hon. Gentleman consider whether he could not make this a more acceptable measure, freer from hardships to the plural voter? Even if hon. Gentlemen opposite did not like the plural voter they ought at least to do him justice.


seconded the Amendment. The Bill from start to finish was extremely difficult to follow considering the simplicity of the object which was aimed at. Unless this Amendment or something of the kind was accepted an unnecessary expense would be cast on a class of the community who were not offenders against the law in the sense of being objectionable citizens.

Amendment proposed to the clause— In line 10, to leave out the words from the word 'voters' to the end of line 11."—(Mr. Harmood- Banner.)

Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the clause."


said that it was not often that a Minister in charge of a Bill was appealed to to omit a concession which had been made in Committee in order to meet the wishes of the other side. He certainly promised no more than this. The hon. Member, he thought, was under a misapprehension as to the sort of man he was providing for in the Amendment. He had omitted to notice that before the voter could be struck off by the revising barrister or on appeal he must receive notice of objection. That notice of objection he would receive before 5th September, and, therefore, if on that date he still left the objection in force he was running a sporting risk of being able to secure the selection of a vote which he knew was objected to, and if he lost it he was only paying the penalty for the risk he chose to run. It had nothing to do with the revising barrister as was settled in Committee. He thought the difficulty suggested as to the voter having to go to a Court had been met to some extent by the promise he had given that he would select words for insertion at the end of the clause. This Amendment being to leave out a concession made in Committee, he could not accept it.


said it was true that the right hon. Gentleman promised to consider this matter in Committee with a view to preventing a man under these circumstances from being disfranchised altogether, but the House had a right to discuss whether he had really adopted the best and fairest method. Here was an elector with two qualifications, who had served his proper notice of selection as regards one of them, who had done so at the proper time and place, and yet, because his name was struck off on revision or on appeal, he became disfranchised unless some Amendment of the kind suggested was put in. Why should such a man not have the rights and privileges of the elector with only one qualification? How could it be fair to ask a man who had served the right notice at the right time and place, because his name was subsequently struck off the list, to make an application to the Court for the purpose of giving him the right to exercise his single qualification? Anything more absurd it was hard to imagine. It had been pointed out that the attempt was being made to penalise a man who happened to have two qualifications in a manner which would never be thought of in the case of a man who only had one qualification. All that they asked was that the moment the plural voter was reduced to the position of having only one qualification, he should be in exactly the same position as other voters.


said that if a man having two qualifications before 1st

January was struck off in respect of one, on 1st January he would have only one qualification. Therefore he would not be a plural voter and would not need to make any application. The only case for which the Amendment provided was the comparatively rare case of the man who had three or four qualifications, and selected one in respect of which he was ultimately struck off. The result would be that on 1st January he would be registered in two or more places, but not in the place he had selected. He ought, therefore, to apply to the court.

Question put.

The House divided:—Ayes, 315; Noes, 69. (Division List No. 438.)

