§ (1) If the Irish House of Commons pass any Bill and the Irish Senate reject or fail to pass it, or pass it with Amendments to which the Irish House of Commons will not agree, and if the Irish House of Commons in the next Session again pass the Bill with or without any Amendments which have been made or agreed to by the Irish Senate, and the Irish Senate reject or fail to pass it, or pass it with Amendments to which the Irish House of Commons will not agree, the Lord Lieutenant may during that Session convene a joint sitting of the members of the two Houses.
§ (2) The members present at any such joint sitting may deliberate and shall vote together upon the Bill as last proposed by the Irish House of Commons, and upon the Amendments (if any) which have been made therein by the one House and not agreed to by the other; and any such Amendments which are affirmed by a 1142 majority of the total number of members of the two Houses present at the sitting shall be taken to have been carried.
§ (3) If the Bill with the Amendments (if any) so taken to have been carried is affirmed by a majority of the total number of members of the two Houses present at any such sitting, it shall be taken to have been duly passed by both Houses.
§ Mr. JAMES HOPEI beg to move, in Sub-section (1), after the word "any" ["Irish House of Commons pass any Bill"], to insert the word "public."
The effect of this Amendment will be that the procedure of the Joint Session shall take effect only in the ease of what is known here as a public Bill—a public Bill not in contradistinction to what is known as a private Member's Bill, but in contradistinction to local and personal Bills which go to Committee upstairs. The result will be that the private Bills in Ireland will go through their 1143 various stages, and have their fate ultimately settled, by the same procedure as here. The history of this question is somewhat interesting. The Parliament Act, as brought in last year, applied to every description of Bill indiscriminately. The first Clause in the Act applied to Public Money Bills and to Private Money Bills. That is to say, the first Clause as originally drafted would apply to some rating matter or some public grant affecting only some particular body. That under the first draft of the Bill would pass as a Money Bill and the House of Lords would have nothing to do with it. I moved an Amendment to the first Clause that it should only apply to Public Bills, and so convincing and sound were my arguments that the Government were unable to withstand them and accepted my Amendment, which was intended to meet a case of what may be called Private Money Bills. That was a class of Bill which one may imagine and which are not very common, and, as far as that goes, this particular Amendment in regard to Ireland would not apply, and I do not quote that as a precedent. I recall that history because we have already passed without any discussion the provision as to Money Bills in the Irish Parliament, but when we come to Clause 2 of the Parliament Act the same consideration arises, and I remember that the Attorney-General resisted my Amendment to the Parliament Act, but Members spoke from different sides in favour of it, and in the end the Prime Minister said he would reconsider the matter and the Amendment was accepted on the Report.
I only want to assimilate the Irish practice to the present British practice. I want the same procedure with regard to Private Bills applied to Ireland as to this country. What impressed the Committee in the Debates on the Parliament Act were two considerations. First of all, that to apply the machinery of the Parliament Act—and the argument is applicable to a Joint Session in this Clause—to private Bills would really destroy the judicial character of the tribunals that hear private Bills at the present time. At the present time private Bills go through what you may call a judicial process. The Committee sitting to hear them have a sense of judicial responsibility, and it is uncommon that their decisions are upset in the House. They are sometimes challenged, but I say confidently that it is only in the very small number of cases that they are upset. It was felt that to apply the machinery of the 1144 Parliament Act to this class of Bills would at once introduce the party spirit because the whole object and purpose of the Parliament Act was to ensure that the party in power in the House of Commons should be able ultimately to carry its Bill if the party stood together for the requisite length of time. That introduces the fighting party element at once, and I think that very largely weighed with the Committee in excluding private Bills from the purview of the Parliament Act. But there was another, and in one sense a less important consideration, one of mere practical convenience, and that was that it would upset the whole machinery of private Bill legislation if the provisions of the Parliament Act were to apply to these private Bills, because private Bills at present as a matter of convenience and as a matter of convenience only, are sometimes introduced in one House and sometimes in another. By that means there is no great congestion of public business. Those introduced in the Lords come down here afterwards, and Bills introduced here go to the Lords afterwards at a convenient time. If the provisions of the Parliament Act applied to private Bills, all private Bills will have to be introduced into the Commons, so that if accepted there will be no use going through the racket of a House of Lords Committee in the first instance, which after all would not decide the fate of the Bill if the House of Commons remained of the same mind with regard to it. But it was pointed out by one speaker after another that real congestion of business would result, and that the whole of the procedure would be thrown into confusion. These were the two reasons that induced the Government to accept this Amendment in the Parliament Bill, and I submit something of the same kind would be necessary here if you are to set Parliamentary machinery in Ireland fairly going upon a proper basis.
I assume, though I do not find it anywhere in the Bill, that it is intended that the system of private Bill legislation established and exercised by the Irish Parliament will be the same as here, that there shall be established Committees appointed under Standing Order, and that the judicial character of the procedure shall be maintained. It would be very serious if it were not maintained, and it would intensify the fear of some of my hon. Friends if an Irish Parliament were to legislate upon local and personal matters without that sense of responsibility which the system of Private Bill Committees certainly does impose 1145 upon Members of this House by the declaration that they are adjudicating in matters in which they have no interest for them or their constituencies. I assume it is intended that that procedure should be set up in Ireland. I think if we had time and opportunity we should try and insist upon that; but, as I say, I assume that is the intention of the Government, and if that is so I submit that the same rules as apply in this Parliament ought to apply in the Irish Parliament. If you had a different procedure, if you have these private Bills brought in under the same kind of procedure as public Bills, and resisted and debated, and that then a bare majority of the Joint Session is to prevail, you will entirely destroy the whole judicial fabric on which private Bill procedure ought to based in the Irish Parliament. There you would have precisely the same difficulty as was pointed out here, if all these private Bills have to be introduced in one House, because clearly the promoters would introduce them in the Commons in Ireland and not in the Senate if the Senate have only a delaying power of one year with regard to them.
If you want this Bill to work as an Act, if you want the Senate to take an honourable and efficient part, you ought to endow it with the proper powers of a Second Chamber, and you ought not to deprive it of its proper sense of responsibility with regard to private Bills, which happily both Houses in this Parliament hitherto have acted upon. If you break that procedure down, and allow private Bills to be treated as ordinary matters of party controversy, you will be starting your Parliamentary machinery in Ireland, where party feeling runs so very high, under the worst auspices. If you have a Belfast Corporation Bill or a Cork Corporation Bill, or any Bill of that kind, which is not to be treated judicially but by the same machinery of public Bills, you will be intensifying the bitterness of party spirit, which, God knows, will be bad enough in any case in Ireland. I, therefore, submit you should follow the English precedent. There is this much difference between the machinery here and the Parliament Act. The Parliament Act usually allows two years, and then the will of the House of Commons is absolutely to prevail. Under this measure there is only one year's delay, after which the will of the Joint Session is to prevail. Except in very rare cases the will of the Joint Session will be the will of the Irish House of Commons, and 1146 it really interposes only a year's delay. I submit that all the arguments for including this word "public" in the Parliament Act apply equally in the place of the present Bill, and for the sake of the proper working of the Irish Parliament, and in order to give it a chance to work properly and secure the confidence of promoters and opponents of private Bills in the Irish Parliament, I think it is necessary that the Senate should have concurrent powers.
§ The ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir Rufus Isaacs)The hon. Member who has moved this Amendment has referred to what took place in the discussions on the Parliament Act, and he stated that the arguments were strongly in favour of limiting a similar Clause to this to public Bills. On this occasion his arguments are going to prevail. We are particularly anxious not to interfere with the judicial character when dealing with private Bills. For that reason I think it would be better to avoid party controversies over private Bills of this character, and I accept this Amendment on behalf of the Government.
§ Mr. MOORENow the Government have accepted this Amendment, as a result we have got one procedure on private Bills and another procedure for public Bills. Perhaps the Government would tell us which constitutes the safeguard for the minority. These are all supposed to be safeguards for the minority, and I should like to know in this case which is the safeguard.
§ Sir RUFUS ISAACSI did not use the word "safeguard" at all. This was an Amendment proposed by the hon. Member opposite and I accepted it. If the hon. and learned Member opposite asks me, I think they are both safeguards. There is a safeguard in regard to the public Bills provided by the joint sittings and there is a safeguard in regard to private Bills which you do not get in the ordinary way.
§ Mr. MOOREWe have now got two equally inconsistent safeguards, and the Government say they are both equally good. In the eyes of the Government they are all safeguards, although mutually destructive of each other. I do not attach much value to this safeguard. I think it is very unfortunate to-night that there is no representative of the Government sitting on the Front Bench who possesses any knowledge of Ireland, and therefore we are at the mercy of hon. Gentlemen 1147 opposite who do not understand these things. I think there ought to be some Minister present who has some knowledge of Ireland when these matters are under discussion.
§ The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. Herbert Samuel)But hon. Members opposite have insisted upon me governing Ireland so far as the Post Office is concerned.
§ Mr. MOOREYes, and I regret that the right hon. Gentleman has anything to do with Ireland at all, and if he only knew what honest people think of his administration in Ireland he would not boast of it. I am sorry that we have no Irish representative on the Front Bench who has been professing safeguards and who knows what they mean. We are told that a private Bill has a safeguard. That proceeds on the assumption that we are going to have the same procedure in an Irish House of Parliament that we have here. If either of the Ministers representing the Government knew anything about Ireland they would never suggest that argument except as a joke. Suppose, for example, that a Bill comes up from Belfast to the Irish Parliament. The Belfast Corporation are frequently wanting Bills, and now you are going to put them under the tyranny of the Dublin Parliament, where they will have to go to get any local or personal Bill passed which they may require for the development of the city. Even in this House they have been attacked when they have brought private Bills forward, and they have had to make concessions to the Nationalists to get their Bills through. Whenever Belfast in the past wished to have a drainage scheme or a fresh water supply, the Nationalist Members here have said to them, "You shall not have this measure unless you give some representation to the Nationalists of Belfast. If you do not do this we will not let you sweep away slums in Belfast and that is our power in this House." What would this danger be in the Dublin Parliament? [An HON. MEMBER: "It would be no danger."] Let the hon. Member who interrupts me go back to his constituency and tell the electors that they are going to have English procedure in the Dublin Parliament, and see what the result will be.
The Irish Parliament will have its own Standing Orders which will enable them to move that the Belfast Bill shall be taken 1148 in Committee of the Whole House, and what will be the result? You have taken good care of this in your safeguards. You have 164 Members, and if ever you have any Ulster members you will have about thirty of them. You have no regulations for setting up Committees. The Irish Parliament will make its own Standing Orders and Regulations for dealing with the business and even a worm will turn. Members of the Irish Parliament will say that you have no right to interfere with the sovereign power, and there is nothing to prevent a Minister in an Irish Parliament saying, "I beg to move that this Belfast Bill be sent to a Committee of the Whole House." Then you will have 164 Members in the Lower House with thirty Ulster representatives and do you think the Belfast Bill will have any chance in that House? The thing is too absurd, and yet that is one of the Government's safeguards which we are asked to be content with. Take the other safeguard. There is not to be a Joint Session, and the Belfast Bill is to take the course the Bill would take here. I do not know how proportional representation is going to work out, but I know it would not be supported by hon. Members below the Gangway if they thought Unionists were going to get anything out of it. The Attorney-General says that one is absolutely the same safeguard as the other, but I think they are both shams, and because they are shams I am quite indifferent to them. One result is that the Government are wholly unable to lay down any reason in the world why a local and personal Bill, which may affect persons in the matter of money a great deal more than a public Bill, is to be treated one way and the public Bill another way. A great deal of injustice can be done by private Bills. I will take, for example, the Corporation of Dublin. If it was suggested to them that the only place that would suit them for a pumping station was the Freemasons Hall in Molesworth Street, they would bring in a Bill and deal with that in Committee of the Whole House, and that would be carried unanimously, and the same majority in the Senate would confirm it. Why should there be any difference in the treatment of a local and personal Bill, which may involve any amount of money and a great deal of hardship and the treatment of a public Bill? There will be no Division because the Government has accepted the Amendment, but still the matter might be cleared up as soon as the Chief Secretary comes in or if the Government were for 1149 once to unmuzzle the Vice-President of the Board of Agriculture (Mr. T. W. Russell), who has some knowledge of Ireland on both sides of him. If he was let loose tonight, we might have a little worry at him, and, though we might not accept his statement, still he might throw some light on a question which seems to me to be left in absolute darkness by the Ministers on the Front Treasury Bench.
§ Mr. R. M'NEILLI agree with my hon. and learned Friend that the acceptance of this Amendment does not constitute any safeguard. Nevertheless, I am glad the Government have accepted it. There is one point my hon. Friend has made which I think the Government might reasonably consider. We have no security whatever that the procedure in the Irish Parliament will follow the analogy of the procedure here. Consequently, if you merely put in the words as proposed by my hon. Friend making the Clause read, "If the Irish House of Commons pass any public Bill" it really will not be enough, because we do not know there will be the distinction in the Irish Parliament between public and private Bills as they are known here, and this will be an Act of Parliament governing the procedure in the Irish Parliament. Therefore, if I should be in order I should like to move, as an Amendment to my hon. Friend's Amendment, that instead of putting in the word "public" we should put in these words: "Bill which if introduced in the Parliament of the United Kingdom would be a public Bill." If the Government would accept the Amendment in that rather extended form, I think it would get over the difficulty which otherwise it appears to me may render this Amendment of no avail, namely, that of putting in an allusion to a procedure which may be absolutely unknown in the Irish Parliament, and which has no definition in the Bill making it clear. I therefore hope the Government will see their way to accept my Amendment which I think would clear up a doubtful point.
§ Sir RUFUS ISAACSI am quite ready to consider the suggestion made by the hon. Member, but I could not accept the Amendment in that form. There are obvious difficulties in the way of accepting that, but what I am going to do to try and meet his view is to see whether it is necessary to introduce any words to qualify the word "public," and, if so, to introduce them on Report. I do not think it will be necessary, because until the Irish Parliament have Standing Orders of their own 1150 the procedure there will naturally be governed by the procedure here. The Irish Parliament can then deal with it and make its own Standing Orders in regard to it. I do not think it is really necessary to introduce words, but I do think it is worth considering it carefully, and I am prepared to do that.
§ Mr. R. M'NEILLI am grateful to the Attorney-General for what he has said. It appears to me, from what he has said himself, some such words will be necessary. It is quite true that until some Standing Order is introduced in the Irish Parliament our procedure will govern the procedure there, but there will be no security that the Standing Orders in the Irish Parliament will have any regard to our procedure here. Therefore I do think some such words as I have suggested will be necessary to make the Amendment of any value.
