§ Any certificate of the Speaker of the House of Commons given under this Act shall be conclusive for all purposes, and shall not be questioned in any court of law.
§ Mr. JAMES HOPEI beg to move, to insert at the beginning of this Clause, the words "Subject to the provisions of this Act."
286 The Amendment standing in my name on the Paper, to insert the words, "Except as hereinbefore provided," was consequential on another Amendment which I put down, and which was not accepted by the Committee. I then handed in an Amendment to insert at the beginning of this Clause the words, "Subject to the provisions of this Act," these words being dependent on another Clause, which runs as follows:—
287 "The validity of the certificate of the Speaker of the House of Commons under this Act may be questioned within three months after such certificate has been given by application to the Court of Appeal, whose decision shall be final and conclusive."
In submitting this Amendment to the Committee, I must recall to their attention the enormously wide powers that they have decided to give Mr. Speaker under Clause 1 and Clause 2.
§ Mr. HERBERT SAMUELI understand that the hon. Member proposes to move later on a new Clause in the direction that the decision of Mr. Speaker may be questioned in a Court of Law. Is that in order?
§ The CHAIRMANI cannot admit words before this Clause for the purpose of discussing an Amendment which would be contradictory to the Clause. Therefore the Amendment of the hon. Member is out of order.
§ Mr. JAMES HOPEI venture to submit to you, Sir, that it would be in order to move qualifying words in this Clause, providing that, subject to certain qualifications the certificate of Mr. Speaker shall be final and conclusive after a period has elapsed, and I think if it has remained unquestioned for three months it may be taken to be final. I thought that it would be more convenient to put in these words in a new Clause dependent upon the words "subject to the provisions of this Act," but, of course, they can be inserted in the Clause itself. I might have put this question of three months in the Clause.
§ The CHAIRMANThe hon. Member cannot move the Amendment to this Clause. The next Amendment on the Paper is to leave out "Any" and insert "A." That would be one of several consequential Amendments which I confess I do not understand, as they are put upon the Paper. I will therefore call upon the hon. Member for East Grinstead (Mr. Cautley) to explain.
§ Mr. CAUTLEYI beg to move to leave out the word "Any" ["Any certificate of the Speaker of the House of Commons"] and to insert instead thereof the word "A."
I submit that the certificate given by the Speaker should be in a form prescribed by a Standing Order of this House. The position of the Speaker, in giving this deci- 288 sion will be very doubtful, and it does not appear whether he is to act upon his own initiative or whether it is to be debated in this House, in what form he is to give his certificate, and, so far as I can see, it may be given as a mere formality over the dinner-table or at any other hue. Therefore I propose the present Amendment coupled with the Amendment which stands in my name later on in the Paper after the word "Act" ["given under this Act"] to insert "in a form prescribed by Standing Orders of the House of Commons." I think it is necessary that some form of some sort should be prescribed so that some rule should be laid down for the giving of this certificate. It will be within the recollection of the Committee that there are two certificates-one under Clause 1, to the effect that the Bill in question is a Money Bill, of which the Speaker is to be the sole judge, and I submit that I make this Clause workable by proposing that it is desirable that the Standing Orders should prescribe at any rate the form of the certificate. I therefore suggest that there should be a form prescribed in the Standing Orders as to how the opinion of the Speaker is to he taken; whether he is to decide upon the question before the Bill comes up or whether in the course of a Debate any Member may take upon himself to ask whether the Bill under consideration is a Money Bill, and whether the question is to be debated in a regular way or not. The other certificate that the Speaker is to give is under Sub-section (3) of Clause 2 as to whether a Bill is identical with a former Bill or contains only such alterations as are certified by the Speaker of the House of Commons to be necessary owing to the time which has elapsed since the date of the former Bill, or to represent Amendments which have been made by the House of Lords in the former Bill in the preceding Session. The Speaker, therefore has to decide very serious matters, and it is a question worthy of the consideration of this Committee whether any form should be prescribed for the giving of the certificate.
§ The ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir Rufus Isaacs)The object of the hon. and learned Member opposite is in order that the certificate of the Speaker given under this Clause 2 may be in a form prescribed by the Standing Orders of the House, but just let me point out first of all that we had a Debate on this matter with reference to Clause 1. Upon that Clause also it was 289 proposed that we should have a schedule, and that was negatived by the Committee, who have therefore come to the conclusion that it is not necessary that the Speaker should have a definite duty to give a certificate under a form prescribed in the Act. It therefore seems to be unnecessary to prescribe that the certificate should be in accordance with the provisions of this Clause. The first objection I have to make to the Amendment proposed by the hon. and learned Member is that the question of the procedure of the House must always be under the control of the House of Commons, and is intended to remain under that control. The House of Commons may do what it likes with its own Standing Orders. It might pass a Standing Order that there should he a particular form, and in time come to the conclusion that it was unnecessary, and they might repeal it. We do not interfere in any way by the Clauses of this Bill with the right of the House of Commons to determine its procedure in whatever form it may think desirable. We cannot accept the Amendment which is proposed by the hon. and learned Member, therefore, because it seems unnecessary. If you look at Clause 2 you will see, as the hon. and learned Gentleman himself said, that there are certain things which the Speaker has to certify. There are three distinct conditions under which it would be necessary for him to certify with reference to a Bill going from this House to the other. I submit to the Committee that it is unnecessary to prescribe any particular form in which the Speaker is to do this.
I cannot quite flee that you can prescribe a form which would be nothing else but a certificate, merely containing the words and phrases which must necessarily be the language of the law. It would be far better to leave it as it is, because when the Speaker conies to consider what he has to do in order to give his certificate he sees the conditions which are prescribed in Clause 3, and he will know when he comes to deal with the Bill which of those provisions it is he has to consider. He will go through them and give his certificate in accordance with the provisions of file Bill, and under these circumstances I think it is unnecessary to prescribe any particular form for the certificate to be given by the Speaker; and more especially would it be undesirable to prescribe by means of a Standing Order what it is that the Speaker should do. If you do pass a Standing Order, in 290 accordance with the desire of the hon. Member, the Committee will see at once that that need not necessarily always remain a Standing Order to apply to a particular certificate, and you may have a condition of things in which the House of Commons may repeal that particular order and put another in its place. But under any circumstances, the broad view which we have taken with regard to it is the same as we have taken with regard to Clause 1, and that is that it is really not desirable to prescribe any form in which the Speaker is to give a certificate. The Act of Parliament prescribes what it is to be and when he has performed that function the Bill is presented to His Majesty for assent, and if he has performed his duty, I think it would be unnecessary to put it in the form of a Standing Order or any other form or to give any advice on the subject. The same form of answer applies to the hon. Member's criticism in regard to Clause 1,
§ Mr. HARRY LAWSONThe refusal of the Government to accept this Amendment shows what the Prime Minister calls "incurable sloppiness" in dealing with this Parliament Bill. Here you have a certificate setting out facts and proceedings and therefore it is a fit subject for our Standing Orders. It vitally affects the relations between the two Houses and it has to be taken to the other House before by Commission the Royal Assent can be given to the Bill. I do not see that the form proposed by my hon. Friend is an idle one, but I do say it is a very grave omission in this Bill which pretends to explain so much and explains so little; which pretends to define to a certain extent, and defines nothing, that there should be no form offered in the schedule by which the Speaker gives the certificate. I think it puts the Speaker in a very false position, and I am sure he would prefer to have precise directions in the form of a schedule. I am bound to say, moreover, that I think the Committee is entitled to some further explanation from the Postmaster-General as to whether any form is to be brought up or whether we are to have in the schedule of the Bill when it is finally adopted any prescribed form in which the Speaker is to give his certificate. Seeing that it is a matter between the two Houses that it will go to the steps of the Throne and into the hands of the Royal Commissioners who stand for the Sovereign, it is, I think, wanting in respect as well as being contrary to all the rules of procedure in the 291 past not only in this, but all other Parliaments, not to have a fixed and settled form now that you are doing away with the old procedure. I think that the Postmaster-General should consider the question if he is not prepared to take the precise form in the Schedule which hangs to the Amendment of the hon. Gentlemen.
§ Mr. HERBERT SAMUELI do not know why the hon. Member should point to me. The Attorney-General has very clearly spoken the mind of the Government on the subject, and I have really nothing to add.
§ 8.0 P.M.
§ Viscount HELMSLEYI do not see any reason why the Government should dismiss this matter in the cavalier manner in which it is suggested. I should think the Postmaster-General might have realised that there is a good deal that ought to be added, even if he does not choose to add it. There is a great deal of force in the contention of my hon. Friend. Surely it is for the convenience of this House that it should be prescribed in the Standing Orders, what the duty of the Speaker is in regard to matters connected with the House, so that it is clear or might be clear to anybody who has to refer to the duties of the Speaker, and that they should not have to look to the Act itself, but should find those duties laid down in our own Standing Orders We all realise, however, that the objection of the Government to this proposal is not that it is an unreasonable one because it is eminently reasonable. The objection to it is that they are afraid it would involve their altering the Standing Orders, and they do not presumably want to give the necessary time to put this small alteration into the Standing Orders which this Amendment would require. I think it is a pity. I do not think the argument of the Attorney-General carried much weight when he said the Standing Order might have, at some subsequent time, to be amended. What has that to do with it? If it is in the Standing Order it is there until it is amended, and it is better, as far as I can see, to be in the Standing Order than that it should be sought for within the Act, if it ever becomes an Act. The Parliament Bill may be good or bad. We have debated that, very inadequately, during the last few days, and a great many things which we should like to have debated we have not been able to debate owing to the course adopted by the Government. When you get a thing like this 292 which raises no question of principle, but merely a question of finance, which, if adopted, would improve the Government Bill, I cannot imagine why they do not accept it, except that they have got into this habit of refusing to accept anything which comes from this side of the House, even if they can give no valid reason for not doing so.
§ Mr. HUME-WILLIAMSI have listened with the closest attention to the reason. given by the Attorney-General why the Amendment is not to be accepted by the Government, and for the life of me I cannot understand why it is not accepted. Apparently what the Attorney General says is that because the Act defines what the Speaker is to do, and the circumstances under which the certificate is to be given, therefore he is not to have the form supplied to him in which the certificate is given. In almost every public Act of Parliament which prescribes that certain duties shall be carried out by officials, a certificate is required to be given in the form which is to be used. Think what the unfortunate Speaker has to do in the future. Apparently his daily task is to look through all the Bills which are coming before the House, reading them with great care in order to see if they are finance Bills, or if they have anything is them that is incidental to, or subordinate to, finance—a task which will certainly tax, the ingenuity and consume the time of the Speaker—and yet you will not even relieve him of the small task of designing the particular form which his certificate is to take. For goodness sake, if all these extra duties are to be put upon him have the charity to supply him with a form in the Schedule that he may use. Really there is no valid reason given by the Government why the. Amendment should not be accepted.
