HC Deb 09 July 1913 vol 55 cc438-51

Unless Parliament shall otherwise determine this Act shall not continue in force for a longer period than five years from the date of the passing thereof.

Motion made [4th July], and Question again proposed, "That the Clause be read a second time."


On the adjournment of the House on Friday I was submitting to the Committee certain considerations why they should embody in this Bill a new Clause that provides that the Act shall remain in operation for the period of five years only. As I have already submitted some of the reasons which lead me to think it advisable to embody this proposal in the Bill, I do not think it is necessary to detain the Committee at any great length; but before recapitulating the reasons and developing my further arguments, I should like to call attention to the words at the beginning of the Clause, "Unless Parliament shall otherwise determine." During the adjournment it has been suggested to me that these words are really unnecessary, and that they ought not to have found their way into the Clause. It is said that whatever legislation finds its way on to the Statute Book it is always within the power of a subsequent Parliament to alter it and fix another period. If subsequently Parliament prefers sonic other period to five years, it will always be in its power, without any express words in the Act, to make that change. I fully recognise that there is some force in that objection, because the only limitation to the omnipotence of Parliament is that it cannot limit the omnipotence of its successor. At the same time, I wish to refer to one or two precedents which I think have been adopted. The first is in the Government of Ireland Bill, of which Clause 13 deals with the number of Irish Members in the Imperial Parliament, after the establishment of Home Rule. The Committee will find the words appearing at the beginning of the Clause," Unless and until the Parliament of the United Kingdom otherwise determine," following very closely the lines of the words which I have adopted in my Clause, and following them for the reason that the Legislature wishes to mark the fact that it is within their contemplation that at some future date it may have reason to alter the determination to which it now has come. A more closely corresponding parallel even than that is to be found in the Bill of last Session entitled, "The Railways and Canal Traffic Bill," in which this House introduced a Clause containing almost precisely similar words to those appearing in the Clause which I now propose. That Clause was introduced in this House, but the House of Lords struck it out, and when the Lords Amendment came to be considered in this House, it adhered to the view taken by the House of Lords. I wish to call attention to the actual wording in that particular Bill:— This Act shall continue in force for five years after the passing thereof and no longer, unless continued by Parliament. That is a precisely similar form of words to that adopted in my Clause. These two precedents justify me, notwithstanding the criticisms that have been offered, and offered with some reason, to the particular form I have adopted, in retaining these words in the Clause. Let me put what. I consider the main reasons for desiring to insert it. I am bound to accept that the Committee have decided in favour of plural voting, but I submit that this Bill is obviously framed as a temporary expedient. It is framed in a way which is not the best to deal with this problem, nor yet in a way which the Government themselves consider the best; it is dealt with simply in a way which enables the Government to produce a one-Clause Bill, so that there may be the minimum opportunity for Parliamentary discussion. I submit that when the Government frames its legislation in such a manner, when, dealing with the problem which confronts it, and not in the ordinary way, it makes it clear that it is a temporary expedient, and nothing more than a temporary expedient. I could imagine their having said to their draftsman not, "How can you best frame a measure which will deal with this question? "but," How can you frame us a measure which will be the shortest, which will be in one Clause, and which will afford the minimum opportunity to an Opposition for the criticising and for discussion?" This Bill is framed with one eye on the Bill and the other eye on the country. That is perfectly obvious from the frantic efforts that the Government are making to try to get all the Parliament Act Bills through in the present week. They used to taunt us with wishing to end the Session on the 1st August. Has it occurred to them that they are trying to get these Bills through by the 11th August.