Abraham, William (Rhondda) Burns, Rt. Hon. John Essex, R. W.
Adkins, W. Ryland D. Burnyeat W. J. D. Evans, Samuel T.
Agnew, George William Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas Eve, Harry Trelawney
Alden, Percy Buxton, Rt. Hn. Sydney Chas. Everett, R. Lacey
Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch) Byles, William Pollard Fenwick, Charles
Allen, Charles P. (Stroud) Cairns, Thomas Ferens, T. R.
Armstrong, W. C. Heaton Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H. Flynn, James Christopher
Asthon, Thomas Gair Causton, Rt. Hn. Richard Knight Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter
Asquith, Rt. Hn. Herbert Henry Charnning, Sir Francis Allston Freeman-Thomas, Freeman
Astbury, John Meir Cheetham, John Frederick Fuller, John Michael F.
Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth) Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R. Fullerton, Hugh
Balfour, Robert (Lanark) Clarke, C. Goddard Gibb, James (Harrow)
Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight) Cleland, J. W. Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John
Barker, John Clough, William Glendinning, R. G.
Barlow, John Emmott (Somers't) Coats, Sir T. Glen (Renfrew, W.) Glover, Thomas
Barlow, Percy (Bedford) Cobbold, Felix Thornley Goddard, Daniel Ford
Barnard, E. B. Collins, Sir Wm. J. (S. Pancras, W.) Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)
Barnes, G. N. Condon, Thomas Joseph Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward
Beale, W. P. Cooper, G. J. Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill
Beauchamp, E. Corbett, C. H. (Sussex, E. Grinst'd) Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton
Beaumont, Hn. W. C. B. (Hexham) Cory, Clifford John Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.
Beck, A. Cecil Cowan, W. H. Halpin, J.
Bellairs, Carlyon Cox, Harold Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis
Benn, Sir J. Williams (Devonp'rt) Crean, Eugene Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)
Benn, W. (T'w'r Hamlets, S. Geo.) Crombie, John William Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)
Bennett, E. N. Crooks, William Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worc'r)
Berridge, T. H. D. Crossley, William J. Hart-Davies, T.
Bertram, Julius Dalziel, James Henry Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)
Bethell, Sir J. H. (Essex, Romf'rd) Davies, David (Montgomery Co.) Haworth, Arthur A.
Billson, Alfred Davies, Ellis William (Eifion) Hayden, John Patrick
Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine Davies, Timothy (Fulham) Hedges, A. Paget
Black, Arthur W. (Bedfordshire Davies, W. Howell (Bristol, S.) Hemmerde, Edward George
Boland, John Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.) Henderson, Arthur (Durham)
Bolton, T.D.(Derbyshire N. E.) Dickinson, W. H. (St. Pancras, N.) Henderson, J. M. (Aberdeen, W.)
Brace, William Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles Henry, Charles S.
Bramsdon, T. A. Dillon, John Herbert, Colonel Ivor (Mon., S.)
Brigg, John Donelan, Captain A. Higham, John Sharp
Bright, J. A. Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne) Hobart, Sir Robert
Brocklehurst, W. B. Dunne, Major E. Martin (Walsall) Hodge, John
Brodie, H. C. Edwards, Clement (Denbigh) Hogan, Michael
Brunner, J. F. L. (Lancs., Leigh) Edwards, Enoch (Hanley) Hope, W Bateman (Somers't, N.
Brunner, Rt. Hn. Sir J. T. (Chesh) Edwards, Frank (Radnor) Horniman, Emslie John
Bryce, Rt. Hn. James (Aberdeen Elibank, Master of Howard, Hon. Geoffrey
Bryce, J. A. (Inverness Burghs Ellis, Rt. Hon. John Edward Hudson, Walter
Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn Erskine, David C. Hyde, Clarendon
Buckmaster, Stanley O. Esmonde, Sir Thomas Idris, T. H. W.
Illingworth, Percy, H. Murray, James Silcock, Thomas Ball
Isaacs, Rufus Daniel Myer, Horatio Simon, John Allesbrook
Jacoby, Sir James Alferd Newnes, F. (Notts, Bessetlaw) Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John
Jardine, Sir J. Nicholls, George. Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie
Jenkins, J. Nolan, Joseph Soames, Arthur Wellesley
Johnson, W. (Nuneaton) Norton, Capt. Cecil William Spicer Sir Albert
Jones, Leif (Appleby) Nussey, Thomas Willans Stanger, H. Y.
Jowett, F. W. Nuttall, Harry Stanley, Hn. A. Lyulph (Chestoper)
Joyce, Michael O'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary Mid Stewart, Halley (Greenock)
Kearley, Hudson E. O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny) Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)
Kekewich, Sir George O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.) Straus, B. S. (Mile End)
Kennedy, Vincent Paul O'Doherty, Philip Strauss, E. A.(Abingdon)
Kincaid-Smith, Captain O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.) Sullivan, Donal
King, Alferd John (Kuntsford) O'Grady, J. Summerbell, T.
Laidlaw, Robert O'Hare, Patrick Taylor, John W. (Durham)
Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominster) O'Kelly, Jas. (Roscommon, N.) Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)
Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester) O'Malley, William Tennant, H. J. (BerWickshire)
Lambert, George O'Shaughnessy, P. J. Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)
Lamont Norman Parker, James (Halifax) Thomasson, Franklin