§ Viscount CASTLEREAGHThe Government appear to me to be adopting a very curious attitude with respect to this Amendment. We have the word "certificate" in the Bill, and if "certificate" means anything it means a form. I should really like to know what the intention of the Government is as to what the Speaker shall do in respect to the various Bills as to which he has to give a certificate. What is a certificate? Will he write an opinion on a sheet of notepaper or send a message when the Bill is presented in another place? We understand nothing about it. The Attorney-General tells us "this is the broad view we take." In respect to an Act of Parliament we do not want the 293 broad view of the Government; we want a water-tight Act, with everything laid down as to how it is to be done, and how each individual who is called upon to do something under the Act is to do it. We are placing on the Speaker entirely new duties. They are duties which he has not been called upon to perform before, and it is laid down in the Clause that a certificate is to be given by the Speaker. I think we are entitled to an answer from the Government as to what a certificate is. A certificate is a written statement. For a businesslike Assembly to say this is the broad view of the Government and the Speaker is to give a certificate, whatever the certificate may be, is really a travesty of the way in which things ought to be carried on. I hope the Postmaster-General, if he is not entitled to accept Amendments for the Government at this hour of the evening, will tell us what his view is as to what a certificate is.
Mr. BALFOURI think there is a little more in this than the Government appear to suppose. I understand the Attorney-General's objection to be that there is no use putting Standing Orders in the Bill, because the actual Standing Order itself may be modified every Session if the House so pleases. There may be some substance in that objection, but it really does not go to the root of the matter. The real underlying ground of this Amendment is that we ought to have, and the House of Lords ought to have, in unmistakable terms the certificate of Mr. Speaker, on whose decision so much depends. Very doubtful cases would come before the Speaker, and I do not know how he will deal with them or how he will embody his views upon them. Surely the matter would be much clearer and beyond dispute in the House of Lords if you put in the Schedule the form of words proposed to be used. You leave it now absolutely dark. I do not think it very much matters so far as this House is concerned, but you are dealing now with this very delicate point of disputes between the two Houses in which the officer of one House is the sole arbitrator. That is one of the difficulties in the Bill and one of the rather paradoxical positions taken up by the Government. I think you ought so to frame your Bill that there can be no doubt in the other House as to what your Statute means and as to the occasion on which a certificate has been given, or has not been given, in the form contemplated by the Statute. Some such form of words as this, "The 294 Speaker of the House of Commons ceRtifies that this Bill does come under such and such words of the Act," would prevent all possibility of mistakes or any ambiguity of statement on the part of the Speaker.
§ Mr. HERBERT SAMUELThe right hon. Gentleman is really inviting the Government to go back on a decision which has already been given by the Committee. This proposal has been previously made on Clause 1 that there shall be a form of certificate in the, Schedule, and the matter was debated at some length, and the Committee came to a resolution that there should be no Schedule containing a certificate. The right hon. Gentleman will not contend that there is any difference in this matter between Clause 1 and Clause 2, because there is no argument which can be advanced on this particular Clause which does not apply to Clause 1 and vice versa. The Government will be precluded from accepting, and any hon. Member will be precluded from moving, on this Clause that there should be a certificate in the Schedule in view of the decision already arrived at.
Mr. BALFOUROn a point of Order, is that so? I have not the circumstances very clearly in my memory, but I am ready to accept the right hon. Gentleman's version. Would it not be in order to put in an Amendment of the Schedule in regard to Clause 2?
§ Mr. HERBERT SAMUELThe same argument which influenced the House in its decision in respect to the Amendment of Clause 1 must necessarily influence the Committee similarly in respect to other Clauses of the Bill. The right hon. Gentleman has assumed that cases may arise in which the Speaker will give his Certificate with such little confidence that no one will know whether it is really a certificate under the Bill or not. I think any Member of the House who is chosen to fill the high office of Speaker can safely be entrusted with the duty of drawing up a form of certificate which will state to the House of Lords that the Bill in question is a Bill to which Clause 1 or Clause 2 applies, as the case may be.
§ Sir WILLIAM BULLI should like to draw the Attorney-General's attention to the analogy of the judgment of the High Court which is extremely carefully considered. In many cases when a new form of judgment is in contemplation the judge reserves his judgment, and in Chancery cases the order of the Court goes through 295 a complicated machinery in Chambers before anything is drawn up. It seems to me that is a cognate argument for the judgment of the Speaker, which is far more important than the majority of judgments given by judges of the High Court, and the wording of it must be drawn with the very greatest care. It would be supporting the Speaker in his already difficult task of having to decide this matter if at any rate there was a form of words which was agreed to in the first instance, so that at any rate he might know the lines on which he could go. I think there is a great deal of substance in the Amendment.
§ Mr. POLLOCKHas the Attorney-General considered that by this Clause the Certificate is made conclusive, and it is not to be questioned in any court of law? I assume that means that in order that differentation may be understood and known between Money Bills and other Bills, that is to say Bills which have been passed in one way or in the other way, it is important that their differentiation should be certified, and for all purposes that no question should arise upon them. For that purpose it is important that a particular Bill should have the certificate attached of the Speaker. Supposing this matter does go into a court of law, the certificate of the Speaker is to be conclusive. What would be produced in court? I quite agree that in the House of Commons the mere signature of the Speaker would be sufficient, but supposing for some purpose, as apparently is contemplated by the Statute, it was necessary to indicate in a court of law that this particular Bill was a Money Bill, and was certified by the Speaker and no question could arise upon it. Does the Attorney-General say that all that would be produced would be a mere signature, such as would be given in this House? What form of certificate does he propose should be brought into the court? I invite his attention to it because he will agree that it would be a very remarkable thing if you had in a court of law merely to produce something which was merely under the signature of the Speaker. Most documents of that sort are brought forward in a court of law under some seal or some apparent authority, and I think for the purpose of this Clause itself, it is really due to the dignity of the House that there should be some sort of formal certificate given which should bear in itself, intrinsically, the weight and authority of 296 its being the certificate of the Speaker. I invite the Attorney-General's attention to the position of matters when the certificate does go to where you want it to to have finality, to be accepted at once, and to be unquestioned. Is it fair to leave the certificate at large, and to accept merely a signature which would be good in this House, but is not apparently so consistent with the dignity and importance of the Speaker as to be good enough in other places. I ask the Attorney-General to say whether some form of certificate should not be prescribed which would make it effective in all places where it is to be brought in for purposes of identification.
§ Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSONThe Attorney-General said that the matter has already been decided by the decision arrived at on Clause 1. I should like to point out to the hon. and learned Gentleman that he entirely forgets the arguments by which the Government supported that decision. They were that these certificates by the Speaker are given every day in regard to Money Bills, that no schedule is necessary, and that the giving of them is the common practice of the House. If it is done every day as a matter of practice in regard to Money Bills, he asked, why any new form of words should be stereotyped? I think there is some force in that contention as regards Money Bills under Clause 1, but entirely different arguments apply to Clause 1 from those which apply to Clause 2. Certificates under Clause 2 cannot be said to be given now. They do not occur now, and therefore we are dealing with an entirely new set of circumstances and conditions. I think there is a great deal to be said for the view of my hon. Friend that some form of words ought to be provided. I am not sure whether they should be provided by a Standing Order or by a Schedule to this Bill. I would rather they were provided by a Schedule. I do not know that there is any actual precedent for a reference in a Standing Order to procedure under any Act of Parliament. I do not think there is any such reference in the Standing Orders to-day. I suggest to the Postmaster-General that some form of words will have to be considered. As a matter of fact the only certificates given now are given not by the Speaker but by the Clerk of the House. I forget the exact words which are in Norman-French. There is a certificate endorsed on every Bill in a perfectly well recognised form. It is true that they are not sterotyped in any Schedule or Act of Parliament, but they are 297 sterotyped by custom. Here you are dealing with a new custom and you have to create a precedent for yourself. I think the proposal well deserves serious consideration that some form of words should be adopted until we reach a stage when a custom may be assumed to have grown up, and also that, as a matter of fact, the actual certificate ought to be on the Bill itself.
§ Mr. JAMES HOPEI would remind the Postmaster-General and the Attorney-General that the question of the application of the Schedule to Clause 3 was raised last night by myself on an Amendment which was seconded by the Noble Lord the Member for Oxford University (Lord Hugh Cecil). The Prime Minister gave an ejaculation of assent that it should receive serious consideration. I do not quite understand the non possumus attitude taken by the Attorney-General now. I ask the Government whether they mean to throw some light upon the way in which this new power to be given to Mr. Speaker will work. We are absolutely in darkness on that point. On Clause 1 we asked when Mr. Speaker's decision was to be given, and we were told nothing, and now on Clause 3 we ask how he is to give his certificate, and again we are told nothing. Surely it is very important that we should know. Surely the certificate of Mr. Speaker is not to be given sub rosa and in such terms as he thinks fit? There ought not only to be a form of certificate, but a definition of the occasions on which it is to be given. The matters are exceedingly complicated. The definition of "Money Bill" is exceedingly complicated, and I submit that Mr. Speaker ought to be able to say in what respects a Bill is a Money Bill—for example, whether it is a Money Bill because it deals with charges on the Consolidated Fund or with matters of taxation.
§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMANIt is certainly not in order to go into these questions on this Amendment.
§ Mr. JAMES HOPEI was not arguing that Mr. Speaker should not have power to do this, but I was arguing that in the certificate he gives he should state the grounds on which a Bill is a Money Bill under Clause 1, and similarly there should be a form of certificate in regard to Bills under Clause 2. I do not know whether it would be in order to make a bet across the floor of the House. [An HON MEMBER: "Go on—make a sporting offer."] I venture to say that the particular point which 298 I am now raising has not been debated on any previous Amendment.
§ Mr. HERBERT SAMUELindicated dissent.
