- (1) During the continuance of a General Election of members to serve in a new Parliament, a person shall not vote as a parliamentary elector, or ask for a ballot or voting paper for the purpose of so voting, in more than one constituency.
- (2) If a person acts in contravention of this section, he shall be guilty of a corrupt practice other than personation, within the meaning of the Corrupt and Illegal Practices Prevention Act, 1863, and the expression "corrupt practice" shall be construed accordingly.
- (3) The expression "constituency" in this Act means any county, borough, or combination of places, or university or combination of universities, returning a member to serve in Parliament, and where a county or borough is divided for the purpose of parliamentary elections means a division of the county or borough so divided.
§ The CHAIRMANThe first five Amendments on the Paper are not in order. Some of them conflict with the Motion which was proposed on the Second Reading of the Bill and negative it, and others are dealing with the deferring of the operation of the Bill and should be moved as new Clauses. A new Clause will be in order to defer to a later date the coming into operation of the Bill. The Amendment proposing to leave out Sub-section (1) is equivalent to negativing the Bill, and therefore is not in order. What I have already said applies to the Amendment of the hon. Member (Mr. Hoare), who proposes to defer the operation of the Bill till 1916. That, of course, should be done in the form of a new Clause. The first Amendment in order is that in the name of the hon. Member (Mr. Evelyn Cecil). I am not sure whether that will not cut out the following one, which seems to me of greater importance. The hon. Member may move it if he pleases.
§ Mr. POLLOCKWould it not be possible to put the question in some form which would safeguard the other Amendents?
§ Mr. PRETYMANI wish to make it perfectly clear, in regard to the Amendments which you have ruled out of order, that the two which it will be in order to move as new Clauses are those standing in the names of the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Cave) and the hon. Member (Mr. Hoare).
§ The CHAIRMANI am not prepared to say at this moment that a specific Amendment dealing with Redistribution will be in order as a new Clause. No doubt the subject can be raised on a new Clause deferring the date, but I am doubtful whether, under the practice of the House, one Bill in that form can be made conditional on another. With regard to the point of the hon. and learned Member (Mr. Pollock), I think it would be possible, if it is desired to do so, that I should only put the word "the" in order to save the next Amendment.
§ Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWENYou have ruled the Amendment to leave out Sub-section (1) out of order because it practically means negativing the Bill. According to the title, the object of the Bill is simply to impose a penalty on an elector who votes in more than one constituency. Sub-section (1) goes far beyond the title. It not only imposes a penalty, but absolutely prohibits a person from voting, therefore, by leaving out that Sub-section, we should not negative the object of the Bill, but, on the contrary, we should better fulfil it, taking the title as the guide, by leaving it out and by carrying out what we want to do under Subsection (2).
§ The CHAIRMANThen the Clause would begin, "If a person acts in contravention of this Section," and we should not know what he was acting in contravention of.
§ Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWENI think there is an Amendment which alters those words and says, "If a man votes in more than one constituency." In that case the penalty would follow under Sub-section (2). That is really the appropriate way of doing it and not to prohibit a man from voting altogether, which is really outside the title of the Bill.
§ Mr. BUTCHERDoes not this Clause 1 clearly go beyond the title? It is not an incidental matter at all. The object of the Bill, as stated, is to impose a penalty upon the elector. Clause 1 imposes an absolute prohibition, which is an entirely different thing.
§ The CHAIRMANThat is a matter to be raised with Mr. Speaker in the Chair, and, if I am not mistaken, it was so raised. In regard to the question of the hon. Gentleman (Sir A. Griffith-Boscawen), I do not think what he has said changes my view. The Bill has been drafted in the form of the first Sub-section prohibiting voting in more than one constituency. We must take that as the basis of our discussion. The hon. Member's proposal would amount really to an entire redrafting of the Bill.
§ Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWENThe object of the Bill will be perfectly well carried out. I have an Amendment to leave out from "person" to "the," and insert "votes in more than one constituency at a General Election." In that way the object of the Bill would be entirely carried out, if Sub-section (1) was omitted I submit, therefore, that the object of the Bill would not be negatived by omitting Sub-section (1).
§ The CHAIRMANWe cannot propose to leave out the real body of the Clause in order to insert some other hon. Member's drafting. We can amend it as we go along.
§ Mr. EVELYN CECILI beg to move, in Sub-section (1), to leave out the words "the continuance of."
I think it is merely a drafting Amendment, unless the Government have any ulterior meaning in these words. If there is any hidden meaning in them, I hope the Minister in charge will explain it, and if there is not the words had better be omitted. The Government are in favour of brevity. They have often asked for it, and they have shown it by their actions and by their methods, and I do not myself see what use there is or what can be gained by retaining these words at all. On the contrary, I think the Government should accept the Amendment, if the anxiety which they have shown for brevity on so many occasions is to be carried out on the present occasion. They have shown great anxiety for brevity in this Bill. That is certainly realised, for it is drafted in a method in which hardly any Bill has 1760 ever been drafted before. They are equally anxious for brevity in dealing with the procedure of this House. They are similarly aiming at brevity in tampering with the Constitution of the Kingdom, and it appears to me that it will be only following out in a very small way a policy which they have applied in far more pernicious ways. But if it is merely a question of wording, as I believe it is, I would suggest to the Government that the ordinary wording of legislation is to cut out such words as these. The Standing Orders of the House never countenance such words. For instance, on page 16, I observe, "Suspension from the service of the House shall not exempt the Member so suspended from serving on any Committee." But you do not say "during the continuance of the suspension." The words would be redundant, and I do not think anybody would suggest that they would have any meaning. Similarly I turn casually to another Standing Order and I find, "after Whitsuntide, Government business shall have precedence at all sittings, except the sittings on the third and fourth Fridays after Whitsunday." You do not say, "except during the continuance of the sittings on the third and fourth Fridays," and yet it would be quite as valuable, and probably more valuable, than on the present occasion. Bearing in mind the precedent set by the phraseology of the Standing Orders of this House, and bearing in mind, further, the desire of the Government to be brief on all occasions, I submit this Amendment with some confidence for their consideration and acceptance.
§ The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. J. A. Pease)The hon. Member has not really made out a very good case for the alteration. It is a mere drafting point, and whilst I admit that, to the ordinary lay mind, the omission of these words might not make much difference, yet at the same time I am advised that from the drafting point of view the words are preferable as they stand in the Bill. There is obviously an interval between the dissolution of one Parliament and the summoning of another, and some time must elapse, and therefore it is thought advisable that the words are quite appropriate, and we see really no reason whatsoever why they should be removed, because there is no improvement by their omission, but rather the language is made less plain by their omission than by their retention. Therefore, though the 1761 hon. Member has appealed for brevity in the phraseology of the Bill, I think probably his interest in brevity will be best promoted if he does not press the matter to a Division.
§ 8.0 P.M.
§ Mr. PRETYMANThe right hon. Gentleman has raised rather a serious question, because he now informs the Committee that these words are intended to cover the whole period between a Dissolution and the summoning of a new Parliament. That would cover the re-election of Ministers of the Crown who had to seek reelection. May I take it that these words imply that that is the intention on the part of the Government? If so, it is a very serious matter, and it is a new revelation for the Committee, showing that this Amendment raises a very material point. If the right hon. Gentleman has given the real explanation, I take it that the meaning, if the words mean anything, is that they are intended to cover the whole period between a Dissolution and the summoning of a new Parliament. Will he tell us whether that is so or not? We hope that Ministers will be able to give us a clear explanation of their own Bill.
§ Mr. PRETYMANI believe seats are vacated immediately on acceptance of office. That is a point in regard to which I may be allowed to press that the Law Officers should give us their opinion.
§ The SOLICITOR-GENERAL (Sir John Simon)You cannot have an election of a Member other than at a General Election, unless a writ is issued for the purpose, and you cannot have a writ for the election of a new Member unless there is a Speaker. You cannot have a Speaker during a General Election, or until Parliament assembles and elects a Speaker. What the hon. Gentleman is thinking of is probably this. It is not what happens between the end of one Parliament and the beginning of another, for by no possibility can there be a by-election then of a Minister or anybody else. What he is thinking of is the end of one Session and the beginning of another Session in the same Parliament. It is quite possible if a Minister is appointed between the end of one Session and the beginning of another Session, that the Speaker may in the vacation, while Parliament is not sitting, issue his writ and an election may proceed. I have some reason to remember that 1762 because it happened to me. It is not possible for a by-election to take place between the end of one Parliament and the beginning of another, because none of the machinery to secure a by-election is in existence.
§ Mr. PRETYMANI suppose that would be so, and therefore we are safe from that danger. I am bound to say that I most strongly support the Amendment, because I really cannot see that the right hon. Gentleman has given any reason why these words should be retained in the Clause. He merely said that he was advised. Who advised him, and on what ground was the advice given? Surely there was some reason for the advice, and it might be communicated to the Committee. The fewer the words that are introduced in an Act of Parliament the better, unless they have some real meaning and intention. I fail to understand what is the meaning of these words. I understood the right hon. Gentleman to say that as a matter of drafting the words may be left in or omitted. As a matter of principle we have always adopted the practice of not inserting words unless they are necessary. I do not know that the Clause is very much better with the words in or out, but unless they are necessary, surely it is obviously desirable to omit them. I submit that the onus does not lie upon us to show that the words are necessary. The onus lies upon the right hon. Gentleman to show that they are necessary, and he has not yet said anything beyond stating that he is advised they would do no harm. In that case they stand condemned, for he has to prove, not only that they would do no harm, but that they would do good.
Mr. STANLEY WILSONI do not think that the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill has given any explanation at all. He seems to be already absolutely at sea about his own Bill. He has made no attempt to answer the speech of my hon. Friend (Mr. Evelyn Cecil). I must ask some other Member of the Government to explain the words. When the Solicitor-General spoke he did not attempt to give any explanation in support of the retention of these words.
§ Sir J. SIMONI was not asked to explain the words.
Mr. STANLEY WILSONI hope we shall have an opportunity of hearing the hon. and learned Gentleman once more.
1763 He is a lawyer, and he can explain the Clause a great deal better than the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill who has told us that he is advised that these words should be retained. I suppose his adviser is the Solicitor-General, and perhaps the hon. and learned Gentleman can enable us to find out the necessity for the retention of the words. In my opinion they are absolutely unnecessary. This Bill is one of the briefest on record for dealing with such a subject as the doing away with the plural voter, and although the omission of the words will make it briefer still, I will support my hon. Friend if he divides the Committee on the Amendment.
§ Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWENI think my hon. Friend has rendered a valuable service by moving the Amendment, because the Government cannot tell us what they mean by the words "the continuance of." No one can say when a General Election begins and when it ends. That is one of the difficulties we have to put up with in various ways. Take the question in connection with the Corrupt Practices Act. Nobody knows when a General Election begins and when it ends, but the law says that you must not do certain things before, during, or after a General Election. It is generally before an election, and sometimes all through an election that those things are or are not done. We do not know for the purpose of the Corrupt Practices Act what is the duration of a General Election. Take the case where a by-election occurs immediately before a General Election. That is a state of affairs that very often takes place. Would a man be prohibited from voting——
§ The CHAIRMANI understood that this was going to be argued upon the purely drafting point. The hon. Member seems to be trenching on another Amendment with respect to the definition of a General Election. I only say that as a matter of warning.
§ Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWENI will not pursue the question which is to be raised on another Amendment, but I think we are entitled to some statement from the Government as to what they mean by the words "the continuance of." They are intended to mean something, and unless the Government say what they mean, the only way to deal with them is to 1764 leave them out. There is no use retaining words which the Government fail to define. You are only providing food for lawyers later on, and it ought to be the object of this House to avoid that.
§ Mr. CHARLES BATHURSTAs this Amendment stands also in my name, perhaps I may be allowed to say that it does not require a grammatical purist to object to the retention of these words. As my hon. Friend (Mr. Pretyman) has pointed out, if words appear in a Bill introduced by the Government, it is for the Minister in charge to justify them. The right hon. Gentleman opposite has made no attempt whatever to justify these words, and there is very great danger if unnecessary words, purely redundant expressions, are left in an Act of Parliament, because they may require hereafter some judicial interpretation, with considerable emoluments to those professional gentlemen who are interested in the judicial interpretation of Acts of Parliament of every kind, but with no very great advantage to the country. I wish to protest, as I have done on many previous occasions, as a professional conveyancer against the slipshod way in which Bills presented to the House by the Government are drafted. We do not expect, or if we expect we certainly do not find, any artistic merit in Government draftsmanship, but every Session the drafting gets worse. I hope, now that we are about to enjoy an autumn holiday, that the Department will take some pains in drafting Bills to be presented, so that every word may be justified in this House. To my mind these words can have no possible meaning unless it is that a General Election is in some way to be protracted or extended beyond the normal period. Unless they have that ulterior object in their mind, I suggest to the Government that these words would be better omitted.
§ Mr. BARNSTONThe right hon. Gentleman opposite started by saying that my hon. Friend the Member for Aston Manor made a very poor case for the Amendment. I am sure the right hon. Gentleman will pardon me for saying that he made a very poor case indeed for keeping the words in the Clause. He really did not make any case whatever. He merely told us that he was advised. If he wishes to get this Bill through in a happy and peaceful way, I hope he will in future give a somewhat less curt answer than he gave 1765 to my hon. Friend. We have not been told any reason why these words are to be kept in the Bill, and unless we are to have better explanation than the right hon Gentleman gave, I shall certainly support the Amendment if it goes to a Division.
§ Mr. BAIRDI am bound to say that I must echo the dissatisfaction expressed by hon. Members on this side at the extremely curt manner in which a perfectly reasonable request was met by the right hon. Gentleman opposite. We have asked an explanation of these words, and we have received none. I can quite understand that the right hon. Gentleman, who is a layman, might find it impossible to give a legal interpretation, but we are favoured by the presence of distinguished lawyers, and none of them have endeavoured to explain the words. It really is rather humiliating to think that it is quite impossible to get a straightforward answer to the questions put by my hon. Friend. The right hon. Gentleman stated that if the words "the continuance of" were omitted, the Clause would become less plain. I really think that does not settle the question. We suggest that it is just as clear to say "during a General Election," and that it is more correct. What other course can we pursue than that of going into the Division Lobby and wasting time, unless Members of the Government, who ought to know their own Bill, give some plausible and adequate explanation? Therefore I beg to endorse cordially what has been said with reference to the elimination of these words, and I hope that in the briefest possible manner the right hon. and learned Gentleman on
§ the Front Bench will find it possible to give an explanation.
§ Mr. HAYES FISHERMay I press the Solicitor-General for a few words to straighten out the difficulty: Do the two expressions, "during a General Election" and "during the continuance of a General Election," mean the same thing? If they mean exactly the same thing, why put in the longer expression? Why not take the shorter and more precise means of expressing an identical thing? It may be a matter of very grave discussion, not only in the polling booths but in Courts of Law, as to whether some individual is or is not entitled to vote at that particular election. He may have studied this Bill when it becomes an Act and said, "I do not understand whether I may vote at this particular election or may not vote. If I do, there may be a very heavy penalty; if I do not use my right, that one vote might be the very vote that would effect the election." I cannot help thinking it a very bad beginning when we are actually told that we are not entitled to an explanation from the Law Officer of the Crown, who is as capable as, if not more capable than, any Member of this House of straightening out a difficulty of this kind. An explanation would have saved fifteen minutes of discussion, and even now it would have the effect of enabling us to proceed with the Debate in a happier frame of mind.
Question put, "That the word 'the' stand part of the Clause."
§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 248; Noes, 121.