§ Mr. WATTI am rather surprised this discussion has been allowed to proceed, because the Amendment was accepted by the Government.
§ Mr. J. H. CAMPBELLOn a point of Order. Is the hon. Member in order in criticising your ruling?
§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (Mr. Maclean)I have not given any ruling, but I beg to inform the hon. Member (Mr. Watt) that the acceptance by the Government of an Amendment does not control the action of the Chair.
§ Mr. WATTI apologise for any reflection which it may be thought I was making upon the Chair, but I only meant it as a preliminary canter to the few observations I have to make. The doctrine of the hon. and learned Member for Armagh (Mr. Moore) was a most extraordinary one. He assumes the Parliament to be set up in Ireland will be a corrupt Assembly, and, in order to be saved from that corruption, in the case of private Bills, he desires the same system that holds in this House should hold in Ireland, and that they should be sent upstairs to a few Members instead of being dealt with on the floor of the House by the whole Assembly. Three or four members of a corrupt Assembly are, by his hypothesis, to be purer and less easily corrupted than the? 64 members of the institution to be set up. That, I ventured to say, is an Irish doctrine that will not find acceptance in this Committee. The system he advocated for private measures, namely, the sending of them upstairs to a judicial body, is an antiquated 1151 and worn-out system inherited in this House centuries ago, and is one that ought to be abandoned, and one which would never be accepted by an up-to-date Assembly. There is, first, connected with the judicial body the burden of counsel, briefed at tremendous expense. That is a great disadvantage to those who are bringing before this House any private business. The expenses work up to such an enormous extent that local authorities—
§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMANThe hon. Member is now endeavouring to air a grievance which is not directly relevant to the Amendment before the Committee.
§ Mr. WATTI thought I was in order on that point. The system advocated by the hon. and learned Member was that these judicial bodies, consisting of three or four Members, sitting on private Bills, should be initiated in Ireland, and I was endeavouring to show that if the whole Assembly is corrupt, then a fortiori a few Members sitting upstairs must also be corrupt. I think I have shown the argument of the hon. and learned Member will not hold water for a moment.
§ Mr. C. CRAIGThe Attorney-General told us he is prepared to put in suitable words.
§ Sir RUFUS ISAACSThere ought not to be any misapprehension about this. I said I would give the suggestion of the hon. Member careful consideration, and if I thought words were necessary I would then introduce them upon Report.
§ Mr. C. CRAIGThe proposal is to put into the Bill words which will ensure that only what are known in this House as public Bills should be subject to the Joint Session operation of the Bill. My difficulty is this: It is admitted that the Irish Parliament, when formed, will have the power of defining by Standing Order what a public Bill is, and their definition of a public Bill may be entirely different from what this House considers to be a public Bill. They may disregard the traditions of this House, and may, perfectly properly, regard a local Bill extending the boundaries of a city or dealing with drainage as a public Bill, whereas, of course, at the present time in this House these Bills are known as private Bills. Therefore the introduction of the words conceded by the Attorney-General would not entirely 1152 satisfy our ideas with reference to this matter. It seems that the right left to the Irish Parliament to define by Standing Order what a public Bill is, would leave us in very much the same condition as we are at present. I submit that this Bill itself should define, once and for all, exactly what classes of Bills are to be subject to this Joint Session treatment, and what classes are to remain subject to the procedure which exists at the present time in this House of Commons with regard to private Bills.
§ Mr. R. M'NEILLThe Attorney-General has certainly removed a misapprehension I was under the impression that his promise went a little further than it did. I understand now that he undertakes to consider this point, and if he comes to the conclusion that any such words as I suggest are necessary, he will, at a later stage, introduce them. I am sure he will not think me discourteous if I say that that is not quite enough. It is just possible that, on consideration, the right hon. and learned Gentleman may arrive at a conclusion unsatisfactory to us. Before we let this matter go I should like to have some assurance that when the Attorney-General has considered this matter we shall have an opportunity of reviewing his decision. Suppose he arrives at a conclusion that no such words are necessary, and that is quite possible, I think we ought to have an opportunity of taking the opinion of the Committee on the point, and, unless the right hon. and learned Gentleman can go a little further and promise some opportunity for discussion at a later stage, I should like to have my Amendment considered by the Committee.
§ Sir RUFUS ISAACSI am afraid I cannot, go any further than I have already done in order to meet the hon. Gentleman's suggestion. I thought I was meeting him very fairly. I quite appreciate his point. I have told him I will consider it with the draftsmen in order to see whether it is necessary to introduce these words, and I shall be prepared to communicate with him as soon as I arrive at a decision, and to explain to him the reasons for that decision. I cannot do more than that. When he asks me to give further opportunities for discussion that is a pledge which I cannot possibly make.
§ Mr. MOOREWill the right hon. and learned Gentleman tell us if we are right in assuming, now that the Government 1153 have accepted the Amendment, it means that the Irish House of Commons will deal with any public Bill in the present interpretation and not in the Irish interpretation, whatever it may be. Is that what is intended? We want to maintain a public Bill in the sense it is used in this House at the present time. We do not want an Irish Parliament to be able to say, "They may call it a public Bill in England, but we are not going to do so." Is it the Attorney-General's intention that the words "public Bill," accepted by the Government to-night, mean a public Bill as at present accepted in the present House of Commons, or do they mean a public Bill in whatever sense a future Irish Parliament may determine?
§ Sir RUFUS ISAACSMy point in agreeing to consider the words was to see whether it was necessary to put in any words in order to qualify the words "public Bill" by some such words as are suggested by the hon. Gentleman. But I certainly never intended for one moment to say I was going to introduce words into this Bill which would take away from the Irish Parliament the power given them to make their own Standing Orders whenever the Irish Parliament is constituted. On the contrary, I have pointed out that that power is given to them by a subsequent Clause in the Bill. I have no intention of taking that away; I would never consent to stereotype for the Irish Parliament a procedure which we have in this House, and which may be changed at any moment. In no circumstances should we be justified in imposing on the Irish Parliament for all time an obligation to take a course which it should decide for itself, as we decide for ourselves.
§ Mr. C. CRAIGI am sorry the Attorney-General has not been able to reassure us. It comes to this: that under the words "public Bill" the Irish Parliament will have the power to make such Standing Orders as they please; they will have a right to include any class of Bill they think fit in the category of public Bills, and they will therefore be able to include such Bills as I have mentioned. Consequently the Amendment which the Government have accepted, unless qualified by the words proposed by my hon. Friend, will be no safeguard and no improvement on the Bill at all, and I therefore hope my hon. Friend will proceed to a Division.
§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMANI think it better that we should be quite clear as to 1154 the position in which we now stand. The only Amendment at present before the Committee is that in the name of the hon. Member for Sheffield (Mr. Hope) and is to insert the word "public" before "Bill." We really must deal with that before we proceed with any other Amendment.
§ Mr. R. M'NEILLIs it not open to me to move an Amendment to that Amendment?
§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMANIt is open to the hon. Member to move an Amendment to an Amendment, but not to this particular Amendment. The Amendment would be after the hon. Member for Sheffield, namely, "that any Bill introduced into the Parliament of the United Kingdom would be a public Bill."
§ Mr. R. M'NEILLI do not think you are quite interpreting the words correctly. I propose, after the word "any," to insert the words "Bill which would be."
§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMANI must get rid of the Amendment of the hon. Member for Sheffield. Does he propose to withdraw it?
§ Mr. HERBERT SAMUELThe Amendment having been accepted by the Government, I do not think we can agree to its withdrawal.
§ Mr. JAMES HOPEI think my hon. Friend could move some amplification of the word "Bill" which would clearly carry out his object. It would want but very little change in the words read out. I am grateful to the Attorney-General for accepting this Amendment, but I find myself in a rather curious and unexpected position. I hope that this Bill will not pass, but if it should pass I shall have the consolation of knowing that my name will go down to posterity as having been one of the founders of the Irish Constitution, because the Government have accepted my Amendment.
§ Mr. R. M'NEILLI beg to move, in Sub-section (1), after the word "Bill" ["If the Irish House of Commons pass any Bill"], to insert the words "that is to say, any Bill which if introduced into the Parliament of the United Kingdom would be a public Bill."
I do not wish to be too persistent, but I am sure the Attorney-General will forgive me if I point out to him that the assurance he has given really does not quite meet my 1155 point. All that he has told us is that he will give the matter his consideration, and he has been good enough to say that he will communicate with me—it is very kind and considerate of him—as to the decision he arrives at after consultation with the draftsman. I am sure it is no slight to the great authority of the Attorney-General, which I fully recognise, to say that there may be differences of opinion upon this fact among authorities as weighty as his own.
§ Mr. WATTOn a point of Order. In regard to the discretion you, Mr. Maclean, exercise in choosing Amendments upon the Paper which you desire the Committee to discuss, are we to understand that you admit a manuscript Amendment to override those on the Paper?
§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMANYes, I do accept the Amendment.
§ Mr. R. M'NEILLI had nearly concluded my argument when I was interrupted by another "canter over the course." All that we have got from the right hon. Gentleman is a promise that he will consider the matter and tell us his decision. I am not pitting my opinion against his, but hon. Gentlemen on this side, of equal authority with him, may arrive at a different conclusion. Supposing the right hon. Gentleman conveys to us, after he has given his most mature consideration to the point, and after he has consulted the draftsman, that he has come to the conclusion that no words are necessary, that may not be our conclusion, and it is only from the point of view that the assurance appears to be unsatisfactory that I move the Amendment.
§ 9.0 P.M.
§ Sir RUFUS ISAACSThe position which I take in regard to this matter has already been explained by me; at any rate I have made it quite clear. I do not really think that the words are necessary. I have considered them, and have been considering them while the hon. Member was putting forward his argument, and it does not seem to me that you want the words at all. At the same time I said I would consider them, and I will consider them in view of the doubt expressed by the hon. Member. But you must be quite clear about this, that I am not considering the question of introducing words which will have the effect of limiting the powers of the Irish Parliament. I do not want there to be any misapprehension about that. In 1156 matter of this kind, when I am giving an undertaking, it is necessary that we should understand each other completely. What I have considered, and what I have promised to consider is whether it is necessary to introduce any such words in order to make clear what is meant by "a public Bill," and not words limiting a later Clause conferring powers on the Irish Parliament. To that view I adhere, and I hope the hon. Gentleman will see his way not to persist in this Amendment. Even supposing you have a Division upon it, and assuming for a moment that the hon. Gentleman carries his point, it will not take us one step further in the direction of limiting the powers of the Irish Parliament, it will only have said what is meant by a public Bill. I do not think there can be any doubt as to what is the meaning of a public Bill, when you are dealing with a public Bill as we understand it in the Parliament of the United Kingdom. I suggest to him that these words really would not assist the matter or carry it one step further.
§ Mr. R. M'NEILLIt appears to me that the Attorney-General has really introduced quite a new point, because he now says that this Amendment, even if carried, would not limit the powers of the Irish Parliament in this regard. Does the right hon. Gentleman really give that opinion? I should have imagined that if this Clause were to read—
If the Irish House of Commons pass any public Bill, that is to say"—then follow the words of my Amendment, that that would govern for all time the procedure under this Clause for the Joint Session; in other words, that no Bill would be subject to Joint Session procedure if it could be shown that it was a Bill which would be a public Bill in this Parliament. The Attorney-General has said that he purposely limits his consideration in away which would prevent this from being a permanent safeguard, so far as it is a safeguard, and which would open up in the future the possibility of the Irish Parliament doing away with the effect of the Amendment he has already accepted. I understood that his acceptance of my hon. Friend's Amendment to put in the word "public," meant that it was to secure in the Irish Parliament that what we call "public Bills" would not be subject to this Joint Session procedure. It is merely with the intention of removing any 1157 ambiguity which may remain that I wish to add words making it still clearer. The Attorney-General has now shown that there was not merely a necessity for making the point clear, but, in point of fact, that there is a substantive point here, and that he does not want the effect to be introduced which my hon. Friend meant and which is certainly the object of my Amendment. I submit with great humility to the right hon. Gentleman that he must be wrong in saying that if my Amendment were passed—I do not flatter myself that it will be—it would stereotype the procedure in the Irish Parliament, which is the very thing I want to do. So far as the point is an important one at all, and I think it has a certain amount of importance, the last few words which fell from the right hon. Gentleman convinced I me that it will be necessary to take the opinion of the Committee upon the Amendment.
§ Mr. JAMES HOPEI think the Attorney-General has been following the example of the Turkish soldiers in the field in that he has not yet been able to avail himself of the commissariat arrangements of the House. He cannot mean to say that the powers given under Clause 38 override the present Clause. If they override the Amendment of my hon. Friend, why should they override that any more than the rest of the Clause. If they override the powers of the Irish Parliament as to legislation with regard to private or public Bills, why should they not override the whole provision of the Joint Session and the rest? Surely these powers must be organic, and whatever is done in Clause 38 must be subject to them. As a matter of fact I should rather ask the right hon. Gentleman to explain, if he feels able to do so, on what words in Clause 38 he relies, because it does not seem to me that it bears on the point at all—
All existing laws, institutions, and authorities in Ireland, whether judicial, administrative, or ministerial, and all existing taxes in Ireland shall, except as otherwise provided, continue as if this Act had not passed.I do not see that there is anything in that, because the procedure of this House is not the existing law, institution, or authority in Ireland. Then go to the latter part.With the modifications necessary for adapting them to this Act.That does not bear upon it. 1158And subject, as respects matters within the powers of the Irish Parliament under this Act, to repeal, abolition, alteration, and adaptation in the manner and to the extent authorised by this Act.Surely that means that the other provisions of this Act govern this, and not that this overrides the other provisions of this Act. I really submit that that must be so, and the argument of the Attorney-General either must be wrong or else, if he is right, he must mean that the powers under Clause 38—a thing I cannot conceive;—will enable the Irish Members to get over all the restrictions in this Clause 11 and, I presume, in other Clauses. If that is not so, will he inform us exactly what is the case?
§ Sir RUFUS ISAACSI suggested the view about the words to the hon. Gentleman which occurred to me. He does not accept that. He means something else, as I follow from what he said. It depends on what interpretation you would put upon them. It is not necessary or desirable that I should discuss the meaning of the words. He is satisfied with them. I will accept it that his intention is carried out in the words. If that is the case I could not think of accepting the Amendment.
§ Mr. JAMES HOPEDoes the right hon. Gentleman drop the whole of the argument he based on Clause 38?