§ Mr. JAMES HOPEI do not think it has, but perhaps I may have a conversation with the right hon. Gentleman on that point. Something similar has been discussed, but not that point. I draw a distinction between the decision of the Speaker and the certificate on which he is to certify. Again, in Clause 2 there are these three difficult and complicated matters about identity, about the necessity of changes, and about changes which represent former Amendments of the House of Lords. I think he ought, in the certificate which is given, to specify that his certificate is given in respect of one or other of those matters, and Standing Orders ought to provide that the grounds of any certificate should be set forth. But as the Bill stands at present it seems to me that Mr. Speaker will be absolutely free, without informing the House at all, to write his certificate in any form he pleases. There is no provision for its authentication by any authority, and obviously questions may arise as to whether it is a true certificate at all unless it be prescribed either by Schedule to this Act or by Standing Orders. There is another point. I do think that before Mr. Speaker issues a certificate the House of Commons ought to have a chance of knowing the grounds on which the certificate is to be issued. Not merely should they be stated to the House of Lords in the certificate, but they ought to have a chance, and that ought to be laid down in the Standing Orders, of knowing the grounds on which Mr. Speaker proposes and is about to issue his certificate. I would like to conclude as I began by asking the learned Attorney-General not to take up a non possumus attitude in this matter in view of the fact that the Prime Minister yesterday distinctly said that a schedule on this point was a matter that was deserving of consideration. And the Committee certainly understood that it would have his consideration before next day.
§ Sir WILLIAM ANSONI cannot help feeling that a very important part of the machinery of this Bill is dealt with in this Clause in a somewhat perfunctory way. First of all as to the two questions of Money Bills and Bills which have gone through the requirements of Clause 2, the Speaker will have to issue a certificate in the first case that it is a Money Bill, and 299 in the second case that the Bill satisfies the requirements of the Clause. In the third case, as to which, I am bound to say, the Bill is extremely vague, he will have to issue a certificate to somebody or other that the Bill is identical with the former Pill or in a fourth case that it contains only such alterations as are necessary owing to the lapse of time. That Subsection leaves it quite uncertain as to whether the Speaker's certificate is to reassure the House of Commons or to control the action of the House of Lords. Here are certainly four very important occasions on which the Speaker is to issue a document which is of the highest constitutional importance. And what I venture to put to the Committee is that it ought not to be left in the air as it is in this Clause. I am disposed to agree with the view of the Government that it would De undesirable to put a form into the schedule because, the procedure being entirely novel, it is quite possible that the form prescribed in the Schedule to the Bill might not turn out to be the form most suitable to the occasion that arises. I put that aside. But I do say that the Clause ought to provide that the certificate shall be in some form provided for by the Standing Orders of the House, and in that way this Committee and the House will show that they are alive to the serious importance of the certificates which the Speaker is to issue, and that they ought to be in a form carefully considered by this House. In any one of the four cases which I have mentioned, I venture to say that the certificate ought to be in a form determined by some recognised authority, that the Speaker ought to be relieved of the responsibility of determining the form of the certificate, that this House ought to undertake that duty itself, and ought to undertake it so that the certificate should be in a form to be provided by the Standing Orders of the House of Commons.
§ Viscount CASTLEREAGHWhen a Bill comes to be construed in a court of law subsequently, who is to certify as to the Speaker's certificate? There is nothing here to satisfy a court of law when called upon to construe a Bill that the Speaker's certificate has been given.
§ Sir RUFUS ISAACSI do not know whether I am in order in answering that question, because I think it arises on another Amendment. But if I may be allowed, I am quite prepared to answer now. The certificate required from the Speaker has to accompany the Bill. That answers the point raised by the Noble Lord, who seemed to suggest that all the Speaker would have to do was to say to somebody that he thought it was satisfactory. The phraseology that the Bill shall be accompanied by the certificate of the Speaker was used in Sub-clause 3 of Clause 1, and is now in the Bill as amended. Therefore there will be a certificate accompanying that Bill when it is presented to His Majesty for Royal Assent. I promised to consider yesterday—
§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMANThe right hon. Gentleman has given his answer to the question.
§ Mr. CAUTLEYThe point is this: If a Bill passed without the assent of the House of Lords—not this particular Bill itself—comes into a court of law, how will the judge say that it was an Act of Parliament when it is only passed by this House?
§ Question put, "That the Question be now put."
§ The Committee divided: Ayes. 242; Noes, 104.
303| Division No. 203.] | AYES. | [8.35 p.m. |
| Abraham, William (Dublin Harbour) | Beck, Arthur Cecil | Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, N) |
| Abraham, Rt. Hon. William (Rhondda) | Bean, W. (Tower Hamlets, St. Geo.) | Byles, William Pollard |
| Adamson, William | Bentham, G. J. | Carr-Gomm, H. W. |
| Addison, Dr. C. | Bethell, Sir J. H. | Cawley, H. T. (Lancs., Heywood) |
| Alden, Percy | Black, Arthur W. | Clough, William |
| Allen, A. A. (Dumbartonshire) | Boland, John Pius | Collins, Godfrey P. (Greenock) |
| Allen, Charles Peter (Stroud) | Booth, Frederick Handel | Collins, Stephen (Lambeth) |
| Baker, H. T. (Accrington) | Bowerman, C. W. | Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J. |
| Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.) | Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North | Condon, Thomas Joseph |
| Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark) | Brace, William | Cornwall, Sir Edwin A. |
| Barnes, George N. | Brady, P. J. | Cotton, William Francis |
| Barran, Sir J. N. (Hawick) | Brigg, Sir John | Crawshay-Williams, Eliot |
| Barry, Redmond John (Tyrone, N.) | Brocklehurst, William B. | Crooks, William |
| Barton, William | Brunner, John F. L. | Crumley, Patrick |
| Beale, W. P. | Burns, Rt. Hon John | Cullinan, J. |
| Beauchamp, Edward | Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas | Dalziel, Sir James H. (Kirkcaldy) |
| Davies Ellis William (Eifion) | Kennedy, Vincent Paul | Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields) |
| Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.) | Kilbride, Denis | Reddy, Michael |
| Dawes, J. A. | King, Joseph (Somerset, North | Redmond, John E. (Waterford) |
| Denman, Hon. R. D. | Lamb, Ernest Henry | Redmond, William (Clare, E.) |
| Devlin, Joseph | Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade) | Richards, Thomas |
| Dillon, John | Lansbury, George | Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven) |
| Doris, William | Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, West) | Roberts, George H. (Norwich) |
| Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness) | Lawson, Sir W. (Cumb'rid.,Cockerm'th) | Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford) |
| Duncan, J. Hastings (York, Otley) | Leach, Charles | Robertson, John M. (Tyneside) |
| Edwards, Allen C. (Glamorgan, E.) | Levy, Sir Maurice | Robinson, Sidney |
| Edwards, Enoch (Hanley) | Lewis, John Herbert | Roche, Augustine (Louth, N.) |
| Edwards, John Hugh (Glamorgan, Mid) | Logan, John William | Roche, John (Galway, E.) |
| Elibank, Rt. Hon. Master of | Low, Sir Frederick (Norwich) | Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland) |
| Elverston, Harold | Lundon, Thomas | Samuel, J. (Stockton) |
| Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.) | Lynch, A. A. | Samuel, Stuart M. (Whitechapel) |
| Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.) | Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester | Scanlan, Thomas |
| Essex, Richard Walter | Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs) | Schwann, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles E. |
| Fenwick, Charles | Maclean, Donald | Seely, Col. Rt. Hon. J. E. B. |
| Ffrench, Peter | Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J. | Sheehy, David |
| Field, William | Mac Neill, John Gordon Swift | Sherwell, Arthur James |
| Fitzgibbon, John | MacVeagh, Jeremiah | Simon, Sir John Allsebrook |
| Flavin, Michael Joseph | M'Callum, John M. | Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe) |
| Gelder, Sir W. A. | M'Micking, Major Gilbert | Smith, H. B. Lees (Northampton) |
| Gill, A. H. | Markham, Arthur Basil | Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.) |
| Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford | Marks, George Croydon | Snowden, P. |
| Goldstone, Frank | Martin, Joseph | Spicer, Sir Albert |
| Guest, Hon. Frederick E. (Dorset, E.) | Meagher, Michael | Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N.W.) |
| Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway) | Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.) | Strachey, Sir Edward |
| Hackett, John | Meehan, Patrick A. (Queen's Co.) | Summers, James Woolley |
| Hall, Frederick (Normanton) | Menzies, Sir Walter | Sutton, John E. |
| Hancock, J. G. | Molloy, Michael | Taylor, John W. (Durham) |
| Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose) | Moltene, Percy Alport | Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe) |
| Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil) | Money, L. G. Chlozza | Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton) |
| Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale) | Morton, Alpheus Cleophas | Thorne, William (West Ham) |
| Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, W.) | Muldoon, John | Taulmin, George |
| Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N.E.) | Munro, Robert | Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander |
| Harwood, George | Munro-Ferguson, Rt. Hon. R. C. | Verney, Sir Harry |
| Haslam, James (Derbyshire) | Nannetti, J. P. | Walsh, Stephen (Lancs., Ince) |
| Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry | Needham, Christopher T. | Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton) |
| Haworth, Arthur A. | Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncaster) | Wardle, George J. |
| Hayden, John Patrick | Nolan, Joseph | Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay |
| Hayward, Evan | Norman, Sir Henry | Watt, Henry A. |
| Helme, Norval Watson | Norton, Captain Cecil W. | Webb, H. |
| Henderson, Arthur (Durham) | O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny) | Wedgwood, Josiah C. |
| Henry, Sir Charles S. | O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.) | White, Sir Luke (York, E.R.) |
| Herbert, Col. Sir Ivor | O'Doherty, Philip | White, Patrick (Meath, North |
| Higham, John Sharp | O'Dowd, John | Whitehouse, John Howard |
| Hinds, John | Ogden, Fred | Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P. |