1769| Division No. 140.] | AYES. | [8.16 p.m. |
| Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour) | Brocklehurst, William B. | Delany, William |
| Abraham, Rt. Hon. William (Rhondda) | Brunner, J. F. L. | Denman, Hon. R. D. |
| Acland, Francis Dyke | Bryce, J. Annan | Devlin, Joseph |
| Adamson, William | Buckmaster, Stanley O. | Dewar, Sir J. A. |
| Addison, Dr. C. | Burke, E. Haviland- | Dickinson, W. H. |
| Agnew, Sir George William | Burns, Rt. Hon. John | Dillon, John |
| Alden, Percy | Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas | Donelan, Captain A. |
| Allen, Arthur Acland (Dumbartonshire) | Cawley, H. T. (Heywood) | Doris, William |
| Allen, Rt. Hon. Charles P. (Stroud) | Chancellor, H. G. | Duffy, William J. |
| Baker, H. T. (Accrington) | Chapple, Dr. William Allen | Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness) |
| Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.) | Clancy, John Joseph | Duncan, J. Hastings (Yorks, Otley) |
| Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark) | Clough, William | Elverston, Sir Harold |
| Barnes, George N. | Collins, Sir Stephen (Lambeth) | Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.) |
| Barran, Rowland Hurst (Leeds, N.) | Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J. | Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.) |
| Barton, William | Condon, Thomas Joseph | Essex, Sir Richard Walter |
| Bentham, George Jackson | Cornwall, Sir Edwin A. | Esslemont, George Birnie |
| Bethell, Sir John Henry | Cotton, William Francis | Falconer, James |
| Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine | Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth) | Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles |
| Black, Arthur W. | Crooks, William | Ffrench, Peter |
| Boland, John Pius | Crumley, Patrick | Field, William |
| Booth, Frederick Handel | Cullinan, John | Fiennes, Hon. Eustace Edward |
| Bowerman, C. W. | Dalziel, Rt. Hon. Sir J. H. (Kirkcaldy) | Fitzgibbon, John |
| Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North) | Davies, Ellis William (Eifion) | Flavin, Michael Joseph |
| Brace, William | Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth) | Furness, Sir Stephen Wilson |
| Brady, P. J. | Dawes, J. A. | Gladstone, W. G. C. |
| Glanville, H. J. | McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald | Richards, Thomas |
| Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford | Markham, Sir Arthur Basil | Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven) |
| Goldstone, Frank | Marks, Sir George Croydon | Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln) |
| Greig, Colonel J. W. | Meagher, Michael | Roberts, G. H. (Norwich) |
| Guest, Hon. Frederick E. (Dorset, E.) | Meehan, Patrick J. (Queen's Co., Leix) | Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs) |
| Gulland, John William | Menzies, Sir Walter | Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside) |
| Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway) | Millar, James Duncan | Robinson, Sidney |
| Hackett, J. | Molloy, Michael | Roche, Augustine (Louth) |
| Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds) | Molteno, Percy Alport | Roe, Sir Thomas |
| Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire) | Money, L. G. Chiozza | Rowlands, James |
| Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale) | Montagu, Hon. E. S. | Rowntree, Arnold |
| Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, W.) | Mooney, John J. | Russell, Rt. Hon. Thomas W. |
| Harvey, W. E. (Derbychire, N.E.) | Morgan, George Hay | Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland) |
| Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry | Morison, Hector | Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees) |
| Hayden, John Patrick | Morton, Alpheus Cleophas | Scanlan, Thomas |
| Hayward, Evan | Muldoon, John | Schwann, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles E. |
| Hazleton, Richard | Munro, R. | Sheehy, David |
| Henderson, Arthur (Durham) | Munro-Ferguson, Rt. Hon. R. C. | Sherwell, Arthur James |
| Henderson, J. M. (Aberdeen, W.) | Murphy, Martin J. | Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John Allsebrook |
| Henry, Sir Charles | Murray, Captain Hon. Arthur C. | Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe) |
| Higham, John Sharp | Needham, Christopher Thomas | Smith, H. B. L. (Northampton) |
| Hinds, John | Neilson, Francis | Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim) |
| Hogg, David C | Nolan, Joseph | Snowden, Philip |
| Hogge, James Myles | Norman, Sir Henry | Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N.W.) |
| Holmes, Daniel Turner | Norton, Captain Cecil W. | Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West) |
| Howard, Hon. Geoffrey | Nuttall, Harry | Sutherland, J. E. |
| Hudson, Walter | O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny) | Sutton, John E. |
| Hughes, Spencer Leigh | O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.) | Taylor, John W. (Durham) |
| Illingworth, Percy H. | O'Doherty, Philip | Tennant, Harold John |
| John, Edward Thomas | O'Donnell, Thomas | Thomas, James Henry |
| Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil) | O'Dowd, John | Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton) |
| Jones, H. Hayden (Merioneth) | Ogden, Fred | Thorne, William (West Ham) |
| Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East) | O'Kelly, Edward P. (Wicklow, W.) | Trevelyan, Charles Philips |
| Jowett, Frederick William | O'Malley, William | Wadsworth, J. |
| Joyce, Michael | O'Neill, Dr. Charles (Armagh, S.) | Walsh, Stephen (Lancs., Ince) |
| Keating, Matthew | O'Shaughnessy, P. J. | Walton, Sir Joseph |
| Kellaway, Frederick George | O'Shee, James John | Wardle, George J. |
| Kelly, Edward | O'Sullivan, Timothy | Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay |
| Kennedy, Vincent Paul | Outhwaite, R. L. | Watt, Henry Anderson |
| Kilbride, Denis | Parker, James | Webb, H. |
| King, J. | Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek) | White, Sir Luke (Yorks, E.R.) |
| Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade) | Pearce, William (Limehouse) | White, Patrick (Meath, North) |
| Lardner, James C. R. | Pease, Rt. Hon. Joseph A. (Rotherham) | Whitehouse, John Howard |
| Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, West) | Phillips, John (Longford, S.) | Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P. |
| Lawson, Sir W. (Cumb'rld, Cockerm'th) | Pointer, Joseph | Whyte, A. F. (Perth) |
| Leach, Charles | Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central) | Wiles, Thomas |
| Levy, Sir Maurice | Price, Sir R. J. (Norfolk, E.) | Williams, John (Glamorgan) |
| Lewis, Rt. Hon. John Herbert | Priestley, Sir W. E. (Bradford) | Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthen) |
| Lundon, T. | Pringle, William M. R. | Wilson, Hon. G. G. (Hull, W.) |
| Lynch, A. A. | Radford, G. H. | Wilson, John (Durham, Mid) |
| Macdonald, J. Ramsay (Leicester) | Raffan, Peter Wilson | Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. W. (Worcs., N.) |
| Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs) | Raphael, Sir Herbert H. | Wing, Thomas |
| McGhee, Richard | Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields) | Wood, Rt. Hon. T. McKinnon (Glas.) |
| Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J. | Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough) | Young, W. (Perth. E.) |
| MacNeill, J. G. Swift (Donegal, South) | Reddy, M. | Yoxall, Sir James Henry |
| Macpherson, James Ian | Redmond, John E. (Waterford) | |
| MacVeagh, Jeremiah | Redmond, William (Clare, E.) | TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. |
| M'Curdy, C. A. | Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.) | W. Benn and Mr. W. Jones. |
| M'Kean, John | Rendall, Atheistan | |
| NOES. | ||
| Archer-Shee, Major M. | Craig, Captain James (Down, E.) | Helmsley, Viscount |
| Baird, J. L. | Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet) | Hewins, William Albert Samuel |
| Baring, Maj. Hon. Guy V. (Winchester) | Crichton-Stuart, Lord Ninlan | Hibbert, Sir Henry F. |
| Barnston, Harry | Dairymple, Viscount | Hills, John Waller |
| Barrie, H. T. | Denniss, E. R. B. | Hoare, S. J. G. |
| Beckett, Hon. Gervase | Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott | Hohler, G. F. |
| Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth) | Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M. | Hope, Marry (Bute) |
| Bigland, Alfred | Fell, Arthur | Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield) |
| Bird, A. | Fisher, Rt. Hon. W. Hayes | Hope, Major J. A. (Midlothian) |
| Blair, Reginald | Fletcher, John Samuel | Horne, E. (Surrey, Guildford) |
| Boles, Lieut.-Col. Dennis Fortescue | Forster, Henry William | Houston, Robert Paterson |
| Boscawen, Sir Arthur S. T. Griffith- | Gastrell, Major W. Houghton | Hunt, Rowland |
| Boyle, William (Norfolk, Mid) | Gilmour, Captain John | Ingleby, Holcombe |
| Boyton, James | Glazebrook, Captain Philip K. | Jardine, Ernest (Somerset, East) |
| Bridgeman, W. Clive | Goldman, C. S. | Lane-Fox, G. R. |
| Bull, Sir William James | Goldsmith, Frank | Larmor, Sir J. |
| Butcher, John George | Guinness, Hon. W. E. (Bury S. Edmunds) | Lee, Arthur Hamilton |
| Campion, W. R. | Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne) | Lewisham, Viscount |
| Cecil, Lord Hugh (Oxford University) | Haddock, George Bahr | Lloyd, George Ambrose (Stafford, W.) |
| Clay, Capt. H. H. Spender | Hall, Frederick (Dulwich) | Lloyd, George Butler (Shrewsbury) |
| Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.) | Hamilton, C. G. C. (Ches., Altrincham) | Locker-Lampson, O. (Ramsey) |
| Craig, Ernest (Cheshire, Crewe) | Harris, Henry Percy | Lockwood, Rt. Hon. Lt.-Col. A. R. |
| Lowe, Sir F. W. (Birm., Edgbaston) | Randles, Sir John S. | Terrell, Henry (Gloucester) |
| Lyttelton, Hon. J. C. (Droitwich) | Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel | Thompson, Robert (Belfast, North) |
| Mackinder, Halford J. | Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclésall) | Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Down, North) |
| M'Calmont, Major Robert C. A. | Ronaldshay, Earl of | Touche, George Alexander |
| M'Neill, Ronald (Kent, St. Augustine's) | Samuel, Sir Harry (Norwood) | Tullibardine, Marquess of |
| Magnus, Sir Philip | Sanders, Robert Arthur | Valentia, Viscount |
| Malcolm, Ian | Sanderson, Lancelot | Walrond, Hon. Lionel |
| Mildmay, Francis Bingham | Sandys, G. J. | Wheler, Granville, C. H. |
| Mills, Hon. Charles Thomas | Smith, Harold (Warrington) | Williams, Col. R. (Dorset, W.) |
| Morrison-Bell. Capt. E. F. (Ashburton) | Spear, Sir John Ward | Willoughby, Major Hon. Claud |
| Nield, Herbert | Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston) | Wilson, A. Stanley (Yorks, E.R.) |
| Norton-Griffiths, J. | Starkey, John Ralph | Wolmer, Viscount |
| Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William | Staveley-Hill, Henry | Wood, Hon. E. F. L. (Yorks, Ripon) |
| Paget, Almeric Hugh | Steel-Maitland, A. D. | Wood, John (Stalybridge) |
| Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington) | Stewart, Gershom | Worthington-Evans, L. |
| Peel, Lieut.-Colonel R. F. | Strauss, Arthur (Paddington, North) | Wright, Henry Fitzherbert |
| Perkins, Walter F. | Swift, Rigby | |
| Pollock, Ernest Murray | Sykes, Sir Mark (Hull, Central) | TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. Evelyn Cecil and Mr. C. Bathurst. |
| Pretyman, Ernest George | Talbot, Lord E. | |
| Pryce-Jones, Calonel E. | Terrell, George (Wilts, N.W.) |
§ Sir HARRY SAMUELI beg to move, in Sub-section (1), after the words "During the," to leave out the words "continuance of a General Election of Members to serve in a new," and to insert instead thereof the words "period between the day of the issue of writs, issued in pursuance of a Proclamation by His Majesty the King in Council summoning a Parliament of the United Kingdom, and the day ordered for the holding of such."
I do not intend to apologise in any form or shape for moving this Amendment. The Debate we have had on the first Amendment more than ever convinces one that we require to be very careful, in this very short Bill, to use definite and precise phraseology, if it is desired to prevent people from having to go into the Courts of Law and spend a large amount of money in order to find out what is really in the Bill. The object of my Amendment is to get rid of the slovenly phraseology "continuance of a General Election." This is another example, and a very bad example, of the way in which vague and loose terms are used in legal documents. We have had a great deal of legislation by reference, and, of course, I quite agree that we all know, in a rough way, perfectly well what the words "General Election" mean. I suppose the man in the street can tell what is meant by them, but we are not here as men in the street; we are here to put into the Bill the clearest and most perfect definition of what is meant by the words which are used. Such an expression as that to which I refer is most undesirable in the interests of clean and precise draftsmanship. It is undoubtedly a part of our business in the House of Commons to have clear definitions. As the Clause stands at the present moment a General Election might mean almost any period. Does it mean the statutory period 1770 of thirty-five days between the date of the issue of the proclamation summoning a new Parliament and the day on which such Parliaments shall meet? I believe the period was fixed by the Act of 1852. If it does mean this, why does the Bill not say so? But, after all, when does the General Election really begin, and when does it really end? I have here several opinions of judges on that point. Mr. Justice Bruce, in regard to this question, says:—
I think that as soon as the candidate begins to hold meetings in the constituency to advance his candidature—in other words, as soon as he begins to take measures to promote his election—the election commences…. No definition and no definite rule can be laid down as to the time when an election begins. The Legislature has not fixed any definite period, and I think it is not for the judges to attempt to lay down a general definition, which the Legislature has carefully avoided doing.Mr. Justice Channell says:—I quite adopt the view which has been put forward by other judges that the time when the election is supposed to commence may for several purposes be an important matter, and that it certainly is not limited to the commencement of the active part of the election by the occurrence of a vacancy or by the issue of the writ. But although the election may Commence from the time when any particular individual is announced as a candidate, it does not follow that the work of the election does begin then.Mr. Justice Field, in the Kennington case, said:—I can perfectly understand that where it is known that an election is to take place, and the Ministers of the Crown are only waiting for the completion of the new electoral roll to announce the Dissolution, and, especially if that has been announced on authority in Parliament, from that time the electors are put upon the selection of a candidate, and intending candidates are open to offer themselves for the suffrages of the constituency.I venture to submit that no two opinions will be the same upon this subject. If the Government now chose to announce their intention of appealing to the country, say, before the end of the Session—they are not likely to do so, I am aware; at the same time there is no reason why I should not 1771 suggest it—the different parties in the constituencies would at once begin to prepare for a General Election. I ask the Solicitor-General to say whether under those circumstances, this Bill would operate if it becomes law. What I want to know is this: Supposing something were to occur which caused His Majesty's Government to make the announcement that they proposed to appeal to the country later on, and the various parties in constituencies proceeded to make their arrangements for a General Election, and the candidates to devote their days and sometimes a portion of their nights to hard work—in those circumstances, if this Bill be passed, would it operate so as to cover the whole period of the General Election, and would it operate in any election which took place during that time? Suppose by any possibility there were a by-election, and the Whip of the particular party concerned moved for the writ. Under those circumstances, the Government might possibly be defeated some afternoon, and decide to resign. This writ having been moved for, would the by-election merge in the General Election, or would it still be a by-election, or what would it be? I should like to have a reply to that question, and I should like to know, also, whether or not this particular Bill would operate in that particular by-election. It has often occurred that hon. Members of this House have applied for the Chiltern Hundreds, and I have noticed that, for certain reasons, the writ is not applied for until after a very long period has elapsed. Under those circumstances, again, we really require to have a most careful definition, so that there can be no possible misunderstanding of what is meant by the phrase "continuance of a General Election."That is a phrase which is nearly as bad as the phrase in the Corrupt Practices Act, "before, during, and after an election." It is very essential that nothing loose in the way of phraseology should be allowed to creep into an Act through which you might "drive a coach and four." I believe I am correct in saying that no Court has ever been able to establish the definite period of time covered by that wording. I have tried to see things from the common-sense point of view. I always find, whenever the legal mind deals with anything practical, that it commits very grievous errors. Take the case of legal gentlemen who make their own wills, and in nearly every in- 1772 stance they commit grievous errors. Therefore, I say, it is absolutely necessary that the common-sense mind of the House of Commons ought to come to the assistance of the legal mind and try and get over the difficulty of legal phrasology, which very seldom stands the test of common-sense. To say that the period commences with the issue of the Royal Proclamation and ends when the statutory thirty-five days elapses is a perfectly clear and understandable proposition. It gives a clear, definite description of the period intended by this Bill, and I cannot help thinking it is much superior to the very indefinite phraseology of the Bill. It makes no alteration in the principle, and I confidently appeal to the Government, as it adds to what I may call the understandability of the Bill, to accept the Amendment.
§ Sir J. SIMONThe hon. Baronet has expressed his great contempt of what he calls the legal mind, and has assured us that his object is to introduce a little practical common sense into our otherwise hopelessly technical expressions. The question the Committee have to decide is whether it is more like common sense to talk about a General Election, which is what the Bill does, and which every human being that ever had to go through one understands the meaning of, or whether it would be better, in the name of common sense and in the desire to avoid technicalities, to use a very long form of words referring to the issue of the writ, the order in Council, and the directions to the sheriffs and returning officers inviting them to take proper steps for the purpose of returning Members to serve in Parliament. The real question is which of those two things is most like common sense and enables the man in the street to avoid the subtleties of the law. I labour under the misfortune of holding the opinion that the Bill when it speaks of a General Election is using such language which everyone can understand, and that it would not be an improvement to substitute the elaborate form of words proposed. The hon. Baronet put one or two conundrums, and, as very often happens, when a man of common sense puts conundrums, he turns out to be more technical than any lawyer I have ever met. There is no difficulty about his conundrum. He put this question: Suppose that a writ was moved by one of the Whips towards the close of a Parliament, so that there should be a by-election, and that then later in 1773 the same day the Government should be defeated, and a General Election should at once take place? Then he wanted to know whether one of them merged in the other, and he put other conundrums of that sort, which occurred to his ingenious but common-sense mind. The answer is that the writ which would be issued for the purpose of a by-election would be a writ directing the returning officer to return somebody to be a Member of that Parliament, whereas a General Election is not an election to return Members to that Parliament, because a General Election begins with a dissolution of that Parliament, and there would not be very much use in returning people to a Parliament which had ceased to exist. Consequently, as soon as ever there is the Proclamation, any question of a by-election for that Parliament necessarily and automatically drops on the plain principles of common sense. I think that must be the answer to that conundrum.
The hon. Baronet also referred to some difficulties which he understood arose from some remarks of the late Mr. Justice Bruce, and also from the remarks of a Scottish judge. I think it will be found, though I have not looked at the particular matters, that all that was being discussed was the conundrum, which is undoubtedly a conundrum, of what point is the point at which you ought to begin, if you are accusing a man of treating before, during, or after an election. That is not this case at all. This case is the case of providing that plural voting shall not be permitted, and shall be penalised during the course of a General Election, and all that is important, if one is a plain man trying to deal with this thing practically, is to be sure to have a clear form of words which do not leave it open to doubt on the part of any honest man as to what is meant. There cannot possibly be any doubt as to what is meant when one says voting during the continuance of a General Election. Every election which takes place after the end of one Parliament and before the beginning of the next is part of a General Election, and by no human possibility could it be a by-election, because a by-election is an election which takes place while a Parliament is in being, whereas a General Election is an election which takes place, not while Parliament is in being, but when a Parliament has ceased to be, and for a new Parliament. With every desire to allow the full force of the ingenious comments made by the 1774 hon. Baronet, I would respectfully suggest that common sense would be best served to use the expression which all of us understand. I do not know that I dispute what he now suggests as being the true definition in his view of a General Election, except that I am not at all certain that the thirty-five days would be found to be the most convenient way of putting it. The truth about the matter is that a General Election lasts from the time that the elections begin after one Parliament is ended, and cover every election that takes place until the new Parliament meets. That is what it means and that is what everybody knows it to mean, and that is why the words are used here, and why I advise the Committee to retain them.