The Parliament Act provides that a month should elapse after the Bill is sent up to the House of Lords, so that the Government are straining the rights of government and interfering with the rights of the Opposition in order to be able to prorogue Parliament by the 12th of August. I may say that this Bill was framed with one eye on the Bill and the other on the grouse, and I submit that a Bill framed under such conditions deserves to be made a temporary Bill. I would ask the Government, do they not admit that this is not the way that this problem ought to be dealt with? I am quite prepared to give way to the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Education if he will say that this Bill deals with the problem in the way he thinks best. If there is no reply, I think I am entitled to assume that my proposition has the assent of the Government, namely, that this Bill does not deal with the problem in the way in which the Government itself considers the right way. I can prove that by referring to the statements of two Members whose names appear on the back of this Bill, that is the Financial Secretary to the War Office (Mr. Baker) and the President of the Board of Education. Last Session we had under discussion a Bill introduced by the Financial Secretary to the War Office which provided in the case of persons who had a number of qualifications, that the voter should be entitled to choose one place where he could be registered as a voter, and that he would be only entitled to exercise the vote in that one place. This Bill proceeds on a basis which the Government itself declared to be a worse basis, namely, that of allowing persons to be registered in the different places, and then imposing heavy penalties for using those rights in more than one place. Speaking on the 1st of March, 1912, the Financial Secretary said:— There are certain differences between the Bill we are dealing with to-day and the measure introduced in 1906. The Bill of 1906 proceeded on the principle of penalising the plural voter if he exercised the plural vote. It allowed him to he registered freely wherever he had the qualification, but it compelled him to star himself in the register of the particular constituency in which he wished to exercise his single vote, and if he voted elsewhere, he was subjected to very severe penalties. Those penalties, which were thought by some too severe, were considered carefully in Committee and reduced to appropriate dimensions. This Bill, without any disrespect to its predecessor, offers an alternative suggestion. It destroys no qualification; it inflicts no penalty beyond the ordinary penalties that attach to any false, statutory declaration."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 1st March, 1912, cols. 16913–4, Vol. XXXIV.] The President of the Board of Education, speaking on 1st March, 1912, said:— This measure in some respects, I agree, has advantages over the measure which was introduced by the Colonial Secretary when he was at the Office of Works. It is an improvement in the fact that the names on the register in his Bill did not correspond with the right to vote, whilst they would do so under the provision of this Bill. No new questions whatever under the provisions of this Bill would be put to the voter. Under the Bill introduced by my right hon. Friend in 1906, certain additional questions might be put to any elector who came to the polling booth, which cannot be asked under the provisions of this Bill. Another advantage is that no new offence is created under the provisions of this Bill."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 1st March, 1912, col 1747, Vol. XXXIV.] If' the right hon. Gentleman thought that those were advantages, why has he not reproduced them in the present Bill? The present Bill provides for additional questions, and introduces a new penalty. Why has he reverted to that old principle unless his object merely is to burke Parliamentary discussion and get a one-Clause Bill, and force it through in such a way as to give the Opposition the minimum opportunity of considering this problem. I say that the Government have chosen to deal with this matter in a way which, on their own confession by the statements of Ministers, is not the proper way to deal with it. That being so, I think we have got the right to say, even if the principle be accepted, that it is right to make out clearly on the face of the Bill that it is a temporary provision. There is one other reason, and a very strong one, why I would urge this Clause on the Committee, and it is that I believe that this time limit introduced in this Bill will operate as an inducement to the Government to deal within a reasonable time with those other problems with which they have promised to deal. I quite agree it is only a very small inducement, because they can always continue this Bill in the Expiring Laws Continuance Act and alter the five years. At the same time, it is something in the nature of a guarantee that within some fixed period the Government shall deal with those other problems, such as Redistribution and the rectifying of those electoral anomalies which have been so constantly pointed out. It will be something also to keep the subject constantly in their mind and to induce them to deal with those problems in a reasonable time. Whether this Clause will have the effect which it is desired to produce in that way, I cannot say. I do not see how any hon. Member opposite can object if the Government mean, as they say, to deal with this question on a more comprehensive basis than this Bill does. If it is really their intention that this question of Redistribution is to be dealt with, and that the whole electoral law is to be put on a sounder basis—


I must remind the hon. and learned Member that he is repeating what he said at the outset of his speech, and again in the middle.