| Hodge, John | O'Grady, James | Whyte, A. F. |
| Holt, Richard Durning | O'Kelly, Edward P. (Wicklow. W.) | Wiles, Thomas |
| Horne, C. Silvester (Ipswich) | O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.) | Wilkie, Alexander |
| Howard, Hon. Geoffrey | O'Malley, William | Williams, J. (Glamorgan) |
| Hughes, Spencer Leigh | O'Neill. Dr. Charles (Armagh, S.) | Williams, W. Llewelyn (Carmarthen) |
| Hunter, William (Lanark, Govan) | O'Shaughnessy, P. J. | Williams, Penry (Middlesbrough) |
| Isaacs, Sir Rufus Daniel | O'Sullivan, Timothy | Wilson, Hon. G. G. (Hull, W.) |
| John, Edward Thomas | Parker, James (Halifax) | Wilson, John (Durham, Mid) |
| Johnson, W. | Pearce, Robert (Staffs., Leek) | Wilson J. W. (Worcestershire, N.) |
| Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth) | Pearce, William (Limehouse) | Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughten) |
| Jones, Leif Stratten (Notts, Rushcliffe) | Pearson, Hon. Weetman H. M. | Winfrey, Richard |
| Jones, William (Carnarvonshire) | Phillips, John (Longford, S.) | Wood, T. McKinnon (Glasgow) |
| Jones, W. S. Glyn- (Stepney) | Pickersgill, Edward Hare | Young, Samuel (Cavan, E.) |
| Jewett, Frederick William | Pointer, Joseph | Young, William (Perth, East) |
| Joyce, Michael | Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H. | |
| Keating, Matthew | Priestley, Sir W. E. B. (Bradford, E.) | TELLERS FOR THE AYES.— Mr. |
| Kellaway, Frederick George | Pringle, William M. R. | Illingworth and Mr. Gulland. |
| Kelly, Edward | Radford, G. H. | |
| NOES. | ||
| Acland-Hood, Rt. Hon. Sir Alex. F. | Bird, Alfred | Crichton-Stuart, Lord Ninian |
| Altken, William Max. | Boscawen, Col. Sackville T. Griffith- | Dalrymple, Viscount |
| Anson, Sir William Reynell | Boyton, J. | Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott |
| Ashley, Wilfrid W. | Burn, Colonel C. R. | Dixon, C. H. |
| Astor, Waldorf | Campion, W. R. | Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers- |
| Baker, Sir Randolf L. (Dorset, N.) | Carlile, Edward Hildred | Du Cros, Arthur Philip |
| Balcarres, Lord | Cassel, Felix | Duke, Henry Edward |
| Baldwin, Stanley | Castlereagh, Viscount | Faber, Capt. W. V. (Hants, W.) |
| Barlow, Montagu (Salford, S.) | Cautley, Henry Strother | Fell, Arthur |
| Barnston, H. | Cave, George | Forster, Henry William |
| Bathurst, Hon. A. B. (Glouc., E.) | Chaloner, Colonel R. G. W. | Foster, Philip Staveley |
| Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton) | Clive, Percy Archer | Gardner, Ernest |
| Benn, Ion Hamilton (Greenwich) | Clyde, J. Avon | Goldsmith, Frank |
| Bennett-Goldney, Francis | Craig, Norman (Kent., Thanet) | Goulding, Edward Alfred |
| Bigland, Alfred | Crack, Sir Henry | Guinness, Hon. Walter Edward |
| Hall, D. B. (Isle of Wight) | Mackinder, Halford J. | Sandys, G. J. (Somerset, Wells) |
| Hall, Fred (Dulwich) | Macmaster, Donald | Stanler, Beville |
| Hamilton, Marquess of (Londonderry) | M'Calmont, Colonel James | Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston) |
| Hardy, Laurence | Magnus, Sir Philip | Steel-Maitland, A. D. |
| Harris, Henry Percy | Malcolm, Ian | Stewart, Gershom |
| Henderson, Major H. (Berkshire) | Mason, James F. (Windsor) | Strauss, Arthur (Paddington, North |
| Hickman, Col. Thomas E. | Meysey-Thompson, E. C. | Swift, Rigby |
| Hill-Wood, Samuel | Newman, John R. P. | Sykes, Alan John |
| Hope, Harry (Bute) | O'Neill, Hon. A. E. B. (Antrim. Mid) | Talbot, Lord E. |
| Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield) | Paget, Almeric H ugh | Terrell, George (Wilts, N.W.) |
| Horner, Andrew Long | Parkes, Ebenezer | Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Down, N) |
| Houston, Robert Paterson | Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington) | Valentia, Viscount |
| Hume-Williams, W. E. | Perkins, Walter Frank | Ward, A. S. (Herts, Watford) |
| Joynson-Hicks, William | Pollock, Ernest Murray | White, Major G. D. (Lancs., Southport) |
| Kebty-Fletcher, J. R. | Pretyman, Ernest George | Willoughby, Major Hon. Claude |
| Kimber, Sir Henry | Pryce-Jones, Col. E. (M'tgom'y B'ghs.) | Wood, John (Stalybridge) |
| Kirkwood, J. H. M. | Rawson, Colonel Richard H. | Yate, Colonel C. E. |
| Lane-Fox, G. R. | Royds, Edmund | |
| Larmor, Sir J. | Rutherford, W. (Liverpool, W. Derby) | TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. |
| Lee, Arthur Hamilton | Salter, Arthur Clavell | J. C. Lyttelton and Mr. J. S. |
| Lonsdale, John Brownlee | Sanders, Robert Arthur | Fletcher. |
§ Question put accordingly, "That the word 'any' stand part of the Clause."
304§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 243; Noes, 104.
305| Division No. 204.] | AYES | [8.45 p.m. |
| Abraham William (Dublin Harbour) | Duncan C. (Barrow-in-Furness) | Keating, M. |
| Abraham,. Rt. Hon. William (Rhondda) | Duncan, J. Hastings (York, Otley) | Kellaway, Frederick George |
| Acland, Francis Dyke | Edwards, Allen C. (Glamorgan, E.) | Kelly, Edwerd |
| Adamson, William | Edwards, Enoch (Hanley) | Kennedy, Vincent Paul |
| Addison, Dr. C. | Elibank, Rt. Hon. Master of | Kilbride, Denis |
| Alden, Percy | Elverston H. | King, J. (Somerset, N.) |
| Allen, Arthur A. (DumBarton) | Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.) | Lamb, Ernest Henry |
| Allen, Charles Peter (Stroud) | Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.) | Lambert, George (Devon, Morton) |
| Baker, H. T. (Accrington) | Essex, Richard Walter | Lansbury, George |
| Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E) | Fenwick, Charles | Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, West) |
| Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark) | Ffrench, Peter | Lawson, Sir W. (Cumb'rl'nd,Cockerm'th) |
| Barnes, G. N. | Field, William | Leach, Charles |
| Barran, Sir John N. (Hawick, B.) | Fitzgibbon, James | Levy, Sir Maurice |
| Barry, Redmond John | Flavin, Michael Joseph | Lewis, John Herbert |
| Barton, W. | Gelder, Sir W. A | Logan, John William |
| Beale, W. P. | Gill, A. H. | Low, Sir F. (Norwich) |
| Beauchamp, Edward | Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford | Lundon, T. |
| Beck, Arthur Cecil | Goldstone, Frank | Lynch, A. A. |
| Henn, W. (T. H'mts, St. George) | Griffith, Ellis J. | Macdonald, J. Ramsay (Leicester) |
| Bentham, G. J. | Guest, Hon. Frederick E. (Dorset, E.) | Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs) |
| Bethell, Sir J. H. | Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway) | Maclean, Donald |
| Black, Arthur W. | Hackett, J. | Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J. |
| Boland, John Pius | Hall, Frederick (Normanton) | MacNeill, John Gordon Swift |
| Booth, Frederick Handel | Hancock, J. G. | MacVeagh, Jeremiah |
| Bowerman, C. W. | Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose) | M'Callum, John M. |
| Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North | Hardie, J. Keir | M'Micking, Major Gilbert |
| Brace, William | Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale) | Markham, Arthur Basil |
| Brady, Patrick Joseph | Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West) | Marks, George Croydon |
| Brigg, Sir John | Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N.E.) | Martin, Joseph |
| Brocklehurst, W. B. | Harwood, George | Meagher, Michael |
| Brunner, John F. L. | Haslam, James (Derbyshire) | Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.) |
| Burns, Rt. Hon. John | Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry | Meehan, Patrick A. (Queen's Co.) |
| Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas | Haworth, Arthur A. | Menzies, Sir Walter |
| Buxton, Noel (Norfolk North | Hayden, John Patrick | Molloy, M. |
| Byles, William Pollard | Hayward, Evan | Molteno, Percy Allport |
| Carr-Gomm, H. W. | Helm, Norval Watson | Money, L. G. Chiozza |
| Cawley, Harold T. (Heywood) | Henderson, Arthur (Durham) | Morton, Alpheus Cleophas |
| Clough, William | Henry, Sir Charles Solomon | Muldoon, John |
| Collins, G. P. (Greenock) | Herbert, Col. Sir Ivor | Munro, R. |
| Collins, Stephen (Lambeth) | Higham, John Sharp | Munro-Ferguson, Rt. Hon. R. C. |
| Compton, Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J. | Hinds, John | Nannetti, Joseph P. |
| Condon Thomas Joseph | Hodge, John | Needham, Christopher T. |
| Cornwall, Sir Edwin A. | Holt, Richard Durning | Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncaster) |
| Cotton William Francis | Horne, Charles Silvester (Ipswich) | Nolan, Joseph |
| Crawshay-Williams, Eliot | Howard, Hon. Geoffrey | Norman, Sir Henry |
| Crooks, William | Hughes, S. L. | Norton, Captain Cecil W. |
| Crumley, Patrick | Hunter, William (Lanark, Govan) | O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny) |
| Cullinan, John | Isaacs, Sir Rufus Daniel | O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.) |
| Dalziel, Sir James H. (Kirkcaldy) | John, Edward Thomas | O'Doherty, Philip |
| Davies, E. William (Eifion) | Johnson, W. | O'Dowd, John |
| Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.) | Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth) | Ogden, Fred |
| Dawes, J. A. | Jones, Leif Stratten (Notts, Rushcliffe) | O'Grady, James |
| Denman, Mon. Richard Douglas | Jones, William (Carnarvonshire) | O'Kelly, Edward P. (Wicklow, W.) |
| Devlin, Joseph | Jones, W. S. Glyn. (Stepney) | O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.) |
| Dillon, John | Jowett, F. W. | O'Malley, William |
| Doris, William | Joyce, Michael | O'Neill, Dr. Charles (Armagh, S.) |
| O'Shaughnessy, P. J. | Samuel, J. (Stockton) | Wardle, George J. |
| O'Sullivan, Timothy | Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel) | Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay |
| Parker, James (Halifax) | Scanlan, Thomas | Watt, Henry A. |
| Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek) | Schwann, Rt. Hon. Sir C. E. | Webb, H. |
| Pearce, William (Limehouse) | Seely, Col., Rt. Hon. J. E. B. | Wedgwood, Josiah C. |
| Pearson, Hon. Weetman H. M. | Sheehy, David | White, Sir Luke (York, E. R.) |
| Phillips, John (Longford, S.) | Sherwell, Arthur James | White, Patrick (Meath, North |
| Pickersgill, Edward Hare | Simon, Sir John Allsebrook | Whitehouse, John Howard |
| Pointer, Joseph | Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe) | Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P. |
| Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H. | Smith, H. B. (Northampton) | Whyte, A. F. (Perth) |
| Priestley, Sir W. E. B. (Bradford, E.) | Symth, Thomas F. | Wiles, Thomas |
| Pringle, William M. R. | Snowden, P. | Wilkie, Alexander |
| Radford, G. H. | Spicer, Sir Albert | Williams, J. (Glamorgan) |
| Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields) | Stanley, Albert (Staffs., N.W.) | Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthen) |
| Reddy, M. | Strachey, Sir Edward | Williams, P. (Middlesbrough) |
| Redmond, John E. (Waterford) | Summers, James Wooley | Wilson, Hon. G. G. (Hull, W.) |
| Redmond, William (Clare) | Sutton, John E. | Wilson, John (Durham, Mid) |
| Richards, Thomas | Taylor, John W. (Durham) | Wilson, J. W. (Worcestershire, N.) |
| Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven) | Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe) | Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton) |
| Roberts, G. H. (Norwich) | Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton) | Winfrey, Richard |
| Robertson, Sir C. Scott (Bradford) | Thorne, William (West Ham) | Wood, T. McKinnon (Glasgow) |
| Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside) | Taulmin, George | Young, Samuel (Cavan, East) |
| Robinson, Sidney | Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander | Young, William (Perth, East) |