§ Mr. POLLOCKI find myself in agreement with a great many of the observations of the Solicitor-General, and in disagreement with many of the observations of my hon. Friend the Member for Norwood (Sir H. Samuel). The observations of my hon. Friend with which I disagree were those in which he referred to the legal profession, for which personally I have a great respect. The observations of the Solicitor-General with which I agree were those in which he referred to the quotations made by my hon. Friend from certain judgments delivered in an election petition when the question before the Court was, "When did the election begin?" For the purpose of imposing penalties under the Corrupt Practices Act. But in spite of my partial disagreement with my hon. Friend I am desirous of supporting the Amendment. It must be remembered that this Bill goes a long way beyond merely imposing a penalty for voting more than once. Under the first Clause, if I read it aright, any person who asks for a ballot or voting paper for the purpose of voting acts in contravention of the Section, and consequently is guilty of a corrupt practice. I hope that those words will be cut out; otherwise, if a man goes to a booth and asks for a voting paper, and then on reflection before he has voted suddenly recollects that he voted perhaps a fortnight before during the same General Election, he would have committed an offence under this Clause.
I think such a man might very fairly say that he did not know that he was doing wrong. An election lasts for several weeks. If I remember aright, at the last General Election the proclamation went out on 5th December, 1910, and 1775 returns were required to be made by 31st January, 1911. That gives not 35 days but six or seven weeks. Under the Statute of 15 Victoria the 35 days is the minimum. You cannot insert a shorter period. Under no circumstances can a General Election last less than 35 days, but it may and probably does last more. At the last General Election the borough elections were over in a very few days, but the county elections went on, and certainly the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland was not returned until the concluding days of January. Consider such a case as the following. It may be an extreme one, but it might very well happen. Suppose a man after voting in a borough went up to Scotland and found an election still going on. He presented himself and asked for a voting paper. He might say, "I am a plain man; I understand common sense language; the General Election is over in England, and has been for some time." But he would be at once seized and told that he had committed an offence under Clause 1, and was liable to a penalty.
§ Sir J. SIMONDoes the hon. and learned Member think that the Amendment of the hon. Baronet would save that very stupid man?
§ Mr. POLLOCKI have handed in an Amendment which I think will meet the case. It contains, as I believe, apt words more appropriate for dealing with the difficulty, which I conceive to be a real one. The Solicitor-General taunted my hon. Friend somewhat, who, I am sure, intended to put forward his case with all sincerity, because he wished to make the Statute clear and authoritative. As he pointed out, a new phrase is being used. In order to ascertain whether the words "General Election" appeared in any Statute, I looked at a modern law work of great authority, namely, Lord Halsbury's "Compendium on the Laws of England," and I found it there stated that the period from the issue of the proclamation down to the time of the return of the writs was called a General Election. But there is no legal phrase or Statute which defines that. When you are imposing very heavy penalties, you ought to use language which is perfectly clear to the mind of the lawyers who will have to administer the Act, as well as to those who want to understand what is going on. I can quite believe that ordinary persons will understand, as before, 1776 that a General Election is during the time when a number of elections are taking place under a Proclamation, but at the same time, you want in an Act of Parliament words which shall be apt to express the time limit during which a very severe penalty is to be imposed. I shall ask the Solicitor-General to accept these words, which I suggest to my hon. Friend, as an Amendment to his proposal: "During the time between the date of the issue of the writs issued in pursuance of a Proclamation by His Majesty the King in Council summoning a Parliament of the United Kingdom and the day named in the said Proclamation for the return of the same." The Solicitor-General is doubtless aware that under the Proclamation and under the writs there is a date fixed, and the General Election lasts up to that date. Therefore, under our existing system, you have a limited period or a time fixed by which the return of those writs has to be made. You may call it in common parlance what you like; but when the people are to be liable to a penalty, I want clear words which will be perfectly plain to those who have to administer the Statute. It is not the man on a Clapham'bus who will have to administer the Act. That will have to be done by the Courts of Law, where the procedure under which a Parliament is assembled is perfectly understood. I suggest, therefore, that the Solicitor-General should drop this loose phrase, and insert the proper words which ought to be there. With the alteration which I suggest, I think the Clause will read far better and be more exact in its phraseology. May I remind the learned Solicitor-General that, although a good many points are clear to his mind, a certain amount of confusion may arise in the minds of the electors who take part in a General Election. Let me give an illustration. If I recollect, a year or two ago there was an election at Birmingham, I think within a very few days of the Dissolution. If I recollect a little further back, there was an actual election which took place, and the return was made only a day before the actual Proclamation for a new Parliament. I think, certainly, that with a little research I could discover the names of certain Gentlemen who, within the last ten years, have been returned at by-elections to Parliament and have never taken their seats in this House owing to the immediate Dissolution of the Parliament to which they were returned. I do not care very much about that. It does not matter. But what I want to be made 1777 clear is that there is no confusion in the minds of the electors. Let me take the case of Birmingham. The Member was returned there within a very few days, in November or December—I think the latter—of the General Election. At the General Election which followed, of course, a new writ had to be issued for Birmingham. Might there not be a doubt in the minds of some of the electors who voted at the by-election as to whether they had the right to go and demand a voting paper and vote in the General Election? You do not want to have confusion. You want to have this matter perfectly clear, because you want to see that the electors do exercise that right to vote which is left to them when this Bill has been passed. I do not know whether I should be in order in moving the alteration of the words to those that I have proposed as an Amendment to the Amendment of my hon. Friend. If not, I will ask the hon. Baronet if he will adopt the suggestion I have made, and move his Amendment in the form I have suggested. But may I ask your guidance, Sir, as to whether I can move my words now?
§ The DEPUTY - CHAIRMAN (Mr. Maclean)The Amendment of the hon. and learned Gentleman cannot be moved until after the Amendment which is now under discussion has been disposed of. The hon. and learned Gentleman can move his Amendment if the words proposed to be inserted becomes a substantive Motion.
§ Mr. POLLOCKI am very much obliged, and I will move at the time you state and in the form I have suggested, and I think that will be satisfactory
§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMANI want to make it clear that the opportunity of the hon. and learned Member depends upon the decision of the Committee. The Question I shall first put is that "The words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause," and if the decision be in the affirmative, the suggested Amendment cannot be brought forward. It could be discussed if the Amendment of the hon. Baronet is allowed to be withdrawn.
§ Sir H. SAMUELI should be very glad to accept the Amendment of my hon. and learned Friend, and I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"]
§ Mr. POLLOCKI think it is unfortunate in the interests of making this 1778 matter perfectly clear that the appeal of the hon. Baronet should be refused, and that refusal should come from Members below the Gangway.
§ 9.0 p.m.
§ Sir F. BANBURYOn a point of Order. May I ask whether it is in order for the hon. Member opposite to say that an hon. Gentleman on this side of the House is wasting time and is not making the thing clear? Should he not rather exercise the right to speak, and show how my hon. and learned Friend's Amendment is not right? Is he in order in making a disorderly interruption?
§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMANI deprecate the interruption of the hon. Member below the Gangway.
§ Mr. POLLOCKIf the hon. Member had really considered the point that I am putting to the Solicitor-General, he would not, I think, have interrupted. It might well be as I have said. I have endeavoured to put the point as clearly as I can and as shortly as I could, namely, as to what a General Election is. I have pointed out to the Solicitor-General, and he knows perfectly well that I am perfectly right in what I have said, that the period of a General Election is between the date of the Proclamation and the return of the writ. He knows as well as I know that there is a date named in the Proclamation. It is only because I do not wish slipshod language to be used that I venture to protest, to support the Amendment of my hon. Friend, and to point out the words that ought to be used if we are endeavouring to be precise. Perhaps the hon. Member below the Gangway will believe me that there are electors in the country who would be very glad if perhaps a little more care was taken in drafting Acts of Parliament, for it would lead to less expense and greater freedom. I am speaking as representing electors; I am desirous that they should have the opportunity of recording their votes. I am anxious that they should not be put in peril by any slipshod work that passes through Committee of this House.
§ Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWENIt is rather remarkable that the Government should not accept this Amendment, and if they do not accept it, should not propose another Amendment. After all, there is some definition needed of what is admitted 1779 to be a very vague phrase—the continuance of a General Election. Why should not the Government define it? The electors should know what they are doing. The Solicitor-General has not met our objection. In the case of Corrupt Practices, there has been very grave difficulty in deciding, for there have been conflicting decisions as to when a General Election begins. Did not the Solicitor-General say that?
§ Sir J. SIMONOh no, I made no such statement. The words do not occur in that Act. Therefore the hon. and gallant Gentleman is quite mistaken.
§ Mr. POLLOCKThey do not occur any where.
§ Sir A. GRIFFITH - BOSCAWENI accept what the right hon. and learned Gentleman says. I have no wish to misrepresent him.
§ Sir J. SIMONThe hon. and gallant Member made the same point in a previous speech.
§ Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWENWhen I made my previous remarks the Solicitor-General had not spoken, but what has been said only intensifies the necessity for having a definition of the matter. The words do not occur in the Corrupt Practices Act, and we have no definition, and the result is that we get arising, as it does arise, the question as to what date election expenses commence. That may be assumed to be the beginning of the General Election, but that date may be before the formal dissolution of Parliament. If, therefore, a by-election occurs before the formal dissolution of Parliament, when the General Election is obviously imminent, my hon. and learned Friend has pointed out that is that case an elector may be damnified by voting at a by-election. Let me give an example. In December, 1905, as is well known, the Unionist Government resigned. A Liberal Government was formed by the late Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman. [HON. MEMBERS: "Agreed, agreed."] If hon. Members opposite think they are going to get their Bill any quicker by interruption, they are mistaken. We are merely trying to clear up a difficulty. The new Government was formed by the late Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman, but it was understood that they must at once dissolve because they had not a majority in the then exist- 1780 ing Parliament. A General Election was imminent, and I know it was held by many election agents that the election expenses would begin before the actual dissolution of Parliament. Some doubt, it appears to me, might very well arise under this Clause, and assuming a vacancy occurred in that Parliament when the General Election was imminent and certain, might it not be held under this Clause, unless you have a definition, that that by-election took place during the continuance of the General Election? If that is so, my hon. Friend's contention is perfectly correct, and the unfortunate elector who voted in that by-election, which was not part of the General Election, might be damnified and guilty of a corrupt practice merely because he asked for a ballot paper. At all events, if a legitimate doubt arises, why not accept some definition? It will not hurt the Bill if you put an absolute definition of what you mean into it, instead of using a vague phrase like "continuance of a General Election," the meaning of which nobody does know. I am accused of delaying the Bill. I do not want to delay it in the least, and if the Government will accept this Amendment they would save a great deal of time, and by not accepting it, it is they who are delaying the progress of the Bill.
§ Mr. PRETYMANI think the time has arrived when we might divide upon this matter, which, after all, is a matter of drafting. I do not think there is any great difference between the two sides as to the words in the Bill and the words suggested from this side, but I must, say I think it is rather remarkable that an Amendment moved previous to this which moved out certain words that were redundant were refused and this Amendment, which is merely for the purpose of inserting words that make the meaning clear, is rejected. I point out to the Government that they have already wasted an hours' time available for this Bill on pure matters of drafting. If they accepted this Amendment the Bill would not be worse but a great deal better, and we would have saved a whole hour. The waste of time is not due to any action on this side of the House, but is due to the action of the Government. I think it would be more desirable to give an effective and definite reason why this Amendment should not be accepted, or else to accept this Amendment, and thereby save time which has in this particular case been taken up on points of drafting.
§ Sir F. BANBURYI do not want to enter into a discussion as to whether time is wasted or not, but I wish to put before the Committee what seems to be a perfectly clear proposition. Here is an Amendment which puts into legal phraseology something which will have to be interpreted by the Law Courts. Unfortunately I did not hear the speech of the Solicitor-General. I understand that his argument against accepting the Amendment was not that the Amendment in any kind of way alters the effect of the Clause, but that it put the meaning of the Clause into legal phraseology. That seems to me to be the strongest argument for accepting the Amendment, if that is the correct interpretation of what the right hon. Gentleman said, and he can correct me if I am wrong. We, as Members of Parliament, will, when a General Election comes, have to stand as candidates, and there will be a large number of agents and others who will have to interpret the law. Surely it is better that the Bill should be in legal phraseology than in language which is perfectly well understood by people like myself and others, but may possibly not be understood by judges and lawyers who will have to interpret it! Anyone who reads the reports of the Law Courts and the decision of judges, and who listens to arguments put forward by counsel, knows perfectly well that one of their chief arguments is, "These words do not occur in law. They have no recognised meaning," and the judge says, "I do not know what these words are. They are not legal phraseology, and I must look into the matter and see what the intention of Parliament was." How is anyone to know what the intention of Parliament was? The matter may be interpreted in our favour, and against hon. Members opposite or vice versâ. I have always maintained in this House that the simpler a Bill is the better, and the less opportunity there is for legal technicalities to interfere. We know perfectly well that human nature being what it is there is a desire on the part of a great number of people to take advantage of forms of law. The Solicitor-General has admitted that these particular words are the right words that would be used by a Court of Law.
§ Sir F. BANBURYOf course, if that is so, I fail on that point, but I may point out to the hon. Gentleman that I specially 1782 asked the Solicitor-General to correct me if I am wrong, and he has not done so, and therefore I am bound to accept the silence of the Solicitor-General to the interruption of the hon. Member below the Gangway opposite. I have had no experience in conducting Bills through the House. It does not lie in my mouth to tell right hon. Gentlemen how they ought to conduct their Bills, but it does seem to me, when a very simple Amendment is moved that, in no way alters the meaning of the Bill, that the simplest way, if you want to get the Bill through, is to accept that Amendment. Personally, I am quite ready to argue the meaning of the Amendment, but I think in the interests of peace and harmony, and in the interests of candidates at the next General Election, it would be very much simpler if we put our meaning into legal phraseology, so that there shall be no doubt as to what is meant. The hon. Member below the Gangway (Mr. Pointer) knows perfectly well that he has only to go to a solicitor and ask him to obtain counsel's opinion, and he can obtain it any way he likes upon——
§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMANThe hon. Baronet seems to be dealing with questions connected with litigation rather than with this particular Amendment.
§ Sir F. BANBURYI was trying to show that the words in the Amendment are simpler than the words in the Bill, and would prevent litigation. I see that the Minister for Education is present, and he is one of the most reasonable men in the House. Had he been in charge of this measure a short time ago, I think he would have accepted this Amendment. I ask him to terminate this discussion now by accepting such a small and reasonable Amendment as this.
Mr. POINTERIt does appear to me, after all, that so far as the discussion has gone, it has been all cry and very little wool. It proceeds upon two assumptions: one is that there exists in the country men so stupid as not to be able to understand the words in the Bill, but quite able to understand the legal phraseology which the hon. Gentleman opposite wants to substitute. The second assumption is that the legal fraternity are such blockheads that they do not understand ordinary English, but they do understand legal English. Anything built on two false assumptions of that kind cannot carry conviction. So far as I am personally concerned—and I think 1783 my party would also take this view—generally we strive for simplicity in legislation. I understand from the legal standpoint of the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite that anything which smacks of legal jargon may be simple to the ordinary man, but I do not think that is so. The hon. Baronet opposite suggested that if you take counsel's opinion upon any particular point of the English law, you can always be sure of getting a conflicting opinion from different men. If these words are substituted that will still be a possibility, and you will not remove the peculiar way in which the legal mind follows the brief which is given to it. I see no reason why we should alter a simple expression like "During the continuance of the General Election," which is perfectly easy to understand. I do not think there is any man in the whole country who does not understand exactly what is meant by that term. The hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington (Mr. Pollock) suggested that the man might go down to a certain election, after another election had progressed so far, and actually forget that he had voted in one constituency, and he might ask for a ballot paper in another constituency. He also suggested that the man's memory might be so treacherous as to allow him to do such a thing as that, but I think the penalty which this Bill puts forward would prove a very effectual check upon that kind of thing.
§ Mr. BUTCHERThe judges have never yet decided what a General Election means or the period during which we should have a General Election. During the whole time these election petitions have been before the judges of the High Court, there has never yet been a definite decision given as to the precise moment, or the day, when a General Election commences, or when it ends. I think that conclusively answers the argument of the hon. Member who has just spoken.
§ Sir F. BANBURYI do not quite understand the argument of the hon. Member below the Gangway (Mr. Pointer). Neither my hon. and learned Friend, nor
§ myself ever suggested that judges and lawyers are blockheads. They understand their own business and the law. What we did suggest was that unless this Clause was put in proper legal phraseology, it would be argued that the House of Commons had done something different to what it had actually done.
Mr. CHANCELLORMy hon. Friend explained that the stupidity was on the part of those who had plural votes.
§ Sir F. BANBURYIt would not be in order to go into that point now, or else I should be entirely able to refute than argument. I will deal with what was said by the hon. Member opposite. The hon. Member for the Attercliffe Division knows perfectly well why they put a cross opposite the names on the polling card, and he knows why his agent puts a cross opposite his own name. If the electors are so intelligent as the hon. Member makes out, why not send out your polling cards without a cross?
Mr. POINTERMy point was that all electors are not equally intelligent, but the difficulty would not be removed by the acceptance of this Amendment.
§ Mr. POLLOCKThe hon. Member opposite has entirely misunderstood what I said and what I suggested. I explained, as some voter will discover to his cost, that every voter will not always remember that Parliament has passed a Plural Voting Bill. Somebody may not bear that in mind, and if he does not, it is quite possible that he might ask for a voting paper and so incur the penalties provided in this Bill, although he does not go as far as to actually vote. If a man asks for a voting paper, he will have incurred the penalty. A man might easily imagine that he had a right to ask for a voting paper even though he did not go so far as to vote. I express this opinion so that the Committee may clearly understand what my point was.
Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 248; Noes, 134.