I think it is the first time I have referred to it to-day, although the other day I made reference to it. 1 only wish to emphasise the point that the main object of the new Clause is to ensure that the Government shall be forced to carry out what they themselves have stated they would carry out. I do not see how the Clause will do any possible harm, from the point of view of the Government, and I submit on both considerations which I have urged that the Clause should be accepted.

The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. J. A. Pease)

I do not propose to follow the hon. and learned Member into some qi the reasons which he put forward in support of this new Clause. Perhaps the fault is mine, but I do not see what the date of the prorogation of Parliament or many of the other points which he has made have really got to do with the main arguments that can be put forward legitimately in connection with the proposed Clause. The last argument which the hon. and learned Member put forward, and the one upon which he dwelt when the Clause was previously under discussion, was that the object he had in view was to ensure that the Government would deal effectively with electoral reform and with Redistribution within the period of five years. I submit to the Committee that that object is really not going to be promoted by the passage of this Clause. We have already expressed our intention as a, Government to introduce Redistribution, electoral reform, and registration reform, before the normal period of this Parliament expires and in the event of our having the opportunity to carry out that intention. In that event this Clause is certainly unnecessary. In the event of the unforeseen circumstances and an appeal being made to the country, and our coming back, as I believe we would to power, it would be the duty and intention of the Government during the period of that Parliament to carry out those reforms to which they have been so long pledged in con- nection with the reduction of the period of qualification and other electoral reforms. The third alternative is that possibly hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite might themselves come back to power. In that event, what would they do, having regard to their attitude towards this Bill. Instead of it being a guarantee that those reforms which we believe in would be carried out, we believe that it would be an excuse for hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite, to allow the plural voter, and by not receiving the Bill permit him to remain permanently on the Statute Book. We do not intend to be parties to any proposal which under any conceivable circumstances would place the Opposition or any other party in a position to revive the antiquated and to us absurd and anomalous system of plural voting. This is not a temporary proposal, as the hon. and learned Gentleman tried to argue. In the event of our getting rid of the innumerable qualifications in connection with Parliamentary votes we would undoubtedly retain for all time if we had our way the system of the single vote, based on the principle of one man one vote. We do not think that anybody ought to have two votes for Parliamentary purposes. Even if a simple residential qualification were secured and an individual had two or three residences, we should still believe that that individual should only be allowed to exercise one of those residential qualifications. While I admit that the principle of this Bill is different from that of the Bill introduced by the Financial Secretary to the War Office and also from that of the proposal of last year in connection with franchise and registration reform, yet we believe that the principle is effectively carried out and will be able to be adapted whether other measures of electoral reform are passed or not. In other words, this measure will neither accelerate nor delay other reforms. We believe that this principle of one man one vote ought to be placed permanently upon the Statute Book, and ought not to be contingent upon any possible event. In no conceivable circumstances would we feel ourselves justified,—after having got rid of an anomaly which we regard as unfair to the poorer classes and absurd in itself,—in reviving a system of voting which is not accepted by any other civilised country—


I am afraid that this line of argument may lead to a Debate on the merits of the Bill instead of the Clause.


I wish to point out that having once placed this measure on the Statute Book, we could not be parties to allowing it at the end of five years to be taken off. Therefore, we cannot accept this Clause.


The right hon. Gentleman says that he believes in. one man one vote. I do not know whether he believes in one vote one value.


That is just what I feared. We cannot discuss that question over again.


That is really the basis of the opposition to this Bill at the present moment. The object of this proposed Clause is to make the Bill a temporary measure, and the right hon. Gentleman was at great pains to prove that it was not a temporary measure. The word "temporary" is obviously written over the whole Bill. The measure is only a pis aller, because the previous Franchise Bill met with an untimely fate. Had the larger Bill got through, there would have been no occasion to introduce this Bill at all. My hon. Friend was obviously right when he said that this measure was drawn up by the Government simply to make it as difficult as possible for the Opposition to deal with the injustice of the conduct of the Government in dealing with one question at a time. The Government are deliberately dealing with the one question which suits themselves, and leaving unredressed all the greater anomalies which affect the political position and political value of every Bill at present before the House. I think it is in order to draw attention to the fact that the Government, whilst attempting to take away the plural vote, because they think it helps the Opposition, are passing every Bill they have, and maintaining their position in the House, by the plural votes of the Irish. Every elector in Ireland has twice the electoral value of any elector in Great Britain.