§ Sir RUFUS ISAACSI do not drop anything.
§ Mr. JAMES HOPEThen can he explain why does he not drop it? It is evident he cannot.
§ Mr. MOOREWe were told by the Attorney-General that in this Clause we had two safeguards. I asked which was the safeguard, and he said there were two. Now he has explained the safeguard later on by pointing out that it is a safeguard which the Irish Parliament have power to do away with the moment they sit. It is like all the Government safeguards. We always come back to the same thing—the absolute unreality of them. I really fail to understand the position. I am sure the right hon. Gentleman realises that what happened was this. The hon. Member (Mr. Ronald M'Neill) said he wanted something put into the Clause which would show that it was to be a public Act within the accepted meaning of this House, and the Attorney-General said he did not think 1159 that was necessary. He would consider whether any words were necessary. In the course of the subsequent proceedings it turned out that that was the last thing the Attorney-General wanted. He wants to have "public Act" as it may be defined by an Irish Parliament, and he says the last thing he would do would be to interfere with the power of the Irish Parliament to make anything they please a public Act. It seems to me we are only wasting time, and I hope, just to clear the matter up and to let the Committee decide whether this is a real safeguard or not, and whether we are to have a public Bill within the meaning of the House of Commons or within the meaning of the fantastic reforms which will take place on College Green, if ever they can get together, we may be allowed to decide whether it should be an English one or an Irish one. On this side of the House we shall vote for the safety and security of the United Kingdom, a practice which we have enjoyed up to the present.
§ Mr. WATTI wish to ask the Attorney-General on no account to have anything to do with the Amendment. Hon. Members opposite with that "public Bill" shall be defined as understood in this House, but it will have to be in this House at present, because there is no reason why the expression "public Bill," although it has a meaning at the present time, should not be altered in its meaning even in this House. The Orders of this House are not like the laws of the Medes and Persians, which cannot be altered, and any day it may be the view of the House that the Standing Order dealing with public Bills shall be altered, so that if the question of further definitions of "public Bills" were put in and were limited to the meaning at present understood in this House, it would have no effect.
§ Question put, "That those words be there inserted."
§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 112; Noes, 242.
1161| Division No. 295.] | AYES. | [9.11 p.m. |
| Agg-Gardner, James Tynte | Gilmour, Captain J. | Neville, Reginald J. N. |
| Amery, L. C. H. S. | Glazebrook, Capt. Philip K. | Newton, Harry Kottingham |
| Anson, Rt. Hon. Sir William R. | Goldman, Charles Sydney | Nield, Herbert |
| Baird, John Lawrence | Gordon, John (Londonderry, South) | Orde-Powlett, Hon. W. G. A. |
| Baker, Sir Randolf L. (Dorset, N.) | Gretton, John | Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William |
| Balcarres, Lord | Guinness, Hon. W. E. (Bury S. Edmunds) | Perkins, Walter Frank |
| Baldwin, Stanley | Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne) | Peto, Basil Edward |
| Banner, John S. Harmood- | Hall, Fred (Dulwich) | Pollock, Ernest Murray |
| Barlow, Montague (Salford, South) | Hardy, Rt. Hon. Laurence | Pryce-Jones, Col. E. |
| Barrie, Hugh T. | Harrison-Broadley, H. B. | Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel |
| Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton) | Helmsley, Viscount | Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall) |
| Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth) | Henderson, Major H. (Abingdon) | Royds, Edmund |
| Benn, Ion Hamilton (Greenwich) | Hewins, William Albert Samuel | Rutherford, John (Lancs., Darwen) |
| Bennett-Goldney, Francis | Hill, Sir Clement L. | Rutherford, Watson (L'pool, W. Derby) |
| Boyle, W. Lewis (Norfolk, Mid) | Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy | Salter, Arthur Clavell |
| Bridgeman, W. Clive | Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield) | Samuel, Sir Harry (Norwood) |
| Burn, Col. C. R. | Hope, Major J. A. (Midlothian) | Sanders, Robert Arthur |
| Campbell, Rt. Hon. J. (Dublin Univ.) | Home, Wm. E. (Surrey, Guildford) | Sanderson, Lancelot |
| Campion, W. R. | Horner, Andrew Long | Smith, Harold (Warrington) |
| Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred | Houston, Robert Paterson | Spear, Sir John Ward |
| Cassel, Felix | Hume-Williams, William Ellis | Strauss, Arthur (Paddington, North) |
| Castlereagh, Viscount | Kebty-Fletcher, J. R. | Sykes, Mark (Hull, Central) |
| Cautley, H. S. | Kerr-Smiley, Peter Kerr | Talbot, Lord Edmund |
| Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor) | Kimber, Sir Henry | Thompson, Robert (Belfast, North) |
| Cecil, Lord Hugh (Oxford University) | Knight, Captain Eric Ayshford | Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Down, North) |
| Chaloner, Col. R. G. W. | Larmor, Sir J. | Touche, George Alexander |
| Chamberlain, Rt. Hon, J. A. (Worc'r.) | Law, Rt. Hon. A. Bonar (Bootle) | Walrond, Hon. Lionel |
| Cooper, Richard Ashmole | Lewisham, Viscount | Ward, Arnold (Herts, Watford) |
| Courthope, George Loyd | Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury) | Warde, Col. C. E. (Kent, Mid) |
| Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.) | Lowe, Sir F. W. (Birm., Edgbaston) | Williams, Col. R. (Dorset, W.) |
| Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet) | MacCaw, Wm. J. MacGeagh | Willoughby, Major Hon. Claud |
| Crichton-Stuart, Lord Ninian | Macmaster, Donald | Wolmer, Viscount |
| Denniss, E. R. B. | Magnus, Sir Philip | Wood, John (Stalybridge) |
| Eyres-Monsell, B. M. | Malcolm, Ian | Worthington-Evans, L. |
| Faber, George Denison (Clapham) | Mason, James F. (Windsor) | Wright, Henry Fitzherbert |
| Falle, Bertram Godfrey | Middlemore, John Throgmorton | |
| Fell, Arthur | Mills, Hon. Charles Thomas | TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. |
| Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey | Mount, William Arthur | Moore and Mr. R. M'Neill. |
| Fletcher, John Samuel | ||
| NOES. | ||
| Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour) | Allen, Rt. Hon. Charles P. (Stroud) | Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark) |
| Acland, Francis Dyke | Armitage, Robert | Barran, Sir J. (Hawick Burghs) |
| Adamson, William | Baker, Harold T. (Accrington) | Barran, Rowland Hurst (Leeds, N.) |
| Addison, Dr. Christopher | Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.) | Barton, William |
| Beale, Sir William Phipson | Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry | O'Shaughnessy, P. J. |
| Benn, W. W. (T. Hamlets, St. Geo.) | Hayward, Evan | O Shee, James John |
| Bentham, George Jackson | Hazleton, Richard | O'Sullivan, Timothy |
| Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine | Helme, Sir Nerval Watson | Outhwaite, R. L. |
| Black, Arthur W. | Henderson, Arthur (Durham) | Parker, James (Halifax) |
| Boland, John Pius | Henry, Sir Charles | Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek) |
| Booth, Frederick Handel | Higham, John Sharp | Pearce, William (Limehouse) |
| Bowerman, Charles W. | Hodge, John | Pease, Rt. Hon. Joseph A. (Rotherham) |
| Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, N.) | Holmes, Daniel Turner | Phillips, John (Longford, S.) |
| Brace, William | Holt, Richard Durning | Pirle, Duncan V. |
| Brady, Patrick Joseph | Home, Charles Silvester (Ipswich) | Pointer, Joseph |
| Brunner, John F. L. | Howard, Hon. Geoffrey | Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H. |
| Bryce, John Annan | Hudson, Walter | Power, Patrick Joseph |
| Buckmaster, Stanley O. | Hughes, Spencer Leigh | Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central) |
| Burke, E. Haviland- | Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus | Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk, E.) |
| Burns, Rt. Hon. John | Jardine, Sir John (Roxburgh) | Priestley, Sir W. E. B. (Bradford, E.) |
| Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas | John, Edward Thomas | Radford, George Heynes |
| Buxton, Rt. Hon. S. C. (Poplar) | Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil) | Raphael, Sir Herbert H. |
| Carr-Gomm, H. W. | Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth) | Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields) |
| Cawley, Harold T. (Heywood) | Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East) | Reddy, Michael |
| Chancellor, Henry George | Jones, Leif Stratten (Notts, Rushcliffe) | Redmond, John E. (Waterford) |
| Chapple, Dr. William Allen | Jones, William (Carnarvonshire) | Redmond, William (Clare, E.) |
| Clancy, John Joseph | Jones, W. S. Glyn- (T. H'mts, Stepney) | Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.) |
| Clough, William | Jowett, Frederick William | Richardson, Albion (Peckham) |
| Clynes, John R. | Joyce, Michael | Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln) |
| Collins, Stephen (Lambeth) | Keating, Matthew | Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford) |
| Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J. | Kellaway, Frederick George | Robertson, John M. (Tyneside) |
| Condon, Thomas Joseph | Kelly, Edward | Robinson, Sidney |
| Cotton, William Francis | Kennedy, Vincent Paul | Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke) |
| Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth) | Kilbride, Denis | Roche, Augustine (Louth) |
| Crean, Eugene | King, Joseph | Roche, John (Galway, E.) |
| Crooks, William | Lamb, Ernest Henry | Roe, Sir Thomas |
| Crumley, Patrick | Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade) | Rowlands, James |
| Cullinan, John | Lardner, James Carrige Rushe | Rowntree, Arnold |
| Davies, Ellis William (Eifion) | Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, West) | Russell, Rt. Hon. Thomas W. |
| Davies, Sir W. Howell [Bristol, S.) | Lawson, Sir W. (Cumb'rld, Cockerm'th) | Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland) |
| Dawes, James Arthur | Leach, Charles | Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees) |
| De Forest, Baron | Levy, Sir Maurice | Scanlan, Thomas |
| Delany, William | Lewis, John Herbert | Schwann, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles E. |
| Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas | Lundon, Thomas | Sheehan, Daniel Daniel |
| Dillon, John | Lynch, Arthur Alfred | Sheehy, David |
| Donelan, Captain A. | Macdonald, J. Ramsay (Leicester) | Sherwell, Arthur James |
| Doris, William | Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs) | Simon, Sir John Allsebrook |
| Duffy, William J. | McGhee, Richard | Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe) |
| Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness) | Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J. | Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim) |
| Duncan, J. Hastings (Yorks, Otley) | MacNeill, J. G. Swift (Donegal, South) | Snowden, P. |
| Edwards, John Hugh (Glamorgan, Mid) | MacVeagh, Jeremiah | Spicer, Rt. Hon. Sir Albert |
| Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.) | M'Callum, Sir John M. | Taylor, John W. (Durham) |
| Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.) | McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald | Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe) |
| Essex, Richard Walter | M'Micking, Major Gilbert | Thomas, J. H. |
| Esslemont, George Birnie | Markham, Sir Arthur Basil | Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton) |
| Falconer, James | Marks, Sir George Croydon | Thorne, William (West Ham) |
| Farrell, James Patrick | Meagher, Michael | Toulmin, Sir George |
| Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles | Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.) | Trevelyan, Charles Philips |
| Ffrench, Peter | Menzies, Sir Walter | Verney, Sir Harry |
| Field, William | Molloy, Michael | Walsh, J. (Cork, South) |
| Fitzgibbon, John | Molteno, Percy Alport | Walsh, Stephen (Lancs., Ince) |
| Flavin, Michael Joseph | Mond, Sir Alfred Moritz | Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent) |
| France, Gerald Ashburner | Mooney, John J. | Wardle, George J. |
| Gelder, Sir W. A. | Muldoon, John | Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay |
| Gill, Alfred Henry | Munro, Robert | Watt, Henry A. |
| Ginnell, L. | Nannetti, Joseph P. | Webb, H. |
| Glanville, Harold James | Needham, Christopher T. | Wedgwood, Josiah C. |
| Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford | Neilson, Francis | White, Sir Luke (Yorks, E.R.) |
| Goldstone, Frank | Nicholson, Sir Charles N. (Doncaster) | White, Patrick (Meath, North) |
| Greenwood, Granville G. (Peterborough) | Nolan, Joseph | Whyte, A. F. (Perth) |
| Greig, Colonel J. W. | Nuttall, Harry | Wiles, Thomas |
| Guest, Hon. Frederick E. (Dorset, E.) | O'Brien, Patrick Kilkenny) | Wilkie, Alexander |
| Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway) | O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.) | Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. W. (Worcs., N.) |
| Hackett, John | O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool) | Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton) |
| Hancock, John George | O'Doherty, Philip | Winfrey, Richard |
| Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale) | O'Donnell, Thomas | Wood, Rt. Hon. T. McKinnon (Glas.) |
| Hardie, J. Keir | O'Dowd, John | Young, Samuel (Cavan, E.) |
| Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds) | O'Grady, James | Young, William (Perth, East) |
| Harmsworth, R. L (Caithness-shire) | O'Kelly, Edward P. (Wicklow, W.) | |
| Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale) | O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.) | TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. |
| Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West) | O'Malley, William | Illingworth and Mr. Gulland. |
| Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth) | O'Neill, Dr. Charles (Armagh, S.) |
Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and agreed to.
§ Mr. GOD FREY LOCKER-LAMPSONI beg to move, in Sub-section (1) after the 1162 word "Bill" ["If the Irish House of Commons pass any Bill"], to insert the 1163 words" which is sent up to the Irish Senate at least one month before the end of the Session."
I very much hope that the Government may see their way to accept this Amendment. Personally, I should have liked to have made it a little bit stronger and to have proposed that the period should be six weeks or two months, but I thought that in this very moderate form the Government might see their way to accept the Amendment. As a matter of fact the words of the Amendment are taken almost precisely from Clause 2 of the Parliament Act. I would remind the Committee that these words were not inserted at the suggestion of the Opposition on account of any Amendment proposed by us. They were put in originally when the Government framed their measure. They were put in with a deliberate purpose. The Government put them in in order to guard the interest of the Upper Chamber in this country, and in the general interest of public policy. It seems to me if they were put in the Parliament Act in the interest of the House of Lords here, it is far more necessary to put them in when you are framing an entirely new Constitution in another country.
§ Mr. HERBERT SAMUELIt will be accepted.
§ Mr. GODFREY LOCKER-LAMPSONI am extremely glad that I am relieved from having to make any further remarks, and I am exceedingly grateful to the Government for having accepted my Amendment.