1787| Division No. 141.] | AYES. | [9.27 p.m. |
| Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour) | Alden, Percy | Barlow, Sir John Emmott (Somerset) |
| Abraham, Rt. Hon. William (Rhondda) | Allen, Arthur Acland (Dumbartonshire) | Barnes, George N. |
| Acland, Francis Dyke | Allen, Rt. Hon. Charles P. (Stroud) | Barran, Rowland Hurst (Leeds, N.) |
| Adamson, William | Baker, Harold T. (Accrington) | Barton, William |
| Addison, Dr. C. | Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.) | Bentham, George Jackson |
| Agnew, Sir George | Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark) | Bethell, Sir John Henry |
| Black, Arthur W. | Holmes, Daniel Turner | Pearce, William (Limehouse) |
| Boland, John Plus | Horne, Charles Silvester (Ipswich) | Pease, Rt. Hon. Joseph A. (Rotherham) |
| Booth, Frederick Handel | Howard, Hon. Geoffrey | Phillips, John (Longford, S.) |
| Bowerman, C. W. | Hudson, Walter | Pointer, Joseph |
| Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North) | Hughes, Spencer Leigh | Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central) |
| Brace, William | Illingworth, Percy H. | Price, Sir R. J. (Norfolk, E.) |
| Brady, P. J. | John, Edward Thomas | Priestley, Sir W. E. (Bradford) |
| Brocklehurst, William B. | Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil) | Pringle, William M. R. |
| Brunner, J. F. L. | Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth) | Raffan, Peter Wilson |
| Bryce, J. Annan | Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East) | Raphael, Sir Herbert H. |
| Buckmaster, Stanley O. | Jowett, Frederick William | Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough) |
| Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas | Joyce, Michael | Reddy, M. |
| Cawley, H. T. (Lancs, Heywood) | Keating, Matthew | Redmond, John (Waterford) |
| Chancellor, H. G. | Kellaway, Frederick George | Redmond, William (Clare, E.) |
| Chapple, Dr. William Allen | Kelly, Edward | Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.) |
| Clancy, John Joseph | Kennedy, Vincent Paul | Rendall, Athelstan |
| Clough, William | Kilbride, Denis | Richards, Thomas |
| Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J. | King, J. | Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven) |
| Condon, Thomas Joseph | Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade) | Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln) |
| Cornwall, Sir Edwin A. | Lardner, James C. R. | Roberts, G. H. (Norwich) |
| Cotton, William Francis | Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, West.) | Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs) |
| Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth) | Lawson, Sir W. (Cumb'rld, Cockerm'th) | Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside) |
| Crooks, William | Leach, Charles | Robinson, Sidney |
| Crumley, Patrick | Levy, Sir Maurice | Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke) |
| Cullinan, John | Lundon, T | Roche, Augustine (Louth) |
| Dalziel, Rt. Hon. Sir J. H. (Kirkcaldy) | Lynch, A. A. | Roe, Sir Thomas |
| Davies, Ellis William (Eifion) | Macdonald, J. Ramsay (Leicester) | Rowlands, James |
| Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth) | Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs) | Rowntree, Arnold |
| Dawes, J. A. | McGhee, Richard | Russell, Rt. Hon. Thomas W. |
| Delany, William | Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J. | Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland) |
| Denman, Hon. R. D. | MacNeill, J. G. Swift (Donegal, S.) | Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees) |
| Devlin, Joseph | Macpherson, James Ian | Scanlan, Thomas |
| Dewar, Sir J. A. | MacVeagh, Jeremiah | Schwann, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles. E. |
| Dickinson, W. H. | M'Curdy, C. A. | Sheehy, David |
| Dillon, John | M'Laren, Hon. H. D. (Leics.) | Sherwell, Arthur James |
| Donelan, Captain A. | M'Laren, Hon. F.W.S. (Lincs.,Spalding) | Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John Allsebrook |
| Doris, William | Markham, Sir Arthur Basil | Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe) |
| Duffy, William J. | Marks, Sir George Croydon | Smith, H. B. Lees (Northampton) |
| Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness) | Meagher, Michael | Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.) |
| Duncan, J. Hastings (Yorks, Otley) | Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.) | Snowden, Philip |
| Elverston, Sir Harold | Meehan, Patrick J. (Queen's Co., Leix) | Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N.W.) |
| Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.) | Menzies, Sir Walter | Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West) |
| Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.) | Millar, James Duncan | Sutherland, J. E. |
| Essex, Sir Richard Walter | Molloy, Michael | Sutton John E. |
| Esslemont, George Birnie | Molteno, Percy Alport | Taylor, John W. (Durham) |
| Falconer, James | Money, L. G. Chiozza | Tennant, Harold John |
| Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles | Montagu, Hon. E. S. | Thomas, James Henry |
| Ffrench, Peter | Mooney, John J. | Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton) |
| Field, William | Morgan, George Hay | Thorne, William (West Ham) |
| Fiennes, Hon. Eustace Edward | Morison, Hector | Toulmin, Sir George |
| Fitzgibbon, John | Morton, Alpheus Cleophas | Trevelyan, Charles Philips |
| Flavin, Michael Joseph | Muldoon, John | Verney, Sir Harry |
| Furness, Sir Stephen Wilson | Munro, R. | Wadsworth, J. |
| Gladstone, W. G. C. | Munro-Ferguson, Rt. Hon. R. C. | Walsh, Stephen (Lancs., Ince) |
| Glanville, H. J. | Murphy, Martin J. | Wardle, George. J. |
| Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford | Murray, Captain Hon. Arthur C. | Waring, Walter |
| Goldstone, Frank | Needham, Christopher Thomas | Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay |
| Greig, Colonel J. W. | Neilson, Francis | Watt, Henry Anderson |
| Guest, Hon. Frederick E. (Dorset, E.) | Nolan, Joseph | Webb, H. |
| Gulland, John William | Norman, Sir Henry | White, Sir Luke (Yorks, E.R.) |
| Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway) | Norton, Captain Cecil W. | White, Patrick (Meath, North) |
| Hackett, J. | Nuttall, Harry | Whitehouse, John Howard |
| Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds) | O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny) | Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P. |
| Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire) | O'Connor John (Kildare, N.) | Whyte, A. F. (Perth) |
| Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale) | O'Doherty, Philip | Wiles, Thomas |
| Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, W.) | O'Donnell, Thomas | Williams, John (Glamorgan) |
| Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N.E.) | O'Dowd, John | Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthen) |
| Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry | Ogden, Fred | Wilson, Hon. G. G. (Hull, W.) |
| Hayden, John Patrick | O'Kelly, Edward P. (Wicklow, W.) | Wilson, John (Durham, Mid) |
| Hayward, Evan | O'Malley, William | Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. W. (Worcs., N.) |
| Hazleton, Richard | O'Neill, Dr. Charles (Armagh, S.) | Wing, Thomas |
| Henderson, Arthur (Durham) | O'Shaughnessy, P, J. | Wood, Rt. Hon. T McKinnon (Glas.) |
| Henderson, J. M, (Aberdeen, W.) | O'Shee, James John | Young, W. (Perth, E.) |
| Henry, Sir Charles | O'Sullivan, Timothy | Yoxall, Sir James Henry |
| Higham, John Sharp | Outhwaite, R. L. | |
| Hinds, John | Parker, James (Halifax) | TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. W. Benn and Mr. W. Jones |
| Hogg, David C. | Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek) | |
| Hogge, James Myles | ||
| NOES. | ||
| Archer-Shee, Major M. | Banbury, Sir Frederick George | Barrie, H. T. |
| Baird, J. L. | Baring, Maj. Han. Guy V. (Winchester) | Bathurst, C. (Wilts, Wilton) |
| Baldwin, Stanley | Barnston, Harry | Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks |
| Beckett, Hon. Gervase | Hamilton, C. G. C. (Ches., Altrincham) | Pretyman, Ernest George |
| Bigland, Alfred | Harris, Henry Percy | Pryce-Jones, Colonel E. |
| Blair, Reginald | Helmsley, Viscount | Randles, Sir John |
| Boscawen, Sir Arthur S. T. Griffith- | Hewins, William Albert Samuel | Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel |
| Boyton, James | Hibbert, Sir Henry F. | Rawson, Col. Richard H. |
| Bridgeman, W. Clive | Hills, John Waller | Remnant, James Farquharson |
| Butcher, John George | Hoare, S. J. G. | Roberts. S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall) |
| Campion, W. R. | Hohler, G. F. | Ronaldshay, Earl of |
| Cator John | Hope, Harry (Bute) | Royds, Edmund |
| Cautley, H. S. | Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield) | Rutherford, John (Lancs., Darwen) |
| Cave, George | Hope, Major J. A. (Midlothian) | Sanders, Robert Arthur |
| Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor) | Horne, E. (Surrey, Guildford) | Sanderson, Lancelot |
| Cecil, Lord Hugh (Oxford University) | Houston, Robert Paterson | Sandys, G. J. |
| Clay, Captain H. H. Spender | Hume-Williams, Wm. Ellis | Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.) |
| Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.) | Hunter, Sir C. R. | Spear, Sir John Ward |
| Craig, Ernest (Cheshire, Crewe) | Ingleby, Holcombe | Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston) |
| Craig, Captain James (Down, E.) | Jardine, Ernest (Somerset, East) | Staveley-Hill, Henry |
| Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet) | Kerry, Earl of | Steel-Maitland, A. D. |
| Craik, Sir Henry | Lane-Fox, G. R. | Stewart, Gershom |
| Crichton-Stuart, Lord Ninian | Larmor, Sir J. | Strauss, Arthur (Paddington, North) |
| Dairymple, Viscount | Lewisham, Viscount | Swift, Rigby |
| Dalziel, Davison (Brixton) | Lloyd, George Ambrose (Stafford, W.) | Sykes, Alan John (Ches., Knutsford) |
| Denniss, E. R. B. | Lloyd, George Butler (Shrewshury) | Sykes, Sir Mark (Hull, Central) |
| Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott | Locker-Lampson, O. (Ramsey) | Talbot, Lord E. |
| Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M. | Lockwood, Rt. Hon. Lt.-Col. A. R. | Terrell, George (Wilts, N.W.) |
| Fell, Arthur | Lowe, Sir F. W. (Birm., Edgbaston) | Terrell, Henry (Gloucester) |
| Finlay, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert | Lyttelton, Hon. J. C. (Droitwich) | Thompson, Robert (Belfast, North) |
| Fisher, Rt. Hon. W. Hayes | Mackinder, Halford J. | Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Down, North) |
| Flannery, Sir J. Fortescue | M'Calmont, Major Robert C. A. | Thynne, Lord A. |
| Fletcher, John Samuel (Hampstead) | M'Neill, Ronald (Kent, St. Augustine's) | Touche, George Alexander |
| Forster, Henry William | Magnus, Sir Philip | Valentia, Viscount |
| Gastrell, Major W. Houghton | Malcolm, Ian | Walrond, Hon. Lionel |
| Gilmour, Captain John | Mildmay, Francis Bingham | Warde, Col. C. E. (Kent, Mid) |
| Glazebrook, Captain Philip K. | Mills, Hon. Charles Thomas | Wheler, Granville C. H. |
| Goldman, C. S. | Nield, Herbert | Williams, Col. R. (Dorset, W.) |
| Goldsmith. Frank | Orde-Powlett, Hon, W. G. A. | Willoughby, Major Hon. Claud |
| Gordon, Hon. John Edward (Brighton) | Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William | Wolmer, Viscount |
| Goulding, Edward Alfred | Paget, Almeric Hugh | Wood, John (Stalybridge) |
| Grant, J. A. | Parkes, Ebenezer | Worthington-Evans, L. |
| Greene, W. R. | Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington) | |
| Guinness, Hon. Rupert (Essex, S.E.) | Peel, Lieut.-Colonel R. F. | TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Sir |
| Hall, Frederick (Dulwich) | Perkins, Walter F. | Harry Samuel and Sir W. Bull. |
| Hamersley, Alfred St. George | Pollock, Ernest Murray |
§ Mr. STAVELEY-HILL rose in his place——
§ Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSONOn a point of Order. Do I understand that the Amendment of my hon. Friend has precedence of that standing in my name?
The DEIWUTY - CHAIRMANThe Amendment of the hon. Member for North Down comes within the same category as those to which the Chairman made reference as being out of order.
§ Mr. STAVELEY-HILLI beg to move, after the word "new" ["Members to serve in a new Parliament"], to insert the words "Commons House of."
This Amendment is one which the Committee will readily recognise has no appropriate place in the present condition of things, but it is surely the duty of this Committee and of every other legislative body not to look to the present, but to the possibilities of the future. Whereas at the present moment this Bill is confined to the House of Commons, it is possible that, in the future, there may be, when it is reestablished, if at all, a Second Chamber on 1788 an elective basis. Hon. Members who applaud that possibility of the future will readily recognise that it is necessary to safeguard the electorate in that possible event, because, unless this Bill is altered on lines similar to those which I venture to suggest, it would refer alone to the election of Members of the House of Commons, and if there were an elective Second Chamber, and the election for the two Chambers took place at the same time, there is a possibility that the electors of this country might be deprived of the opportunity of voting for both Chambers. They would, in fact, be prevented from recording their vote for one of them, and I cannot but think that., if the Government will accept this Amendment, which really carries the Bill no further, they would safeguard themselves or any future Government from having to do what is a most dangerous thing to do—to amend the Franchise Acts of this country. By accepting this Amendment now they will place this Bill on lines which would enable them to meet any possible eventuality. Whatever doubt there may be in the minds of hon. Members, I can safely say that it is abundantly clear that these words would make 1789 the position much more plain and simple. They specifically declare the intention of the Government, or of the promotors of the Bill, to abolish plural voting for Members of Parliament., and, if that is the intention, it should be made clear for all time, so that we may not be hampered by doubts in the future.
§ The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. Baker)The hon. Member who moved the Amendment based his suggestion mainly on a possible altered state of affairs, and he said it might be desirable to have more precise phraseology in the Bill to meet such changed conditions. I think he will admit that that is an objection that might be made to the phraseology of almost any Bill or Clause brought forward in this House. It has been the universal custom not to anticipate possibilities or even probabilities, but to wait until the occasion has arisen and then to make the necessary change. Assuming that the hon. Member is correct in his statement that at some distant date constitutional developments may provide us with an elective Second Chamber—and I would remind hon. Members that the proposals which have been foreshadowed do not necessarily imply an elected House of Lords—assuming there is to be an elected House of Lords, then the very Act which brings that Chamber into being is the Act which must necessarily deal with provisions of previous Acts thereby affected. That being so, I think the hon. Member might see well not to press this Amendment. The phrase "Parliament" is applied to the House of Commons in connection with all elections. It has been the common form in use for a great many years. There are hundreds of precedents, from the Acts of 1797, to those of 1832, down to the Redistribution Act of 1885, and if the hon. Member will look at the writs issued in this House he will see that the term used is "for the election of a Member to serve in Parliament" —not in the House of Commons.
§ Mr. STAVELEY-HILLMay I interrupt the hon. Gentleman? He has gone rather wide of what I meant to say. My argument was this: I understood it to be the intention of the Government that this very Bill which we are discussing and the Bill for the creation or alteration of the Second Chamber will both be proceeded with immediately under the provisions of the Parliament Act.
§ Mr. BAKERI understand that the hon. Member does not contest the fact that the use of the phrase "Parliament" in this connection is well understood. He bases his argument on the probability of there being an elected House of Lords. I do not think I need repeat what I have said, and I ask him to allow the ordinary custom to be followed as in the past, so that changes, if they are necessary in any previous Act of Parliament, shall be made in the Act which brings about the change.
Mr. J. HOPEI shall be interested to know if the Cabinet Minister in charge of this Bill will confirm what has been said by the hon. Member who last spoke. We understand from him that any reform of the Second Chamber on an elective basis is to be postponed to a distant date.
Mr. HOPEThe words of the hon. Gentleman are fresh in the recollection of the House. He said that if some constitutional development, which may have a bearing on this Amendment, takes place it will be at a distant date.
§ Mr. BAKERIf the hon. Member will allow me, perhaps I may correct him. What I did say was that, the question of an elected House of Lords was not a matter of certainty. It was a matter of possibility or probability. As to its being "distant," I mean merely "subsequent."
Mr. HOPEThe hon. Gentleman may not have intended to say "distant," but undoubtedly he did use that word, and I ask the President of the Board of Education whether he confirms that statement The object of my hon. Friend's Amendment was to secure that if the Second Chamber were reconstructed on an elective basis the provisions of this Bill should not affect the election of that Second Chamber. It has undoubtedly been contemplated that there shall be a reformed House of Lords. Is that reform not to proceed on the elective principle? Is it to proceed on the nominative principle? If we are to look for a lead in this matter, perhaps it may be found in the Government of Ireland Bill. In that there was a proposal for a nominated Second Chamber, but that has been abandoned.
§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMANThe hon. Member is rather straying from the point.
Mr. HOPEI did not quite gather I was straying from the argument put forward by my hon. Friend. His object is that this provision with regard to plural voting shall not apply to elections of a future Second Chamber, if such Second Chamber is to be reconstructed on the elective basis. Surely, then, it is pertinent to ask whether there is a likelihood of the Second Chamber being reconstructed on an elective basis? It does not, I submit, become relevant to ask the President of the Board of Education for some little further enlightenment on this point. Further questions may arise. We hear talk of a General Election. It is contemplated, assuming there is to be one, that the election of a Second Chamber shall synchronise with the election of the House of Commons? If it should be so, then obviously the same elector will not be able to vote for the two Chambers. [An HON. MEMBER: "Why not?"] Because if the two Chambers are to be elected at the same time the elector will obviously, under the provisions of this Bill, have to choose whether he is going to vote for the first Chamber or for the second. It is, therefore, a vital point if it is contemplated by the Government that the two Chambers shall be set up in such a manner as to involve a synchronous General Election for both. Otherwise, the unfortunate elector will be placed in an extremely embarrassing position. He will have to consider, at an election for the first and second Chamber, for which of the two his vote will be of the most value. That is a position which the Government have not contemplated. No harm will be done to their Bill by accepting this Amendment. I understand their intention is that in an election for Members of this House an elector shall be able to give one vote and one vote only. That is a principle we detest, but it is a perfectly intelligible principle. If they go no further, they will surely accept the Amendment, but if they wish to go further, and reject the Amendment, the only result will be that they will prejudice their future scheme, if they have one, for a Second Chamber upon an elective basis. Judging from the concession they made upon the Irish Bill, they have such a scheme, and the election is to be by proportional representation. Does the President of the Board of Education admit that the future Second Chamber should be upon an elective basis?
§ The CHAIRMANThat is going beyond the Amendment.
