HC Deb 20 June 1917 vol 94 cc1911-30

(1) Dining the continuance of a war in which His Majesty is engaged and for a period of twelve months after the termination thereof, any person to whom this Section applies shall be entitled to be registered as a Parliamentary elector for any constituency for which he would have had the necessary qualification but for the War.

(2) The statement of any person claiming to be so registered, made in the prescribed form and verified in the prescribed manner, that he would have had the necessary qualification but for the War, shall for all purposes be sufficient.

(3) This Section applies to any person who, in connection with the War, is abroad and is

  1. (a) serving as a member of any of the naval or military forces of the Crown, or
  2. (b) in service of a naval or military character for which payment is made out of money provided by Parliament, or
  3. (c) serving in any work of the British Red Cross Society, or the St. John Ambulance Association, or any other body with a similar object.

The CHAIRMAN

With regard to the Amendments to Clause 5, I should inform the Committee that the first five Amendments are out of place, caused by their wrong form. It does not mean that the substantial points in the Amendments cannot be raised on the Clause. I propose to take first the Amendment to leave out the limiting words in the Clause. That Motion will give an opportunity for discussion in which Members may judge how far the Amendments will meet their desires.

Major NEWMAN

I should imagine the Amendment of mine comes before the others.

The CHAIRMAN

That is one of the Amendments in the wrong form. We are required to say what persons are entitled to the franchise on the ground of alternatives. That is the purport of the Clause.

Major NEWMAN

May I hope to be able to move my Amendment?

The CHAIRMAN

Not the particular Amendment. In the form in which it stands it is of a negative character and does not contain any proposal.

Major NEWMAN

It intends to safeguard the soldiers votes, not to negative them. It provides that no limitation by any Clause of this Act shall prevent a person to whom the section applies—

The CHAIRMAN

I feel sure I am right.

Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT

I want to raise a point as to the expediency of proceeding to-night with this Clause in view of the fact that practically a whole new Clause containing different principles has been submitted to us to-day. Most of our attention has been occupied with the provisions of the Clause to which we have not been able to devote ourselves. Can I raise this at the very beginning by moving formally to postpone the Clause or moving to report Progress?

The CHAIRMAN

I have already called the Clause. You can move to postpone it, but the House has suspended the Eleven o'clock Rule to prevent the interruption of the Bill, and I think that precludes an alteration at the movement. Later on I will consider the Motion of the hon. Member. The principal discussion is on the first Amendment, and after Eleven o'clock it will be open to me to say whether I ought to allow a Motion.

Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE

I have an Amendment to insert the words "who has reached the age of nineteen years." Shall I be in order upon the Home Secretary's Amendment in raising that question?

The CHAIRMAN

Yes. I have two or three proposals on that point. Either the hon. Member or some other hon. Member can raise it. I can safeguard that proposal.

Major HUNT

With respect to the first point of Order, I would point out that on this important Bill a Clause has been practically entirely changed or wiped out, and Members have had no opportunity of seeing it on the Paper or knowing anything about it until this morning. I did not get my Papers until 12 o'clock. I call it an outrage that this should be done.

Lord H. CECIL

I understood the Home Secretary to be willing to make a statement on his Amendment. Perhaps when we have heard his statement we shall be better able to judge.

Sir G. CAVE

I beg to move to leave out the words, "During the continuance of a war in which His Majesty is engaged and for a period of twelve months after the termination thereof."

I think it would be for the convenience of the Committee if in moving the first Amendment to this Clause, which we know as the soldiers' and sailors' Clause, I should make a statement as to the proposals of the Government. I can assure hon. Members that the Government, like themselves, attach the greatest importance to this Clause. I recognise their interest in it, and I have not the least desire, when the matter has been opened and we have ascertained something of the views of hon. Members, to force upon them a conclusion of the discussion to-night. It it should be possible for me, after the Committee have heard what I have said, to persuade them to deal with the matter in principle to-night and leave the smaller criticisms till a later stage, I shall be exceedingly glad; but if, notwithstanding my persuasions, they are obdurate and insist upon asking for further time to consider the matter before it is dealt with in Committee, I shall not endeavour to use the powers which the House has granted to us by the suspension of the Eleven o'Clock Rule to insist upon a final discussion to-night.