§ Mr. HERBERT SAMUELI should like to say that the reason why the words were not originally put in was that we were taking the textual provision in the South Africa Act, which is the only Constitution within the Empire where a joint sitting on these lines is included. The words "one month" do not there appear. They do appear in the Parliament Act, and if hon. Gentlemen opposite desire that this safeguard should be inserted—[An HON. MEMBER: "Condition."]—the word safeguard is taboo, but if this condition should be accepted, the Government cannot possibly say that it is an unreasonable Amendment. I hope, however, the acceptance of this Amendment will not be the signal for three-quarters of an hour's Debate as in the case of the last Amendment
§ Mr. MOOREI protest against the last words used by the Postmaster-General. He seems to forget that we are working under the guillotine, and that whether we like it or not the guillotine will fall at half-past ten. The Postmaster-General has the insolence to get up and complain that we occupied three-quarters of an hour on the last Amendment when we were discussing an Irish question. I think it is an insolent statement which ought to be withdrawn. I know we will not be allowed to discuss things in the Irish Parliament, but we are now in the United Parliament, and we are here to fight our corner, and we will fight our corner, in spite of sneers and protests entirely unworthy of the Government Bench when we are gagged and guillotined at every turn. After that I think the Committee would be well advised to discuss this proposal. The Postmaster-General said it is not a safeguard. I understood that he withdrew the word safeguard.
§ Mr. HERBERT SAMUELIn deference to your susceptibilities.
§ Mr. MOOREI am not aware that I am so very susceptible. I understand insolence when it is meant, and I treat it as such. This is only a part of the Government sham. [An HON. MEMBER: "Hear, hear."] I am glad that is recognised, even on the Labour benches. Under this proposal, of course, there will be a certain amount of delay by putting in the words "one month." We will be at the mercy of the Irish Parliament. They can have as many Sessions as they like in a year. The whole of these limitations proceed on the idea that the Irish Parliament will be a slavish model of this Parliament. It is the last thing they will do. It would be possible for any member in the Irish Parliament to get up and say, "They do this in the English Parliament; we will have our own rules and regulations." It all comes back to the same thing. When you pack the Irish Senate and the Irish House of Commons it is immaterial to the minority what paper conditions of this sort you put in the Bill. All I hope is that the Government will not add to their impostures in the way of concessions and the conciliatory nature of their safeguards by going through the country and trumpeting them. We do not accept them as such. The whole thing is unreal, and we hope that there will not be any more safeguards of this sort.
§ Mr. RONALD M'NEILLI do not want at all to impose upon the right hon. Gentleman's somewhat weary sense of the inferiority of the rest of mankind, but I wish to point out that this is one of the few Clauses which for an hour or two we have been able to discuss in the true Committee spirit, more or less in detail. We had not gone through one line before the Government felt constrained to accept two Amendments, thereby showing the faultiness of their own draftsmanship, and I want to ask the right hon. Gentleman what he thinks the result would have been supposing we had had an opportunity of discussing the whole of this Bill in the same detail? Supposing the last Clause, which we accepted without a word of discussion an hour ago, had been discussed in full, how many Amendments does anyone suppose the Government would have felt themselves bound to accept owing to the bad draftsmanship put into this Bill? I am very glad that the right hon. Gentleman has accepted the Amendment, but it only shows how necessary it is, in order to make this Bill hold water at all, that it should be properly discussed.
Mr. HAMILTON BENNI beg to move, in Sub-section (1), after the word "Bill" ["pass any Bill"], to insert the words "other than a Bill which contains any provision affecting the qualification of Irish Parliamentary electors or affecting the right to vote at any Irish Parliamentary election."
As the Bill stands power will be given to the party in power in the Irish Parliament after three years to enfranchise or disfranchise any section or class of the Irish electorate. The only buffer, I hardly dare say safeguard, would be the assent of the Senate. If we could suppose under the present arrangement that the Senate would be of a different complexion from the House of Commons in Ireland, then it would be necessary to obtain the consent of the Senate, but there would have to be a Joint Session, and we all know that there are only forty members of the Senate, whose votes would be merely one in four, so that the alleged safeguard is really no safeguard in this case. By this Bill the Government place the whole affairs of Ireland in the hands of one political party, one of the nationalities, one of the sects in Ireland, and when they are making such an experiment as this with such dangerous 1166 material, the least they could do would be to insert some real safeguard for the minority. One of the real safeguards which they could insert would be the acceptance of this Amendment. At all events, it would give the minority in Ireland the assurance that the opportunity of voting at an election would not be tampered with. I know it would be said that no Irish Government would ever think of bringing in a Bill to affect the right of their opponents to vote. I know that it is supposed that as soon as this Bill is passed all the people in Ireland will become angels. That has been demonstrated on several occasions. They are going to change their nature completely. But, even so, I would like to see some safeguard of this kind inserted. Is it impossible to imagine after some years, when there might be a change coming over the electorate in Ireland, that the party in power, seeing their majority dwindling, would try to change the electoral arrangements in their own favour? It is perfectly clear that any frequent changes in the electoral arrangements in the country are very detrimental and quite undemocratic. It would be admitted that if there was any good, valid reason for changing the electorate in Ireland such a change would be accepted by the Imperial Parliament. I think the Imperial Parliament, standing outside the arena of party politics in Ireland, would be able to have a clearer vision, to see more exactly whether it was desirable that there should be a change in the electorate. Therefore I desire to insert words which will ensure to the minority that the electorate would not be changed without the consent of the Imperial Parliament.
§ Mr. EVELYN CECILIn support of this Amendment I wish to adopt the arguments of my hon. Friend, and also to urge another point which may have escaped his notice. The object of this Amendment is to give full powers to the Irish Senate, in respect of a Franchise Bill or a Redistribution Bill or a Bill of that character, that there should not be ipso facto a joint sitting, that there should be some safeguard against gerrymandering constituencies or tampering with the rights of electors such as has been known in the history of this country before now. May I recall the precedents that occurred which are a matter of histor5r now over the Franchise Bill and the Redistribution Bill of 1884? On that occasion there was a great deal of suspicion of manipulating 1167 constituencies and of redistributing it on unfair grounds, in such a way that in certain constituencies one party should get an advantage, because certain portions of what ought to belong to those constituencies were cut away and given to some other constituencies where the party majority was already sufficiently assured. No doubt if the late Sir Charles Dilke was in this House he would be able to tell us a great deal of what occurred on that occasion, but the point is that the House of Lords took a considerable part in those discussions and refused to pass the Franchise Bill until a fair scheme of redistribution was agreed to, and in the end they had considerable influence in securing the fairness of the redistribution proposals. That is one reason why I am anxious that the Irish Senate should be put, at any rate, in the same position so that they can prevent the Irish House of Commons from manipulating the electorate to the advantage of the party momentarily in power. And unless you have some Amendment such as my hon. Friend proposes which will bring that about, I think you run a somewhat serious risk. That is only one side of the question. There is another side to which I want to call the attention of the Government. Since the Bill was introduced the Government have accepted the principle that the Irish Senate shall be an elective body, and, if the Irish Senate is an elective body, therefore directly in touch with the constituencies, and directly concerned with the electorate and with the boundaries of those constituencies, surely it is right and proper that they should have a full voice in any Franchise Bill that might be introduced. I cannot myself see how, bearing in mind that the Government has accepted the elective principle for the Irish Senate, they can possibly say that the Irish Senate is to have no voice whatever in a Franchise Bill or a Redistribution Bill. Yet, unless this Amendment be accepted by the Government, that is the position.
Attention called to the fact that there were not forty Members present; House counted, and forty Members being found present—
§ Mr. EVELYN CECILI do not know what exactly was the object of the hon. Member for Stoke in calling attention to the fact that there were not forty Mem- 1168 bers present. There were plenty of Unionists here, while Ministerialists and Nationalists were absent. I do not know whether the argument I was addressing to the Committee was particularly unpleasant to the hon. Member and lead him to-move a count, but it is quite conceivable that it was so. It will give me the satisfaction of repeating more clearly perhaps, for the edification of those Members who were not present, the point I am making—it is that since the elective principle has been introduced into the Irish Senate, it is plain that the Irish Senate ought to have a full voice in any Franchise or Redistribution Bill submitted to the Irish Parliament. That is the object of this Amendment, and there is, to my mind, a very strong case why it should be accepted. I do not think it is fair or right from any point of view to exclude this Senate from a full voice on such a Bill, now that it has been put on an elective basis. I shall regret very greatly if the Government cannot see their way to accept this Amendment, in common fairness and common justice to the new Constitution which they are setting up.
§ Sir P. MAGNUSThere is one point which has not been touched upon, and in regard to which, unless this Amendment be accepted—and I trust the Government is prepared to accept it—it seems to me very possible that the University of Dublin might be disfranchised without the consent of the Senate. This is the more probable having regard to the Amendment accepted by the Chief Secretary for Ireland on the part of the Government, namely, that the University of Dublin is now withdrawn from the purview of the Irish Parliament and its rights and privileges are to be protected by the Parliament of the United Kingdom. For that reason the temptation might be strong on the part of the Irish Parliament to withdraw the representation of two members for the University of Dublin, which is granted by this Bill. I think, for that reason only, if for no other, it is very desirable indeed that the Government should accept this Amendment.
§ Mr. JOHN GORDON (Londonderry, South)There would appear to be a great deal more in this Amendment than at first sight appears. The Government must remember that there are three sets of people who are interested in the qualification of the Irish Parliamentary electors and their right to vote. The first, the 1169 electors themselves, or the people from whom the electors are chosen, or selected, or by whatever process you may adopt; secondly, the Senate, because the Senate is to be elected by the same body of electors who elect the Lower House; and, thirdly, the Lower House. And what you are going to do, if you do not accept this Amendment, is to leave the sole determination of the question in the hands of the Lower House. There can be no doubt whatever about that; because the Lower House is more than four to one of the Senate, and if they have a joint sitting, the Lower House can easily outvote the Senate, or outvote the Senate and a minority of their own body that might happen to be of the same view as the Senate.
This is not a case of accepting an Amendment which might affect the principle of the Bill. We are only proposing the Amendment for the purpose of giving fair play to the electorate and to the Senate. You have an elective Senate. You are not in the same position as you were when you introduced the Parliament Bill, and were dealing with a non-elective body, and chose to put certain restrictions upon it. You are dealing with an elective body with a direct interest in preserving the rights of the electors who are to elect the senators. You have, also, in this only the delay of legislation, because by this Amendment, so far as I can see, the Senate, which is vitally interested in the matter, and will have the right of refusing to pass a Bill which has passed the Lower House, will see that the electors themselves are consulted upon questions which vitally concern them. The only thing that can happen if the Amendment be accepted is that the Lower House cannot by force of numbers, and by the provision which enables them to have a joint sitting when the two Houses do not agree, force upon the body a change in the qualification of the electors without the electors themselves having an opportunity to express their opinion upon the proposal. I cannot see on what principle, whether Liberal or democratic, you can refuse to allow an Amendment which will only secure the rights of the people, whose interests are affected, to have an opportunity of expressing their opinion in the ordinary, legitimate, and constitutional way.
§ Mr. HERBERT SAMUELIn the first place the hon. Member is under a misapprehension if he thinks the Irish Parliament will have power to alter completely 1170 the qualifications that exist in the Irish Senate. That is not so.
§ Mr. GORDONAs I understood the matter, and if I am wrong I hope I shall be corrected, the Senate is to be elected by provinces, but by the same electors that elect the Members of the Lower House.
§ Mr. HERBERT SAMUELIn the first instance there will only be one register of electors for all purposes, but the Irish Parliament has power, under Clause 9, Subsection (3), to alter the qualification for electors so far as relates to the Irish House of Commons, and to that alone. The electors of the Irish Senate are to be the same as the electors for members to serve in the Imperial Parliament. The constitution of the Senate and the electors of the Senate, all that is retained as part of the points of Imperial legislation, and the only powers conferred on the Irish Parliament have to deal with the electors of the Irish House of Commons. If the hon. Member will be good enough to refer to the Amendment carried with respect to the elected Senate, and which does not appear on the face of the Bill, he will find that what I have stated is the case. The hon. Member who moved this Amendment is also, I think, under a misapprehension, since he said that the effect of his Amendment would be to remove the alteration of the electorate for the Irish House of Commons from the province of the Irish Parliament, and to retain it in the hands of the Imperial Parliament. He said he thought this matter ought to be reserved to the Imperial Parliament. This Clause, of course, only deals with the case where there is a deadlock between the two Houses of the Irish Parliament, and his suggestion is that where such a deadlock occurs in the case of a Bill dealing with the qualifications of electors that there should be no means of resolving that deadlock, and that the provision of a Joint Sitting should not apply to that case. That is a proposal which the Government, of course, cannot accept. We see no reason for picking out this one portion of the whole province of legislation and saying that the principle of a Joint Session shall not apply there while it shall apply in all other cases as the means of resolving deadlocks. The hon. Member for Aston Manor (Mr. E. Cecil) said that now you had an elected Senate and no longer a nominated Senate you ought to give it larger powers. I could understand that on the ground that we had now an elected Senate, you should vote 1171 against the whole principle of the Joint Sitting, and should vote against this whole Clause, but I submit to him that the fact that we have changed the constitution of the Senate is no reason why we should take one set of laws and say: "This shall not be subject to the principle of a Joint Sitting while the other laws shall be so subject."
Our Constitution has never recognised any distinction between fundamental laws and non-fundamental laws, between organic and non-organic laws, and you cannot properly try to create some new category of legislation to which the ordinary principle of Parliamentary action shall not apply. This matter, of course, was discussed at great length on the Parliament Bill last year, and no fewer than twenty-three classes of legislation were proposed to be omitted from the legislation which was to be subject to the provision of the Parliament Bill. The House of Commons did not accept that view, and the Parliament Bill was passed without making any attempt to discriminate between those numerous classes of what were supposed to be organic laws and ordinary legislation dealt with by Parliament. Least of all in this case would it be necessary to exclude this particular group of measures. The idea is that an Irish Parliament, if not checked by a Senate, might pass laws deliberately to exclude from the register those persons who would not vote for the then dominant majority in the Irish House of Commons. In the first place it surely cannot be believed by the House at large, whatever may be the view of particular individual Members opposite, that any Parliament in any part of the world would endeavour to pass outrageous legislation of that kind. But even if it were possible that such an attempt should be made unquestionably the Imperial Government here, under the influence of the Imperial Parliament, would never for a moment allow such a Bill of that character to reach the Statute Book.