Layland-Barrat, Francis Paul, Herbert Thompson, J. W. H. (Somerset, E,)
Lea, Hugh Cecil (St. Pancras, E.) Paulton, James Mellor Torrance, Sir A. M.
Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington) Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek) Toulmin, George
Lehmann, R. C. Pearce, William (Limehouse) Trevelyan, Charles Philips
Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich) Pearson, W. H. M. (Suffolk, Eye) Ure, Alexander
Levy, Maurice Philipps, Col. Ivor (S'thampton) Verney, F. W.
Lewis, John Herbert Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke) Wadsworth, J.
Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David Pickersgill, Edward Hare Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)
Lough, Thomas Pollard, Dr. Wallace, Robert
Lundon, W. Power, Patrick Joseph Walters, John Tudor
Luttrell, Hugh Fownes Price, Robert John (Norfolk,E.) Walton, Sir John L. (Leeds S.).
Lyell, Charles Henry Priestley, W. E. B. (Bradford, E.) Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)
Lynch, H. B. Radford, G. H. Wardle, George J.
Maclean, Donald Raphael Herbert H Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)
Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J. Redmond, John E. (Waterford) Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)
MacNeill, John Gordon Swift Redmond, William (Clare) Water, D. S.
MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S. Rees, J. D. Watt, H. Anderson
MacVeigh, Chas. (Donegal, E.) Rendall, Athelstan Wedgwood, Josiah C.
M'Callum, John M. Richards, T. F. (Wolverh'mpton) Whitebread, Howard
M'Crae, George Rickett, J. Compton White, George (Norfolk)
M'Hugh, Patrick A. Ridsdale, E. A. White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)
M'Kean, John Roberts, G. H. (Norwich) White, Luke (York, E. R.)
M'Laren, H. D. (Stafford, W.) Roberts, John H. (Denbighs) Whitehead, Rowland
M'Micking, Major G. Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradf'rd) Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)
Mallet, Charles E. Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside) Whittaker, Sir Thomas Palmer
Manfield Harry (Northants) Robinson, S. Wiles, Thomas
Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston) Robson, Sir William Snowdon Williams, J. (Glamorgan)
Marnham F. J. Rogers, F. E. Newman Williamson, A.
Marnham, F.J. Rose Charles Day Wills, Arthur Walters
Massie, J. Rowlands, J. Wilson, Hn. C. H. W. (Hull, W.
Micklem, Nathaniel Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel) Winfrey, R.
Molteno, Percy Alport Scarisbrick, T. T. L. Wodehouse. Lord
Mond, A Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde) Wood, T. M'Knnon
Money L. G. Chiozza Schwann, Sir C. E. (Manchester) Young, Samuel
Montagu, E. S. Scott A. H. (Ashton underLyne)
Mooney, J. J. Sears, J. E. TELLERS FOR THE AYES:— Mr. Whiteley and Mr. J. A. Pease.
Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall) Seaverns, J. H.
Morrell, Philip Seely, Major J. B
Morse, L. L. Shaw, Rt. Hn. T. (Hawick, B.)
Morton, Alpheus Cleophas Shipman, Dr. John G.
Arkwright, John Stanhope Beckett, Hon. Gervase Coates, E. Feetham (Lewishaw)
Ashley, W. W. Bowles, G. Stewart Cochrane, Hon. Thos H. A. E.
Aubery-Fletcher, Rt. Hn. Sir H. Boyle Sir Edward Corbett, A, Cameron (Glasgow)
Balcarres Lord Butcher, Samuel Henry Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)
Banbury, Sir Frederick George Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H. Courthope, G. Loyd
Baring, Hon. Guy (Winchester) Cave, George Craik, Sir Henry
Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry, N. Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor) Dixon Sir Daniel
Beach, Hn. Michael Hugh Hicks Cecil, Lord John P. Joicey Doughty, Sir George
Duncan, Robert (Lanark, Govan) Meysey-Thompson, E. C. Smith, F. E. (Liverpool, Walton)
Fell, Arthur Morepth, Viscount Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand)
Finch, Rt. Hon. George H. Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield) Starkey, John R.
Fletcher, J. S. Nield, Herbert Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)
Forster, Henry William Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington) Talbot, Rt. Hn. J. G. (Oxf'd Univ.)
Gardner, Ernest (Berks, East) Percy, Earl Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Lanark)
Hamilton, Marquess of Powell, Sir Francis Sharp Thornton, Percy M.
Harrison-Broadley, Col. H. B. Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel Tuke, Sir John Batty
Hervey, F. W. F. (Bury, S. Edm'd) Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall) Warde, Col. C. E. (Kent, Mid)
Hill, Sir Clement (Shrewsbury) Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E. R.)
Hills, J. W. Rothschild, Hon. Lionel Walter Younger, George
Houston, Robert Paterson Rutherford, John (Lancashire)
Kennaway, Rt. Hn. Sir John H. Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool) TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Sir William Bull and Mr. Harmood-Banner.
Kenyon-Slaney, Rt. Hn. Col. W. Salter, Arthur Clavell
Keswick, William Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert
Lee, Arthur H. (Hants., Fareham) Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)
Magnus, Sir Philip Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)