Mr. J. HOPEWith great submission Sir, you did not hear a speech of the hon. Gentleman who replied for the Government, which distinctly raised this point. He said it was not for him to say whether or not the reform of the Second Chamber involved the elective principle, and he challenged us to show how far our Amendment bore upon that point. I will revert to the bare fact. Is it the intention of the Government to provide in their Bill that a person shall have one vote and one vote alone for this House, or do they mean to lay down the principle that at a General Election, whether it is a General Election for one House or two, that a person shall have only one vote?
§ Mr. PEASEOut of courtesy to the hon. Member, I must say at once that one of our reasons for objecting to this Amendment is that by imputation it assumes that the House of Lords is or may become constituted upon an elective basis. Whenever the question of the reconstitution of that House is considered, the matter will then arise, but I submit it does not arise now.
§ Sir F. BANBURYThe right hon. Gentleman has rather confirmed the impression conveyed by the Financial Secretary to the War Office. That hon. Gentleman quite accidentally let slip the word "distant." I know that it was a mistake, and I do not wish to press it, but it is in the minds of right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite that it is going to be distant. After having, unfortunately for him, used the word "distant," he went on to recommend that we should wait and see. That is exactly what my hon. Friend (Mr. Staveley-Hill) does not want to do. He wants to arrange in this particular Bill that there shall be no waiting to see, but that we shall know exactly what we are going to do. The argument advanced by the Financial Secretary, and confirmed by the right hon. Gentleman, disclosed the future intentions of the Government. We now know that the Second Chamber will not be elective. I am very glad to hear it.
§ Sir F. BANBURYI would rather leave it as it is. It would depend entirely whether it was nominated by right hon. Gentlemen opposite or by my right hon. 1793 Friend (Mr. Bonar Law). The hon. Gentleman said that all the precedents from 1770 up to now showed that the word "Parliament" was used to indicate the House of Commons. May I point out that precedents which occurred two or three hundred years ago are of no value now, because the Constitution to which those precedents applied no longer exists. [Laughter.] It is all very well for hon. Gentlemen to laugh, but it is a fact. There is another very strong argument, which was not used by the hon. Gentleman, but it was in his mind, and in the mind of the right hon. Gentleman. It was, "We do not want a Report stage; therefore we will not accept any Amendment. Never mind how reasonable are the Amendments, or if they make perfectly clear the meaning of the Bill, we will not accept them, because there will have to be a Report stage." It would save a great deal of time if the hon. Gentleman had got up and in a candid manner told us the real reason for the rejection of the Amendment. It would save my endeavouring to show that the three reasons adduced by the hon. Gentleman were not good, and did not meet the point at all, and it would, no doubt, have pleased hon. Gentlemen opposite who are anxious to retire to the 'country or the seaside.
§ Mr. WILLIAM THORNEWhat about you?
§ Mr. GOULDINGmade an observation which was inaudible.
§ Mr. W. THORNEI have done more work than you know how to do.
§ Sir F. BANBURYIf hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway opposite will allow me to continue my argument, I shall be very much obliged. This Amendment is necessary in the interests of simplification. If it is not accepted, there may be considerable doubt as to the actual meaning of the word "Parliament." What is the objection to putting in the words "Commons House of Parliament"? If the right hon. Gentleman means the Commons House of Parliament, why on earth should he not say so? It is such a simple proposition that it can be understood perfectly, even by hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway opposite. In these circumstances I appeal to them to support the Amendment.
§ Mr. SAMUEL ROBERTSThe President of the Board of Education made a most extraordinary statement. It was that the Government rejected this Amendment on 1794 the ground that they did not wish to pledge themselves as to the future constitution of the Second Chamber. But they have pledged themselves up to the hilt in the Preamble of the Parliament Act. It says that they contemplate putting the Second Chamber upon an elective basis. [HON. MEMBERS: "Democratic."] The word "democratic" means "elective." [HON. MEMBERS: "It is 'popular.'"] I will take the word "popular." I take it as popular. Does not popular mean elective? Of course it does. What 'we are urging is to make it perfectly clear that this Bill is only to apply to this House. If that is the intention of the Government, why reject the Amendment? It will do them no harm. If the Government mean that the Bill is only to apply to the House of Commons, why not put in the words "House of Commons," and make it perfectly clear? That is the sole object of the Amendment, and I am really astonished that the Government do not see that it is right to make it perfectly clear.
§ Mr. BAIRDI think for once perhaps the Government might consent to call a spade a spade. Do they mean the House of Commons or Parliament, or do they think the House of Commons is Parliament? In the very Preamble of the Bill you find, "Be it enacted by the King's Most Excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal and Commons in this Parliament assembled." There are a great many more people besides the Commons, and unless you put in the Commons you imply that Parliament consists of the House of Commons alone, since this Bill is to deal with the election of Members to this House. In the country we are well accustomed to supporters of the Government calling a spade a shovel whenever they can get votes for it, but when it is a question of making laws surely they might endeavour to say exactly what they mean, and several of them have repeated that their intention is that the Bill shall apply to the election of Members of this House only. At present I agree that Parliament is constituted by this House only, although hon. Members opposite are quite ready to deny it in the country. This House controls the whole machine of government. If this is to be perpetuated, well and good. If, on the other hand, we are to have a reconstruction of the Constitution so that Acts of Parliament shall be enacted in deed, and not only in name, by the King and Lords and Commons in 1795 Parliament assembled, what earthly objection can the Government have to insert words into this Bill which will make it perfectly clear that it is to apply only to that branch of Parliament which they themselves say it is to affect? It is extraordinarily difficult to understand, unless it is for the reason given by the hon. Baronet, that they do not want to have a Report stage. If that is their reason, let them say so. But surely they might take the trouble to advance some argument for the purpose of showing why they will not accept perfectly reasonable Amendments.
§ Sir F. BANBURYI am glad my arguments have been so good that it is abso-
§ lately impossible for anyone on that bench to contradict them. I should like to repeat the request which has been put forward by my hon. Friend to know whether or not the Government intend to have a Report stage. I do not see any Law Officer present, but I see my right hon. and learned Friend (Sir R. Finlay). Will he excuse me, in the absence of the Law Officers of the Crown, if I ask him this question: Is the Amendment one which would be understood in any Court of Law?
§ Question put, "That those words be there inserted."
§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 168; Noes, 266.
1799| Division No. 142.] | AYES. | [10.5 p.m. |
| Agg-Gardner, James Tynte | Goldsmith, Frank | Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William |
| Anson, Rt. Hon. Sir William R. | Gordon, Hon. John Edward (Brighton) | Paget, Almeric Hugh |
| Archer-Shee, Major M. | Goulding, Edward Alfred | Parkes, Ebenezer |
| Baird, J. L. | Grant, J. A. | Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington) |
| Baker, Sir R. L. (Dorset, N.) | Greene, W. R. | Peel, Lieut.-Colonel R. F. |
| Baldwin, Stanley | Guinness, Hon. Rupert (Essex, S.E.) | Perkins, Walter F. |
| Banbury, Sir Frederick George | Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne) | Pollock. Ernest Murray |
| Baring, Maj. Hon. Guy V. (Winchester) | Haddock, George Bahr | Pretyman, Ernest George |
| Barlow, Montague (Salford, South) | Mall, Frederick (Dulwich) | Pryce-Jones, Colonel E. |
| Barnston, Harry | Hamersley, Alfred St. George | Quitter, Sir William Eley C. |
| Barrie, H. T. | Hamilton. C. G. C. (Ches., Altrincham) | Randles, Sir John S. |
| Bathurst, C. (Wilts., Wilton) | Harris, Henry Percy | Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel |
| Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks | Helmsley, Viscount | Rawson, Colonel Richard H. |
| Beckett, Hon. Gervase | Hewins, William Albert Samuel | Remnant. James Farquharson |
| Been, Ion Hamilton (Greenwich) | Hibbert, Sir Henry F. | Ronaldshay, Earl of |
| Bigland, Alfred | Hills, John Waller | Rothschild, Lionel de |
| Bird, A. | Hill-Wood, Samuel | Royds, Edmund |
| Blair, Reginald | Hoare, S. J. G. | Rutherford, John (Lancs., Darwen) |
| Boles, Lieut.-Col. Dennis Fortescue | Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy | Samuel, Sir Harry (Norwood) |
| Boscawen, Sir Arthur S. T. Griffith- | Hope, Harry (Bute) | Samuel, Samuel (Wandsworth) |
| Boyle, William (Norfolk, Mid) | Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield) | Sanders, Robert Arthur |
| Boyton, James | Hope, Major J. A. (Midlothian) | Sanderson, Lancelot |
| Brassey, H. Leonard Campbell | Horne, Edgar (Surrey. Guildford) | Sandys, G. J. |
| Bridgeman, W. Clive | Houston, Robert Paterson | Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.) |
| Bull, Sir William James | Hume-Williams, Wm. Ellis | Smith, Rt. Hon. F. E. (L'p'l, Walton) |
| Burn, Colonel C. R. | Hunter, Sir C. R. | Spear, Sir John Ward |
| Butcher, John George | Ingleby, Holcombe | Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston) |
| Campion, W. R. | Jardine, Ernest (Somerset, East) | Starkey, John Ralph |
| Cater, John | Kerr-Smiley, Peter Kerr | Steel-Maitland, A. D. |
| Cautley, H. S. | Kerry, Earl of | Stewart. Gershom |
| Cave, George | Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement | Swift, Rigby |
| Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor) | Lane-Fox, G. R. | Sykes, Alan John (Ches., Knutsford) |
| Cecil, Lord Hugh (Oxford University) | Larmor, Sir J. | Sykes, Sir Mark (Hull, Central) |
| Clay, Captain H. H. Spender | Law, Rt. Han. A. Bonar (Bootle) | Talbot, Lord E. |
| Coates, Major Sir Edward Feetham | Lewisham, Viscount | Terrell, George (Wilts, N.W.) |
| Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.) | Lloyd, George Ambrose (Stafford, W.) | Terrell, Henry (Gloucester) |
| Craig, Ernest (Cheshire, Crewel) | Lloyd, George Butler (Shrewsbury) | Thompson, Robert (Belfast, North) |
| Craig, Captain James (Down, E.) | Locker-Lampson, O. (Ramsey) | Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Down, North) |
| Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet) | Lockwood, Rt. Hon. Lt.-Col. A. R. | Thynne, Lord A. |
| Craik, Sir Henry | Lowe, Sir F. W. (Birm., Edgbaston) | Touche, George Alexander |
| Crichton-Stuart, Lord Ninian | Lyttelton, Hon. J. C. (Droitwich) | Tryon, Captain George clement |
| Dairymple, Viscount | Mackinder, Halford J. | Valentia, Viscount |
| Dalziel, Davison (Brixton) | M'Calmont, Major Robert C. A. | Walrond, Hon. Lionel |
| Denniss, E. R. B. | M'Neill, Ronald (Kent, St. Augustine's) | Warde, Cal, C. E. (Kent, Mid) |
| Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott | Magnus, Sir Philip | Wheler, Granville C. H. |
| Duke, Henry Edward | Malcolm, Ian | Williams, Col. R. (Dorset, W.) |
| Duncannon. Viscount | Mason, James F. (Windsor) | Willoughby, Major Hon. Claud |
| Eyres-Monsell, Balton M. | Meysey-Thompson, E. C. | Wilson, A. Stanley (Yorks, E.R.) |
| Fell, Arthur | Mildmay, Francis Bingham | Winterton, Earl |
| Finlay, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert | Mills, Hon. Charles Thomas | Wolmer, Viscount |
| Flannery, Sir J. Fortescue | Morrison-Bell, Capt. E. F. (Ashburton) | Wood, John (Stalybridge) |
| Fletcher, John Samuel | Mount, William Arthur | Worthington-Evans, L. |
| Forster, Henry William | Newdegate, F. A. | Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart- |
| Gastrell, Major W. Houghton | Newman, John R. P. | Wright, Henry Fitzherbert |
| Gilmour, Captain John | field, Herbert | |
| Glazebrook, Captain Philip K. | O'Neill, Hon. A. E. B. (Antrim, Mid) | TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. |
| Goldman, C. S. | Orde-Powlett, Hon. W. G. A. | Staveley-Hill and Mr. Samuel Roberts |
| NOES. | ||
| Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour) | Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford | Murray, Captain Hon. Arthur C. |
| Abraham, Rt. Hon. William (Rhondda) | Goldstone, Frank | Needham, Christopher Thomas |
| Acland, Francis Dyke | Greig, Colonel J. W. | Neilson, Francis |
| Adamson, William | Guest, Hon. Frederick E. (Dorset, E.) | Nicholson, Sir Charles (Doncaster) |
| Addison, Dr. C. | Gulland, John William | Nolan, Joseph |
| Agnew, Sir George William | Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway) | Norman, Sir Henry |
| Ainsworth, John Stirling | Hackett, J. | Norton, Captain Cecil W. |
| Alden, Percy | Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose) | Nuttall, Harry |
| Allen, Arthur Acland (Dumbartonshire) | Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Luton, Beds.) | O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny) |
| Allen, Rt. Hon. Charles P. (Stroud) | Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire) | O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.) |
| Baker, Harold T. (Accrington) | Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale) | O'Doherty, Philip |
| Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.) | Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, W.) | O'Donnell, Thomas |
| Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark) | Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N.E.) | O'Dowd, John |
| Baring, Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple) | Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry | Ogden, Fred |
| Barlow, Sir John Emmott (Somerset) | Hayden, John Patrick | O'Kelly, Edward P. (Wicklow, W.) |
| Barnes, George N. | Hayward, Evan | O'Malley, William |
| Barran, Sir John N. (Hawick) | Hazleton, Richard | O'Neill, Dr. Charles (Armagh, S.) |
| Barran, Rowland Hurst (Leeds, N.) | Henderson, Arthur (Durham) | O'Shaughnessy, P. J. |
| Barton, William | Henderson, J. M. (Aberdeen, W.) | O'Shee, James John |
| Beck, Arthur Cecil | Henry, Sir Charles | O'Sullivan, Timothy |
| Bentham, George Jackson | Higham, John Sharp | Outhwaite, R. L. |
| Bethell, Sir John Henry | Hinds, John | Parker, James (Halifax) |
| Black, Arthur W. | Hogg, David C. | Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek) |
| Boland, John Pius | Hogge, James Myles | Pearce, William (Limehouse) |
| Booth, Frederick Handel | Holmes, Daniel Turner | Pease, Rt. Hon. Joseph A. (Rotherham) |
| Bowerman, C. W. | Horne, C. Silvester (Ipswich) | Philipps, Col. Ivor (Southampton) |
| Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North) | Howard, Hon. Geoffrey | Phillips, John (Longford, S.) |
| Brace, William | Hudson, Walter | Pointer, Joseph |
| Brady, P. J. | Hughes, Spencer Leigh | Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H. |
| Brocklehurst, William B. | Illingworth, Percy H. | Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central) |
| Brunner, J. F. L. | Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus | Price, Sir R. J. (Norfolk, E.) |
| Bryce, J. Annan | John, Edward Thomas | Priestley, Sir W. E. (Bradford) |
| Buckmaster, Stanley O. | Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth) | Pringle, William M. R. |
| Burns, Rt. Hon. John | Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East) | Raffan, Peter Wilson |
| Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas | Jowett, Frederick William | Raphael, Sir Herbert |
| Cawley, H. T. (Heywood) | Joyce, Michael | Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields) |
| Chancellor, H. G. | Keating, Matthew | Reddy, M. |
| Chapple, Dr. William Allen | Kellaway, Frederick George | Redmond, John E. (Waterford) |
| Clancy, John Joseph | Kelly, Edward | Redmond, William (Clare, E.) |
| Clough, William | Kennedy, Vincent Paul | Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.) |
| Collins, Godfrey P. (Greenock) | Kilbride, Denis | Rendell, Athelstan |
| Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J. | King, J. | Richards, Thomas |
| Condon, Thomas Joseph | Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade) | Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven) |
| Cornwall, Sir Edwin A. | Lardner, James C. R. | Roberts, Charles (Lincoln) |
| Cotton, William Francis | Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, West) | Roberts, G. H. (Norwich) |
| Cowan, W. H. | Lawson, Sir W. (Camb'rld, Cockerm'th) | Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs) |
| Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth) | Leach, Charles | Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside) |
| Crooks, William | Levy, Sir Maurice | Robinson, Sidney |
| Crumley, Patrick | Lewis, Rt. Hon. John Herbert | Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke) |
| Cullinan, John | Lundon, T. | Roche, M. Augustine (Louth, N.) |
| Dalziel, Rt. Hon. Sir J. H. (Kirkcaldy) | Lynch, A. A. | Roe, Sir Thomas |
| Davies, Ellis William (Eifion) | Macdonald, J. Ramsay (Leicester) | Rowlands, James |
| Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth) | Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs) | Rowntree, Arnold |
| Dawes, J. A. | McGhee, Richard | Russell, Rt. Hon. Thomas W. |
| Delany, William | Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J. | Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland) |
| Denman, Hon. R. D. | MacNeill, J. G. Swift (Donegal, South) | Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees) |
| Devlin, Joseph | Macpherson, James Ian | Scanlan, Thomas |
| Dewar, Sir J. A. | MacVeagh, Jeremiah | Schwann, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles E. |
| Dickinson W. H. | M'Curdy, C. A. | Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton) |
| Dillon, John | M'Laren, Hon. H. D. (Leics.) | Sheehy, David |
| Donelan, Captain A. | M'Laren, Hon. F.W.S. (Lincs.,Spalding) | Sherwell, Arthur James |
| Doris, William | M'Micking, Major Gilbert | Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John Allsebrook |
| Duffy, William J. | Markham, Sir Arthur Basil | Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe) |
| Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness) | Marks, Sir George Croydon | Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.) |
| Duncan, J. Hastings (Yorks, Otley) | Mason, David M. (Coventry) | Snowden, Philip |
| Elverston, Sir Harold | Meagher, Michael | Soames, Arthur Wellesley |
| Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.) | Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.) | Spicer, Rt. Hon. Sir Albert |
| Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.) | Meehan, Patrick J. (Queen's Co., Leix) | Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N.W.) |
| Essex, Sir Richard Walter | Millar, James Duncan | Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West) |
| Esslemont, George Birnle | Molloy, Michael | Sutherland, J. E. |
| Falconer, James | Molteno, Percy Alport | Sutton, John E. |
| Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles | Money, L. G. Chiozza | Taylor, John W. (Durham) |
| Ffrench, Peter | Montagu, Hon. E. S. | Tennant, Harold John |
| Field, William | Mooney, John J. | Thomas, James Henry |
| Fiennes, Hon. Eustace Edward | Morgan, George Hay | Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton) |
| Fitzgibbon, John | Morrell, Philip | Thorne, William (West Ham) |
| Flavin, Michael Joseph | Morison, Hector | Toulmin, Sir George |
| Furness, Sir Stephen Wilson | Morton, Alpheus Cleophas | Trevelyan, Charles Philips |
| Gelder, Sir William Alfred | Muldoon, John | Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander |
| George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd | Munro, R. | Verney, Sir Harry |
| Gladstone, W. G. C. | Munro-Ferguson, Rt. Hon. R. C. | Wadsworth, John |
| Glanville, H. J. | Murphy, Martin J. | Walsh, Stephen (Lancs., Ince) |
| Wardle, George J. | Whitehouse, John Howard | Wing, Thomas |
| Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay | Whyte, A. F. (Perth) | Wood, Rt. Hon. T. McKinnon (Glas.) |
| Watt, Henry Anderson | Wiles, Thomas | Young, W. (Perthshire, E.) |
| Webb, H. | Williams, John (Glamorgan) | Yoxall, Sir James Henry |
| Wedgwood, Josiah C. | Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthen) | |
| White, J. Dundas (Glas., Tradeston) | Wilson, Hon. G. G. (Hull, W.) | TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. W. Benn and Mr. W. Jones. |
| White, Sir Luke (Yorks, E. R.) | Wilson, John (Durham, Mid) | |
| White, Patrick (Meath, North) | Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. W. (Worcs., N.) |
§ Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSONI beg to move, after the word "Parliament" ["to serve in a new Parliament"], to insert the words "of the United Kingdom."
