HC Deb 14 February 1907 vol 169 cc317-29
SIR A. ACLAND-HOOD (Somersetshire, Wellington)

rose to move "That Mr. Speaker do issue his warrant to the Clerk of the Crown to make out a new writ for the electing of a Member to serve in this present Parliament for the borough of Worcester, in the room of George Henry Williamson, Esq., whose election has been declared to be void."


on a point of order, said that he objected to this Motion, inasmuch as sufficient time had not been given for it. The rule was that two clear days notice should elapse from the time when the notice of Motion was given, and, as the Motion had only appeared on the Paper the previous day, the two clear days had not expired. Two clear days had always been interpreted to mean two intervening days; and therefore the first available day for this Motion should be to-morrow. He asserted that Sir Erskine May was very emphatic on this point.


I do not think the hon. Member is correct in his contention, He has omitted to observe that the Order which says that two clear days must be given is a sessional Order which expired at the end of last session; and therefore the right hon. Gentleman is entitled to move this writ without any notice at all. I suppose it was out of excessive caution that he gave notice of it.

In reply to a further Question by Mr. Swift MacNeill,


pointed out that this matter was usually governed by a Sessional Order, but as none had been passed in regard to it this session the right hon. Gentleman would be entitled to bring on the Motion without any notice. Sessional Orders of this kind were generally passed on receipt of a report from the Judges that they had reason to suppose that corrupt practices extensively prevailed.


I move.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do issue his Warrant to the Clerk of the Crown to make out a New Writ for the electing of a Member to serve in this present Parliament for the Borough of Worcester, in the room of George Henry Williamson, Esq., whose election has been declared to be void."—(Sir A. Acland-Hood.)


said he did not think he would be treating the House with sufficient respect if he did not point out the reasons which had influenced the Government not to resist this Motion. When the writ was moved at the close of last session, it was resisted on the ground that no sufficient opportunity had been afforded to consider the charges which had been established against the electors of Worcester or to examine the evidence on which the charges rested. An adequate interval had now elapsed, and there remained two questions to be considered. In the first place, was the charge proved of sufficient gravity to warrant Parliament in inflicting by way of statute the penalty of temporary or permanent disfranchisement? In the second place, assuming that the House would not go to that length, ought the issue of the writ to be postponed until proceedings for investigating certain charges of the bribery had been concluded? The learned Commissioners found that there was a corrupt element in the city of Worcester, numbering some 500 electors, who seemed to be corruptible by a sort of hereditary proclivity and tradition. It was said that they would never vote without being bribed or treated, and the opinion had been expressed that no election could be held there without considerable bribery. The Commissioners also found that there had been systematic and organised corruption for a number of years in the constituency; that it was publicly rebuked in 1892 by Mr. Justice Wills, one of the election Judges; and that the rebuke had been disregarded. They confirmed the suspicion of the learned Judge that corrupt practices had extensively prevailed during the recent election; they disfranchised some and refused a certificate of indemnity to others, leaving them liable to prosecution. This was a grave report, requiring grave consideration; and it would be within the competence of the House to make this constituency an example for the purpose of vindicating the law in regard to electoral purity, and pass some sentence of disfranchisement on the electorate. But there were considerations on the other side, the most powerful of them being that the area of corruption was comparatively small. Some 500 persons were involved in the censures of the Commissioners, and they were only a sixteenth of the constituency. Would they be justified in disfranchising an electorate of 8,000 because of the electoral offence of one-sixteenth of the number. Would not that seem too severe a penalty? It must be borne in mind also that the incrimination applied only to one political Party, and the disfranchisement would affect both Parties. The constituency had already received some punishment, and would receive more. A hundred electors had been disfranchised; the constituency had been left for nine months without representation, and the considerable costs of the inquiry had been cast upon the city funds. These facts to his mind outweighed the arguments in favour of disfranchisement. But it would be possible for the House to say that an election should not take place while the mind of the electorate was disturbed by prosecutions pending against voters. If the charges were serious and numerous, it would not be possible for an election to take place without the political issues being confused and obscured. It had been his duty to go through the evidence, and he had come to the conclusion that the number of cases which ought to be brought before the Court for further investigation did not exceed six, and that the amounts expended in bribery were not large. He could not, therefore, feel that it would be right to deprive the constituency of its electoral rights because some half-dozen prosecutions for bribery were pending. He was fortified in this conclusion by the consideration that, if these prosecutions should be instituted, they could not be determined until the month of July next, because they could only be tried by a Judge of Assize sitting at Worcester. Under these circumstances, indirectly therefore, they would be disfranchising for a period of six months longer by withholding the issue of a writ until after these proceedings had been determined. The alternative suggestion practically involved a sentence of disfranchisement for six months, which, he confessed, he did not think would be justified. Those were the reasons which had led the Government to the conclusion that this was not a case in which they would be justified in resisting this Motion, and, if the House accepted his opinion, he trusted they would come to the same conclusion.