| Roche, Augustine (Louth) | Verney, Sir Harry | |
| Roche, John (Galway, E.) | Walsh, Stephen (Lancs., Ince) | TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. |
| Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland) | Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton) | Illingworth and Mr. Gulland. |
| NOES. | ||
| Acland-Heed, Rt. Hon. Sir Alex, F. | Duke, Henry Edward | Mason, James F. (Windsor) |
| Altken, William Max | Faber, Captain W. V. (Hants, W.) | Meysey-Thompson, E. C. |
| Anson, Sir William Reynell | Fell, Arthur | Newman, John R. P. |
| Ashley, W. W. | Forster, Henry William | O'Neill, Hon. A. E. B. (Antrim, Mid) |
| Astor, Waldorf | Foster, Philip Staveley | Paget, Almeria Hugh |
| Baker, Sir R. L. (Dorset, N.) | Gardner, Ernest | Parkes, Ebenezer |
| Balcarres, Lord | Goldsmith, Frank | Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington) |
| Baldwin, Stanley | Goulding, Edward Alfred | Perkins, Walter F. |
| Barlow, Montague (Salford, S.) | Guinness, Hon. W. E. | Pollock, Ernest Murray |
| Barnston, H. | Haddock, George Bahr | Pretyman, Ernest George |
| Bathurst, Hon. A. B. (Glouc., E.) | Hall, D. B. (Isle of Wight) | Pryce-Jones, Col. E. (M'tgom'y B'ghs) |
| Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton) | Hall, Fred (Dulwich) | Rawson, Colonel R. H. |
| Benn, Ion Hamilton (Greenwich) | Hamilton, Marquess of (Londonderry) | Royds, Edmund |
| Bennett-Goldney, Francis | Hardy, Laurence | Rutherford. W. (Liverpool, W. Derby) |
| Bigland, Alfred | Harris, Henry Percy | Salter, Arthur Clavell |
| Bird, A. | Henderson, Major H. (Berks, Abingdon) | Sanders, Robert A. |
| Boscawen, Col. Sackville T. Griffith- | Hickman, Colonel Thomas E. | Sandys, G. J. (Somerset, Wells) |
| Boyton, J. | Hill-Wood, Samuel | Stanler, Beville |
| Burn, Colonel, C. R. | Hope, Harry (Bute) | Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston) |
| Campion, W. R. | Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield) | Steel-Maitland, A. D. |
| Carlile, Edward Hildred | Horner, Andrew Long | Stewart, Gershom |
| Cassel, Felix | Houston, Robert Paterson | Strauss, Arthur (Paddington, North |
| Castlereagh, Viscount | Huma-Williams, William Ellis | Swift, Rigby |
| Cautley, H. S. | Joynson-Hicks, William | Sykes, Alan John |
| Cave, George | Kebty-Fletcher, J. R. | Talbot, Lord Edmund |
| Chaloner, Colonel R. G. W. | Kimber, Sir Henry | Terrell, George (Wilts, N.W.) |
| Clive, Percy Archer | Kirkwood, J. H. M. | Valentia, Viscount |
| Clyde, J. Avon | Lane-Fox, G. R. | Ward, A. S. (Herts, Watford) |
| Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet) | Lamor, Sir J | White, Major G. D. (Lanes, Southport) |
| Craik, Sir Henry | Lee, Arthur Hamilton | Willoughby, Major Hon. Claude |
| Crichton-Stuart, Lord Ninian | Lansdale, John Brownlee | Wood, John (Stalybridge) |
| Dalrymple, Viscount | Mackinder, Halford J. | Yate, Col. C. E. |
| Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott | Macmaster, Donald | |
| Dixon, C. H. | M'Calmont, colonel James | TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. |
| Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers- | Magnus, Sir Philip | J. C. Lyttelton and Mr. J. S. |
| Du Cross, Arthur Philip | Malcolm, Ian | Fletcher. |
§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMANThe next Amendment is on a matter that the Committee has already settled. I have received an Amendment in manuscript for the hon. Member for Central Sheffield (Mr. James Hope), which I think is contrary to the opinion already expressed by the Committee.
§ Colonel GRIFFITH-BOSCAWENThere is an Amendment on the Paper to leave out the word "under," and to insert instead thereof the words "in accordance 306 with the provisions of." Has that been ruled out of order?
§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMANI think that is out of order, as it makes no difference to the Bill. Can the hon. Member show me any difference it would make.
§ Colonel GRIFFITH-BOSCAWENAs I understand, the certificate must be given in accordance with certain provisions of the Bill inserted in the Schedule—
§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMANThat point has already been dealt with.
§ Mr. JAMES HOPEThe question is as to the correctness of the certificate and whether the House of Commons should be able to say whether this certificate is correct. All that has been decided is that the authority shall be the Speaker, but there has been no provision either in Clause 1 or Clause 2 that the Speaker shall not be subject to an appeal to the body of the House if he gives a wrong certificate
§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMANI do not think that is possible.
§ Mr. JAMES HOPEIt has not been put in the Bill that the decision of the Speaker on these points shall be final. Usually when there is to be no appeal words are added that the decision shall be final. Those words are not found, and therefore I submit that it has not been decided that there shall be no appeal from him.
§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMANThat does not alter the case.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
§ Mr. CASSELMy object in opposing this Clause is to elicit from the Government what the Clause really means, or what they think its effect will be. The Clause states that the certificate of the Speaker is to be conclusive in a court of law. Under what circumstances do the Government think the certificate will come before a court of law? I have before suggested that with regard to any Act passed tinder the provisions of this Bill the courts will require to be satisfied that the Bill in question has become an Act. All that the courts of law have recognised hitherto is an Act of Parliament, and what that is is clearly established. Blackstone says:—
These are the constituent parts of Parliament, the King, the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and the Commons, parts each of which is so necessary that the consent of all three is required to make any new law that shall bind the subject. Whatever is enacted by one or two only of the three is no statute, and to it no regard is due unless in matters relating to their own privileges.9.0 P.M.That is the law as hitherto recognised. Now for the first time we are introducing a new method of legislation. Instead of legislating by Act of Parliament, we are going to legislate by Act of the House of Commons. Before a court of law will accept that an Act of the House of Commons has become an Act of Parliament under this Bill it will require to be satisfied that the conditions have been complied with; that is to say, that in the case of a Money Bill the Speaker has given his 308 certificate, or, in the case of other Bills, that the other certificates necessary have been given. The Government themselves seem to contemplate that that will be so, because they say that the certificate is to be conclusive in a court of law. I wish to know under what circumstances the Government think the certificate will come before a court of law. In what form I Will the original certificate have to be produced, or is a copy to be sufficient? What is to be conclusive? The original certificate or a copy? The Attorney-General shakes his head, but I would invite him to explain the object of this Clause. Supposing a Revenue Bill is passed under the provisions of this measure; in every prosecution or proceeding under that so-called Act in order to convince the court that, it, had the force of law, you would have to produce the certificate of the Speaker. In that connection I would suggest that it would be better to endorse the certificate on the Bill, or to put it in the Bill in such a form that when the measure reached the courts there would be something on the face of it to show that the certificate had been given. This difficulty only shows the unsatisfactory character of this new-fangled legislation, but if you have a written Constitution all these difficulties must arise.
§ Sir RUFUS ISAACSThis Clause has been inserted out of superabundant caution lest in a court of law it should be possible to raise the questions suggested by the hon. and learned Member, which, according to him, would make it necessary to review in a court of justice all our proceedings in Parliament before effect could be given to an Act passed under the procedure of the Parliament Bill. Our object is to prescribe in the Bill that there shall be no question of the certificate of the Speaker going to a court of law, but that the Speaker's certificate shall be conclusive. The certificate has to accompany the Bill when it is presented to His Majesty for the Royal Assent. If the Parliament Bill becomes an Act of Parliament, and an Act passed under the procedure here laid down comes before the courts, I do not think the hon. Member will suggest that the courts will draw any distinction between an Act so passed and one passed under the usual procedure.
§ Mr. CASSELI do.
§ Sir RUFUS ISAACSThat only shows how necessary it is that we should have a Clause of this kind in the Bill. It is inserted exactly, because we feared that 309 someone like the hon. and learned Gentleman and others would raise this point and bring it into court in order to make an Act passed under this procedure a kind of subordinate measure. We have no intention that there should be any difference between the two classes of measures. Therefore what we intend to do is to prevent any questioning of the sort. We have already said in Clauses 1 and 2 that under the circumstances there set out a Bill shall become an Act of Parliament notwithstanding that it has not received the Assent of the House of Lords. Having prescribed that, we have said that it is a Statute, that it has the force of statutory enactment; and then, in order that it should not be said when it gets to a court of law, "Oh, but we want to see whether this Bill has been through the House of Lords as well as through the House of Commons," we have said that the certificate of the Speaker shall be conclusive.
Then the hon. and learned Gentleman says what will happen then? He somewhat appalled me at the prospect of litigation which he seemed to see before us over this matter, but really he showed how wise we have been to introduce a Clause of this character. Under this what would happen now would be simply that in a court of law you would have the procedure as conclusive in relation to a Bill as under the ordinary procedure. The Bill will come before the Court of Justice, and the Court of Justice will accept it and will see that this Bill which has been passed, and to which the Royal Assent has been given—for I do not suppose that there will be any dispute that the Royal Assent has been given under conditions which justify it, and that the Royal Assent would only be given upon the certificate of the Speaker having accompanied the Bill when it was presented to His Majesty—is quite in order. When you once get as far as that there can be no further question as to the procedure. That is the whole object of introducing this Clause into the Bill. I do submit to the Committee that if there had been any doubt about the introduction of this Clause into the Bill it has been removed by what has fallen from the hon. and learned Gentleman. May I just further say this to him. He quoted "Blackstone" to us. No doubt that author is a very useful authority. The quotation takes us back to early days and to memories which ought indeed always to be fresh. But the hon. and learned Gentleman forgets that his quotation is not 310 applicable to this. Here we are providing that notwithstanding we do not have the assent of the Lords, our Bill will become an Act of Parliament.