§ Mr. HERBERT SAMUELBy refusing the Royal Assent. Undoubtedly, if the Irish Parliament were to pass a Bill to the effect that no Protestant should be added to the electoral register for the Irish Parliament, such a Bill would immediately be vetoed with the unanimous support of British public opinion. The contingency as obviously an impossible one, but since 1172 we are dealing with impossible contingencies I think it is legitimate to point out what the result would be. Therefore this proposal is unnecessary. The suggestion is that the Irish Senate should have an absolute Veto on any legislation, no matter what it might be, which the Irish House of Commons might choose to pass altering in any way the qualifications of the electors who are to vote for the Irish Parliament. We cannot agree that there should be such a Veto, and we think the provisions for dealing with a deadlock in other cases should apply to a deadlock in this. Under Acts already passed by this Parliament and Constitutions already established within the Empire with the assent of the Imperial Parliament by Imperial legislation which provides for a joint sitting in certain cases between the two Houses—that is to say, the South African Constitution and the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution—no such demand has been made in the past to draw a distinction between this class of legislation and others. We invite the Committee therefore to adhere to precedent, and not to attempt to make this distinction.
§ Sir P. MAGNUSThe right hon. Gentleman has not referred to the special and exceptional case mentioned by me, namely, with regard to the electoral rights of the University of Dublin. I had Amendments down to Sub-section (3) of Clause 9, the object of which was to safeguard those interests as regards the Dublin Parliament. The case is distinctly exceptional. Having regard to the fact that the rights of the University of Dublin have been withdrawn from the purview of the Irish Parliament, it stands altogether apart from the other constituencies, and the temptation might be very strong indeed on the part of the Irish House of Commons to destroy the electoral rights which are given to Dublin University under this Bill. For that reason, I think, it is very important indeed, in order that those interests shall be safeguarded that this particular Amendment should be accepted. The right hon. Gentleman did not refer to the matter.
§ Mr. HERBERT SAMUELI must apologise to the hon. Member, but I should have thought it was quite obvious if Dublin University was entirely excluded from the puview of the Irish Parliament and was, to use a term that has been used in Ireland, denationalised, of course it would not have special representation in the Irish 1173 Parliament. It would follow as a matter of course, and therefore this question would not in any case arise if Dublin University is excluded.
§ Sir P. MAGNUSMay I ask if it is the intention to withdraw the representation of Dublin University from the Irish Parliament and from the Senate?
§ Mr. HERBERT SAMUELThe point does not arise in this Clause, but the answer-is in the affirmative.
§ Mr. SAMUEL ROBERTSThis Amendment really brings us back to Sub-section (3) of Clause 9, which provides—
After three years from the passing of this Act the Irish Parliament may alter as respects the Irish House of Commons the qualification of the electors, the mode of election, the constituencies.Therefore it can take away the franchise from these constituencies, and my hon.
§ Friend is perfectly right when he says that the Dublin Parliament could under this Clause disfranchise Dublin University. When asked what would be done if an injustice of this kind were passed by the Irish Parliament, the Postmaster-General said, "Oh, there is the Veto." But the Committee forgets that the possibility of the Veto being exercised is repudiated by Members from Ireland; they say that they will not have it, and if the Veto was exercised civil war or revolution would result. We all know that it can never be exercised. It is one of those sham safeguards introduced as a show-card, but having no reality about it. I hope the Government will accept the Amendment which would give, for what it is worth, power to the Irish Senate to say whether or not any such alteration in the franchise was or was not to take place.
§ Question put, That those words be there inserted."
§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 129; Noes, 260.
1177| Division No. 296.] | AYES. | 10.0 p.m. |
| Agg-Gardner, James Tynte | Gilmour, Captain John | Moore, William |
| Amery, L. C. M. S. | Glazebrook, Capt. Philip K. | Mount, William Arthur |
| Anson, Rt. Hon. Sir William R. | Goldman, C. S. | Neville, Reginald J. N. |
| Bagot, Liet.-Colonel J. | Gordon, John (Londonderry, South) | Newton, Harry Kottingham |
| Baird, John Lawrence | Goulding, Edward Alfred | Nield, Herbert |
| Baker, Sir Randolf L. (Dorset, N.) | Gretton, John | Orde-Powiett, Hon. W. G. A. |
| Balcarres, Lord | Guinness, Hon. W. E. (Bury S. Edmunds) | Perkins, Walter Frank |
| Baldwin, Stanley | Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne) | Peto, Basil Edward |
| Banbury, Sir Frederick George | Haddock, George Bahr | Poliock, Ernest Murray |
| Banner, John S. Harmood- | Hall, D. B. (Isle of Wight) | Pryce-Jones, Colonel E. |
| Barlow, Montague (Salford, South) | Hall, Fred (Dulwich) | Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel |
| Barnston, Harry | Hamersley, Alfred St. George | Remnant, James Farquharson |
| Barrie, H. T. | Harrison-Broadley, H. B. | Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall) |
| Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton) | Helmsley, Viscount | Royds, Edmund |
| Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth) | Henderson, Major H. (Berks, Abingdon) | Rutherford, John (Lancs., Darwen) |
| Bennett-Goldney, Francis | Hewins, William Albert Samuel | Rutherford, W. (Liverpool, W. Derby) |
| Bird, Alfred | Hill, Sir Clement L. | Salter, Arthur Clavell |
| Boyle, W. Lewis (Norfolk, Mid) | Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy | Samuel, Sir Harry (Norwood) |
| Bridgeman, William Clive | Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield) | Sanders, Robert Arthur |
| Burn, Colonel C. R. | Hope, Major J. A. (Midlothian) | Smith, Harold (Warrington) |
| Campbell, Rt. Hon. J. (Dublin Univ.) | Home, Wm. E. (Surrey, Guildford) | Spear, Sir John Ward |
| Campion, W. R. | Horner, Andrew Long | Stanier, Beville |
| Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred | Houston, Robert Paterson | Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston) |
| Cassel, Felix | Hume-Williams, Wm. Ellis | Strauss, Arthur (Paddington, North) |
| Castlereagh, Viscount | Joynson-Hicks, William | Sykes, Mark (Hull, Central) |
| Cautley, Henry Strother | Kebty-Fletcher, J. R. | Talbot, Lord Edmund |
| Cecil, Lord Hugh (Oxford University) | Kerr-Smiley, Peter Kerr | Thompson, Robert (Belfast, North) |
| Chaloner, Col. R. G. W. | Kimber, Sir Henry | Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Down, N.) |
| Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. A. (Worc'r) | Knight, Captain Eric Ayshford | Touche, George Alxander |
| Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry | Larmor, Sir J. | Walrond, Hon. Lionel |
| Clay, Captain H. H. Spender | Law, Rt. Hon. A. Bonar (Bootle) | Ward, A. S. (Herts, Watford) |
| Cooper, Richard Ashmole | Lewisham, Viscount | Warde, Col. C. E. (Kent, Mid) |
| Courthope, George Loyd | Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury) | Wheler, Granville C. H. |
| Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.) | Locker, Lampson, O. (Ramsey) | Williams, Col. R. (Dorset, W.) |
| Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet) | Lockwood, Rt. Hon. Lt.-Col. A. R. | Willoughby, Major Hon. Claud |
| Craik, Sir Henry | Lowe, Sir F. W. (Birm., Edgbaston) | Wolmer, Viscount |
| Crichton-Stuart, Lord Ninian | MacCaw, Wm. J. MacGeagh | Wood, Hon. E. F. L. (Yorks, Ripon) |
| Denniss, E. R. B. | Macmaster, Donald | Wood, John (Stalybridge) |
| Eyres-Monsell, B. M. | McNeill, Ronald (Kent, St. Augustine's) | Worthington-Evans, L. |
| Faber, George D. (Clapham) | Magnus, Sir Philip | Wright, Henry Fitzherbert |
| Falle, Bertram Godfray | Malcolm, Ian | Yerburgh, Robert A. |
| Fell, Arthur | Mason, James F. (Windsor) | |
| Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey | Middlemore, John Throgmorton | TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. |
| Fletcher, John Samuel | Mildmay, Francis Bingham | Hamilton Benn and Mr. Evelyn Cecil. |
| NOES. | ||
| Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour) | Greenwood, Granvile G. (Peterborough) | Munro, Robert |
| Acland, Francis Dyke | Greig, Colonel James William | Nannetti, Joseph P. |
| Adamson, William | Griffith, Ellis Jones | Needham, Christopher T. |
| Addison, Dr. Christopher | Guest, Hon. Frederick E. (Dorset, E.) | Neilson, Francis |
| Allen, Rt. Hon. Charles P. (Stroud) | Gulland, John William | Nicholson, Sir Charles N. (Doncaster) |
| Armitage, Robert | Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway) | Nolan, Joseph |
| Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.) | Hackett, John | Nuttall, Harry |
| Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark) | Hamilton, Marquess of (Londonderry) | O Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny) |
| Baring, Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple) | Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale) | O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.) |
| Barlow, Sir John Emmott (Somerset) | Hardie, J. Keir | O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool) |
| Barran, Sir John N. (Hawick B.) | Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds.) | O'Doherty, Philip |
| Barran, Rowland Hurst (Leeds, N.) | Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire) | O'Donnell, Thomas |
| Barton, William | Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale) | O'Dowd, John |
| Beale, Sir William Phipson | Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West) | O'Grady, James |
| Beauchamp, Sir Edward | Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth) | O'Kelly, Edward P. (Wicklow, w.) |
| Beck, Arthur Cecil | Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry | O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.) |
| Bentham, George Jackson | Hayden, John Patrick | O'Malley, William |
| Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine | Hayward, Evan | O'Neill, Dr. Charles (Armagh, S.) |
| Black, Arthur W. | Hazleton, Richard | O'Shaughnessy, P. J. |
| Boland, John Pius | Healy, Timothy Michael (Cork, N.E.) | O'Shee, James John |
| Booth, Frederick Handel | Helme, Sir Norval Watson | O'Sullivan, Timothy |
| Bowerman, Charles W. | Hemmerde, Edward George | Outhwaite, R. L. |
| Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North) | Henderson, Arthur (Durham) | Palmer, Godfrey Mark |
| Brace, William | Henry, Sir Charles | Parker, James (Halifax) |
| Brady, Patrick Joseph | Higham, John Sharp | Parkes, Ebenezer |
| Brunner, John F. L. | Hodge, John | Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek) |
| Bryce, John Annan | Holmes, Daniel Turner | Pearce, William (Limehouse) |
| Buckmaster, Stanley O. | Holt, Richard Durning | Pease, Rt. Hon. Joseph A. (Rotherham) |
| Burke, E. Haviland- | Home, C. Silvester (Ipswich) | Phillips, John (Longford, S.) |
| Burns, Rt. Hon. John | Hudson, Walter | Pirie, Duncan V. |
| Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas | Hughes, Spencer Leigh | Pointer, Joseph |
| Buxton, Rt. Hon. S. C. (Poplar) | Illingworth, Percy H. | Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H. |
| Carr-Gomm, H. W. | Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus | Power, Patrick Joseph |
| Cawley, Harold T. (Heywood) | Jardine, Sir John (Roxburgh) | Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central) |
| Chancellor, Henry George | John, Edward Thomas | Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk, E.) |
| Chapple, Dr. William Allen | Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil) | Priestley, Sir W. E. B. (Bradford, E.) |
| Clancy, John Joseph | Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth) | Pringle, William M. R. |
| Clough, William | Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East) | Radford, George Heynes |
| Clynes, John R. | Jones, William (Carnarvonshire) | Raphael, Sir Herbert Henry |
| Collins, Stephen (Lambeth) | Jones, W. S. Glyn- (Stepney) | Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields) |
| Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J. | Jowett, Frederick William | Reddy, Michael |
| Condon, Thomas Joseph | Joyce, Michael | Redmond, John E. (Waterford) |
| Cotton, William Francis | Keating, Matthew | Redmond, William (Clare, E.) |
| Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth) | Kellaway, Frederick George | Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.) |
| Crean, Eugene | Kelly, Edward | Richardson, Albion (Peckham) |
| Crooks, William | Kennedy, Vincent Paul | Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven) |
| Crumley, Patrick | Kilbride, Denis | Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln) |
| Cullinan, J. | King, J. | Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs) |
| Davies, E. William (Eifion) | Lamb, Ernest H. | Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford) |
| Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.) | Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade) | Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside) |
| Dawes, James Arthur | Lardner, James Carrige Rushe | Robinson, Sidney |
| De Forest, Baron | Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, West) | Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke) |
| Delany, William | Lawson, Sir W. (Cumb'rld, Cockerm'th) | Roche, Augustine (Louth) |
| Denman, Hon. R. D. | Leach, Charles | Roche, John (Galway, E.) |
| Dillon, John | Levy, Sir Maurice | Roe, Sir Thomas |
| Donelan, Captain A. | Lewis, John Herbert | Rowlands, James |
| Doris, William | Low, Sir Frederick (Norwich) | Rowntree, Arnold |
| Duffy, William J. | Lundon, Thomas | Russell, Rt. Hon. Thomas W. |
| Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness) | Lynch, Arthur Alfred | Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland)) |
| Duncan, J. Hastings (Yorks, Otley) | Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester) | Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees) |
| Edwards, John Hugh (Glamorgan, Mid) | Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs) | Scanlan, Thomas |
| Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.) | McGhee, Richard | Sheehy, David |
| Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.) | Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J. | Sherwell, Arthur James |
| Essex, Richard Walter | MacNeill, J. G. Swift (Donegal, South) | Simon, Sir Arthur Allsebrook |
| Esslemont, George Birnie | MacVeagh, Jeremiah | Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe) |
| Falconer, James | M'Callum, Sir John M. | Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.) |
| Farrell, James Patrick | McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald | Snowden, Philip |
| Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles | M'Micking, Major Gilbert | Spicer, Rt. Hon. Sir Albert |
| Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson | Manfield, Harry | Sutherland, John E. |
| Ffrench, Peter | Markham, Sir Arthur Basil | Taylor, John W. (Durham) |
| Field, William | Marks, Sir George Croydon | Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe) |
| Fitzgibbon, John | Marshall, Arthur Harold | Thomas, J. H. |
| Flavin, Michael Joseph | Meagher, Michael | Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton) |
| France, Gerald Ashburner | Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.) | Thorne, William (West Ham) |
| Gelder, Sir William Alfred | Menzies, Sir Walter | Toulmin, Sir George |
| Gill, Alfred Henry | Molloy, Michael | Trevelyan, Charles Philips |
| Ginned, Laurence | Molteno, Percy Alport | Verney, Sir Harry |
| Gladstone, W. G. C. | Mond, Sir Alfred M. | Walsh, J. (Cork, South) |
| Glanville, Harold James | Money, L. G. Chiozza | Walsh, Stephen (Lancs., Ince) |
| Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford | Mooney, John J. | Walton, Sir Joseph |
| Goldstone, Frank | Muldoon, John | Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent) |
| Wardle, George J. | White, Patrick (Meath, North) | Winfrey, Richard |
| Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay | Whyte, A. F. (Perth) | Wood, Rt. Hon. T. McKinnon (Glas.) |
| Watt, Henry A. | Wiles, Thomas | Young, Samuel (Cavan, East) |
| Webb, H. | Wilkie, Alexander | Young, William (Perth, East) |
| Wedgwood, Josiah C. | Wilson, Hon. G. G. (Hull, W.) | |
| White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston) | Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. W. (Worcs. N.) | TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. |
| White, Sir Luke (Yorks, E.R.) | Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton) | W. Benn and Mr. G. Howard. |
§ Sir HARRY SAMUELI beg to move, after the word "Bill" ["Irish House of Commons pass any Bill"], to insert the words, "other than a Bill which affects the constitution of either House of the Irish Parliament, or the relations of one of those Houses to the other House."