*MR. HEMMERDE (East Denbighshire)

said he could not, as one who had taken interest in this question in more than one part of the country, let the occasion pass without making some protest against the course the Government proposed to take. He had fought two elections in corrupt boroughs and had acted as counsel in the Worcester election petition. He spoke in the matter, therefore, with first-hand knowledge. He had seen witness after witness troop into the box and confess bribery in the calm, insolent manner of men who had been accustomed to be bribed for thirty or forty years. The Attorney General had said that bribery had taken place only on one side. If that were so, then it was about the first time in the history of the city. It had been admitted that bribery had taken place year after year on both sides, and some years ago one of the Judges of the High Court denounced in the strongest terms a political organisation in Worcester, the National Conservative League. Although this High Court Judge had said that this body was most improper in its methods and a danger to the Party it supported, yet it went on unchecked, and was as flourishing as before. The League seemed to confine for the most part its operations to Worcestershire. Nothing was done to check it by the Conservative Party and it continued its operations up to and almost through the last election. It was not possible to suppose that just those few people who were found out as being guilty of bribery were the only people who committed the offence. He would tell the House what he saw personally in another town, in order that they might deduce what happened in Worcester. They might remember that two or three years before the last general election, an election petition was brought forward in Shrewsbury, and there, in one ward of the town, it was found that 50 per cent. of the people had been bribed; they went into the box and admitted it. He had evidence before him from five different wards in the town, and he did not believe that the ward from which the petition emanated was the worst. Furthermore, however, he did not believe the corruption in Shrewsbury was worse than that in Worcester. There was evidence given that about 2,000 persons had probably been bribed at Worcester, and from inquiries he had made personally, and from the evidence, he was convinced that the area of bribery was much larger than that found by the Commissioners. Even if it were not, surely it was large enough as it stood? They heard last sessions somewhat passionate protests from the opposite benches against the action the Government then took, but if the Opposition wished to dissociate themselves from the bribery which had taken place in such a case as the one before them, they might themselves endorse the opinion implied if not expressed both by the Commissioners and the Judges at Worcester, that Mr. Harben fairly won the seat, and let him occupy it. A gross attempt had been made which might have the effect of postponing, for perhaps many years, a brilliant young man's career, yet no word had been spoken by the other side. Not one word of protest had been spoken of the convivial meetings of the National League, nor did Mr. Williamson say a word of protest against the bribery which was rife in the town. The House was jealous of the purity of elections, and he asked hon. Members to consider that what had come to light in this particular case should be made an object lesson. He wished the Government would take their courage in both hands and forbid the indirect bribery which went on from day to day in the form of subscriptions, etc. This indirect bribery led to direct bribery by encouraging everyone to believe that his vote had some money value, and he wished to protest as one who had seen something of this bribery and had done his best to put his foot down. He earnestly asked the House whether they would be justified in allowing an election to take place in which the sole question would be who was responsible for the petition and who had stopped the bribery that had gone on for years. It would not be a fair election. There would be an enormous prejudice against the people who had been behind the petition and the candidate who had had the pluck to bring it.