MR. MITCHELL-THOMSON (Lanarkshire, N. W.) moved an Amendment to provide for the difficulty that arose from the difference in dates of the English and Scottish Parliamentary registers in cases where electors had votes in both countries. In Scotland by Act of Parliament the Parliamentary register came into force on 1st November, but in England not until the 1st of January. Four difficulties arose from that, two only of which had been met by the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill. When this subject was discussed in Committee the Lord Advocate met him very courageously and fairly, and said he proposed to provide for the difficulties he had mentioned by Order in Council under Clause 6. He did not attempt to conceal the fact that the object of the Amendment was to give an opportunity to the Government to say what was their opinion as to the desirability of giving the Secretary of Scotland such powers under an Order in Council, against which he protested. He contended that if such great constitutional alterations were to be made it should be done by Act of Parliament, and not by Order in Council. He begged to move.

Amendment proposed to the clause— In line 26, after the word 'constituency, to insert the words ' (h) that having selected for the currency of the last Parliamentary register a constituency in Scotland, he has ceased, or will cease before the first day of November, to be marked on the register of that constituency; (i) that, having selected for the currency of the ensuing Parliamentary register a constituency in Scotland, he will cease, before or at the end of the calendar year, to be marked on the register of his present voting constituency."—(Mr. Mitchell-Thomson.)

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted in the clause."


said he had been very much interested to notice the provisions of Sub-sections (f) and (g) of the new clause which applied to Scotland. He must say that, like his hon. and learned friend, he had thought it would be possible to pick some holes in those sub-clauses, and he gave his hon. and learned friend some credit for attempting that task. Obviously, however, his hon. and learned friend had found that those clauses were perfectly sound and he now started two fresh subsections, which obviously were not meant to be discussed at this point of the Bill at all, because there was something in them which would absolutely reverse Section 6, dealing with the power to be exercised by the Secretary for Scotland He was one of those who preferred to take difficulties as they occurred, and he was not going to be led into discussing the subsections of Clause 6 upon Clause 2. The Amendment would introduce absolute confusion. Under the Bill the selection to be exercised by the voter was for the currency of the year from the 1st January until the 31st December, and if they made the selection for the currency of the year in Scotland from the 1st November till the 31st of October the result would be absolute confusion, because the Scotsman's selection would end on the 31st October and the Englishman's on the 31st December. Whoever heard the like of that? Surely they had plenty of national grievances in the North without his hon. and learned friend introducing this new era of confusion in every register of the two countries. Many men were not only on the register of Scotland, but on the register of the three countries, and they must have one option capable of being exercised at one time under the provisions of Subsection 1. In order to do this it was necessary that the selection should run from the 1st January till the 31st December in all three countries. He had considered the matter and had communicated with high authorities in Scotland on both sides of politics, and they all agreed that the Bill was now in shipshape condition.