Wo cannot discuss that question on this Amendment.


I think we ought to take note of the somewhat remarkable character of the right hon. Gentleman's answer to this proposal. My hon. Friend suggested that at the end of five years there ought, at all events, to be an opportunity for a review of the decision arrived at by this House. The right hon. Gentleman said that that was unnecessary, and he gave a remarkable reason for his opinion. He said: "In the first place, if the Government is returned to power, it is unnecessary, because we intend to proceed with the whole scheme. In the second place, we do not think that this reform ought to be contingent on any possible event." As to the first suggestion, these expressions of intention on the part of the Government are somewhat discredited currency on this side of the House; therefore, I forbear to make any comment upon it. But I must draw the attention of the Committee to the remarkable pass to which the right hon. Gentleman's view of democracy has now come. His view is that what the Government consider to be right is to become law "without being contingent on any possible event." He does not care in the slightest degree what value the country may attach to the proposal. It is to become law without being contingent on any possible event. Sic volo sic jubeo. Because they think it is right, it is at once to become the law of the land. That is a most remarkable theory to come from anyone professing the principles of democracy. All I say, in reply, is that if this possibility of review is given, there will be an opportunity for the country to pronounce judgment on this Bill, as on all the other work of the Government, and we on this side have no doubt as to what the verdict of the country will be.


I confess that. I have a great deal of sympathy with this Amendment, but my difficulty is to find out how far those responsible for it are prepared, in the event of their being returned to power at the next election, to give effect to what is underlying the Amendment. The right hon. Gentleman has told us what are the intentions of the Government with which he is connected, if they continue in office. We, on these benches, are very much dissatisfied with the limited character of the measure; but before we vote for an Amendment such as this, we ought to have some assurance that at the end of five years the Friends of the hon. and learned Member opposite, should they be occupying the Treasury Bench, will really be prepared to tackle the problem, and to give us a much more extended measure. Or is this merely a device which, should they be returned to power, they will forget all about, and leave us in such a position that we shall revert to the old condition of things of allowing people to use their five, ten, fifteen, twenty, or more votes? I am sorry that when we are discussing this very important Amendment the Leaders of the Opposition are not present to back up the hon. and learned Member.


I do not think it is relevant to ask for a declaration of policy from the Opposition on an Amendment of this kind. Such questions cannot be answered; therefore, it is distinctly out of order to ask them.


Without disputing your ruling, have we not a right to be told what those who are responsible for this limiting Amendment propose to do at the end of the suggested period? However, as the Leaders of the Opposition are not present, I cannot put my point to them; therefore, I shall have to content myself with voting against the Amendment.


I can assure the hon. Gentleman opposite that if we get into office we certainly shall not forget our pledges. We shall bring in not a partial Bill, but a proper Redistribution Bill which will deal fairly for all time. The hon. Member has suggested that we should continue to allow people to exercise five or ten votes, when other people have only one. That is not our position. We shall not continue to allow constituencies of 2,000 electors or less to return one Member while other constituencies of 30,000 electors have only one Member. We want equality of voting power, and the first thing we should do is to secure that, not by a. jerrymandering party Bill—


The hon. Member is clearly out of order.


I desire to support the proposed new Clause. In the first place, this measure is evidently piecemeal legislation. It is a limiting Bill, and in no sense an enabling Bill. It deprives persons who possess certain electoral powers of the powers they possess, but it does nothing to enable a very large body of British citizens, particularly soldiers and sailors, who are practically disfranchised—


That is out of order on this proposal.