*MR. THEODORE TAYLOR (Lancashire, Radcliffe)

said he knew of the influence of bribery in towns in America, and he was glad that a young hon. Member of the House had had the courage to come forward and appeal for purity at elections. This was not a question of Party. He regretted that the hon. Member had imported into the discussion a personal note, but considering his close; connection with the matter it was hardly to be avoided. His utterances were straightforward, however, and he (Mr. Taylor) begged to thank him for them. He knew the city of Philadelphia very well [laughter]. Hon. Members might laugh but the bribery in that city was a very serious thing. The magisterial and police elements were largely controlled by the corrupt and criminal classes. He regretted to say that the condition in that great city was not uncommon among the cities of American The average citizen had been indifferent to the character of the elections and did not take the trouble to insist upon purity. He would not for a single moment hold the Conservative Party as a whole guilty in the matter of corruption. He did not believe that the opposite Party wished for corruption any more than they on the Ministerial side did. He was certain that the House represented the best feeling in the country whatever Party was in power, but he hoped that the Government would remember what the result of the condoning corruption would he. They must ignore any question of Party in the matter of stamping out bribery. He was only sorry that the matter had taken a Party complexion. There was great local feeling in Worcester against the candidate of the Party which had appealed, and they, as the guardians of the public, ought to throw in their lot with those who had attempted to put down bribery. If the House divided he would vote against the granting of the writ, but at the same time he would be sorry to have to vote against the Government. He had always supported the Government in and out of season, but none the less he cared far more for the purity of elections than for the claims of any Party.

LORD R. CECIL (Marylebone, E.)

said that as far as he was concerned he attached as much importance to the purity of elections as any Member on the other side of the House. The reason he rose at all was because the hon. Member for East Derbyshire had told them that he had acted as counsel in the Worcester Election Petition. He (the noble Lord) had always understood that it was not generally regarded as desirable that a gentleman should speak on a case in which he had acted as counsel, and he could not help thinking that what had just taken place showed the undesirability of the practice. They had had a statement by the Government, who, at any rate, must be impartial in view of the decision to which they had come, because it was a decision which was certainly not blassed by any political consideration. The Government were mot by an hon. Member who was unable to take a judicial view of this question from the very fact that he had been engaged as counsel for one side at the trial of the petition. That hon. Member had made a very passionate speech, but he thought it would be very unfortunate if the House allowed itself to be persuaded by the observations of an hon. Member labouring under the disadvantage he had mentioned, instead of accepting the view of the Government.

*SIR C. HILL (Shrewsbury)

said the hon. Member for East Denbighshire had made a speech which was very familiar in the borough which he had the honour to represent. It was quite true, he believed, that some years ago the Hon. Member was counsel in connection with an election case in which certain persons who were now his constituents had offended technically against the law. They all knew that the hon. Member for East Denbighshire had gone from Shrewsbury to Worcester and from one town to another in search of the smallest technical breach of the law that could be found in regard to the bribery question. It was a mania which possessed the hon. Gentleman. The hon. Member did him the honour of suggesting that his own election could have been upset if it had not been for the expense. He and his friends were not afraid of these threats, for they found that the hon. Gentleman was not so certain of his facts as to justify a petition. He wished, however, to enter his protest against the association of the borough of Shrewsbury in any way whatever with any constituency which was tainted with or even accused of bribery.

MR. R. DUNCAN (Lanarkshire, Govan)

said that when he saw the record from England of the election results and when he found that one stronghold of Conservatism after another was knocked over, he thought it required some explanation. They had got the explanation. Some section of their Party most unfortunately had touched the unclean thing. If the Party did not take a lesson from it they would have another disaster.