I should like to say at once that I quite sympathise with the difficulties which beset Ministers in charge of the Bill in finding fresh reasons on each Amendment for the avoidance of a Report stage. As to this Amendment, I wish to say, in the first place, that it is really a matter of terminology rather than of principle. In the second place, I hope that the argument used by Ministers against other Amendments—I have sufficient respect for their ingenuity to think that they will discover one—will not be used against this Amendment, namely, that in these matters you must have regard to the necessary, ordinary, and well-understood phrases of Acts of Parliament. I could have understood that argument in regard to any Amendment other than the present one. Under present circumstances the word "Parliament" has acquired entirely new significance. When we remember that there are proposals before this House with regard to the formation of other Parliaments in other parts of the United Kingdom—which, of course, it would not be in order for me to go into at this stage on this Bill—then I think it is time to consider whether the mere use of the word "Parliament" accurately reflects what I believe to be the intention of the Government in regard to this Bill. I understand—I should like the President of the Board of Education to correct me if I am wrong—that it is the intention of the Government, under this Bill, that in casting votes for membership of the Imperial Parliament a man should vote once and once only.
I want to know whether they intend that principle to apply under this Bill to the Imperial Parliament only, because, if they do, I think they ought to consider very seriously whether they cannot accept the phraseology of my Amendment? Without going into the details of other proposals, I wish to say that I have heard reports that there are other proposals before the House which would have the effect of imposing the election law, whatever it may be, on subordinate Parlia- 1800 ments for at least three years. Therefore, while in this Bill we are professedly legislating for this House of Commons, we should be legislating for other Parliaments as well. I am under this difficulty that, however strongly one may feel on that point, it is impossible within the Rules of Order to refer to what may take place between this Parliament and other Parliaments, but I think I am entitled to point out the difficulty, because it is one which is certain to arise. May I point out, further, that the Clause says that a Parliamentary elector shall not vote in more than one constituency during the currency of a General Election of Members to serve in a new Parliament? I take a parallel case, the case that was put a moment ago. Imagine that your dream comes true, that you have a subordinate Parliament, or if you like a whole set of them in the United Kingdom.
§ The CHAIRMANThere would really be no end to our discussion if we were to argue all the Amendments on this Bill on the prospects of other Bills which are not yet law. I do not think it desirable to pursue that.
§ Lord HUGH CECILIs it not in order to use an argument which is relevant to an Amendment, if the Amendment is itself in order? It would be very greatly encroaching on the rights of the Committee if the Chair ruled out of order arguments which might move votes if those arguments are relevant.
§ The CHAIRMANThe Noble Lord will see that it is necessary to draw a line in these matters. For instance, he might, himself, desire to argue all the various Amendments on this Bill on the hypothesis that Woman Suffrage became law. That clearly would be introducing a matter which had nothing to do with our present Debate, and would really lead to there being no end to our discussion.
§ Lord HUGH CECILOn the point of Order. Is not that the ruling—that arguments which are perfectly relevant and likely to move votes should be ruled out of order merely because they interfere with the Government getting their business as soon as they want?
§ The CHAIRMANI think that the Noble Lord's last words imply a reflection on the Chair.
§ Lord HUGH CECILNothing of the kind. I had not the slightest intention of impeaching your ruling in this respect; but there is a great danger that too technical an interpretation of rules may really interfere with the rights of the minority, and so interfere with the freedom of debate.
§ The CHAIRMANDealing with what the Noble Lord originally said, he will see that he implied that I was giving my decision with some other matter in view than the impartial administration of the Rules of the House. To that I took strong exception.
§ Mr. BONAR LAWWith regard to the particular question submitted, is not this the point—that my hon. Friend is dealing with an Amendment which especially has regard to the word "Parliament," and dealing with that Amendment, he points out that by the wording of the Bill as it stands it might apply either to this Parliament or to other Parliaments. Is not it in order to point out the undesirability of that, and to make it clear that it ought to apply only to this Parliament?
§ The CHAIRMANYes, I think that that is so. Within those limits that is quite a correct thing. What I object to is going beyond that.
§ Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSONI fully appreciate your ruling, and shall endeavour to observe it, but it is a little hard, I think, on the minority in this House with regard to certain questions, with regard to the question, for instance, which came up yesterday, that we are met, on the one hand, by the argument of the Government: "There is no use in suggesting this. You must proceed on the ground that the Parliament Act is a fait accompli, and on that hypothesis the Government are going to continue in power." For instance, with regard to the Amendment ruled yesterday, we were told that there is no use in moving an Instruction of that kind, because it takes the Bill out of the category of the Parliament Act. It is a little hard if we cannot proceed on the same assumption in the face of other arguments which the Government adopts when it suits them. What I meant to suggest is this: Suppose the case where there is an election for a 1802 subordinate Parliament which may happen to be set up—and I gather it is the intention of the Government to set up subordinate Parliaments—and suppose that election coincided with the election of Members of this Parliament, then, as I read the Bill, without the interpolation of my Amendment, the elector would be put in this quandary, that he would have to make up his mind to vote for a Member to serve in this House of Commons, or for one to serve in the Welsh, Scotch, Irish, or Lancashire House of Commons; he would have to do one or the other; he could not do both. I do not believe that is the intention of the Government; I think it is too silly to be the intention even of this Government; but, if I am right in that surmise, I think the Government might do well to accept the words I suggest, unless they wish to avoid the Report stage.
§ The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Mr. Montagu)I have listened very closely to the argument of the hon. Member, and I think I appreciate the point he desires to make. I can assure him, if he will be good enough to listen to the argument I wish to make, that there is not the slightest intention on the part of the Government to resist any Amendment, and if the hon. Member or any of his Friends produce Amendments which commend themselves to the Government, the Government will not hesitate to accept them. In our opinion, however, this Amendment is not necessary. The word "Parliament" is perfectly understood. It is used in the enacting words of this Bill, it is used in various enactments, it is used in the Parliament Act itself, and it cannot be misunderstood. It refers to the only Parliament in existence in this country, this Parliament in which we are now sitting.
§ Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSONI understand the policy of the Government to be that there shall no longer in these islands be one Parliament, but a number of Parliaments.
§ Mr. MONTAGUSo far, we are concerned with existing circumstances, and there is only one Parliament to which this Act can apply. I hope and believe that very soon there will be other Parliaments. There I agree. When we are discussing a Bill constituting Parliaments for Wales and Scotland, and the other Parliaments to which the hon. Member referred, then will be the time to call 1803 attention to the difficulty which he foresees, and to move the amending words. They are purely irrelevant to the Bill now under discussion, and deal with a state of things which does not at present exist. For that reason I respectfully suggest that the Amendment is not necessary.
§ Mr. BONAR LAWThe hon. Gentleman made the statement in giving his reasons for rejecting the Amendment that the Government—and I assume they were sincere—do not at all events aim at avoiding the Report stage. The hon. Gentleman says the words of the Amendment can only apply to the Parliament of the United Kingdom, because there is no other Parliament. But we all know—for they have told us that before long they will carry their intention into effect—that shortly before this Bill comes into operation there will be another Parliament in the United Kingdom, and, if so, this Bill as it stands would apply to that other Parliament precisely as it applies to the Parliament which exists. In these circumstances, surely, if their object is not to avoid the Report stage, there will be no harm in putting into the Bill exactly what they mean. What was the right hon. Gentleman's other defence for refusing the Amendment. He tells us that the very Preamble of the Bill speaks of Parliament and shows what is meant, but in the Amendment before this the defence of the Government was the exact opposite. They pointed out then it had nothing to do with Parliament, but had only to do with the House of Commons. There, again, I would venture to say to the Government, judging by my experience in this House, that they gain nothing by avoiding a Report stage. They simply, by showing their determination not to accept any Amendment, increase the amount of discussion. I would strongly recommend them to adopt a more reasonable attitude and treat the House of Commons as if it were still a legislative Assembly, and give full weight to the Amendments which are put down.
§ Mr. HENRY TERRELLThe hon. Gentleman (Mr. Montagu) suggested to the House that the proper time to deal with this matter was when there was a Bill before the House to set up some other Parliament. We have a Bill before the House to set up a Parliament in Ireland. Does the hon. Member propose that the proper time to deal with this 1804 matter is when the Bill to set up a Parliament in Ireland is before the House, and, if so, will he give an assurance that the Government will accept in that Bill the necessary Amendment to exclude that Parliament from the operation of this Bill? If they will not give that undertaking there is no force in the hon. Member's objection, because it follows that the Bill which they have got before the House will not contain any provision which will exclude the Irish Parliament from the operation of this Bill, and if that Bill comes into law at the same time this Bill comes into law, then at the moment this Bill comes into law we shall have two Parliaments, and, if we have two Parliaments, to which Parliament does this Bill apply? Is it to the Parliament of the United Kingdom or to the Irish Parliament or to both Parliaments? I do submit to the Government that it is trifling with the House to suggest that we should introduce this Amendment when a Bill for the introduction of a new Parliament is before the House, and at the same time to refuse to say that they will listen to and accept such an Amendment in that Bill. The result is that if this Bill is passed without this Amendment, you have this Bill becoming an Act and at the same moment two Parliaments in the United Kingdom. I defy the Solicitor-General, when he comes to interpret this Bill becoming an Act under those circumstances, to say that it will not apply to both those Parliaments. The Government refuse to accept this Amendment because it does not commend itself to them, and no Amendment from this side will commend itself to them. We know that perfectly well, and the result of that will be that you will have this Bill passed and framed in such a way that it will operate, as stated by the Mover of the Amendment, in such a way as that it will impose on the elector the greatest possible difficulty, which it is not intended by the Bill to impose on the elector. If the Government will only look on this Amendment on its merits they will accept it.
§ Lord HUGH CECILIt is characteristic of the habitual discourtesy with which the Government treat the Opposition, and of the contempt with which they treat the House of Commons, that no Minister has risen to reply to the Leader of the Opposition. When I first entered into Parliament such a thing was absolutely unknown. If they are unable to reply to the arguments they might at 1805 least rise and show the courtesy of attempting to deal with arguments with which they are unable to cope. [An HON. MEMBER: "The new style."] It is the "new style" which the Government are adopting. They do not think it worth while to answer those who are in the most distinguished position on the Opposition side of the House. That is gross discourtesy; it is opposed to the precedents and traditions of Parliament; and it is a procedure of which the Government ought to be ashamed. This is an Amendment to make clear the meaning of a Clause which is obscure and ambiguous. We have only to look at a Bill at present on the Table of the House and ordered for Third Reading to see that the word "Parliament" is used in respect of another Parliament than this. I believe I should have been in order in asking the Clerk to read Clause 1 of the Government of Ireland Bill in order to show the relevance of the arguments that we are pressing upon the Committee. Nobody who really addresses his mind to the subject can doubt that the Clause is ambiguous; but the Government, merely because they are afraid of a Report stage, decline to consider an Amendment or to reply to the arguments addressed to them. They put up the Under-Secretary for India to reply. I do not know what he has to do with the matter. [An HON. MEMBER: "His name is on the back of the Bill."] I do not know why his name should be on the back of the Bill. The point is perfectly simple and plain. According to the Bill and the existing practice of this House the word "Parliament" is used in two different senses. It is used in respect of this Parliament of the United Kingdom, and it is used in the Government of Ireland Bill in respect of a Parliament in Ireland. We want to know to which of these Parliaments the Bill refers, and we have propounded an Amendment which makes it clear. I cannot see why the Government on the merits of the case do not accept the Amendment. They say that they intend the Bill to apply only to the Parliament of the United Kingdom. Then why should they not say in the Bill what they mean? If legislation is submitted for our consideration at all, and if it is not to be registered precisely as the Government frame it, we are entitled to ask that it should be dealt with in a workmanlike manner. It is workmanlike to say what you mean clearly. Therefore we are entitled to press this Amendment which makes clear what the Government say is their own meaning.
§ Sir J. SIMONThe Noble Lord began by complaining of what he described as discourteous treatment of the Leader of the Opposition. If the Leader of the Opposition thinks that we treated him with discourtesy, I would wish to express to him at once my regret that any conduct of ours should have given him that impression. I do not offer any apology to the Noble Lord, because he went on to show what he meant by courtesy, by a wholly unworthy sneer at my colleague, the Under-Secretary for India. My hon. Friend's name is on the back of the Bill, and, so far as I know, he is as much entitled to take an interest in the Bill, and to explain its provisions as anybody else on this bench. As far as I can judge his explanation was a perfectly clear one, and was couched in most temperate language. The Committee is, of course, entitled to consider and decide whether or not the language of the Bill would be improved by adding after the word "Parliament" the words "of the United Kingdom." That is a question on which no doubt opinions may differ. I have an opinion, I believe it is a perfectly honest one, and I do not think it would make the slightest difference to the Bill, or make it less clear if these words are not put in. Though it is perfectly natural for an Opposition which imagines that some advantage would accrue to them by making some change in the language of the Bill to protest that they are putting forward such change in the interests of clearness, I must be excused if I, for my part, say I am quite unable to understand how anyone could suppose that this Bill is to be made clearer by the addition of such words. The enacting words of the Bill are: "in this present Parliament assembled." Nobody can question what is meant by that! Nobody can doubt that in talking about "a General Election of Members to serve in a new Parliament" as to what is meant! I see sitting opposite an hon. and learned Gentleman who has written a book which we all recognise as a classic, on "The Law and Custom of the Constitution." I think the first volume of it, so far as my memory goes, is entitled "Part I. of 'Parliament.'" I really do not myself see that any advantage is gained in clearness of expression by the inclusion of anything of the sort suggested. When so recently as the Parliament Act we were dealing with Parliament, never, from first to last, was it thought necessary to explain that we 1807 meant the Parliament of the United Kingdom when we used the word "Parliament." We did not mean the Parliament of Canada. When we legislated for Canada we passed an Act of Parliament which created a Parliament for Canada. With every desire to give due weight to the arguments of the other side, I cannot see what advantage will be secured by changing the expression which has been used in the drafting of this Bill. I believe that expression to be right, and since I believe it to be right I am bound to recommend the House to resist the Amendment.
§ Mr. PRETYMANCan the right hon. Gentleman tell the Committee definitely that if the words stand as they are in the Clause, that is to say, that the words proposed by my hon. Friend are not added, the words will not affect the Parliament which is to be elected under the Bill before the House, and which is in process of passing for Ireland? Can he tell us definitely whether it would affect that Parliament or not?
§ Sir J. SIMONI can offer an opinion, and that is that I have no doubt whatever that as the Bill is drafted, and as it stands, it applies to this Parliament only. The only sense in which it can possibly apply to a Home Rule Parliament is this: My recollection is—if it is in order to refer to it—that the Home Rule Bill does provide that whatever is the election law of the Imperial Parliament shall be the election law of the Home Rule Parliament for three years. In that sense, no doubt, it would adopt whatever was law of this Parliament. In the sense in which the hon. and gallant Gentleman puts his question, and puts it perfectly fairly, I am bound to say, expressing my best judgment, that I have not the faintest doubt the Bill refers to this Parliament, and no other Parliament on this earth.
§ Sir F. BANBURYThe right hon. Gentleman the Solicitor-General, and the hon. Gentleman the Under-Secretary have both in my humble opinion been most courteous in the words they have uttered, but they have had nothing to do with the argument or Amendment of my hon. Friend. I only wish to deal briefly with the last argument of the Solicitor-General as to Canada. It was never supposed that any Bill of this House should apply to Canada. He told us only a few moments ago that there is in the Irish Home Rule Bill a 1808 Clause which says that any enactment adopted by the Imperial Parliament shall be adopted by the Irish Parliament. [HON. MEMBERS: "No, no."] That is what the Solicitor-General said, and he can contradict me if I am wrong. I will read the Sub-section:—
"After three years from the passing of this Act ….the Irish Parliament may alter as respects the Irish House of Commons the qualification and registration of the electors who vote at elections, the constituencies, and the distribution of Members of the House among constituencies."