This Amendment is to except from the purview of this Clause, Bills which affect the constitution of the House or their relation to each other. The Clause deals with causes of disagreement between the two Houses, and provides that under certain circumstances joint sittings of both Houses may be ordered by the Lord Lieutenant for the discussion of the matter in dispute, and that the majority of this joint sitting shall prevail. I am of opinion—rightly or wrongly—that the Constitution which we are going to set up ought to be a matter which ought to be altogether outside this Joint Session. I believe myself that this should either be in the hands of the Imperial Parliament, or that the Veto of the Senate should be allowed. If that be not so, then it seems to me possible that the Lower House will have the opportunity of so gerrymandering the Constitution that the minority, for whom by-the-bye the right hon. Gentleman opposite and those who sit behind him have always declared that they meant to provide any possible safeguard—would be in infinitely worse position than that which I venture to think anyone in this House would desire to see them. While we are engaged in setting up this new Constitution, we are labouring under very grave difficulties. We have no power whatever, either to consider closely, or even to reasonably discuss various phases of great importance of the new Constitution. One of the proposals comes under the category in question, namely, the number of members that shall constitute both of these Houses. One hundred and sixty, I believe, is the number that it is proposed shall constitute the Lower House, and forty is the number for the Senate. I cannot for a moment understand on what principle His Majesty's Government have based the numbers for either of these two Houses. Our opinion upon this side of the House is perfectly definite, that 160 is greatly too many for 1178 the Lower House, if forty is to be the number for the Senate. What House is so constituted in any civilised country that has to be a check upon the Lower House? [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Yes, a check upon the Lower House, a very useful check, and we have an example at the present moment of the absolute necessity of a check of some kind.
We are suffering from a serious congestion in this House, simply because the Upper House is no check at the present moment. I say that as an old Member of this House, and one who views with the utmost gravity the position we occupy at the present time. At all events, when we have the creation which we are modelling in our own hands, we have some little right to say that we will at all events try, whatever our feelings may be concerning this grave question of Home Rule for Ireland, that this new creation shall not, if we on this side can prevent it, suffer as we are suffering now. What we have in view, I think, is to try and see that we do nothing in any way or shape to weaken the position of the minority under the new Constitution. Therefore if we consider that in such a grave question as that of the Constitution we are going to permit a Joint Session of these two Houses, we ought to be allowed to look at the numbers that constitute both the Houses. We find they are 160 in the Lower House, and forty in the Upper House, or 200 together—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear"]—who will be jointly assembled for discussion. I do not think there is any fault in my arithmetic. What I state is a simple proposition, so simple that it is even within the bounds of the reason of those hon. Gentlemen who are criticising me at the present moment. I wish I could bring that reason to bear on some other things, but I am afraid it is quite impossible, for one will see the usual submission to the crack of the party Whip of Members who will vote for any number that may be chosen. To go back to my argument, the prevalence of the majority will be the sole check which the right hon. Gentlemen sitting on the Front Bench appear to be so delightfully anxious to provide for the minority—for whose 1179 welfare they care nothing at all! I think my contention is a perfectly correct one. If they did care they would not have 160 Members in the Lower House and forty in the Upper. They would see perfectly well that with these numbers it is perfectly impossible for there to be any check whatever upon the Government. Nay, more, I am almost forced to believe that the Government have deliberately chosen these numbers in order that there may be no check upon the majority. It is perfectly open for them to give reasons. I have listened very closely to the Debate without—
§ The CHAIRMAN (Mr. Whitley)The hon. Member is going a little wide. What we are concerned with is this Amendment and the constitution of the Houses.
§ Sir HARRY SAMUELYes, but if I may say so, the constitution of these Houses depends upon these numbers, absolutely and entirely, for by these numbers there is no check. Therefore, if my Amendment is in order, surely I am in order in basing my argument upon the numbers? I bow to your ruling. I did think what I have stated was an argument which would be in order. I shall not pursue it any further. It seems to me that my argument must have great strength, or else hon. Members below the Gangway would not be so very anxious that it should not be heard. Hon. Members below the Gangway have often said that they would go any length to give protection to the minority. If that be so, I think they ought to hear any arguments that are advanced in that direction. I am of opinion that if His Majesty's Government really desire to give safeguards to the minority, they should accept this Amendment. If, on the other hand, they refuse it, I can only say that it is another example of the manner in which this Bill is conceived and the method by which it is being carried.
§ Mr. HERBERT SAMUELWe are dealing now with the Clause which provides that in case there is a difference of opinion between the two Houses there should be a Joint Sitting, and that the Members of the two Houses should vote together. To that the hon. Member moves an Amendment to the effect that this procedure shall not apply with regard to three classes of Bills—Bills which would alter the constitution of the Senate, Bills which would alter the constitution of the Irish House of Commons, and 1180 Bills which would affect the relations between the two Houses. With regard to the first of these Bills, those relating to the constitution of the Senate, the matter would never arise in the Irish Parliament, because the Irish Parliament has nothing whatever to say to the constitution of the Senate, which is laid down once and for all by this Act, and the Irish Parliament has no power to alter any of the provisions of this Act.
§ Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSONdissented.
§ Mr. HERBERT SAMUELThe hon. Member shakes his head, but surely that is so. The Irish Parliament has no power to pass any Bill that would have any effect in altering the provisions of this Act except and in so far as this Act allows it to do so, and it does not allow it to do so in respect of the constitution of the Senate. Therefore, the first case the hon. Member has raised—that is, a Bill passed by the Irish House of Commons affecting the constitution of the Irish Senate—can never arise. The third case stands upon the same footing. The Irish House of Commons will never be able to pass any Bill which would have the force of law dealing with relations of the two Houses of Parliament. That also is laid down by this very Clause and other Clauses in this Bill, and they will not have power to modify them. Therefore the case the hon. Member has presented merely comes down to the one of the Irish House of Commons passing a Bill affecting the qualification of electors for the Irish House of Commons, and that is precisely the point we discussed upon the last Amendment, and which the Committee has already decided. The Irish House of Commons cannot alter the numbers of its own body. The number, 164, is laid down by this Bill and cannot be altered by an Irish Act. It can itself deal with the redistribution of seats, but it can only do so having regard to the basis of population, and the only matter therefore which is left within the cognisance of the Irish Parliament which has any relation to these matters is that it may alter the qualification of electors and the mode of voting at election. We see no reason why this particular matter should be withdrawn from the procedure for settling deadlocks laid down for every Legislature. I do not propose to repeat the speech I made on the last Amendment, but I say the reasons which lead us to suggest to the Committee that they should not attempt to discriminate between this class of legislation and 1181 other legislation outside the mode by which deadlocks should be settled, apply equally to this Amendment.
§ Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSONI think, with all deference to the right hon. Gentleman, that his reply hardly meets the case presented by my hon. Friend. Let me put this to him. The germ of this Clause is the institution of a Parliament for Ireland. The right hon. Gentleman turns to Clause 41 because Clause 41 is the foundation of his reply, and he said the Irish Parliament shall not have power to repeal or alter any provision of this Act except as specially provided by this Act. That is perfectly true, as far as it goes, but it does not go far enough. It is true that the Irish Parliament has no specific power to repeal or alter the provisions of this Act, but there is a great deal by which they could, by what I might call exegesis—putting a gloss upon the provisions of this Act—do something which would alter the provisions of the constitution of either House or alter the relations between the two Houses. It is entirely within the competence of the Irish House of Commons, as I read this Bill, to pass a short Act defining what the Session is to be. They can make a Session anything they like, and they can run a coach-and-four through the whole of this Clause. They can evade its provisions by setting up a definition of what a public Bill is to be. We suggested a definition a moment ago and the right hon. Gentleman refused it. They can set up a definition as to what a Money Bill is to be. The right hon. Gentleman says that they cannot deal with the constitution of the Senate, but he is quite wrong. No doubt his argument was privately supplied to him by one of the ingenious gentlemen whose business it is to supply arguments to those who sit on the Treasury Bench. The right hon. Gentleman forgets entirely that the Senate is now an elected body, and inasmuch as the Irish Parliament has the right under the Clause which we have just passed under the guillotine to alter the franchise it follows that the Irish House of Commons has a right to alter the body from which that House is drawn.
§ Mr. HERBERT SAMUELThat is not so.
§ Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSONIf the right hon. Gentleman will refer me to the exact passage in the Bill dealing with this point, I shall be very glad.
§ Mr. HERBERT SAMUELThe Clause says that three years after the passing of the Act the Irish Parliament may alter as respects the Irish House of Commons the qualification of the electors.
§ Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSONIn that case I say frankly that what the right hon. Gentleman has said appears to be a satisfactory answer, but that still leaves one party, and it is still within the power of the Irish House of Commons to alter the membership from which its own body is drawn. The right hon. Gentleman says that we discussed that on the last Amendment, but it was only in relation to the Irish House of Commons and not the mutual arrangements of the two bodies. I submit, in spite of all he has said and the certain air of victory with which he repeated his argument, that I do not think he has answered the case which my hon. Friend presented quite clearly to the Committee.
§ Mr. JAMES HOPEI am afraid the right hon. Gentleman does not appreciate the fact that the change in the qualification of the electors for the House of Commons would automatically affect the qualification for the Senate. Was that point provided for in the Amendment put in the Bill the other day? Are there to be two registers kept in that case, one for the electors of the House of Commons and another for the Senate. I understood that the Senate was to be elected on the principle of proportional representation—
§ The CHAIRMANThat point was dealt with on the last Amendment. This Amendment is different and deals with the constitution of either House, and I take constitution to mean the number of members.
§ Mr. JAMES HOPEI was only following the point the Postmaster-General himself had made. He made the point that the qualification for the Senate election was a different one and could not be changed by the House of Commons. I say I understood from what happened the other day that the Senate will be elected by the same body of electors qualified in the same way as they are to vote for members of the House of Commons. If that is so, any change in the electors for the members of the House of Commons would automatically affect the constituency for the Senate. If that is not so, I would ask the Postmaster-General to explain by what terms it is not so. Does he in that case 1183 suppose two registers will have to be created for the election of the two different Houses? I think we ought to have some light on this matter.
§ Question put, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."
§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 190; Noes, 314.