MR. ALDEN (Middlesex, Tottenham)

asked why only 100 were to be disfranchised when 500 had been found guilty.

MR. BYLES (Salford, N.)

asked whether the Government Whips would be put on in the coming division. He thought the question should be left open to the decision of the House.

MR. STANLEY WILSON (Yorkshire, E.R., Holderness)

said he should like to offer one word of sympathy to the Attorney-General, who once more found himself in the unfortunate position of being thrown over by his own Party. He trusted that after all there might be some little backbone left in the Government and that they would put on their own Whips.


The hon. Gentleman who has just addressed us is I think a comparatively inexperienced Member of the House—


I have been here six years.


Then it is all the more inexcusable that he should make that suggestion. This is a Motion made from the front Opposition Bench. The Government have nothing whatever to do with it. It is a matter entirely for the House of Commons to decide. My hon. and learned friend most properly and in accordance with practice has given the advice which the House is entitled to expect from a law officer of the Crown when a matter of this kind comes before it. I entirely associate myself with everything my hon. and learned friend

has said. The advice he gave to the House was given after consultation with the Prime Minister, and although it is not a question of putting on the Government Whips, and although every man has perfect freedom to vote exactly as he pleases, I shall, speaking for myself, certainly vote for the Motion.

Question put.

The House divided:—Ayes, 190; Noes, 192. (Division List No. 2.)