Then may I put my second point, which is even stronger. The sole power of voting, that an individual possesses, is derived under the Ballot Act of 1872. That Act comes every year into the Expiring Laws Continuance Act. The result of the passage of this Bill, as a permanent Act of Parliament, would be that you deprive a person permanently of the right of exercising his one vote, whereas Parliament is not able, under the existing law, to deprive that person of the right to vote unless during the Session the power is reconstituted. It is a farce upon the face of it. If you are going to make this a permanent Act, you must at the same time make the Ballot Act a permanent Act, for this alone gives the electors of this country the power to vote at all. That is a very strong reason why this should be limited in its period of operation. Personally I should prefer to see the Act limited to one year, like the Ballot Act; also, owing to its piecemeal character, but failing that let us, at any rate, decide that it shall not exist beyond the five years.

Mr. PEASE rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put," but the Chairman withheld his assent, as he was of opinion that the Committee were prepared to come to a decision, very shortly without that Motion. Debate resumed.


When I spoke a little while ago I was drawn away from what I originally wanted to say by the

right hon. Gentleman. The reason I think this Clause should be added to the Bill is because it will obviously make it of a temporary character as an Act. If this Clause is added to the Bill in the year 1913 the Bill will be limited in its scope to the year 1918. Supposing the Government carry on till 1915, that very likely may mean that the Opposition will be in power, and "going strong," in the year 1918. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh, Oh!"] I could argue equally well the other way, but it suits my purpose to argue the way I have, and that we shall be on the Government Benches. In 1918, with this Clause added to the Bill, there will be a constant reminder to those in charge of the Government policy that this Bill, the Plural Voting Bill, comes up for reconsideration. I, do not care which party is in power; it is obvious that in 1918 you cannot consider a Bill of this sort—when it comes up for reconsideration—without dealing with the larger question. That is why it is well, after all, to add this Clause to the Bill, and to bring it up for reconsideration, or, at all events, to have it hanging over our heads with a view to reconsideration.

Question put, "That the Clause be read a second time."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 164; Noes, 291.