* MR. COCHRANE (Ayrshire, N.)

said that if the right hon. Gentleman instead of communicating with high legal authorities had put questions to the ordinary elector in Scotland he wondered how that elector would have understood them. The difficulties to which the right hon. Gentleman referred did not arise from the Amendment of his hon. and learned friend, but were inherent in the Bill itself. The right hon. Gentleman had given a learned disquisition on the Amendment, but he had not provided a way out of the difficulty which he said would he made clear when Clause 6 was discussed. But would he give a guarantee that Clause 6 would be discussed in this House? It appeared from Clause 6 that the Secretary for Scotland might issue instructions for this purpose under an Order in Council. The register in Scotland did not exist for the calendar year, and what would be the effect of those regulations so far as the Scottish elector was concerned? In some cases he would be registered as a voter in England and also in Scotland, and then he would have to refer to the Order in Council. What would be the effect if this unfortunate man made a

mistake? Some terrible consequences might happen and he might find himself in the position of a perfectly innocent man going to prison for a long time. He had not full confidence in Orders in Council made on a political question such as this by any Government, although he made no reflection on his right hon. friend the present Secretary for Scotland. But to place in his sole and undivided charge a power under which he might deprive men of the franchise was not desirable. He himself hoped he would not suffer the penalties of those who possessed more than one vote, but he had a certain sympathy for those people, and he certainly thought that the House should not make it possible for a man to be made liable to such penalties. Hitherto it had been the practice in Scotland not to carry out matters of this kind by the ipse dixit of the Secretary for Scotland. An Order in Council had to be by the Privy Council and had to be signed by the King, and it would be a far greater safeguard than anything signed by a mere Secretary for Scotland. He admitted that there were considerable difficulties, and he did not know how this clause would work even if amended by his right hon. friend. Instead of permitting these regulations to be made by the Secretary for Scotland he submitted that they ought to be placed in the Bill so that an elector who wished to perform his obligations could see what they were. If the right hon. Gentleman had failed to make this clear a great responsibility rested on the Law Officers of the Crown.

Question put.

The House divided:—Ayes, 75; Noes, 313. (Division List No. 439.)