1187| Division No. 297.] | AYES. | [10.28 p.m. |
| Agg-Gardner, James Tynte | Gilmour, Captain John | Neville, Reginald J. N. |
| Aitken, Sir William Max | Glazebrook, Capt. Philip K. | Newdegate, F. A. |
| Amery, L. C. M. S. | Goldman, Charles Sydney | Newton, Harry Kottingham |
| Anson, Rt. Hon. Sir William R. | Goldsmith, Frank | Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield) |
| Bagot, Lieut.-Colonel J. | Gordon, John (Londonderry, South) | Orde-Powlett, Hon. W. G. A. |
| Baker, Sir Randolf L. (Dorset, N.) | Gordon, Hon. John Edward (Brighton) | Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William |
| Balcarres, Lord | Goulding, Edward Alfred | Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend) |
| Baldwin, Stanley | Greene, Walter Raymond | Perkins, Walter Frank |
| Banbury, Sir Frederick George | Gretton, John | Peto, Basil Edward |
| Banner, John S. Harmood- | Guinness, Hon. W. E. (Bury S. Edmunds) | Pole-Carew, Sir R. |
| Barlow, Montague (Salford, South) | Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne) | Pollock, Ernest Murray |
| Barnston, Harry | Haddock, George Bahr | Pryce-Jones, Colonel E. |
| Barrie, H. T. | Hall, D. B. (Isle of Wight) | Randles, Sir John S. |
| Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton) | Hall, Fred (Dulwich) | Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel |
| Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks | Hall, Marshall (E. Toxteth) | Rees, Sir J. D. |
| Beckett, Hon. Gervase | Hamilton, Lord C. J. (Kensington) | Remnant, James Farquharson |
| Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth) | Hamilton, Marquess of (Londonderry) | Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall) |
| Benn, Ion Hamilton (Greenwich) | Hardy, Rt. Hon. Laurence | Rolleston, Sir John |
| Bennett-Goldney, Francis | Harris, Henry Percy | Ronaldshay, Earl of |
| Bird, Alfred | Harrison-Broadley, H. B. | Royds, Edmund |
| Boscawen, Sir Arthur S. T. Griffith- | Helmsley, Viscount | Rutherford, John (Lancs., Darwen) |
| Boyle, W. Lewis (Norfolk, Mid) | Henderson, Major H. (Berks, Abingdon) | Rutherford, Watson (L'pool, W. Derby) |
| Boyton, James | Hewins, William Albert Samuel | Salter, Arthur Clavell |
| Bridgeman, William Clive | Hill, Sir Clement L. | Sanders, Robert Arthur |
| Bull, Sir William James | Hill-Wood, Samuel | Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.) |
| Burdett-Coutts, William | Hoare, Samuel John Gurney | Smith, Harold (Warrington) |
| Burgoyne, Alan Hughes | Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy | Spear, Sir John Ward |
| Burn, Colonel C. R. | Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield) | Stanier, Beville |
| Campbell, Rt. Hon. J. (Dublin Univ.) | Hope, Major J. A. (Midlothian) | Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston) |
| Campion, W. R. | Home, Wm. E. (Surrey, Guildford) | Starkey, John Ralph |
| Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred | Horner, Andrew Long | Staveley-Hill, Henry |
| Cassel, Felix | Houston, Robert Paterson | Stewart, Gershom |
| Castlereagh, Viscount | Hume-Williams, William Ellis | Strauss, Arthur (Paddington, North) |
| Cator, John | Ingleby, Holcombe | Sykes, Alan John (Ches., Knutsford) |
| Cautley, Henry Strother | Jessel, Captain Herbert M. | Sykes, Mark (Hull, Central |
| Cave, George | Joynson-Hicks, William | Talbot, Lord Edmund |
| Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor) | Kebty-Fletcher, J. R. | Terrell, Henry (Gloucester) |
| Cecil, Lord Hugh (Oxford University) | Kerr-Smiley, Peter Kerr | Thompson, Robert (Belfast, North) |
| Cecil, Lord R. (Herts, Hitchin) | Kimber, Sir Henry | Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Down, N.) |
| Chaloner, Col. R. G. W. | Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement | Touche, George Alexander |
| Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. A. (Worc'r.) | Knight, Captain Eric Ayshford | Tryon, Captain George Clement |
| Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry | Larmor, Sir J. | Valentia, Viscount |
| Clay, Captain H. H. Spender | Law, Rt. Hon. A. Bonar (Bootle) | Walrond, Hon. Lionel |
| Coates, Major Sir Edward Feetham | Lee, Arthur Hamilton | Ward, A. S. (Herts, Watford) |
| Cooper, Richard Ashmole | Lewisham, Viscount | Warde, Col. C. E. (Kent, Mid) |
| Courthope, George Loyd | Lloyd, George Ambrose | Wheler, Granville C. H. |
| Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.) | Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury) | White, Major G. D. (Lancs., Southport) |
| Craig, Ernest (Cheshire, Crewe) | Locker-Lampson, O. (Ramsey) | Williams, Col R. (Dorset, W.) |
| Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet) | Lockwood, Rt. Hon. Lt.-Col. A. R. | Willoughby, Major Hon. Claud |
| Craik, Sir Henry | Long, Rt. Hon. Walter | Wilson, A. Stanley (Yorks, E.R.) |
| Crichton-Stuart, Lord Ninian | Lowe, Sir F. W. (Birm., Edgbaston) | Winterton, Earl |
| Croft, Henry Page | Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. A. (S. Geo. Han. S.) | Wood, Hon. E. F. L. (Yorks, Ripon) |
| Denniss, E. R. B. | MacCaw, William J. MacGeagh | Wood, John (Stalybridge) |
| Dixon, Charles Harvey | Mackinder, Halford J. | Worthington-Evans, L. |
| Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M. | Macmaster, Donald | Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart- |
| Faber, George D. (Clapham) | McNeill, Ronald (Kent, St. Augustine's) | Wright, Henry Fitzherbert |
| Faber, Captain W. V. (Hants, W.) | Magnus, Sir Philip | Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George |
| Falle, Bertram Godfray | Malcolm, Ian | Yate, Col. C. E. |
| Fell, Arthur | Mason, James F. (Windsor) | Yerburgh, Robert A. |
| Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey | Middlemore, John Throgmorton | Younger, Sir George |
| Finlay, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert | Mildmay, Francis Bingham | |
| Flannery, Sir J. Fortescue | Mills, Hon. Charles Thomas | |
| Fletcher, John Samuel | Moore, William | TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Sir |
| Forster, Henry William | Morrison-Bell, Major A. C. (Honiton) | H. Samuel and Mr. Nield. |
| Gibbs, George Abraham | Mount, William Arthur | |
| NOES. | ||
| Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour) | Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbarton) | Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark) |
| Acland, Francis Dyke | Allen, Rt. Hon. Charles P. (Stroud) | Baring, Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple) |
| Adamson, William | Armitage, Robert | Barlow, Sir John Emmott (Somerset) |
| Addison, Dr. Christopher | Baker, Harold T. (Accrington) | Barnes, George N. |
| Agnew, Sir George William | Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.) | Barran, Sir John N. (Hawick B.) |
| Barran, Rowland Hurst (Leeds, N.) | Guest, Hon. Frederick E. (Dorset, E.) | Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.) |
| Barton, William | Gulland, John William | Menzies, Sir Walter |
| Beale, Sir William Phipson | Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway) | Molloy, Michael |
| Beauchamp, Sir Edward | Hackett, John | Molteno, Percy Alport |
| Beck, Arthur Cecil | Hall, F. (Yorks, Normanton) | Mond, Sir Alfred M. |
| Bentham, George J. | Hancock, John George | Money, L. G. Chiozza |
| Bethell, Sir John Henry | Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale) | Mooney, John J. |
| Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine | Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose) | Morgan, George Hay |
| Black, Arthur W. | Hardie, J. Keir | Morrell, Philip |
| Boland, John Pius | Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds.) | Morton, Alpheus Cleophas |
| Booth, Frederick Handel | Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire) | Muldoon, John |
| Bowerman, Charles W. | Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale) | Munro, Robert |
| Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North) | Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, W.) | Munro-Ferguson, Rt. Hon. R C. |
| Brace, William | Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N.E.) | Murray, Cant. Hon. Arthur C. |
| Brady, Patrick Joseph | Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth) | Nannetti, Joseph P. |
| Brocklehurst, William B. | Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry | Needham, Christopher T. |
| Brunner, John F. L. | Hayden, John Patrick | Neilson, Francis |
| Bryce, John Annan | Hayward, Evan | Nicholson, Sir Charles N. (Doncaster) |
| Buckmaster, Stanley O. | Hazleton, Richard | Nolan, Joseph |
| Burke, E. Haviland- | Healy, Timothy Michael (Cork, N.E.) | Norman, Sir Henry |
| Burns, Kt. Hon. John | Helme, Sir Norval Watson | Norton, Capt. Cecil W. |
| Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas | Hemmerde, Edward George | Nuttall, Harry |
| Buxton, Rt. Hon. S. C. (Poplar) | Henderson, Arthur (Durham) | O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny) |
| Byles, Sir William Pollard | Henry, Sir Charles | O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.) |
| Carr-Gomm, H. W. | Higham, John Sharp | O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool) |
| Cawley, Harold T. (Heywood) | Hinds, John | O'Doherty, Philip |
| Chancellor, Henry George | Hodge, John | O'Donnell, Thomas |
| Chapple, Dr. William Allen | Holmes, Daniel Turner | O'Dowd, John |
| Clancy, John Joseph | Holt, Richard Durning | Ogden, Fred |
| Clough, William | Home, C. Silvester (Ipswich) | O'Grady, James |
| Clynes, John R. | Hudson, Walter | O'Kelly, Edward P. (Wicklow, W.) |
| Collins, Godfrey P. (Greenock) | Hughes, Spencer Leigh | O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.) |
| Collins, Stephen (Lambeth) | Illingworth, Percy H. | O'Malley, William |
| Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J. | Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus | O'Neill, Dr. Charles (Armagh, S.) |
| Condon, Thomas Joseph | Jardine, Sir John (Roxburghshire) | O'Shaughnessy, P. J. |
| Cornwall, Sir Edwin A. | John, Edward Thomas | O'Shee, James John |
| Cotton, William Francis | Jones, Edgar R. (Merthyr Tydvil) | O'Sullivan, Timothy |
| Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth) | Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth) | Palmer, Godfrey Mark |
| Crawshay-Williams, Eliot | Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East) | Parker, James (Halifax) |
| Crean, Eugene | Jones, Leif Stratten (Notts, Rushcliffe) | Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek) |
| Crocks, William | Jones, William (Carnarvonshire) | Pearce, William (Limehouse) |
| Crumley, Patrick | Jones, W. S. Glyn- (T. H'mts, Stepney) | Pease, Rt. Hon. Joseph A. (Rotherham) |
| Cullinan, John | Jowett, Frederick William | Phillips, John (Longford, S.) |
| Davies, Ellis William (Eifion) | Joyce, Michael | Pirie, Duncan V. |
| Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth) | Keating, Matthew | Pointer, Joseph |
| Davies, Sir W, Howell (Bristol, S.) | Kellaway, Frederick George | Pollard, Sir George H. |
| Dawes, J. A. | Kelly, Edward | Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H. |
| De Forest, Baron | Kennedy, Vincent Paul | Power, Patrick Joseph |
| Delany, William | Kilbride, Denis | Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central) |
| Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas | King, Joseph | Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk, E.) |
| Dickinson, W. H. | Lamb, Ernest Henry | Priestley, Sir Arthur (Grantham) |
| Dillon, John | Lambert, Rt. Hon. G. (Devon, S. Molton) | Priestley, Sir W. E. B. (Bradford, E.) |
| Donelan, Captain A. | Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade) | Pringle, William M. R. |
| Doris, William | Lardner, James Carrige Rushe | Radford, G. H. |
| Duffy, William J. | Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.) | Raphael, Sir Herbert H. |
| Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness) | Lawson, Sir W. (Cumb'rld, Cockerm'th) | Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields) |
| Duncan, J. Hastings (Yorks, Otley) | Leach, Charles | Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough) |
| Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor) | Levy, Sir Maurice | Reddy, Michael |
| Edwards, John Hugh (Glamorgan, Mid) | Lewis, John Herbert | Redmond, John E. (Waterford) |
| Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.) | Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas | Redmond, William (Clare, E.) |
| Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.) | Low, Sir Frederick (Norwich) | Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.) |
| Essex, Richard Walter | Lundon, Thomas | Rendall, Athelstan |
| Esslemont, George Birnie | Lynch, Arthur Alfred | Richardson, Albion (Peckham) |
| Falconer, James | Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester) | Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven) |
| Farrell, James Patrick | Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs) | Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln) |
| Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles | McGhee, Richard | Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs) |
| Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson | Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J. | Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford) |
| Ffrench, Peter | MacNeill, J. G. Swift (Donegal, South) | Robertson, John M. (Tyneside) |
| Field, William | Macpherson, James Ian | Robinson, Sidney |
| Fitzgibbon, John | MacVeagh, Jeremiah | Roch, Walter F. |
| Flavin, Michael Joseph | M'Callum, Sir John M. | Roche, Augustine (Louth) |
| France, Gerald Ashburner | M'Curdy, Charles Albert | Roche, John (Galway, E.) |
| Gelder, Sir William Alfred | M'Kean, John | Roe, Sir Thomas |
| Gill, Alfred Henry | McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald | Rose, Sir Charles Day |
| Ginnell, Laurence | M'Laren, Hon. H. D. (Leics.) | Rowlands, James |
| Gladstone, W. G. C. | M'Laren, Hon. F.W.S. (Lincs., Spalding) | Rowntree, Arnold |
| Glanville, Harold James | M'Micking, Major Gilbert | Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter |
| Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford | Manfield, Harry | Russell, Rt. Hon. Thomas W. |
| Goldstone, Frank | Markham, Sir Arthur Basil | Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland) |
| Greenwood, Granville G. (Peterborough) | Marks, Sir George Croydon | Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees) |
| Greig, Colonel James William | Marshall, Arthur Harold | Samuel, Sir Stuart M. (Whitechapel) |
| Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward | Martin, Joseph | Scanlan, Thomas |
| Griffith, Ellis Jones | Masterman, Rt. Hon. C. F. G. | Schwann, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles E. |
| Guest, Major Hon. C. H. C. (Pembroke) | Meagher, Michael | Scott, A. MacCallum (Gles., Bridgeton) |
| Sheehy, David | Verney, Sir Harry | White, Patrick (Heath, North) |
| Sherwell, Arthur James | Wadsworth, John | Whyte, Alexander F. (Perth) |
| Simon, Sir John Allsebrook | Walsh, J. (Cork, South) | Wiles, Thomas |
| Smith, Albert (Lanes, Clitheroe) | Walsh, Stephen (Lancs., Ince) | Wilkie, Alexander |
| Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.) | Walters, Sir John Tudor | Williams, John (Glamorgan) |
| Snowden, Philip | Walton, Sir Joseph | Williamson, Sir Archibald |
| Soames, Arthur Wellesley | Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent) | Wilson, Hon. G. G. (Hull, W.) |
| Spicer, Rt. Hon. Sir Albert | Wardle, G. J. | Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. W. (Worcs., N.) |
| Sutherland, John E. | Waring, Walter | Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton) |
| Taylor, John W. (Durham) | Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay | Winfrey, Richard |
| Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe) | Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan) | Wood, Rt. Hon. T. McKinnon (Glas.) |
| Tennant, Harold John | Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney) | Young, Samuel (Cavan, East) |
| Thomas, James Henry | Watt, Henry A. | Young, William (Perth, East) |
| Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton) | Webb, H. | |
| Thorne, William (West Ham) | Wedgwood, Josiah C. | TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. |
| Toulmin, Sir George | White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston) | W. Benn and Mr. G. Howard. |
| Trevelyan, Charles Philips | White, Sir Luke (Yorks, E.R.) |
§ It being Half-past Ten of the clock, the CHAIRMAN proceeded, pursuant to the Order of the House of 14th October, successively to put forth with the Question on an Amendment moved by the Government, of which notice had been given, and the
1188§ Questions necessary to dispose of the business to be concluded at this day's sitting.
§ Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 317; Noes, 194.