§ Mr. CASSELI was not suggesting the present Bill. I was pointing out that this Act would say that a Bill was to become an Act of Parliament although it was not an Act of Parliament.
§ Sir RUFUS ISAACSIf the quotation was not applicable to this Bill, I do not quite see the relevance of the illustration. We are all quite familiar, and quite rightly, as the hon. and learned Gentleman told us, with the fact that hitherto you have here had to have the assent of the Estates of the Realm before a Bill could become an Act of Parliament. This Parliament Bill provides that a Bill shall be an Act, which in certain instances has not been passed by the House of Lords. I would only add one word with reference to the further provision which the hon. and learned Gentleman suggested about endorsing the certificate of the Speaker on the Bill. I said last night that this was a matter for consideration, and it is still under consideration. There is a good deal to be said for placing it on the Bill. I do not follow the hon. and learned Member's view, which seemed to me that in a Bill would have to be presented to a court of justice, that it should actually be brought into the court, and that the certificate of the Speaker would have to accompany it before the court could give effect to it. That is to me a most novel suggestion for an Act of Parliament. The hon. and learned Gentleman, certainly the hon. and learned Baronet, will agree with me that that is not the way to prove that a Bill is a Statute—if it becomes necessary so to do. It is quite sufficient to say that you are dealing with a public Bill, which is something of which the judges are supposed to have cognisance, without having to produce the King's printer's copy. After all, that is where a Public Bill differs from a private Bill.
§ Mr. CASSELI agree if it has been passed by the three Estates of the realm.
§ Sir RUFUS ISAACSI will not go back to the hon. and learned Member's argument. If he does not discern the difference between the two cases, I wonder that the hon. and learned Member takes the trouble to divide at all upon the questions which are now being discussed, or upon any of these matters. I do submit that 311 there is every reason why this Clause should remain, as it is fully justified by the arguments which have been used.
§ Sir W. ANSONI do not dispute for a moment the necessity for the new Clause. But I do complain, and what I think we have complained of, what my hon. and learned Friend had in view in his complaint on the preceding Amendment, is that the Clause is not sufficient having regard to the importance of the matter involved. The Attorney-General must not forget that there will be the two sorts of Acts of Parliament—the Act of Parliament which has received the assent of the Crown, Lords, and Commons, and the Act of Parliament which has received the assent of the Crown without the concurrence of the Lords or the Second Chamber. I only wish to point out to the Attorney-General this: I urged just now, in an Amendment, that it would be well for the dignity of the House, if for nothing else, that there should be some provision that the form of the Speaker's certificate should be deliberately settled by the House by Standing Order. The Attorney-General gave no adequate reason that I heard for rejecting that Amendment. What we have to bear in mind is this—that we shall hereafter present to the court for consideration and interpretation two perfectly different sorts of Statutes—Statutes which have received the assent of the three estates—Parliament, King's, Lords and Commons, and Statutes that have only received the assent of two. How are we to assist the court in case of dispute to know that an Act is an Act which must be accepted without question by the court? The obvious way in which we can deal with the matter would have been to have provided an enacting Clause which would have told the courts that although this Statute was not in the ordinary form—the form of a Statute it was nevertheless in a form which had been passed by the King, and the Commons under the Parliament Bill. I do not understand that there is any provision either present or contemplated for any form of enacting, Clause. Well, then, surely if there is to be no enacting Clause, it is right that the Speaker's certificate should be provided for properly by Standing Order? Otherwise, if the matter is wholly informal, we may have cases such as we have known before, of passive resistance. Legislation passed under Clause 1 may affect persons' pockets and legislation 312 passed under Clause 2 may affect their status and the devolution of their property, and matters of the utmost importance to the subject. The question may arise, and people may say, "Here is an Act which has not received the assent of the Lords and Commons. Is it valid? Does it come under the provisions of the Parliament Bill?" What form is there to assure the judges that the Act is a statutory one and may be accepted by them, and not merely a document that may be interpreted as having some part of it overlooked, and which so may be overridden? If this Clause provided that the certificate of the Speaker should be-settled either in the Schedule, or under Standing Order in some clear form, I think the Government would have done well. Although I admit the necessity of this Clause, I lament the composition of it, and I think it would be much better to reject the whole Clause, and that the Government should then provide a new Clause to be brought up on Report stage that would give adequate assistance to. His Majesty's judges when a statute passed in this exceptional manner comes before them, as a guide for their decision in a manner more in accordance with the dignity of the House when dealing with the Crown and its relations with Parliament.
§ Mr. RIGBY SWIFTThis Clause is either quite unnecessary or totally incomplete to carry out the proposed object of the Government, and in either of these categories I submit it ought to be omitted from the Bill. An Act of Parliament with which this Clause deals is going to deal when it comes before the court will be in one of two positions. It is going to be an Act of Parliament which speaks for itself and requires no proof, or else it is to be an Act of Parliament which must be proved. I take it it is to be an Act of Parliament like Acts of Parliament we have at present, which require no proof. If that is the case, it is absolutely unnecessary to put in a Clause in this Bill to say that it shall not be disputed. The Clause of the Bill is a perfectly unnecessary Clause. The Attorney-General assents to the proposition that it is for guidance. It is over-cautious to the extent that it may give rise to a great deal of discussion and expense in the courts of law, and if he and the Government have the courage of their convictions, and really believe that this Clause is unnecessary, they are bound to save expense to the taxpayers in the future by avoiding any- 313 thing which would encourage litigation in discussion as to what a totally unnecessary Clause may mean.
Suppose, on the other hand, that this Clause is necessary, and suppose that Acts of Parliament which become law under the provisions of this Bill have got to be proved in a court of law in some form in which Acts of Parliament at the present time do not have to be proved, and that you have to satisfy the judges that it has been properly passed into law, the first thing you will have to do is to prove that there has been a certificate given by the Speaker of this House before under this Bill. How are you going to prove that certificate in a court of law? Are you going to subpoena the Speaker of the House of Commons to attend before the King's Bench to prove the certificate, or are you going to call a Clerk of the House upon subpœna to prove he saw the Speaker sign it? [Laughter.] Hon. Members below the Gangway opposite laugh, but the position is really this, and it will not be denied that if an Act of Parliament does not prove itself by some means or other in accordance with the law, the certificate of the Speaker will have to be proved.
§ Mr. DILLONWhy do you not subpoena the King now?
§ Mr. DILLONBut an Act of Parliament must have the King's assent.
§ Mr. SWIFTWe are acting now under the provisions of the constitutional law, and my statement that an Act of Parliament proves itself has the assent of the
§ Attorney-General. We are now dealing with a class which has reference to Acts of Parliament which I am assuming for the purposes of my argument do not prove themselves. I pointed out if they prove themselves, this Clause is unnecessary; if they do not prove themselves you have provided no machinery whatever for proving them, and if the hon. Member below the Gangway would not keep shouting the same question after I had answered it twice, I should not be so much embarrassed in endeavouring to address what I believe to be a legal argument which has some legal point in it to a Committee which is singularly intolerant of any legal light being thrown upon this Bill, which certain Members of the House seem to regard as being inspired, not only in its draftsmanship, but also in its law. I was venturing to suggest that if it is necessary that Acts of Parliament passed into law under the provisions of this Bill, if this Bill ever becomes law have to be proved, you have provided under your Bill, no machinery whatever for proving them, and as no machinery for proving these Acts has been provided, this Clause as it stands is quite incomplete, and, therefore, it is in a position, I submit, of being either unnecessary or incomplete, and in either of these cases it does not deserve a place in this Parliament Bill.
§ Mr. HERBERT SAMUELrose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."
§ Question put, "That the Question be now put."
§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 248; Noes, 123.