Agnew, George William Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh. Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David
Ainsworth, John Stirling Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers- Lockwood, Rt. Hn. Lt.-Col. A. R.
Anstruther-Gray, Major Du Cros, Harvey Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham)
Arkwright, John Stanhope Elibank, Master of Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (Dublin, S.
Asquith, Rt. Hn. Herbert Henry Ellis, Rt. Hon. John Edward Lonsdale, John Brownlee
Atherley-Jones, L. Erskine, David C. Lough, Thomas
Balcarres, Lord Everett, R. Lacey Lupton, Arnold
Baldwin, Alfred Faber, George Denison (York) Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.
Balfour, Rt. Hn. A. J. (CityLon.) Faber, Capt. W. V (Hants, W.) Macpherson, J. T.
Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey) Ferguson, R. C. Munro M'Laren, H. D. (Stafford, W.)
Banbury, Sir Frederick George Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey Magnus, Sir Philip
Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight) Fiennes, Hon. Eustace Marks, H. H. (Kent)
Barnes, G. N. Finch, Rt. Hon. George H. Mason, James F. (Windsor)
Beach, Hn. Michael Hugh Hicks Fletcher, J. S. Meysey-Thompson, E.C.
Beale, W. P. Forster, Henry William Mildmay, Francis Bingham
Beauchamp, E. Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry Montagu, E. S.
Beck, A. Cecil Fuller, John Michael F. Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)
Beckett, Hon. Gervase Gardner, Ernest (Berks, East) Morley, Rt. Hon. John
Bertram, Julius Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West) Murray, James
Bethell, Sir J. H. (Essex, Romford Gill, A. H. Myer, Horatio
Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncast'r
Bottomley, Horatio Gordon, Sir W. Evans (T'r Ham. Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)
Brunner, J. F. L. (Lancs., Leigh) Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill Nield, Herbert
Burdett-Coutts, W. Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton Norton, Capt. Cecil William
Burns, Rt. Hon. John Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B. Nussey, Thomas Willans
Butcher, Samuel Henry Hamilton, Marquess of O'Grady, J.
Buxton, Rt. Hn. Sydney Charles Hardie, J. Keir-(Merthyr Tydvil) Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend)
Cameron, Robert Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashford Partington, Oswald
Carlile, E. Hildred Harrison-Broadley, Col. H. B. Pearce, Robert (Staffs. Leek)
Carr-Gomm, H. W. Haworth, Arthur A. Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington
Carson, Rt. Hn. Sir Edw. H. Helmsley, Viscount Percy, Earl
Castlereagh, Viscount Henderson, Arthur (Durham) Powell, Sir Francis Sharp
Causton, Rt. Hn. Richard Knight Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe) Raphael, Herbert H.
Cavendish, Rt. Hn. Victor C. W. Hervey, F. W. F. (Bury S. Edm'ds Rees, J. D.
Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor) Hill, Sir Clement (Shrewsbury) Remnant, James Farquharson
Cecil, Lord John P. Joicey Hills, J. W. Rendall, Athelstan
Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.) Hobhouse, Charles E. H. Richards, T. F. (Wolverh'mpton
Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. A.(Worc Howard, Hon. Geoffrey Rickett, J. Compton
Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R. Hudson, Walter Robertson, Rt. Hn. E. (Dundee
Churchill, Winston Spencer Hunt, Rowland Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradf'rd
Coats, Sir T. Glen (Renfrew, W.) Idris, T. H. W. Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)
Collings, Rt. Hn. J. (Birmingh'm Kearley, Hudson E. Robinson, S.
Collins, Sir Wm. J (S. Pancras, W. Keswick, William Roe, Sir Thomas
Corbett, C. H. (Sussex. E. Grinst'd Kincaid-Smith, Captain Rose, Charles Day
Corbett, T. L. (Down, North Laidlaw, Robert Runciman, Walter
Courthope, G. Loyd Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominster Russell, T. W.
Cox, Harold Lambert, George Rutherford, John (Lancashire)
Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S. Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm. Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)
Craig, Capt. James (Down, E.) Lane-Fox, G. R. Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert
Crombie, John William Lea, Hugh Cecil (St. Pancras, E. Seely, Major J. B.
Dalrymple, Viscount Lee, Arthur H. (Hants. Fareham Shackleton, David James
Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardigan Liddell, Henry Shaw, Rt. Hn. T. (Hawick B.)
Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John Thorne, William Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)
Sloan, Thomas Henry Toulmin, George Williams, Col. R. (Dorset, W.)
Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie Tuke, Sir John Batty Willoughby de Eresby, Lord
Stanley, Hn. A. Lyulph (Chesh.) Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire) Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E. R.)
Starkey, John R. Walrond, Hon. Lionel Wilson, J. W. (Worcestersh, N.)
Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staff'sh. Walsh, Stephen Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)
Stewart, Halley (Greenock) Walters, John Tudor Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm
Straus, B. S. (Mile End) Walton, Sir John L. (Leeds, S.) Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George
Summerbell, T. Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)
Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth) Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney) TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Sir
Taylor, John W. (Durham) Whitbread, Howard Alexander Acland-Hood and Viscount Valentia.
Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.) White, Luke (York, E. R.)
Thomson, W.Mitchell-(Lanark) Wilkie, Alexander
Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.) Field, William M'Kean, John
Abraham, William (Rhondda) Flavin, Michael Joseph M'Killop, W.
Acland, Francis Dyke Fullerton, Hugh M'Laren, Sir C. B. (Leicester)
Adkins, W. Ryland D. Ginnell, L. Mallet, Charles E.
Alden, Percy Glendinning, R. G. Mansfield, H. Rendall (Lincoln)
Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch) Glover, Thomas Markham, Arthur Basil
Ambrose, Robert Goddard, Daniel Ford Marnham, F. J.
Ashton, Thomas Gair Grant, Corrie Massie, J.
Barker, John Greenwood, G. (Peterborough) Masterman, C. F. G.
Barlow, John Emmott (Somerset Greenwood, Hamar (York) Meehan, Patrick A.
Barran, Rowland Hirst Gulland, John W. Menzies, Walter
Bellairs, Carlyon Gwynn, Stephen Lucius Molteno, Percy Alport
Benn, W. (T'w'rHamlets, S. Geo. Hall, Frederick Money, L. G. Chiozza
Bennett, E. N. Halpin, J. Montgomery, H. G.
Billson, Alfred Hardy, George A. (Suffolk) Mooney, J. J.
Black, Arthur W. Harrington, Timothy Morrell, Philip
Blake, Edward Hart-Davies, T. Murphy, John
Boland, John Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale) Nicholls, George
Boulton, A. C. F. Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N. E. Norman, Sir Henry
Brace, William Haslam, James (Derbyshire) O'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary Mid
Bramsdon, T. A. Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth) O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)
Branch, James Hayden, John Patrick O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.)
Brigg, John Hedges, A. Paget O'Doherty, Philip
Brooke, Stopford Helme, Norval Watson O'Dowd, John
Brunner, Rt. Hn. Sir J. T. (Cheshire Hemmerde, Edward George O'Hare, Patrick
Burke, E. Haviland- Higham, John Sharp O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N
Burnyeat, W. J. D. Hobart, Sir Robert O'Malley, William
Byles, William Pollard Hogan, Michael O'Mara, James
Cawley, Sir Frederick Hooper, A. G. O'Shaughnessy, P. J.
Channing, Sir Francis Allston Hope, W. Bateman (Somerset, N. O'Shee, James John
Cheetham, John Frederick Horniman, Emslie John Parker, James (Halifax)
Clough, William Hutton, Alfred Eddison Paul, Herbert
Clynes, J. R. Jacoby, Sir James Alfred Perks, Robert William
Cobbold, Felix Thornley Jardine, Sir J. Pickersgill, Edward Hare
Cogan, Denis J. Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea Pollard, Dr.
Cooper, G. J. Jones, Leif (Appleby) Power, Patrick Joseph
Cornwall, Sir Edwin A. Jordan, Jeremiah Price, C. E.(Edinb'gh, Central)
Cotton, Sir H. J. S. Joyce, Michael Rainy, A. Rolland
Crooks, William Kekewich, Sir George Rea, Russell (Gloucester)
Crossley, William J. Kennedy, Vincent Paul Reddy, M.
Cullinan, J. King, Alfred John (Knutsford) Redmond, John E. (Waterford)
Davies, Timothy (Fulham) Langley, Batty Redmond, William (Clare)
Davies, W. Howell (Bristol, S.) Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.) Renton, Major Leslie
Delany, William Leese, Sir Joseph F.(Accrington Rowlands, J.
Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.) Lehmann, R. C. Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)
Dickinson, W. H. (St. Pancras, N Lundon, W. Sears, J. E.
Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles Lyell, Charles Henry Sheehy, David
Dillon, John Lynch, H. B. Sherwell, Arthur James
Dolan, Charles Joseph Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester) Shipman, Dr. John G.
Donelan, Captain A. Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk B'ghs Silcock, Thomas Ball
Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness Mackarness, Frederic C. Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)
Duncan, Robert (Lanark, Gov'n MacNeill, John Gordon Swift Snowden, P.
Edwards, Enoch (Hanley) MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S. Soares, Ernest J.
Esmonde, Sir Thomas MacVeigh, Charles (Donegal, E.) Spicer, Sir Albert
Fenwick, Charles M'Callum, John M. Stanger, H. Y.
Ferens, T. R. M'Crae, George Steadman, W. C.
Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon) Walton, Joseph (Barnsley) Wills, Arthur Walters
Stuart, James (Sunderland) Ward, W. Dudley (S'thampton Wilson, Hon. C. H. W. (Hull, W.)
Sullivan, Donal Watt, H. Anderson Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.)
Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr Wedgwood, Josiah C. Yoxall, James Henry
Tomkinson, James Weir, James Galloway
Trevelyan, Charles Philips White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire) TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr. Theodore Taylor and Mr. Maddison.
Verney, F. W. White, Patrick (Meath, North)
Vivian, Henry Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)
Wadsworth, J. Williams, J. (Glamorgan)
Walker, H. De R. (Leicester) Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarth'n