No, that is not it, but the whole point is the three years. Until the three years have elapsed the Irish Parliament is bound by this Parliament. [HON. MEMBERS: "That is not the point."] It is very much the point as to what would happen in the three years. The Under-Secretary for India said that hitherto the word "Parliament" always meant the one Parliament. Then he went on to say that if there was any intention to establish a Welsh Parliament or a Scottish Parliament the proper time to discuss whether this was to be extended to the Welsh Parliament or the Scottish Parliament was upon the Bills creating those Parliaments. He left the Irish Parliament out entirely. The Bill creating an Irish Parliament has already passed many stages this Session during which we were not allowed to have any discussion. Why did the hon. Gentleman leave out the Irish Parliament? Because he knew under our existing procedure there is no Committee stage of that Bill, and therefore the Bill we are now discussing, which was not brought in last year, could not be discussed during the Committee stage of the Irish Bill last year. It is evident that that is the real reason. Let me point out why the Under-Secretary for India did not show in any kind of way why these words should not be inserted. The insertion of the words "United Kingdom," would in no way injure or destroy that which the hon. Member desires to bring about. The hon. Gentleman desires to bring something about in the Parliament of this Kingdom. Then why not put in the words "United Kingdom"? It will not be a United Kingdom when the Irish Parliament is in existence. The Plural Voting Bill may be right or wrong, but it is very evident we must insist on the intention of the Government being carried out. All we ask is 1809 that the Government should accept an Amendment which will make their meaning clear, and I shall certainly vote for the Amendment of my hon. Friend.
§ Viscount HELMSLEYRight hon. Gentlemen opposite seem to be very sensitive about any allusion to the Irish Parliament in this Bill. I do not follow the reason of that, except the reflection that it is a Bill which is being forced upon the Government, and that they are unwillingly undertaking it. It is absurd to suggest that this House should consider these questions in watertight compartments, that we are dealing with this Bill only, and that we have not to consider other Bills which have got to a very advanced stage. This particular phraseology might be appropriate if this Parliament was likely to remain the only one, but we know from Bills now before Parliament that it is the intention of the Government to create other Parliaments which will come within the jurisdiction of this House. Even under the Home Rule Bill this House is entitled to legislate for Ireland, and I would like to ask the right hon. Gentleman what phraseology he would adopt if it were proposed that these words should include the Irish Parliament. If that is the intention of the Government hon. Members will see that they could not adopt any phraseology more expressly designed to include the Irish Parliament than the words which are in the Clause at the present moment. I do not follow the relevance of the Solicitor-General's observations with regard to the enacting words. He says those words refer to "the present Parliament assembled." It seems to me that the two cases have nothing to do with each other. It is true that those are the words of ordinary Acts of Parliament, but they enable this Parliament to deal with any Parliament it pleases, and it does not follow that because it is this Parliament which is passing the Bill that the Bill which it passes deals only with this Parliament. It must be obvious to every impartial mind that this Amendment is wanted to make the Bill clear. If the Government do not choose to accept it, that is another question. They have their majority to support them, and those hon. Members who are not in the House will come up to vote. In the interests of making legislation clear we are bound to support this Amendment, and point out that the only reason the Government are refusing it is from sheer obstinacy and un- 1810 willingness to accept any suggestion whatever from the Opposition. It is no use the Solicitor-General and the Under-Secretary for India saying that they are prepared to accept Amendments if the necessity for them is proved, because that has been done in this instance. We might as well pass over all our Amendments and let the Government pass the Committee stage in the same way as they did the Home Rule Bill and the Welsh Disestablishment Bill. It is true that we are now making a vain attempt to preserve the liberty of the House of Commons and the private Member in regard to moving Amendments, but so long as we have the opportunity I hope we shall continue to exercise our right, and every Amendment as it comes up will show the Government more clearly than the last that at all events if they have forgotten what are the rights and privileges of the House of Commons we have not forgotten them on this side.
§ Sir W. ANSONThe Solicitor-General has not convinced me that it is not desirable to add these words. The Under-Secretary for India said if our Amendments commended themselves to the Government they might be disposed to consider them. Would it not be better, as we are going to let Ireland to a large extent manage her own affairs, to confine our changes to the United Kingdom or to what will remain of the United Kingdom after the Government of Ireland Bill has been passed? We might very well confine this new legislation to ourselves and let Ireland for the next three years settle her own question of the plural voter as she pleases. After all, there is the possibility, and we must always consider the possibilities in legislation, that there might be simultaneous Parliamentary elections in Ireland and in England after the Home Rule Bill has been passed, and a man might be perfectly well entitled to exercise the franchise there and here. The Bill as it stands would preclude him from doing so. You may say that it is a remote contingency, but it is the unexpected that happens, and it should be provided for. It can easily be provided for by the addition of these words. Will not the Government consider whether it would not be worth while, even at the expense of a Report stage, which would not last very long, to put in words to make the meaning absolutely clear.
§ Mr. W. THORNE'Vide, 'vide.
§ The CHAIRMANI must ask the hon. Member for West Ham, who has several times interrupted our proceedings——
§ Mr. W. THORNEIt is not true.
§ Mr. W. THORNEYes, I will withdraw, outside.
§ Mr. W. THORNEWhat about you?
§ Sir W. ANSONThese words would carry out what I understand the Solicitor-General to say is the intention of the Government, and I would, therefore, appeal to the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill to accept them.
Major MORRISON-BELLI am quite at a loss to understand why the Solicitor-General is unable to accept these words. He said that they were unnecessary, but, when one realises that this Bill might apply to an election affecting either this House of Commons or the new Irish House of Commons, it seems to me very necessary that they should be introduced. Why
§ should the right hon. Gentleman object to putting these words in this Bill when they appear no less than three times in ten lines in Clause 26 of the Government of Ireland Bill. There can be no doubt at all why they appear there, but there may be equal difficulty in interpreting this Bill, provided it ever comes into law.
§ The First Lord of the Admiralty has explained that it has not got a hundred to one chance, and I thoroughly agree with him. But if it ever should come into law it is obvious that there might be extreme difficulty in interpreting this Bill, and I absolutely fail to understand why the right hon. Gentleman should refuse to accept these words which might make it clear. It must be through pique or quite unnecessary pride. But I still hope to hear some right hon. Gentleman opposite get up and agree to accept them.
§ Mr. PEASErose in his placè, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."
Question put, "That the Question be now put."
§ The Committee divided: Ayes. 282; Noes, 182.
1815| Division No. 143.] | AYES. | [10.58 p.m. |
| Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour) | Buxton, Rt. Hon. Sydney C. (Poplar) | Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson |
| Abraham, Rt. Hon. William (Rhondda) | Carr-Gomm, H. W. | Ffrench, Peter |
| Acland, Francis Dyke | Cawley, H. T. (Heywood) | Field, William |
| Adamson, William | Chancellor, H. G. | Fiennes, Hon. Eustace Edward |
| Addison, Dr. Christopher | Chapple, Dr. William Allen | Fitzgibbon, John |
| Agar-Robartes, Hon. T. C. R. | Clancy, John Joseph | Flavin, Michael Joseph |
| Agnew, Sir George William | Clough, William | Furness, Sir Stephen Wilson |
| Ainsworth, John Stirling | Collins, Godfrey P. (Greenock) | Gelder, Sir William Alfred |
| Alden, Percy | Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J. | George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd |
| Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbarton) | Condon, Thomas Joseph | Gladstone, W. G. C. |
| Allen, Rt. Hon. Charles P. (Stroud) | Cornwall, Sir Edwin A. | Glanville, H. J. |
| Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry | Cotton, William Francis | Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford |
| Baker, Harold T. (Accrington) | Cowan, W. H. | Goldstone, Frank |
| Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.) | Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth) | Greenwood, Granville G. (Peterborough) |
| Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark) | Crooks, William | Greig, Colonel J. W. |
| Baring, Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple) | Crumley, Patrick | Griffith, Ellis Jones |
| Barlow, Sir John Emmott (Somerset) | Cullinan, John | Guest, Hon. Frederick E. (Dorset, E.) |
| Barnes, George N. | Dalziel, Rt. Hon. Sir J. H. (Kirkcaldy) | Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway) |
| Barran, Sir John N. (Hawick) | Davies, Ellis William (Eifion) | Hackett, J. |
| Barran, Rowland Hurst (Leeds, N.) | Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth) | Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose) |
| Barton, William | Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.) | Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds) |
| Beauchamp, Sir Edward | Dawes, J. A. | Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire) |
| Beck, Arthur Cecil | Delany, William | Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale) |
| Benn, W. W. (Tower Hamlets, S. Geo.) | Denman, Hon. R. D. | Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, W.) |
| Bentham, George Jackson | Devlin, Joseph | Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N.E.) |
| Bethell, Sir John Henry | Dewar, Sir J. A. | Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry |
| Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine | Dickinson, W. H. | Hayden, John Patrick |
| Black, Arthur W. | Dillon, John | Hayward, Evan |
| Boland, John Pius | Donelan, Captain A. | Hazleton, Richard |
| Booth, Frederick Handel | Doris, William | Helme, Sir Norval Watson |
| Bowerman, C. W. | Duffy, William J. | Henderson, Arthur (Durham) |
| Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North) | Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness) | Henry, Sir Charles |
| Brace, William | Duncan, J. Hastings (Yorks, Otley) | Higham, John Sharp |
| Brady, P. J. | Elverston, Sir Harold | Hinds, John |
| Brocklehurst, William B. | Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.) | Hogg, David C. |
| Brunner, J. F. L. | Esmonde, Sir T. (Wexford, N.) | Hogge, James Myles |
| Bryce, J. Annan | Essex, Sir Richard Walter | Holmes, Daniel Turner |
| Buckmaster, Stanley O. | Esslemont, George Birnie | Horne, C. Silvester (Ipswich) |
| Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas | Falconer, James Patrick | Howard, Hon. Geoffrey |
| Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, North) | Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles | Hudson, Walter |
| Hughes, Spencer Leigh | Murphy, Martin J. | Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland) |
| Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus | Murray, Captain Hon. Arthur C. | Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees) |
| John, Edward Thomas | Needham, Christopher Thomas | Scanlan, Thomas |
| Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth) | Neilson, Francis | Schwann, Rt. Hon. Sir C. E. |
| Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East) | Nicholson, Sir Charles N.(Doncaster) | Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton) |
| Jones, William (Carnarvonshire) | Nolan, Joseph | Seely, Col. Rt. Hon. J. E. B. |
| Jones, William S. Glyn- (Stepney) | Norman, Sir Henry | Sheehy, David |
| Jowett, Frederick William | Norton, Captain Cecil W. | Sherwell, Arthur James |
| Joyce, Michael | Nuttall, Harry | Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John Alisebrook |
| Keating, Matthew | O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny) | Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe) |
| Kellaway, Frederick George | O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.) | Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.) |
| Kelly, Edward | O'Doherty, Philip | Snowden, Philip |
| Kilbride, Denis | O'Donnell, Thomas | Soames, Arthur Wellesley |
| King, J. | O'Dowd, John | Spicer, Rt. Hon. Sir Albert |
| Lambert, Rt. Hon. G. (Devon, S. Molton) | Ogden, Fred | Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N.W.) |
| Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade) | O'Kelly, Edward P. (Wicklow, W.) | Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West) |
| Lardner, James C. R. | O'Malley, William | Sutherland, J. E. |
| Lawson, Sir W. (Cumb'rld, Cockerm'th) | O'Neill, Dr. Charles (Armagh, S.) | Sutton, John E. |
| Leach, Charles | O'Shaughnessy, P. J. | Taylor, John W. (Durham) |
| Levy, Sir Maurice | O'Shee, James John | Tennant, Harold John |
| Lewis, Rt. Hon. John Herbert | O'Sullivan, Timothy | Thomas, J. H. |
| Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas | Outhwaite, R. L. | Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton) |
| London, Thomas | Parker, James (Halifax) | Thorne, William (West Ham) |
| Lynch, A. A. | Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek) | Toulmin, Sir George |
| Macdonald, J. Ramsay (Leicester) | Pease, Rt. Hon. Joseph A. (Rotherham) | Trevelyan, Charles Philips |
| Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs) | Philipps, Col. Ivor (Southampton) | Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander |
| McGhee, Richard | Phillips, John (Longford, S.) | Verney, Sir Harry |
| Maclean, Donald | Pointer, Joseph | Wadsworth, J. |
| Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J. | Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H. | Walsh, Stephen (Lancs., Ince) |
| MacNeill, J. G. Swift (Donegal, South) | Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central) | Wardle, George J. |
| Macpherson, James Ian | Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk, E.) | Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay |
| MacVeagh, Jeremiah | Priestley, Sir W. E. B. (Bradford, E.) | Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan) |
| McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald | Pringle, William M. R. | Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney) |
| M'Laren, Hon. H. D. (Leics.) | Radford, G. H. | Watt, Henry A. |
| M'Laren, Hon. F.W.S. (Lincs.,Spaiding) | Raffan, Peter Wilson | Webb, H. |
| M'Micking, Major Gilbert | Raphael, Sir Herbert H. | White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston) |
| Markham, Sir Arthur Basil | Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields) | White, Sir Luke (Yorks, E.R.) |
| Marks, Sir George Croydon | Reddy, Michael | White, Patrick (Meath, North) |
| Mason, David M. (Coventry) | Redmond, John E. (Waterford) | Whitehouse, John Howard |
| Masterman, Rt. Hon. C. F. G. | Redmond, William (Clare, E.) | Whyte, A. F. (Perth) |
| Meagher, Michael | Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.) | Wiles, Thomas |
| Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.) | Rendall, Athelstan | Williams, J. (Glamorgan) |
| Meehan, Patrick J. (Queen's Co., Leix) | Richards, Thomas | Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthen) |
| Millar, James Duncan | Richardson, Thomas(Whitehaven) | Williamson, Sir Archibald |
| Molloy, Michael | Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln) | Wilson, Hon. G. G. (Hull, W.) |
| Money, L. G. Chiozza | Roberts, G. H. (Norwich) | Wilson, John (Durham, Mid) |
| Montagu, Hon. E. S. | Roberts, Sir H. (Denbighs) | Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. W. (Worcs., N.) |
| Mooney, John J. | Robertson, John M. (Tyneside) | Winfrey, Richard |
| Morgan, George Hay | Robinson, Sidney | Wing, Thomas |
| Morrell, Philip | Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke) | Wood, Rt. Hon. T. McKinnon (Glas.) |
| Morison, Hector | Roche, Augustine (Louth) | Young, William (Perth, East) |
| Morton, Alpheus Cleophas | Roe, Sir Thomas | Yoxall, Sir James Henry |
| Muldoon, John | Rowlands, James | |
| Munro, R. | Rowntree, Arnold | TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Illingworth and Mr. Gulland. |
| Munro-Ferguson, Rt. Hon. R. C. | Russell, Rt. Hon. Thomas W. | |
| NOES. | ||
| Agg-Gardner, James Tynte | Butcher, John George | Flannery, Sir J. Fortescue |
| Anson, Rt. Hon. Sir William R. | Campion, W. R. | Fletcher, John Samuel |
| Anstruther-Gray, Major William | Cator, John | Forster, Henry William |
| Archer-Shee, Major Martin | Cautley, H. S. | Gastrell, Major W. Houghton |
| Ashley, W. W. | Cave, George | Gilmour, Captain John |
| Baird, J. L. | Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor) | Glazebrook, Captain Philip K. |
| Baldwin, Stanley | Cecil, Lord Hugh (Oxford University) | Goldman, C. S. |
| Banbury, Sir Frederick George | Clay, Captain H. H. Spender | Goldsmith, Frank |
| Barnston, H. | Clive, Captain Percy Archer | Gordan, Hon. John Edward (Brighton) |
| Barrie, H. T. | Coates, Major Sir Edward Feetham | Goulding, Edward Alfred |
| Bathurst, C. (Wilts, Wilton) | Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.) | Grant, J. A. |
| Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks | Craig, Ernest (Cheshire, Crewe) | Greene, W. R. |
| Beckett, Hon. Gervase | Craig, Captain James (Down, E.) | Gretton, John |
| Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth) | Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet) | Guinness, Hon. Rupert (Essex, S.E.) |
| Benn, Ion Hamilton (Greenwich) | Craik, Sir Henry | Guinness, Hon. W.E. (Bury S.Edmunds) |
| Bigland, Alfred | Crichton-Stuart, Lord Ninian | Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne) |
| Bird, A. | Dairymple, Viscount | Haddock, George Bahr |
| Blair, Reginald | Dalziel, Davison (Brixton) | Hall, D. B. (Isle of Wight) |
| Boles, Lieut.-Col. Dennis Fortescue | Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott | Hall, Frederick (Dulwich) |
| Boscawen, Sir Arthur S. T. Griffith | Dixon, C. H. | Hamersley, Alfred St. George |
| Boyle, William (Norfolk, Mid) | Doughty, Sir George | Hamilton, C. G. C. (Ches., Altrincham) |
| Boyton, James | Duke, Henry Edward | Hardy, Rt. Hon. Laurence |
| Brassey, H. Leonard Campbell | Duncannon, Viscount | Harris, Henry Percy |
| Bridgeman, W. Clive | Faber, Capt. W. V. (Hants, W.) | Helmsley, Viscount |
| Bull, Sir William James | Fell, Arthur | Herbert, Hon. A. (Somerset, S.) |
| Burn, Colonel C. R. | Fisher, Rt. Hon. W. Hayes | Hewins, William Albert Samuel |
| Hibbert, Sir Henry F. | Mount, William Arthur | Starkey, John R. |
| Hills, John Waller | Newdegate, F. A. | Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staffordshire) |
| Hill-Wood, Samuel | Newman, John R. P | Steel-Maitland, A. D. |
| Hoare, S. J. G. | Newton, Harry Kottingham | Stewart, Gershom |
| Hohler, G. F. | Neild, Herbert | Swift, Rigby |
| Hope, Marry (Bute) | O'Neill, Hon. A. E. B. (Antrim, Mid) | Sykes, Alan John (Ches., Knutsford) |
| Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield) | Orde-Powlett, Hon. W. G. A. | Sykes, Sir Mark (Hull, Central) |
| Hope, Major J. A. (Midlothian) | Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William | Talbot, Lord E. |
| Horne, Edgar (Surrey, Guildford) | Paget, Almeric Hugh | Terrell, G. (Wilts, N.W.) |
| Houston, Robert Paterson | Parkes, Ebenezer | Terrell, H. (Gloucester) |
| Hume-Williams, Wm. Ellis | Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington) | Thompson, Robert (Belfast, N.) |
| Hunt, Rowland | Peel, Lieut.-Colonel R. F. | Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Down, N.) |
| Hunter, Sir C. R. | Perkins, Walter Frank | Thynne, Lord Alexander |
| Ingleby, Holcombe | Pollock, Ernest Murray | Touche, George Alexander |
| Jardine, Ernest (Somerset, E.) | Pretyman, Ernest George | Tryon, Capt. George Clement |
| Kerr-Smiley, Peter Kerr | Pryce-Jones, Col. E. (M'tgomr'y B'ghs) | Tullibardine, Marquess of |
| Kerry, Earl of | Quilter, Sir William Eley C. | Valentia, Viscount |
| Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement | Randles, Sir John S. | Walrond, Hon. Lionel |
| Lane-Fox, G. R. | Rawson, Col. R. H. | Warde, Col. C. E. (Kent, Mid) |
| Larmor, Sir J. | Remnant, James Farquharson | Weston, Colonel J. W. |
| Law, Rt. Hon. A. Bonar (Bootle) | Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall) | White, Major G. D. (Lancs., Southport) |
| Lewisham, Viscount | Ronaldshay, Earl of | Williams, Col. R. (Dorset, W.) |
| Lloyd, George Ambrose (Stafford, W.) | Rothschild, Lionel de | Willoughby, Major Hon. Claud |
| Lloyd, George Butler (Shrewsbury) | Royds, Edmund | Wilson, A. Stanley (Yorks, E.R.) |
| Locker-Lampson, O. (Ramsey) | Rutherford, John (Lance., Darwen) | Wolmer, Viscount |
| Lyttelton, Hon. J. C. (Droitwich) | Samuel, Sir Harry (Norwood) | Wood, Hon. E. F. L. (Ripen) |
| Mackinder, Halford J. | Samuel, Samuel (Wandsworth) | Wood, John (Stalybridge) |
| M'Calmont, Major Robert C. A. | Sanders, Robert A. | Worthington-Evans, L. |
| M'Neill, Ronald (Kent, St. Augustine's) | Sandys, G. J. (Somerset, Wells) | Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart- |
| Malcolm, Ian | Sassoon, Sir Philip | Wright, Henry Fitzherbert |
| Mason, James F. (Windsor) | Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.) | Yate, Colonel Charles Edward |
| Meysey-Thompson, E. C. | Smith, Rt. Hon. F. E. (L'p'l., Walton) | Younger, Sir George |
| Mildmay, Francis Bingham | Smith, Harold (Warrington) | |
| Mills, Hon. Charles Thomas | Spear, Sir John Ward | TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. Barlow and Mr. Wheler. |
| Morrison-Bell, Capt. E. F. (Ashburton) | Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston) | |
| Morrison-Bell, Major A. C. (Honiton) |
§ Question put accordingly, "That those words be there inserted."