317| Division No. 205.] | AYES. | [9.25 p.m. |
| Abraham, William (Dublin Harbour) | Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North | Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.) |
| Abraham, Rt. Hon. William (Rhondda) | Brace, William | Dawes, James Arthur |
| Acland, Francis Dyke | Brady, Patrick Joseph | Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas |
| Adamson, William | Brigg, Sir John | Devlin, Joseph |
| Addison, Dr. Christopher | Brocklehurst, William B. | Dillon, John |
| Alden, Percy | Brunner, John F. L. | Doris, William |
| Allen, Arthur A. (DumBarton) | Burns, Rt. Hon. John | Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness) |
| Allen, Charles Peter (Stroud) | Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas | Duncan, J. Hastings (York, Otley) |
| Baker, Harold T. (Accrington) | Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, North | Edwards, Allen C. (Glamorgan, E.) |
| Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.) | Byles, William Pollard | Edwards, Enoch Hanley |
| Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark) | Carr-Gomm, H. W. | Edwards, John Hugh (Glamorgan, Mid) |
| Barnes, George N. | Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S. | Elibank, Rt. Hon. Master of |
| Barran, Sir John N. (Hawick B.) | Clough, William | Elverston, Harold |
| Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.) | Collins, Godfrey P. (Greenock) | Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.) |
| Barton, William | Collins, Stephen (Lambeth) | Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.) |
| Beale, William Phipson | Compton-Rickett, Sir J. | Essex, Richard Walter |
| Beauchamp, Edward | Condon, Thomas Joseph | Fenwick, Charles |
| Beck, Arthur Cecil | Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow) | Ffrench, Peter |
| Benn, W. W. (Tower Hamlets, S. Geo.) | Cornwall, Sir Edwin A. | Field, William |
| Bentham, George Jackson | Cotton, William Francis | Fitzgibbon, John |
| Bethell, Sir John Henry | Crawshay-Williams, Eliot | Flavin, Michael Joseph |
| Black, Arthur W. | Crooks, William | Gelder, Sir William Alfred |
| Boland, John Pius | Crumley, Patrick | Gill, Alfred Henry |
| Booth, Frederick Handel | Cuillnan, John | Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford |
| Bowerman, Charles W. | Davies, Ellis William (Eifien) | Goldstone, Frank |
| Greig, Colonel J. W. | Maclean, Donald | Robinson, Sydney |
| Griffith, Ellis Jones (Anglesey) | Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J. | Roche, Augustine (Louth) |
| Guest, Hon. Frederick E. (Dorset, E.) | Mac Neill, John Gordon Swift | Roche, John (Galway, E.) |
| Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway) | MacVeagh, Jeremiah | Rowntree, Arnold |
| Hackett, John | M'Callum, John M. | Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland) |
| Hall, Frederick (Normanton) | M'Curdy, Charles Albert | Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees) |
| Hancock, John George | M'Micking, Major Gilbert | Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel) |
| Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose) | Marks, George Croydon | Scanlan, Thomas |
| Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil) | Meagher, Michael | Schwann, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles E. |
| Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale) | Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.) | Seely, Cal. Rt. Hon. J. E. B. |
| Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N.E.) | Meehan, Patrick A. (Queen's Co.) | Sheehy, David |
| Harwood, George | Menzies, Sir Walter | Sherwell, Arthur James |
| Haslam, James (Derbyshire) | Millar, James Duncan | Simon, Sir John Allsebrook |
| Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry | Molloy, Michael | Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe) |
| Haworth, Arthur A. | Molteno, Percy Alport | Smith, H. B. L. (Northampton) |
| Hayden, John Patrick | Money, L. G. Chiozza | Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim) |
| Hayward, Evan | Morton, Alpheus Cleophas | Snowden, Philip |
| Helme, Norval Watson | Munro, Robert | Spicer, Sir Albert |
| Henderson, Arthur (Durham) | Munro-Ferguson, Rt. Hon. R. C. | Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N.W.) |
| Henry, Sir Charles | Nannetti, Joseph P. | Strachey, Sir Edward |
| Herbert, Colenel Sir Ivor (Mon. S.) | Needham, Christopher T. | Summers, James Woolley |
| Higham, John Sharp | Neilson, Francis | Sutton, John E. |
| Hinds, John | Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncaster) | Taylor, John W. (Durham) |
| Hodge, John | Nolan, Joseph | Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe) |
| Halt, Richard Durning | Norman, Sir Henry | Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton) |
| Horne. C. Silvester (Ipswich) | Norton, Captain Cecil W. | Thorne, William (West Ham) |
| Howard, Hon. Geoffrey | O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny) | Toulmin, George |
| Hughes, Spencer Leigh | O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.) | Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander |
| Hunter, William (Lanark, Govan) | O'Doherty, Philip | Verney, Sir Harry |
| Isaacs, Sir Rufus Daniel | O'Dowd, John | Walsh, Stephen (Lancs., Ince) |
| John, Edward Thomas | Ogden, Fred | Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent) |
| Johnson, William | O'Grady, James | Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton) |
| Jones, Edgar R. (Merthyr Tydvil) | O'Kelly, Edward P. (Wicklow, W.) | Wardle, George J. |
| Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth) | O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.) | Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay |
| Jones, Leif Stratten (Notts, Rushcliffe) | O'Malley, William | Watt, Henry A. |
| Jones, William (Carnarvonshire) | O'Neill, Dr. Charles (Armagh, S.) | Webb, H. |
| Jones. W. S. Glyn- (T. H'mts, Stepney) | O'Shaughnessy, P. J. | Wedgwood, Josiah C. |
| Jewett, Frederick William | O'Sullivan, Timothy | White, Sir Luke (Yorks, E.R.) |
| Joyce, Michael | Parker, James (Halifax) | White. Patrick (Meath, North |
| Keating, Matthew | Pearce, William (Limehouse) | Whitehouse, John Howard |
| Kellaway, Frederick George | Pearson, Hon. Weetman H. M. | Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P. |
| Kelly, Edward | Phillips, John (Longford, S.) | Whyte, A. F. (Perth) |
| Kennedy, Vincent Paul | Pickersgill, Edward Hare | Wiles, Thomas |
| Kilbride, Denis | Pointer, Joseph | Wilkie, Alexander |
| King, J. (Somerset, N.) | Pollard, Sir George H. | Williams, John (Glamorgan) |
| Lamb, Ernect Henry | Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H. | Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthen) |
| Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade) | Priestley, Sir W. E. B. (Bradford, E.) | Williams, Penry (Middlesbrough) |
| Lansbury, George | Pringle, William M. R. | Wilson, Hon. G. G. (Hull, W.) |
| Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.) | Radford, George Heynes | Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.) |
| Lawson, Sir W. (Cumb'rld, Cockerm'th) | Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields) | Wilson, J. W. (Worcestershire, N.) |
| Leach, Charles | Reddy, Michael | Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton) |
| Levy, Sir Maurice | Redmond, John E. (Waterford) | Winfrey, Richard |
| Lewis, John Herbert | Redmond, William (Clare, E.) | Wood, T. M'Kinnon (Glasgow) |
| Logan. John William | Richards, Thomas | Young, Samuel (Cavan, East) |
| Low, Sir Frederick (Norwich) | Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven) | Young, William (Perth, East) |
| Landon, Thomas | Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln) | |
| Lynch, Arthur Alfred | Roberts, George H. (Norwich) | TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. |
| Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester) | Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford) | Illingworth and Mr. Gulland. |
| Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs) | Robertson, John M. (Tyneside) | |
| NOES. | ||
| Acland-Hood, Rt. Hon. Sir Alex. | Cassel, Felix | Foster, Philip Staveley |
| Altken, William Max. | Castlereagh, Viscount | Gardner, Ernest |
| Anson, Sir William Reynell | Cautley, Henry Strother | Gibbs, G. A. |
| Ashley, Wilfrid W. | Cave, George | Goldsmith, Frank |
| Astor, Waldorf | Cecil, Lord Hugh (Oxford University) | Goulding, Edward Alfred |
| Baker, Sir Randall L. (Dorset, N.) | Chaloner, Col. R. G. W. | Guinness, Hon. Walter Edward |
| Balcarres, Lord | Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. A. (Worc'r) | Haddock, George Bahr |
| Baldwin, Stanley | Clive, Captain Percy Archer | Hall, D. B. (Isle of Wight) |
| Baring, Capt. Hon. G. V. | Clyde, James Avon | Hall, Fred (Dulwich) |
| Barlow, Montague (Salford, South) | Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet) | Hambro, Angus Valdemar |
| Barnston, Harry | Craik, Sir Henry | Hamilton, Marquess of (Londonderry) |
| Bathurst, Hon. Allen B. (Glouc., E.) | Crichton-Stuart, Lord Ninian | Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashford) |
| Bathurst, Charles (Wilton) | Dalrymple, Viscount | Harris, Henry Percy |
| Benn, Ion Hamilton (Greenwich) | Dickson, Rt. Hon. C S. | Hickman, Colonel Thomas E. |
| Bennett-Goldney, Francis | Dixon, C. H. | Hill-Wood, Samuel |
| Bigland, Alfred | Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers- | Hoare, Samuel John Gurney |
| Bird, Alfred | Du Cros, Arthur Philip | Hope, Harry (Bute) |
| Boyton, James | Duke, Henry Edward | Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield) |
| Bridgeman, William Clive | Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M. | Horner, Andrew Long |
| Burn, Colonel C. E. | Faber, Capt. W. V. (Hants, W.) | Houston, Robert Paterson |
| Butcher, John George | Fell, Arthur | Hume-Williams, William Ellis |
| Campion, W. R. | Fletcher, John Samuel (Hampstead) | Joynson-Hicks, William |
| Carlile, Edward Hildred | Forster, Henry William | Kebty-Fletcher, J. R. |
| Kimber, Sir Henry | Paget, Almeria Hugh | Stewart, Gershom |
| Kirkwood, John H. M. | Palmer, Godfrey Mark | Strauss, Arthur (Paddington, North |
| Lane-Fox, G. R. | Parkes, Ebenezer | Swift, Rigby |
| Larmor, Sir J. | Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington) | Sykes, Alan John |
| Lee, Arthur Hamilton | Peel, Hon. William R. W. (Taunton) | Talbot, Lord Edmund |
| Locker-Lampson, O. (Ramsey) | Perkins, Walter Frank | Terrell, George (Wilts, N.W.) |
| Lockwood, Rt. Hon. Lt.-Col. A. R. | Pollock, Ernest Murray | Thomson, Wm. Mitchell (Down, N.) |
| Long, Rt. Hon. Walter | Pretyman, Ernest George | Valentia, Viscount |
| Lonsdale, John Brownlee | Pryce-Jones, Col. E. (Montgom'y B'ghs) | Walker, Col. William Hall |
| Lyttelton, Hon. J. C. (Droitwich) | Rawson, Col. Richard H. | Ward, A. S. (Herts, Watford) |
| Mackinder, Halford J. | Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall) | Wheler, Granville C. H. |
| Macmaster, Donald | Royds, Edmund | White, Major G. D. (Lancs., Southport) |
| M'Calmont, Colonel James | Rutherford, Watson (L'pool, W. Derby) | Willoughby, Major Mon. Claude |
| Magnus, Sir Philip | Salter, Arthur Clavell | Wood, Hon. E. F. L. (Yorks, Ripon) |
| Malcolm, Ian | Sanders, Robert Arthur | Wood, John (Stalybridge) |
| Mason, James F. (Windsor) | Sandys, G. J. (Somerset, Wells) | Yate, Colonel C. E. |
| Meysey-Thompson, E. C. | Stanler, Beville | |
| Mildmay, Francis Bingham | Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston) | TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Colonel |
| Newman, John R. P. | Steel-Maitland, A. D. | Griffith-Boscawen and Sir F. Banbury. |
| O'Neill, Hon. A. E. B. (Antrim, Mid) |
§ Question put accordingly, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
318§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 255; Noes, 132.