Division No. 184.] AYES. [4.49 p.m
Agg-Gardner, James Tynto Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry Harrison-Broadley, H. B.
Amery, L. C. M. S. Clay, Captain H. H, Spender Helmsley, Viscount
Anson, Rt. Hon. Sir William R. Clive, Captain Percy Archer Henderson, Major H. (Berks, Abingdon)
Anstruther-Gray, Major William Clyde, J. Avon Herbert, Hon. A. (Somerset, S.)
Ashley, W. W. Coates, Major Sir Edward Feetham Hewins, William Albert Samuel
Astor, Waldorf Cooper, Richard Ashmole Hickman, Colonel Thomas E.
Baird, J. L. Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.) Hills, John Waller
Baker, Sir R. L. (Dorset, N.) Craig, Ernest (Cheshire, Crewe) Hill-Wood, Samuel
Baldwin, Stanley Craik, Sir Henry Hoare, S. J. G.
Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J. (City, Lond.) Crichton-Stuart, Lord Ninian Hohler, G. F.
Banbury, Sir Frederick George Croft, Henry Page Hope, Harry (Bute)
Barlow, Montague (Salford, South) Dalziel, Davison (Brixton) Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)
Bathurst, C. (Wilts, Wilton) Denison-Pender, J. C. Hope, Major J. A. (Midlothian)
Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks Doughty, Sir George Horner, Andrew Long
Beckett, Hon. Gervase Duncannon, Viscount Houston, Robert Paterson
Benn, A. S. (Plymouth) Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M. Hunt, Rowland
Benn, Ion Hamilton (Greenwich) Falle, B. G. Hunter, Sir C. R.
Bennett-Goldney, Francis Fell, Arthur Ingleby, Holcombe
Bentinck, Lord H. Cavendish Fitzroy, Hon. Edward A. Jardine, Ernest (Somerset, E.)
Bigland, Alfred Fletcher, John Samuel Kerry, Earl of
Blair, Reginald Gardner, Ernest Keswick, Henry
Boles, Lieut.-Col. Dennis Fortescue Gibbs, G. A. Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement
Boscawen, Sir Arthur S. T. Griffith. Glazebrook, Capt. Philip K. Law, Rt. Hon. A. Sonar (Bootle)
Boyle, William (Norfolk, Mid) Goldsmith, Frank Lawson, Hon. H. (T. H'mts, Mile End)
Boyton, James Gordon, Hon. John Edward (Brighton) Lee, Arthur Hamilton
Bridgeman, W. Clive Goulding, Edward Alfred Lewisham, Viscount
Bull, Sir William James Grant, J. A. Lloyd, George Ambrose (Stafford, W.)
Burn, Colonel C. R. Greene, W. R. Lloyd, George Butler (Shrewsbury)
Butcher, John George Guinness, Hon. Rupert (Essex, S.E.) Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)
Campbell, Captain Duncan F. (Ayr, N.) Haddock, George Bahr Lockwood, Rt. Hon. Lt.-Col. A. R.
Campion, W. R. Hall, Frederick (Dulwich) Lonsdale, Sir J. Brownlee
Carllie, Sir Edward Hildred Hamersley, Alfred St. George MacCaw, Wm. J. MacGeagh
Cassel, Felix Hamilton, C. G. C. (Ches., Altrincham) Mackinder, Halford J
Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor) Hamilton, Lord C. J. (Kensington, S.) M'Calmont, Major Robert C. A.
Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. A. (Worc'r.) Harris, Henry Percy M'Mordie, Robert James
M'Neill, Ronald (Kent, St. Augustine's) Ronaldshay, Earl of Thynne, Lord Alexander
Malcolm, Ian Rothschild, Lionel de Touche, George Alexander
Meysey-Thompson, E. C. Royds, Edmund Tryon, Captain George Clement
Middlemore, John Throgmorton Samuel, Sir Harry (Norwood) Tullibardine, Marquess of
Mills, Hon. Charles Thomas Sanders, Robert A. Valentla, Viscount
Morrison-Bell, Capt. E. F. (Ashburton) Sanderson, Lancelot Walker, Col. William Hall
Morrison-Bell, Major A. C.(Honiton) Scott, Leslie (Liverpool, Exchange) Weigall, Capt. A. G.
Mount, William Arthur Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.) Wheler, Granville C. H.
Newman, John R. P. Spear, Sir John Ward Williams, Col. R. (Dorset, W.)
O'Neill, Hon. A. E. B. (Antrim, Mid) Stanier, Beville Williams, Col. R. (Dorset, W.)
Orde-Powlett, Hon. W. G. A. Starkey, John R. Wills, Sir Gilbert
Paget, Almeric Hugh Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staffordshire) Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E.R.)
Parkes, Ebenezer Stewart, Gershom Wood, John (Stalybridge)
Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington) Strauss, Arthur (Paddington, North) Worthington-Evans, L.
Peel, Lieut.-Colonel R. F. Sykes, Alan J. (Ches., Knutsford) Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart
Perkins, Walter Frank Sykes, Sir Mark (Hull, Central) Wright, Henry Fitzherbert
Pryce-Jones, Col. E. (M'tgom'y B'ghs) Talbot, Lord E. Yate, Col. Charles Edward
Randles, Sir John S. Terrell, G. (Wilts, N.W.) Younger, Sir George
Rawson, Col. R. H. Terrell, H. (Gloucester)
Remnant, James Farquharson Thompson, Robert (Belfast, North) TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Major Gastrell and Mr. Barnston.
Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall) Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Down, N.)
Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour) Dawes, J. A. Holmes, Daniel Turner
Abraham, Rt. Hon. William (Rhondda) De Forest, Baron Holt, Richard Doming
Adamson, William Delany, William Horne, C. Silvester (Ipswich)
Addison, Dr. Christopher Denman, Hon. R. D. Howard, Hon. Geoffrey
Ainsworth, John Stirling Devlin, Joseph Hudson, Walter
Alden, Percy Dewar, Sir J. A. Isaacs, Rt. H on. Sir Rufus
Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbarton) Dickinson, W. H. Jardine, Sir J. (Roxburgh)
Allen, Rt. Hon. Charles P. (Stroud) Dillon, John John, Edward Thomas
Armitage, R. Donelan, Captain A. Jones, Rt. Hon. Sir D. Brynmor (Sw'nsea)
Arnold, Sydney Doris, William Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil)
Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry Duffy, William J. Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)
Baker, Harold T. (Accrington) Duncan, C. (Barrow-In-Furness) Jones, Leif Stratton (Notts, Rushcilffe)
Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark) Duncan, J. Hastings (Yorks, Otley) Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)
Baring, Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple) Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor) Jones, W. S. Glyn- (T. H'mts, Stepney)
Barlow, Sir John Emmott (Somerset) Edwards, John Hugh (Glamorgan, Mid) Jowett, Frederick William
Barnes, George N. Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.) Joyce, Michael
Barran, Rowland Hurst (Leeds, N.) Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.) Keating, Matthew
Barton, William Essex, Sir Richard Walter Kellaway, Frederick George
Beale, Sir William Phipson Esslemont, George Birnle Kelly, Edward
Beauchamp, Sir Edward Falconer, James Kennedy, Vincent Paul
Beck, Arthur Cecil Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles Lambert, Rt. Hon. G. (Devon, S. Molton)
Bean, W. W. (Tower Hamlets, S. Geo.) Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)
Bentham, George Jackson. Ffrench, Peter Lardner, James C. R.
Bethell, Sir John Henry Field, William Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, West)
Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine Flennes, Hon. Eustace Edward Lawson, Sir W. (Cumb'rld, Cockerm'th)
Black, Arthur W. Fitzgibbon, John Leach, Charles
Boland, John Plus Flavin, Michael Joseph Levy, Sir Maurice
Booth, Frederick Handel Furness, Sir Stephen Wilson Lewis, John Herbert
Bowerman, C. W. Gelder, Sir Wiliam Alfred Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas
Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North) Ginnell, L. London, T.
Brady, P. J. Gladstone, W. G. C. Lyell, Charles Henry
Brocklehurst, William B. Glanville, H. J. Lynch, A. A.
Brunner, J. F. L. Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford Macdonald, J. Ramsay (Leicester)
Bryce, J. Annan Goldstone, Frank Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)
Burke, E. Haviland Greenwood, Granville G. (Peterborough) McGhee, Richard
Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas Greenwood, Hamar (Sunderland) Maclean, Donald
Buxton, Noel (Norfolk) Greig, Colonel J. W. Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J.
Buxton, Rt. Hon. Sydney C. (Poplar) Griffith, Ellis Jones MacNeill, J. G. Swift (Donegal, South)
Byles, Sir William Pollard Guest, Major Hon, C. H. C. Pembroke) Macpherson, James Ian
Carr-Gomm, H. W. Guest, Hon. Frederick E. (Dorset, E.) MacVeagh, Jeremiah
Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich) Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway) M'Callum, Sir John M.
Cawley, H. T. (Heywood) Hackett, J. McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald
Chancellor, H. G. Hancock, John George M'Laren, Hon. H. D. (Leics.)
Chapple, Dr, William Allen Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis (Rossendale) M'Laren, Hon. F. W. S. (Lincs., Spalding)
Clancy, John Joseph Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose) M'Micking, Major Gilbert
Clough, William Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds) Manfield, Harry
Clynes, John R. Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, W.) Martin, J.
Collins, Godfrey P. (Greenock) Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N.E.) Mason, David M. (Coventry)
Collins, Sir Stephen (Lambeth) Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth) Masterman, Rt. Hon. C. F. G.
Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J Havelock Allan, Sir Henry Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)
Condon, Thomas Joseph Hayden, John Patrick Meehan, Patrick J. (Queen's Co., Leix)