1191| Division No. 298.] | AYES. | [10.37 p.m. |
| Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour) | Crawshay-Williams, Eliot | Hardie, J. Keir |
| Acland, Francis Dyke | Crean, Eugene | Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds) |
| Adamson, William | Crooks, William | Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire). |
| Addison, Dr. C. | Crumley, Patrick | Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale) |
| Agnew, Sir George William | Cullinan, J. | Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, W.) |
| Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbarton) | Davies, Ellis William (Eifion) | Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N.E.). |
| Allen, Rt. Hon. Charles P. (Stroud) | Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth) | Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth) |
| Armitage, Robert | Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.) | Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry |
| Baker, Harold T. (Accrington) | Dawes, James Arthur | Hayden, John Patrick |
| Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.) | De Forest, Baron | Hayward, Evan |
| Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark) | Delany, William | Hazleton, Richard |
| Baring, Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple) | Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas | Healy, Timothy Michael (Cork, N.E.) |
| Barlow, Sir John Emmott (Somerset) | Dickinson, W. H. | Helme, Sir Norval Watson |
| Barnes, George N. | Dillon, John | Hemmerde, Edward George |
| Barran, Sir J. N. (Hawick Burghs) | Donelan, Captain A. | Henderson, Arthur (Durham) |
| Barran, Rowland Hurst (Leeds, N.) | Doris, William | Henry, Sir Charles |
| Barton, William | Duffy, William J. | Higham, John Sharp |
| Beale, Sir William Phipson | Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness) | Hinds, John |
| Beauchamp, Sir Edward | Duncan, J. Hastings (Yorks, Otley) | Hodge, John |
| Beck, Arthur Cecil | Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor) | Holmes, Daniel Turner |
| Bentham, George Jackson | Edwards, John Hugh (Glamorgan, Mid) | Holt, Richard Durning |
| Bethell, Sir John Henry | Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.) | Home, Charles Silvester (Ipswich) |
| Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine | Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.) | Hudson, Walter |
| Black, Arthur W. | Essex, Richard Walter | Hughes, Spencer Leigh |
| Boland, John Pius | Esslemont, George Birnie | Illingworth, Percy H. |
| Booth, Frederick Handel | Falconer, J. | Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus |
| Bowerman, Charles W. | Farrell, James Patrick | Jardine, Sir John (Roxburghshire) |
| Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North) | Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles | John, Edward Thomas |
| Brace, William | Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson | Jones, Edgar R. (Merthyr Tydvil) |
| Brady, Patrick Joseph | Ffrench, Peter | Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth) |
| Brocklehurst, William B. | Field, William | Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East) |
| Brunner, John F. L. | Fitzgibbon, John | Jones, Leif Stratten (Notts, Rushcliffe) |
| Bryce, John Annan | France, Gerald Ashburner | Jones, William (Carnarvonshire) |
| Buckmaster, Stanley O. | Gelder, Sir William Alfred | Jones, W. S. Glyn- (T. H'mts, Stepney) |
| Burke, E. Haviland- | Gill, Alfred Henry | Jowett, Frederick William |
| Burns, Rt. Hon. John | Ginnell, Laurence | Joyce, Michael |
| Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas | Gladstone, W. G. c. | Keating, Matthew |
| Buxton, Rt. Hon. S. C. (Poplar) | Glanville, H. J. | Kellaway, Frederick George |
| Byles, Sir William Pollard | Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford | Kelly, Edward |
| Carr-Gomm, H. W, | Goldstone, Frank | Kennedy, Vincent Paul |
| Cawley, H. T. (Lancs., Heywood) | Greenwood, Granville G. (Peterborough) | Kilbride, Denis |
| Chancellor, H. G. | Greig, Colonel James William | King, Joseph |
| Chapple, Dr. William Allen | Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward | Lamb, Ernest Henry |
| Clancy, John Joseph | Griffith, Ellis J. | Lambert, Rt. Hon. G. (Devon, S. Molton). |
| Clough, William | Guest, Major Hon. C H. C. (Pembroke) | Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade) |
| Clynes, J. R. | Guest, Hon. Frederick E. (Dorset, E.) | Lardner, James Carrige Rushe |
| Collins, Godfrey P. (Greenock) | Gulland, John William | Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.) |
| Collins, Stephen (Lambeth) | Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway) | Lawson, Sir W. (Cumb'rld, Cockerm'th) |
| Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J. | Hackett, J. | Leach, Charles |
| Condon, Thomas Joseph | Hall, Frederick (Normanton) | Levy, Sir Maurice |
| Cornwall, Sir Edwin A. | Hancock, John George | Lewis, John Herbert |
| Cotton, William Francis | Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale) | Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas |
| Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth) | Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose) | Low, Sir Frederick (Norwich) |
| Lundon, Thomas | O'Grady, James | Scanlan, Thomas |
| Lyell, Charles Henry | O'Kelly, Edward P. (Wicklow, W.) | Schwann, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles E. |
| Lynch, A. A. | O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.) | Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton) |
| Macdonald, J. Ramsay (Leicester) | O'Malley, William | Sheehy, David |
| Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs) | O'Neill, Dr. Charles (Armagh, S.) | Sherwell, Arthur James |
| McGhee, Richard | O'Shaughnessy, P. J. | Simon, Sir John Allsebrook |
| Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J. | O'Shee, James John | Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe) |
| MacNeill, J. G. Swift (Donegal, South) | O'Sullivan, Timothy | Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.) |
| Macpherson, James Ian | Outhwaite, R. L. | Snowden, Philip |
| MacVeagh, Jeremiah | Palmer, Godfrey Mark | Soames, Arthur Wellesley |
| M'Callum, Sir John M. | Parker, James (Halifax) | Spicer, Rt. Hon. Sir Albert |
| M'Curdy, Charles Albert | Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek) | Sutherland, John E. |
| M'Kean, John | Pearce, William (Limehouse) | Taylor, John W. (Durham) |
| McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald | Pease, Rt. Hon. Joseph A. (Rotherham) | Taylor, T. C. (Radcliffe) |
| M'Laren, Hon. H. D. (Leics.) | Philipps, Col. Ivor (Southampton) | Tennant, Harold John |
| M'Laren, Hon. F.W.S. (Lincs.,Spalding) | Phillips, John (Longford, S.) | Thomas, James Henry |
| M'Micking, Major Gilbert | Pirie, Duncan V. | Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton) |
| Manfield, Harry | Pointer, Joseph | Thorne, William (West Ham) |
| Markham, Sir Arthur Basil | Pollard, Sir George H. | Toulmin, Sir George |
| Marks, Sir George Croydon | Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H. | Trevelyan, Charles Philips |
| Marshall, Arthur Harold | Power, Patrick Joseph | Verney, Sir H. |
| Martin, Joseph | Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central) | Wadsworth, John |
| Mason, David M. (Coventry) | Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk, E.) | Walsh, J. (Cork, South) |
| Masterman, Rt. Hon. C. F. G. | Priestley, Sir Arthur (Grantham) | Walsh, Stephen (Lancs., Ince) |
| Meagher, Michael | Priestley, Sir W. E. B. (Bradford, E.) | Walters, Sir John Tudor |
| Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.) | Pringle, William M. R. | Walton, Sir Joseph |
| Menzies, Sir Walter | Radford, George Heynes | Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent) |
| Molloy, Michael | Raphael, Sir Herbert H | Wardle, George J. |
| Molteno, Percy Alport | Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields) | Waring, Walter |
| Mend, Sir Alfred M. | Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough) | Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay |
| Money, L. G. Chiozza | Reddy, M. | Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan) |
| Mooney, John J. | Redmond, John E. (Waterford) | Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney) |
| Morgan, George Hay | Redmond, William (Clare, E.) | Watt, Henry A. |
| Worrell, Philip | Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.) | Webb, H. |
| Morton, Alpheus Cleophas | Kendall, Athelstan | Wedgwood, Josiah C. |
| Muldoon, John | Richardson, Albion (Peckham) | White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston) |
| Munro, Robert | Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven) | White, Sir Luke (York, E.R.) |
| Munro-Ferguson, Rt. Hon. R. C. | Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln) | White, Patrick (Meath, North) |
| Murray, Captain Hon. Arthur C. | Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs) | Whyte, A. F. (Perth) |
| Nannetti, Joseph P. | Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford) | Wiles, Thomas |
| Needham, Christopher T. | Robertson, John M. (Tyneside) | Wilkie, Alexander |
| Neilson, Francis | Robinson, Sidney | Williams, John (Glamorgan) |
| Nicholson, Sir Charles N. (Doncaster) | Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke) | Williamson, sir Archibald |
| Nolan, Joseph | Roche, Augustine (Louth) | Wilson, Hon. G. G. (Hull, W.) |
| Norman, Sir Henry | Roche, John (Galway, E.) | Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. W. (Worcs., N.) |
| Norton, Captain Cecil W. | Roe, Sir Thomas | Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton) |
| Nuttall, Harry | Rose, Sir Charles Day | Winfrey, Richard |
| O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny) | Rowlands, James | Wood, Rt. Hon. T. McKinnon (Glas.) |
| O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.) | Rowntree, Arnold | Young, Samuel (Cavan, East) |
| O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool) | Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter | Young, William (Perth, East) |
| O'Doherty, Philip | Russell, Rt. Hon. Thomas W. | |
| O'Donnell, Thomas | Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland) | TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. |
| O'Dowd, John | Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees) | W. Benn and Mr. G. Howard. |
| Ogden, Fred | Samuel, Sir Stuart M. (Whitechapel) | |
| NOES. | ||
| Agg-Gardner, James Tynte | Burgoyne, Alan Hughes | Doughty, Sir George |
| Aitken, Sir William Max | Burn, Colonel C. R. | Eyres-Monsell, B. M. |
| Amery, L. C. M. S. | Campbell, Rt. Hon. J. (Dublin Univ.) | Faber, George D. (Clapham) |
| Anson, Rt. Hon. Sir William R. | Campion, W. R. | Faber, Capt. W. V. (Hants, W.) |
| Bagot, Lieut.-Colonel J. | Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred | Falle, Bertram Godfray |
| Baird, John Lawrence | Cassel, Felix | Fell, Arthur |
| Baker, Sir Randolf L. (Dorset, N.) | Cator, John | Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey |
| Balcarres, Lord | Cautley, Henry Strother | Finlay, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert |
| Baldwin, Stanley | Cave, George | Flannery, Sir J. Fortescue |
| Banbury, Sir Frederick George | Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor) | Fletcher, John Samuel |
| Banner, John S. Harmood- | Cecil, Lord Hugh (Oxford University) | Forster, Henry William |
| Barlow, Montague (Salford, South) | Cecil, Lord R. (Herts, Hitchin) | Gibbs, George Abraham |
| Barnston, Harry | Chaloner, Col. R. G. W. | Gilmour, Captain John |
| Barrie, H. T. | Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. A. (Worc'r.) | Glazebrook, Capt. Philip K. |
| Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton) | Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry | Goldman, Charles Sydney |
| Beach, Hon Michael Hugh Hicks | Clay, Captain H. H. Spender | Goldsmith, Frank |
| Beckett, Hon. Gervase | Coates, Major Sir Edward Feetham | Gordon, John (Londonderry, South) |
| Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth) | Cooper, Richard Ashmole | Gordon, Hon. John Edward (Brighton) |
| Benn, Ion Hamilton (Greenwich) | Courthope, G. Loyd | Goulding, Edward Alfred |
| Bennett-Goldney, Francis | Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.) | Greene, Walter Raymond |
| Bird, Alfred | Craig, Ernest (Cheshire, Crewe) | Gretton, John |
| Boscawen, Sir Arthur S. T. Griffith- | Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet) | Guinness, Hon. W. E. (Bury S.Edmunds) |
| Boyle, W. Lewis (Norfolk, Mid) | Craik, Sir Henry | Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne) |
| Boyton, James | Crichton-Stuart, Lord Ninian | Haddock, George Bahr |
| Bridgeman, William Clive | Croft, Henry Page | Hall, D. B. (Isle of Wight) |
| Bull, Sir William James | Denniss, E. R. B. | Hall, Fred (Dulwich) |
| Burdett-Coutts, William | Dixon, C. H. | Hall, Marshall (E. Toxteth) |
| Hamersley, Alfred St. George | Mackinder, Halford J. | Smith, Harold (Warrington) |
| Hamilton, Lord C. J. (Kensington) | Macmaster, Donald | Spear, Sir John Ward |
| Hamilton, Marquess of (Londonderry) | M'Neill, Ronald (Kent, St. Augustine's) | Stanier, Beville |
| Hardy, Rt. Hon. Laurence | Magnus, Sir Philip | Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston) |
| Harris, Henry Percy | Mason, James F. (Windsor) | Starkey, John Ralph |
| Harrison-Broadley, H. B. | Middlemore, John Throgmorton | Staveley-Hill, Henry |
| Helmsley, Viscount | Mildmay, Francis Bingham | Stewart Gershom |
| Hewins, William Albert Samuel | Mills, Hon. Charles Thomas | Strauss, Arthur (Paddington, North) |
| Hill, Sir Clement L. | Moore, William | Sykes, Alan John (Ches., Knutsford) |
| Hill-Wood, Samuel | Morrison-Bell, Major A. C. (Honiton) | Sykes, Mark (Hull, Central) |
| Hoare, Samuel John Gurney | Mount, William Arthur | Talbot Lord Edmund |
| Hohler, G. F. | Neville, Reginald J. N. | Terrell, Henry (Gloucester) |
| Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield) | Newdegate, F. A. | Thompson, Robert (Belfast, North) |
| Hope, Major J. A. (Midlothian) | Newton, Harry Kottingham | Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Down, N.) |
| Home, Edgar (Surrey, Guildford) | Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield) | Touche, George Alexander |
| Horner, Andrew Long | Nield, Herbert | Tryon, Captain Geoge Clement |
| Houston, Robert Paterson | Orde-Powlett, Hon. W. G. A. | Valentia, Viscount |
| Hume-Williams, William Ellis | Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William | Walrond, Hon. Lionel |
| Ingleby, Holcombe | Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend) | Ward, Arnold S. (Herts, Watford) |
| Jessel, Captain Herbert M. | Perkins, Walter Frank | Warde, Col. C. E. (Kent, Mid) |
| Joynson-Hicks, William | Peto, Basil Edward | Wheler, Granville C. H. |
| Kebty-Fletcher, J. R. | Pole-Carew, Sir R. | White, Major G. D. (Lancs., Southport) |
| Kerr-Smiley, Peter Kerr | Pollock, Ernest Murray | Williams, Col. R. (Dorset, W.) |
| Kimber, Sir Henry | Pryce-Jones, Col. E. | Willoughby, Major Hon. Claude |
| Kinloch-Cooke. Sir Clement | Randles, Sir John S. | Wilson, A. Stanley (Yorks, E. R.) |
| Knight, Captain Eric Ayshford | Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel | Winterton, Earl |
| Larmor, Sir J. | Rees, Sir J. D. | Wood, Hon. E. F. L. (Yorks, Ripon) |
| Law, Rt. Hon. A. Bonar (Bootle) | Remnant, James Farquharson | Wood, John (Stalybridge) |
| Lee, Arthur Hamilton | Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall) | Worthington-Evans, L. |
| Lewisham, Viscount | Rolleston, Sir John | Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart- |
| Lloyd, George Ambrose | Ronaldshay, Earl of | Wright, Henry Fitzherbert |
| Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury) | Royds, Edmund | Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George |
| Locker-Lampson, O. (Ramsey) | Rutherford, John (Lancs., Darwen) | Yate, Colonel C. E. |
| Lockwood, Rt. Hon. Lt.-Col. A. R. | Rutherford, Watson (L'pool, W. Derby) | Yerburgh, Robert A. |
| Long, Rt. Hon. Walter | Salter, Arthur Clavell | Younger, Sir George |
| Lowe, Sir F. W. (Birm., Edgbaston) | Samuel, Sir Harry (Norwood) | |
| Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. A. (S. Geo. Han. S.) | Sanders, Robert Arthur | TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. |
| Lyttelton, Hon. J. C. (Droitwich) | Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.) | Malcolm and Viscount Castlereagh. |
| MacCaw, Wm. J. MacGeagh |