319| Division No. 206.] | AYES. | [9.35 p.m. |
| Abraham, William (Dublin Harbour) | Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness) | Keating, Matthew |
| Abraham, Rt. Hon. William (Rhondda) | Duncan, J. Hastings (York, Otley) | Kellaway, Frederick George |
| Acland, Francis Dyke | Edwards, Allen C. (Glamorgan, E.) | Kelly, Edward |
| Adamson, William | Edwards, Enoch (Hanley) | Kennedy, Vincent Paul |
| Addison, Dr. Christopher | Edwards, John Hugh (Glamorgan, Mid) | Klibride, Denis |
| Alden, Percy | Elibank, Rt. Hon. Master of | King, Joseph (Somerset, North |
| Allen, Arthur A. (DumBarton) | Elverston, Harold | Lamb, Ernest H. |
| Allen, Charles Peter (Stroud) | Esmonde, Dr John (Tipperary, N.) | Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cri[...]ladey |
| Baker, Harold T. (Accrington) | Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.) | Lansbury, George |
| Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.) | Essex, Richard Walter | Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, West) |
| Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark) | Fenwick, Charles | Lawson, Sir W. (Cumb'rl'nd,Cockerm'th) |
| Barnes, George N. | Ffrench, Peter | Leach, Charles |
| Barran, Sir John N. (Hawick B.) | Field, William | Levy, Sir Maurice |
| Barry, Redmond John (Tyrone, N.) | Fitzgibbon, John | Lewis, John Herbert |
| Barton, William | Flavin, Michael Joseph | Logan, John William |
| Beale, William Phipson | Gelder, Sir William Alfred | Low, Sir Frederick (Norwich) |
| Beauchamp, Edward | Gill, Alfred Henry | Lundon, Thomas |
| Beck, Arthur Cecil | Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford | Lynch, Arthur Alfred |
| Been, W. (T. Hamlets, St. George) | Goldstone, Frank | Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester) |
| Bentham, George Jackson | Greig, Colonel James William | Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs) |
| Bethell, Sir John Henry | Griffith, Ellis Jones | Maclean, Donald |
| Black, Arthur W. | Guest, Hon. Frederick E. (Dorset, E.) | Macnarnara, Dr. Thomas J. |
| Boland, John Pius | Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway) | MacNeill, John Gordon Swift |
| Booth, Frederick Handel | Hackett, John | MacVeagh, Jeremiah |
| Bowerman, Charles W. | Hall, F. (Yorks, Normanton) | M'Callum, John M. |
| Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North | Hancock, John George | M'Curdy, Charles Albert |
| Brace, William | Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose) | M'Micking, Major Gilbert |
| Brady, Patrick Joseph | Hardie, J. Kelr (Merthyr Tydvil) | Marks, George Croydon |
| Brigg, Sir John | Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale) | Masterman, C. F. G. |
| Brocklehurst, William B. | Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N.E.) | Meagher, Michael |
| Brunner, John F. L. | Harwood, George | Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.) |
| Burns. Rt. Hon. John | Haslam, James (Derbyshire) | Meehan, Patrick A. (Queen's County) |
| Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas | Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry | Menzies, Sir Walter |
| Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, North | Haworth, Arthur A | Millar, James Duncan |
| Buxton, Rt. Hon. S. C. (Poplar) | Hayden, John Patrick | Molloy, Michael |
| Byles, William Pollard | Hayward, Evan | Moiteno, Percy AlpeRt |
| Carr-Gomm, H. W. | Helme, Norval Watson | Money, L. G. Chiozza |
| Chapple, Dr. William Allen | Henderson, Arthur (Durham) | Morton, Alpheus Cleophas |
| Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S. | Henry, Sir Charles Solomon | Munro, Robert |
| Clough, William | Herbert, Col. Sir Ivor | Munro-Ferguson, Rt. Hon. R. C. |
| Collins, Godfrey P. (Greenock) | Higham, John Sharp | Nannetti, Joseph P. |
| Collins, Stephen (Lambeth) | Hinds, John | Needham, Christopher T. |
| Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J. | Hodge, John | Neilson, Francis |
| Condon, Thomas Joseph | Holt, Richard Durning | Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncaster) |
| Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow) | Horne, C. Slivester (Ipswich) | Nolan, Joseph |
| Cornwall, Sir Edwin A. | Howard, Hon. Geoffrey | Norman, Sir Henry |
| Cotton, William Francis | Hughes, Spencer Leigh | Norton, Capt. Cecil William |
| Crawshay-Williams, Eliot | Hunter, William (Lanark, Govan) | O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny) |
| Crooks, William | Isaacs, Sir Rufus Daniel | O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.) |
| Crumley, Patrick | John, Edward Thomas | O'Doherty, Phllip |
| Cullinan, J. | Johnson, William | O'Dewd, John |
| Davies, E. William (Eiflon) | Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil) | Ogden, Fred |
| Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.) | Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth) | O'Grady, James |
| Dawes. James Arthur | Jones, Leif Stratten (Notts, Rushcliffe) | O'Kelly, Edward P. (Wicklow, W.) |
| Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas | Jones, William (Carnarvonshire) | O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.) |
| Devlin, Joseph | Jones, W. S. Glyn- (T. H'mts.,stepney) | O'Malley, William |
| Dillon, John | Jewett, Frederick William | O'Neill, Dr. Charles (Armagh, S.) |
| Doris, William | Joyce, Michael | O'shaughnessy, P. J. |
| O'Sullivan, Timothy | Rowntree, Arnold | Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent) |
| Parker, James (Halifax) | Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland) | Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton) |
| Pearce, William (Limehouse) | Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees) | Wardle, George J. |
| Pearson, Hon. Weetman H. M. | Samuel, S. M. (Whltechapel) | Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay |
| Philipps, John (Longford, S.) | Scanlan, Thomas | Watt, Henry A. |
| Pickersgill, Edward Hare | Schwann, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles E. | Webb, H. |
| Pointer, Joseph | Scott, A. M'Callum (Glas., Bridgeton) | Wedgwood, Josiah C. |
| Pollard, Sir George H. | Seely, Col. Rt. Hon. J. E. B. | White, Sir Luke (Yorks, E.R.) |
| Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H. | Sheehy, David | White, Patrick (Meath, North |
| Priestley, Sir W. E. B. (Bradford, E.) | Sherwell, Arthur James | Whitehouse, John Howard |
| Pringle, William M. R. | Simon, Sir John Allsbrook | Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P. |
| Radford, George Heynes | Smith, Albert (Lancs., ICitheroe) | Whyte, A. F. |
| Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields) | Smith, H. B. Lees (Northampton) | Wiles, Thomas |
| Reddy, Michael | Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.) | Wilkie, Alexander |
| Redmond, John E. (Waterford) | Snowden, Philip | Williams, John (Glamorgan) |
| Redmond, William (Clare, E.) | Spicer, Sir Albert | Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthen) |
| Richards, Thomas | Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N.W.) | Williams, Penry (Middlesbrough) |
| Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven) | Strachey, Sir Edward | Wilson, Hon. G. G. (Hull, W.) |
| Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln) | Summers, James Woolley | Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.) |
| Roberts, George H. (Norwich) | Sutton, John E. | Wilson, J. W. (Worcestershire, N.) |
| Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs.) | Taylor, John W. (Durham) | Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton) |
| Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford) | Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe) | Winfrey, Richard |
| Robertson, John M. (Tyneside) | Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton) | Wood, T. McKinnon (Glasgow) |
| Robinson, Sidney | Thorne, William (West Ham) | Young, Samuel (Cavan, East) |
| Roche, Augustine (Louth) | Toulmin, George | Young, William (Perth, East) |
| Roche, John (Galway, E.) | Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander | |
| Roe, Sir Thomas | Verney, Sir Parry | TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. |
| Rose, Sir Charles Day | Walsh, Stephen (Lancs., Ince) | Illingworth and Mr Gulland. |
| NOES. | ||
| Acland-Hood, Rt. Hon. Sir Alex. F. | Fell, Arthur | Magnus, Sir Philip |
| Altken, William Max. | Fletcher, John Samuel | Malcolm, Ian |
| Anson, Sir William Reynell | Forster Henry William | Mason, James F. (Windsor) |
| Arkwright, John Stanhope | Foster, Philip Staveley | Meysey-Thompson, E. C. |
| Ashley, Wilfred W. | Gardner, Ernest | Mildmay, Francis Bingham |
| Astor, Waldorf | Gibbs, George Abraham | Mount, William Arthur |
| Baker, Sir Randolf L. (Dorset, N.) | Gilmour, Captain John | Newman, John R. P. |
| Balcarres, Lord | Goldsmith, Frank | O'Neill, Hon. A. E. B. (Antrim, Mid) |
| Baldwin, Stanley | Grant, James Augustus | Orde-Pawlett, Hon. W. G. A. |
| Banbury, Sir Frederick George | Guinness, Hon. Walter Edward | Paget, Almeric Hugh |
| Baring, Captain Hon. Guy Victor | Haddock, George Bahr | Parkes, Ebenezer |
| Barlow, Montague (Salford, South) | Hall, D. B. (Isle of Wight) | Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington) |
| Sarnston, Harry | Hall, Fred (Dulwich) | Pell, Hon. William R. W. (Taunton) |
| Bathurst, Hon. Allen B. (Glouc., E.) | Hambro, Angus Valdemar | Perkins, Walter Frank |
| Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton) | Hamilton, Marquess of (Londonderry) | Pollock, Ernest Murray |
| Been, Ion Hamilton (Greenwich) | Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashford) | Pretyman, Ernest George |
| Bennett-Goldney, Francis | Harris, Henry Percy | Pryce-Jones, Colonel E. |
| Bigland, Alfred | Hickman, Colonel Thomas E. | Rawson, Colonel Richard H. |
| Bird, Alfred | Hill, Sir Clement L. (Shrewsbury) | Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall) |
| Boscawen, Col. Sackville T. Griffith- | Hillier, Dr. Alfred Peter | Royds, Edmund |
| Boyton, James | Hill-Wood, S. (High Peak) | Rutherford, W. (Liverpool, W. Derby) |
| Bridgeman, William Clive | Hoare, Samuel John Gurney | Salter, Arthur Clavell |
| Burn, Colonel C. R. | Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy | Sandys, G. J. (Somerset, Wells) |
| Butcher, John George (York) | Hope, Harry (Bute) | Stanler, Beville |
| Campion, W. R. | Hope, J. Fitzalan (Sheffield) | Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston) |
| Carllie, Edward Hildred | Horner, Andrew Long | Steel-Maitland, A. D |
| Cassel, Felix | Houston, Robert Paterson | Stewart, Gershom |
| Castlereagh, Viscount | Hume-Williams, Wm. Ellis | Strauss, Arthur (Paddington, North |
| Cautley, Henry Strother | Hunter, Sir Charles Rodk, (Bath) | Swift, Rigby |
| Cave, George | Ingleby, Holcombe | Sykes, Alan John |
| Cecil, Lord Hugh (Oxford University) | Joynson-Hicks, William | Talbot, Lord Edmund |
| Chaloner, Col. R, G. W. | Kebty-Fletcher, J. R. | Terrell, George (Wilts, N.W.) |
| Clive, Percy Archer | Kimber, Sir Henry | Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Down, N.) |
| Clyde, James Avon | Kirkwood, John H. M. | Walker, Col. William Hall |
| Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet) | Lane-Fox, G. R | Ward, A. S. (Herta, Watford) |
| Craik, Sir Henry | Larmor, Sir J. | Wheler, Granville C. H. |
| Crichton-Stuart, Lord Ninian | Lee, Arthur Hamilton | White, Major G. D. (Lancs., Southport) |
| Dalrymple, Viscount | Locker-Lampson, O. (Ramsey) | Willoughby, Major Hon. Claud |
| Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. S. | Lockwood, Rt. Hon. Lt.-Col. A. R. | Wood. Hon. E. F. L. (Yorks, Ripon) |
| Dixon, Charles Harvey | Long, Rt. Hon. Walter | Wood, John (Stalybridge) |
| Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers- | Lansdale, John Brownlee | Worthington-Evans, L. |
| Du Cros, Arthur Philip | Lyttelton, Hon. J. C. (Droitwich) | Yate, Col. C. E. |
| Duke, Henry Edward | Mackinder, Halford J. | |
| Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M. | Macmaster, Donald | TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Viscount |
| Faber, Capt. W. V. (Hants, W.) | M'Calmont, Colonel James | Valentia and Mr. Sanders. |