Acland-Hood, Rt. Hn. Sir Alex F. Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H. Fell, Arthur
Anson, Sir William Reynell Cave, George Fletcher, J. S.
Arkwright, John Stanhope Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor) Forster, Henry William
Ashley, W. W. Cecil, Lord John P. Joicey- Hamilton, Marquess of
Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hn. Sir H. Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. A. (Wore) Harrison-Broadley, Col. H. B.
Balcarres, Lord Coates, E. Feetham (Lewisham) Hay, Hon. Claude George
Balfour, Rt. Hn. A.J. (City Lond) Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E. Hervey, F. W. F. (Bury, S. Edm'ds)
Banbury, Sir Frederick George Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow) Hill, Sir Clement (Shrewsbury)
Banner, John S. Harmood- Corbett, T. L. (Down, North) Hills, J. W.
Baring, Hon. Guy (Winchester) Courthope, G. Loyd Houston, Robert Paterson
Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry, N.) Craig, Chas. Curtis (Antrim, S.) Kenyon-Slaney, Rt. Hn. Col. W.
Beach, Hn. Michael Hugh Hicks Craig, Capt. James (Down, E.) Keswick, William
Beckett, Hon. Gervase Dixon, Sir Daniel Long, Rt. Hn. Walter(Dublin, S.)
Bowles, G. Stewart Doughty, Sir George Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred
Boyle, Sir Edward Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers- Magnus, Sir Philip
Butcher, Samuel Henry Duncan, Robt. (Lanark, Govan) Meysey-Thompson, E. C.
Moore, William Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool) Vincent, Col. Sir C. E. Howard
Morpeth, Viscount Salter, Arthur Clavell Warde, Col. C. E. (Kent, Mid)
Nicholson, Wm. G. (Peters field) Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.) Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E.R.)
Percy, Earl Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East) Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George
Powell, Sir Francis Sharp Smith, F. E. (Liverpool, Walton Younger, George
Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand)
Remnant, James Farqhuarson Starkey, John R. TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr. Mitchell-Thomson and Sir Henry Craik.
Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall) Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)
Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert Talbot, Rt. Hn. J. G. (Oxf'd Univ.
Rothschild, Hon. Lionel Walter Thornton, Percy M.
Rutherford, John (Lancashire) Tuke, Sir John Batty
Abraham, William (Rhondda) Clough, William Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)
Adkins, W. Ryland D. Coats, Sir T. Glen (Renfrew, W.) Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)
Agnew, George William Cobbold, Felix Thornley Harms worth, Cecil B. (Worc'r)
Alden, Percy Collins, Sir Wm. J. (S. Pancras, W. Harms worth, R. L. (Caith'nss-sh
Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch) Condon, Thomas Joseph Hart-Davies, T.
Allen, Charles P. (Stroud) Cooper, G. J. Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)
Armstrong, W. C. Beaton Corbett, C.H. (Sussex, E Grinst'd) Haworth, Arthur A.
Ashton, Thomas Gair Cory, Clifford John Hayden, John Patrick
Astbury, John Meir Cowan, W. H. Hedges, A. Paget
Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth) Cox, Harold Hemmerde, Edward George
Baker, Joseph A.(Finsbury, E.) Crean, Eugene Henderson, Arthur (Durham)
Balfour, Robert (Lanark) Crombie, John William Henderson, J. M. (Aberdeen, W.)
Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight) Crooks, William Henry, Charles S.
Barker, John Crossley, William J. Herbert, Colonel Ivor (Mon., S.
Barlow, John Emmott (Somerset Dalziel, James Henry Higham, John Sharp
Barlow, Percy (Bedford) Davies, David (Montgomery Co. Hobart, Sir Robert
Barnard, E. B. Davies, Ellis William (Eifion) Hobhouse, Charles E. H.
Barnes, G. N. Davies, Timothy (Fulham) Hodge, John
Beale, W. P. Davies, W. Howell (Bristol, S.) Hogan, Michael
Beauchamp, E. Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.) Hope, W. Bateman (Somerset, N
Beaumont, Hn W. C. B.(Hexham Dickinson, W. H. (St. Pancras, N. Horniman, Emslie John
Beck, A. Cecil Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles Howard, Hon. Geoffrey
Bellairs, Carlyon Dillon, John Hudson, Walter
Benn, Sir J. Williams (Devonp'rt Dobson, Thomas W. Hyde, Clarendon
Benn, W. (T'w'r Hamlets, S. Geo. Duffy, William J. Idris, T. H. W.
Bennett, E. N. Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne) Illingworth, Percy H.
Berridge, T. H. D. Dunne, Major E. Martin (Walsall Isaacs, Rufus Daniel
Bertram, Julius Edwards, Clement (Denbigh) Jacoby, Sir James Alfred
Billson, Alfred Edwards, Enoch (Hanley) Jardine, Sir J.
Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine Edwards, Frank (Radnor) Jenkins, J.
Black, Arthur W. (Bedfordshire Elibank, Master of Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)
Boland, John Ellis, Rt. Hon. John Edward Jones, Leif (Appleby)
Bolton, T.D.(Derbyshire, N.E.) Erskine, David C. Jowett, F. W.
Brace, William Esmonde, Sir Thomas Joyce, Michael
Bramsdon, T. A. Essex, R. W. Kearley, Hudson E.
Brigg, John Evans, Samuel T. Kekewich, Sir George
Bright, J. A. Eve, Harry Trelawney Kennedy, Vincent Paul
Brocklehurst W. B. Everett, R. Lacey Kincaid-Smith, Captain
Brodie, H. C. Fen wick, Fharles King, Alfred John (Knutsford)
Brunner, J. F.L. (Lancs., Leigh) Ferens, T. R. Laidlaw, Robert
Brunner, Rt. Hn. Sir J. T. (Chesh.) Fiennes, Hon. Eustace Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominster)