Cornwall, Sir Edwin A. Hayward, Evan Menzles, Sir Walter
Cotton, William Francis Hazleton, Richard Middlebrook, William
Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth) Helme, Sir Norval Watson Millar, James Duncan
Crooks, William Henderson, Arthur (Durham) Molloy, Michael
Crumley, Patrick Henry, Sir Charles Molteno, Percy Alpert
Cullinan, John Herbert, General Sir Ivor (Mon., S.) Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred
Davies, Ellis William (Elfton) Higham, John Sharp Money, L. G. Chlozza
Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth) Hinds, John Montagu, Hon. E. S.
Davies, Sir W, Howell (Bristol, S.) Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H. Mooney, John J.
Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardiganshire) Hogge, James Myles Morgan, George Hay
Morison, Hector Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk, E.) Sutton, John E.
Morton, Alpheus Cleophas Priestley, Sir Arthur (Grantham) Taylor, John W. (Durham)
Muldoon, John Priestley, Sir W. E. B. (Bradford, E.) Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)
Munro, R. Pringle, William M. R. Tennant, Harold John
Munro-Ferguson, Rt. Hon. R. C. Radford, G. H. Thomas, J. H.
Murphy, Martin J. Raffan, Peter Wilson Thorne, G R. (Wolverhampton)
Murray, Captain Hon. Arthur C. Raphael, Sir Herbert H. Thorne, William (West Ham)
Needham, Christopher Thomas Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough) Toulmin, Sir George
Nicholson, Sir Charles N. (Doncaster) Reddy, M. Trevelyan, Charles Philips
Nolan, Joseph Redmond, John E. (Waterford) Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander
Norton, Captain Cecil W. Redmond, William (Clare, E.) Verney, Sir Harry
Nugent, Sir Waiter Richard Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.) Walton, Sir Joseph
Nuttall, Harry Rendall, Athelstan Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)
O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny) Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven) Wardle, George J.
O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.) Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln) Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)
O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool) Roberts, G. H. (Norwich) Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)
O'Doherty, Philip Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs) Webb, H.
O'Donnell, Thomas Robertson, John M. (Tyneside) White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)
O'Dowd, John Robinson, Sidney White, Patrick (Meath, North)
O'Kelly, Edward P. (Wicklow, W.) Roche, Augustine (Louth) Whitehouse, John Howard
O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.) Roe, Sir Thomas Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.
O'Malley, William Rowlands, James Whyte, A. F. (Perth)
O'Neill, Dr. Charles (Armagh, S.) Rowntree, Arnold Williams, J. (Glamorgan)
O'Shaughnessy, P. J. Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter Williamson, Sir Archibald
O'Shee, James John Russell, Rt. Hon. Thomas W, Wilson, Hon. G. G. (Hull, W.)
O'Sullivan, Timothy Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees) Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)
Outhwaite, R. L. Schwann, Rt. Hon. Sir C. E. Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. W. (Worcs., N.)
Palmer, Godfrey Mark Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton) Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)
Parker, James (Halifax) Seely, Col. Rt. Hon. J. E. B. Winfrey, Richard
Parry, Thomas H. Sheehy, David Wing, Thomas Edward
Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek) Shortt, Edward Wood, Rt. Hon. T. McKinnon (Glas.)
Pearce, William (Limehouse) Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John Allsebrook Young, Samuel (Cavan, East)
Pease, Rt. Hon. Joseph A. (Rotherham) Smith, H. B. L. (Northampton) Young, William (Perth, East)
Phillips, John (Longford, S.) Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.) Yoxall, Sir James Henry
Pointer, Joseph Snowden, Philip
Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H. Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West) TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr.Illingworth and Mr. Gulland.
Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central) Sutherland, J. E.

The next new Clause, standing in the name of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the Bassetlaw Division (Mr. Hume Williams)—(Provision as to Qualification in more than One Country of the United Kingdom)—is not in order, as it is quite inconsistent with what the Committee has already decided on Clause 1 of the Bill.