1816§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 182; Noes, 279.
1819| Division No. 144.] | AYES. | [11.8 p.m. |
| Agg-Gardner, James Tynte | Craig, Ernest (Cheshire, Crewe) | Hewins, William Albert Samuel |
| Anson, Rt. Hon. Sir William R. | Craig, Captain James (Down, E.) | Hibbert, Sir Henry F. |
| Anstruther-Gray, Major William | Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet) | Hills, John Waller |
| Archer-Shee, Major Martin | Craik, Sir Henry | Hill-Wood, Samuel |
| Ashley, Wilfrid W. | Crichton-Stuart, Lord Ninian | Hoare, S. J. G. |
| Baird, John Lawrence | Dairymple, Viscount | Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy |
| Baker, Sir Randolf L. (Dorset, N.) | Dalziel, Davison (Brixton) | Hope, Harry (Bute) |
| Baldwin, Stanley | Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott | Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield) |
| Banbury, Sir Frederick George | Dixon, Charles Harvey | Horne, Edgar (Surrey, Guildford) |
| Barlow, Montague (Salford, South) | Doughty, Sir George | Houston, Robert Paterson |
| Barnston, Harry | Duke, Henry Edward | Hume-Williams, William Ellis |
| Barrie, H. T. | Duncannon, Viscount | Hunt, Rowland |
| Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton) | Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M. | Hunter, Sir Charles Rodk. |
| Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks | Faber, Captain W. V. (Hants, W.) | Ingleby, Holcombe |
| Beckett, Hon. Gervase | Fell, Arthur | Jardine, Ernest (Somerset, East) |
| Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth) | Fisher, Rt. Hon. W. Hayes | Kerr-Smiley, Peter Kerr |
| Benn, Ion Hamilton (Greenwich) | Flannery, Sir J. Fortescue | Kerry, Earl of |
| Bigland, Alfred | Fletcher, John Samuel (Hampstead) | Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement |
| Bird, Alfred | Forster, Henry William | Lane-Fox, G. R. |
| Blair, Reginald | Gilmour, Captain John | Larmor, Sir J. |
| Boles, Lieut.-Colonel Dennis Fortescue | Glazebrook, Captain Philip K. | Law, Rt. Hon. A. Bonar (Bootle) |
| Boscawen, Sir Arthur S. T. Griffith- | Goldman, Charles Sydney | Lewisham, Viscount |
| Boyle, William (Norfolk, Mid) | Goldsmith, Frank | Lloyd, George Ambrose (Stafford, W.) |
| Boyton, James | Gordon, Hon. John Edward (Brighton) | Lloyd, George Butler (Shrewsbury) |
| Brassey, H. Leonard Campbell | Goulding, Edward Alfred | Locker-Lampson, O. (Ramsey) |
| Bridgeman, William Clive | Grant, James Augustus | Lyttelton, Hon. J. C. (Droitwich) |
| Bull, Sir William James | Greene, Walter Raymond | Mackinder, Halford J. |
| Burn, Colonel C. R. | Gretton, John | M'Calmont, Major Robert C. A. |
| Butcher, John George | Guinness, Hon. Rupert (Essex, S.E.) | M'Neill, Ronald (Kent, St. Augustine's) |
| Campion, W. R. | Guinness, Hon. W. E. (Bury S. Edmunds) | Malcolm, Ian |
| Carllie, Sir Edward Hildred | Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne) | Mason, James F. (Windsor) |
| Cator, John | Haddock, George Bahr | Meysey-Thompson, E. |
| Cautley, Henry Strother | Hall, D. B. (Isle of Wight) | Mildmay, Francis Bingham |
| Cave, George | Hall, Frederick (Dulwich) | Mills, Hon. Charles Thomas |
| Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor) | Hamersley, Alfred St. George | Morrison-Bell, Capt. E. F. (Ashburton) |
| Cecil, Lord Hugh (Oxford University) | Hamilton, C. G. C. (Ches., Altrincham) | Morrison-Bell, Major A. C. (Honiton) |
| Clay, Captain H. H. Spender | Hardy, Rt. Hon. Laurence | Mount, William Arthur |
| Clive, Captain Percy Archer | Harris, Henry Percy | Newdegate, F. A. |
| Coates, Major Sir Edward Feetham | Helmsley, Viscount | Newman, John R. P. |
| Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.) | Herbert, Hon. A. (Somerset, S.) | Newton, Harry Kottingham |
| Nield, Herbert | Sanders, Robert Arthur | Tullibardine, Marquess of |
| O'Neill, Hon. A. E. B. (Antrim, Mid) | Sandys, G. J. | Valentia, Viscount |
| Orde-Pewlett, Hon. W. G. A. | Sassoon, Sir Philip | Walrond, Hon. Lionel |
| Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William | Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.) | Warde, Colonel C. E. (Kent, Mid) |
| Paget, Almeric Hugh | Smith, Rt. Hon. F. E. (L'pool, Walton) | Weston, Colonel J. W. |
| Parkes, Ebenezer | Smith, Harold (Warrington) | Wheler, Granville, C. H. |
| Peel, Lieut.-Colonel R. F. | Spear, Sir John Ward | White Major G. D. (Lancs., Southport) |
| Perkins, Walter Frank | Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston) | Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset, W.) |
| Pollock, Ernest Murray | Starkey, John Ralph | Willoughby, Major Hon. Claud |
| Pretyman, Ernest George | Staveley-Hill, Henry | Wilson, A. Stanley (Yorks, E.R.) |
| Pryce-Jones, Colonel E. | Steel-Maitland, A. D. | Wolmer, Viscount |
| Quilter, Sir William Eley C. | Stewart, Gershom | Wood, Hon. E. F. L. (Yorks, Ripon) |
| Randles, Sir John S. | Swift, Rigby | Wood, John (Stalybridge) |
| Rawson, Colonel Richard H. | Sykes, Alan John (Ches., Knutsford) | Worthington-Evans, L. |
| Remnant, James Farquharson | Sykes, Sir Mark (Hull, Central) | Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart |
| Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall) | Talbot, Lord Edmund | Wright, Henry Fitzherbert |
| Ronaldshay, Earl of | Terrell, George (Wilts, N.W.) | Yate, Colonel C. E. |
| Rothschild, Lionel de | Terrell, Henry (Gloucester) | Younger, Sir George |
| Royds, Edmund | Thompson, Robert (Belfast, North) | |
| Rutherford, John (Lancs., Darwen) | Thynne, Lord Alexander | TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Mitchell-Thomson and Major Hope. |
| Samuel, Sir Harry (Norwood) | Touche, George Alexander | |
| Samuel, Samuel (Wandsworth) | Tryon, Captain George Clement | |
| NOES. | ||
| Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour) | Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth) | Horne, Charles Silvester (Ipswich) |
| Abraham, Rt. Hon. William (Rhondda) | Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.) | Howard, Hon. Geoffrey |
| Acland, Francis Dyke | Dawes, J. A. | Hudson, Walter |
| Adamson, William | Delany, William | Hughes, Spencer Leigh |
| Addison, Dr. Christopher | Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas | Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus |
| Agar-Robartes, Hon. T. C. R. | Devlin, Joseph | John, Edward Thomas |
| Agnew, Sir George William | Dewar, Sir J. A. | Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth) |
| Ainsworth, John Stirling | Dickinson, W. H. | Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East) |
| Alden, Percy | Dillon, John | Jones, William (Carnarvonshire) |
| Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbartonshire) | Donelan, Captain A. | Jones, William S. Glyn- (Stepney) |
| Allen, Rt. Hon. Charles P. (Stroud) | Doris, William | Jowett, Frederick William |
| Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry | Duffy, William J. | Joyce, Michael |
| Baker, Harold T. (Accrington) | Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness) | Keating, Matthew |
| Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.) | Duncan, J. Hastings (Yorks, Otley) | Kellaway, Frederick George |
| Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark) | Elverston, Sir Harold | Kelly, Edward |
| Baring, Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple) | Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.) | Kilbride, Denis |
| Barlow, Sir John Emmett (Somerset) | Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.) | King, Joseph |
| Barnes, George N. | Essex, Sir Richard Walter | Lambert, Rt. Hon. G. (Devon, S.Molton) |
| Barran, Sir J. N. (Hawick Burghs) | Esslemont, George Birnie | Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade) |
| Barran, Rowland Hurst (Leeds, N.) | Falconer, James | Lardner, James C. R. |
| Barton, William | Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles | Lawson, Sir W. (Cumb'rld, Cockerm'th) |
| Beauchamp, Sir Edward | Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson | Leach, Charles |
| Beck, Arthur Cecil | Ffrench, Peter | Levy, Sir Maurice |
| Benn, W. W. (T. Hamlets, St. George) | Field, William | Lewis, Rt. Hon. John Herbert |
| Bentham, George Jackson | Fiennes, Hon. Eustace Edward | Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas |
| Bethell, Sir John Henry | Fitzgibbon, John | Lundon, Thomas |
| Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine | Flavin, Michael Joseph | Lynch, A. A. |
| Black, Arthur W. | Furness, Sir Stephen Wilson | Macdonald, J. Ramsay (Leicester) |
| Boland, John Pius | Gelder, Sir William Alfred | Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs) |
| Booth, Frederick Handel | George, Rt. Hon. Hon. D. Lloyd | McGhee, Richard |
| Bowerman, Charles W. | Gladstone, W. G. C. | Maclean, Donald |
| Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North) | Glanville, Harold James | Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J. |
| Brace, William | Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford | MacNeill, J. G. Swift (Donegal, South) |
| Brady, Patrick Joseph | Goldstone, Frank | Macpherson, James Ian |
| Brocklehurst, William B. | Greenwood, Granville G. (Peterborough) | MacVeagh, Jeremiah |
| Brunner, John F. L. | Greig, Colonel J. W. | McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald |
| Bryce, J. Annan | Griffith, Ellis Jones | M'Laren, Hon. H. D. (Leics.) |
| Buckmaster, Stanley O. | Guest, Hon. Frederick E. (Dorset, E.) | M'Laren, Hon. F.W.S. (Lincs., Spalding) |
| Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas | Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway) | M'Micking, Major Gilbert |
| Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, North) | Hackett, John | Markham, Sir Arthur Basil |
| Carr-Gomm, H. W. | Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose) | Marks, Sir George Croydon |
| Cawley, Harold T. (Lancs., Heywood) | Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds) | Mason, David M. (Coventry) |
| Chancellor, Henry George | Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire) | Masterman, Rt. Hon. C. F. G. |
| Chapple, Dr. William Allen | Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale) | Meagher, Michael |
| Clancy, John Joseph | Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West) | Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.) |
| Clough, William | Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N.E.) | Meehan, Patrick J. (Queen's Co., Leix) |
| Collins, Godfrey P. (Greenock) | Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry | Millar, James Duncan |
| Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J. | Hayden, John Patrick | Molloy, Michael |
| Condon, Thomas Joseph | Hayward, Evan | Money, L. G. Chiozza |
| Cornwall, Sir Edwin A. | Hazleton, Richard | Montagu, Hon. E. S. |
| Cotton, William Francis | Helme, Sir Norval Watson | Mooney, John J. |
| Cowan, W. H. | Henderson, Arthur (Durham) | Morgan, George Hay |
| Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth) | Henry, Sir Charles | Morrell, Philip |
| Crooks, William | Higham, John Sharp | Morison, Hector |
| Crumley, Patrick | Hinds, John | Morton, Alpheus Cleophas |
| Cullinan, John | Hogg, David C. | Muldoon, John |
| Dalziel, Rt. Hon. Sir J. H. (Kirkcaldy) | Hogge, James Myles | Munro, Robert |
| Davies, Ellis William (Eiflon) | Holmes, Daniel Turner | Munro-Ferguson, Rt. Hon. R. C. |
| Murphy, Martin J. | Reddy, Michael | Tennant, Harold John |
| Murray, Captain Hon. Arthur C. | Redmond, John E. (Waterford) | Thomas, James Henry |
| Needham, Christopher T. | Redmond, William (Clare, E.) | Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton) |
| Neilson, Francis | Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.) | Thorne, William (West Ham) |
| Nicholson, Sir Charles N. (Doncaster) | Randall, Athelstan | Toulmin, Sir George |
| Nolan, Joseph | Richards, Thomas | Trevelyan, Charles Philips |
| Norman, Sir Henry | Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven) | Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander |
| Norton, Captain Cecil W. | Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln) | Verney, Sir Harry |
| Nuttall, Harry | Roberts, George H. (Norwich) | Wadsworth, John |
| O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny) | Roberts. Sir J. H. (Denbighs) | Walsh, Stephen (Lancs., Ince) |
| O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.) | Robertson, John M. (Tyneside) | Wardle, G.J. |
| O'Doherty, Philip | Robinson, Sidney | Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay |
| O'Donnell, Thomas | Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke) | Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan) |
| O'Dowd, John | Roche, Augustine (Louth) | Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney) |
| Ogden, Fred | Roe, Sir Thomas | Watt, Henry Anderson |
| O'Kelly, Edward P. (Wicklow, W.) | Rowlands, James | Webb, H. |
| O'Malley, William | Rowntree, Arnold | White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston), |
| O'Neill, Dr. Charles (Armagh, S.) | Russell, Rt. Hon. Thomas W. | White, Sir Luke (Yorks, E.R.) |
| O'Shaughnessy, P. J. | Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland) | White, Patrick (Meath, North) |
| O'Shee, James John | Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees) | Whitehouse, John Howard |
| O'Sullivan, Timothy | Scanian, Thomas | Whyte, Alexander F. (Perth) |
| Outhwaite, R. L. | Schwann, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles E. | Wiles, Thomas |
| Parker, James (Halifax) | Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton) | Williams, J. (Glamorgan) |
| Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek) | Seely, Rt. Hon. Colonel J. E. B. | Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthen) |
| Pease, Rt. Hon. Joseph A. (Rotherham) | Sheehy, David. | Williamson, Sir Archibald |
| Philipps, Colonel Ivor (Southampton) | Sherwell, Arthur James | Wilson, Hon. G. G. (Hull, W.) |
| Phillips, John (Longford, S.) | Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John Allsebrook | Wilson, John (Durham, Mid) |
| Pointer, Joseph | Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe) | Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. W. (Worcs., N.) |
| Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H. | Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim) | Winfrey, Richard |
| Price, C. E. (Edinburgh. Central) | Soames, Arthur Wellesley | Wing, Thomas |
| Priestley, Sir W. E. B. (Bradford, E.) | Spicer, Rt. Hon. Sir Albert | Wood, Rt. Hon. T. McKinnon (Glasgow) |
| Pringle, William M. R. | Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N.W.) | Young, William (Perth, East) |
| Radford, G. H. | Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West) | Yoxall, Sir James Henry |
| Raffan, Peter Wilson | Sutherland, John E. | |
| Raphael, Sir Herbert Henry | Sutton, John E. | TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. Illingworth and Mr. Gulland. |
| Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields) | Taylor, John W. (Durham) |
§ Committee report. Progress; to sit again To-morrow (Wednesday).