Bryce, Rt. Hn. James (Aberdeen Findlay, Alexander Lambert, George
Bryce, J. A. (Inverness Burghs) Flynn, James Christopher Lamont, Norman
Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.).
Buckmaster, Stanley O. Freeman-Thomas, Freeman Layland-Barratt, Francis
Burnyeat, W. J. D. Fuller, John Michael F. Lea, Hugh Cecil (St. Pancras, E.)
Buxton, Rt. Hn. Sydney Chas. Fullerton, Hugh Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington)
Byles, William Pollard Gibb, James (Harrow) Lehmann, R. C.
Cairns, Thomas Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich)
Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H. Glendinnnig, R. G. Levy, Maurice
Carr-Gomm, H. W. Glover, Thomas Lewis, John Herbert
Causton, Rt. Hn. Richard Knight Goddard, Daniel Ford Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David
Channing, Sir Francis Allston Greenwood, G. (Peterborough) Lough, Thomas
Cheetham, John Frederick Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton Lundon, W.
Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R. Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B. Luttrell, Hugh Fownes
Clarke, C. Goddard Halpin, J. Lyell, Charles Henry
Cleland, J. W. Harcourt, Right Hon. Lewis Lynch, H. B.
Maclean, Donald Pearce, Robert (Staffs., Leek) Straus, B. S. (Mile End)
MacNeill, John Gordon Swift Pearce, William (Limehouse) Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)
MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.) Philipps, Col. Ivor (S'thampton) Sullivan, Donal
MacVeigh, Chas. (Donegal, E.) Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke) Summerbell, T.
M'Callum, John M. Pickersgill, Edmund Hare Taylor, John W. (Durham)
M'Crae, George Pollard, Dr. Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)
M'Hugh, Patrick A. Power, Patrick Joseph Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)
M'Laren, H. D. (Stafford, W.) Price, Robert John (Norfolk, E.) Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)
M'Micking, Major J. Priestley, W. E. B. (Bradford, E.) Thomasson, Franklin
Mallet, Charles E. Radford, G. H. Thompson, J. W. H. (Somerset, E)
Manfield, Harry (Northants) Raphael, Herbert H. Toulmin, George
Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston) Redmond, John E. (Waterford) Trevelyan, Charles Philips
Marnham, F. J. Redmond, William (Clare) Ure, Alexander
Massie, J. Rees, J. D. Verney, F. W.
Meagher, Michael Rendall, Athelstan Wadsworth, J.
Meehan, Patrick A. Richards, T. F. (Wolverh'mptn) Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)
Menzies, Walter Rickett, J. Compton Wallace, Robert
Micklem, Nathaniel Ridsdale, E. A. Walters, John Tudor
Molteno, Percy Alport Roberts, G. H. (Norwich) Walton, Sir John L. (Leeds, S.)
Mond, A. Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.) Ward, W. Dudley (Southampt'n)
Money, L. G. Chiozza Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford) Wardle, George J.
Montagu, E. S. Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside) Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)
Mooney, J. J. Robinson, S. Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)
Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall) Robson, Sir William Snowdon Waterlow, D. S.
Morrell, Philip Rogers, F. E. Newman Watt, H. Anderson
Morse, L. L. Rose, Charles Day Wedgwood, Josiah C.
Morton, Alpheus Cleophas Rowlands, J. Whitbread, Howard
Murray, James Runciman, Walter White, George (Norfolk)
Myer, Horatio Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland) White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)
Napier, T. B. Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel) White, Luke (York, E. R.)
Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw) Scarisbrick, T. T. L. Whitehead, Rowland
Nicholls, George Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde) Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)
Nolan, Joseph Schwann, Sir C. E. (Manchester) Whittaker, Sir Thomas Palmer
Norton, Capt. Cecil William Scott, A. H. (Ashton under Lyne Wiles, Thomas
Nussey, Thomas Willans Sears, J. E. Williams, J. (Glamorgan)
Nuttall, Harry Seaverns, J. H. Williamson, A.
O'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary Mid Seely, Major J. B. Wills, Arthur Walters
O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny) Shaw, Rt. Hon. T. (Hawick, B. Wilson, Hn. C. H. W. (Hull, W.
O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.) Shipman, Dr. John G. Wilson, J. H. (Middlesbrough)
O'Doherty, Philip Silcock, Thomas Ball Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)
O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.) Simon, John Allsebrook Winfrey, R.
O'Hare, Patrick Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John Wodehouse, Lord
O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.) Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie Wood, T. M'Kinnon
O'Kelly, Jas (Roscommon, N.) Soames, Arthur Wellesley Young, Samuel
O'Malley, William Spicer, Sir Albert
O'Shaughnessy, P. J. Stanger, H. Y. TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr. Whiteley and Mr. J. A. Pease.
Parker, James (Halifax) Stanley, Hn. A. Lyulph (Chesh.)
Paul, Herbert Stewart, Halley (Greenock)
Paulton, James Mellor Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)

And, it being after Eleven of the clock, further consideration of the Bill, as amended, stood adjourned.

Bill, as amended, to be further considered To-morrow.