As hon. Members know, the recommendation of the Speaker's Conference was that it should be the duty of the registration officer to ascertain as far as possible the names and addresses of all persons of full age residing in the area and serving in His Majesty's Forces, and that such persons should be qualified to be registered and to vote as Parliamentary electors. There was a Debate upon this Clause on Second Reading in which I think something less than justice was done to those who framed the Clause. In my view, their object was to give full effect to the recommendation of the Speaker's Conference, though the critics of the Bill approached it in rather a different way from that in which it was approached either by the Speaker's Conference or by the framers of the Bill. The Bill as it stands deals in a special way with soldiers and sailors who are abroad during the War. It gives to soldiers and sailors who are engaged in the War the right to be registered in the place where they would have been but for the War, leaving to the ordinary law the answer to the question how soldiers who are at home shall be qualified and shall vote. That is, it would leave soldiers at home to be registered in the place where they in fact reside, giving to those who are on active service the special right to be registered in the place where they would have resided but for the War. I am advised that the soldiers and sailors would, in effect, have had the Parliamentary vote, but the point was raised on the Second Reading that the effect might be to throw a very large soldiers' vote upon certain districts in this country, in such places as Aldershot or Salisbury Plain, and there would certainly be very great inconvenience if that method were followed. Therefore all of us, I think—I speak within the recollection of the House—who spoke on the Second Reading undertook to consider the question very carefully, having regard to the views expressed in the House, and to make our proposals for giving as tar as we could the fullest possible effect to the recommendations of the Speaker's Conference. I am bound to express my regret, especially after what has been said, that my Amendments appear on the Paper only this morning. As hon. Members are aware, those in charge of the Bill have an onerous task, and have a great many questions to consider, and it was only yesterday, after a great deal of discussion, that we were able to frame Amendments to give effect to the views that we desired to put before the Committee.

The effect of our proposals is this, that we suggest to the Committee that we should, so to speak, make a start with the soldier's or sailor's home. Every soldier and sailor who is on active service and on full pay should have the right to vote prima facie for the place of his home. We may word it, of course, in different ways. We may say the place where he enlisted or joined the Army. That is one way of doing it, but it would, I think, give rise to certain special difficulties, or it may be said that a man should vote in the place where his next-of-kin reside. That does not seem to be a possible solution. A man's next-of-kin may be many. They may live in several places. Some of them may be only distant relations, or they may live in some place with which he has no connection whatever.

Colonel HOPE

Is not the next-of-kin a recognised person who is recorded on the attestation paper for each soldier?

Sir G. CAVE

I am afraid that in an Act of Parliament the words would not have that meaning, though I know the meaning that is attached to them in Army matters; but in an Act of Parliament they would have the ordinary legal sense. It would be the persons legally entitled to succeed to his property. But one way, and the way which we have adopted, is to say that he is entitled to register in the place where he would have been but for the fact that he is in the Army or Navy. I do not think that it will be difficult to give effect to that provision. Just consider how it would work out. We put upon the registration officer the duty of inquiring as to who are entitled to be registered under that provision and of putting them upon the register. There is no need, of course, under our proposal for the soldier or sailor to claim in every case. It is the duty of the registration officer, when making his house-to-house visitation for the purpose of registration, to make inquiries as to any soldiers or sailors who would have been resident there but for the fact that they are on active service. It would be his duty, having ascertained the facts, to put upon his register all those who are in that category, and in that way, at all events, some nine-tenths of soldiers and sailors on active service would be likely to find their way upon the registers of their homes. That is a very convenient result. I do not think it would be the wish of soldiers to vote for the place where their barracks are situated. They are interested, generally speaking, in their homes, in the place where their wives are if they are married, and where their parents are if they are unmarried, the place where they were brought up in and are known and to which they hope to return. There, in nearly every case, they would desire to give their vote. That is the main object we have in view; that, we hope, will be the main result of the proposals which we make. There must be cases where it would be very difficult to obtain that result. I believe they would be few, comparatively, but, of course, in number they must be substantial. There is the case especially of the professional soldier, the man who has left his village perhaps many years ago—he may have left it as the bad boy of the village—at all events who has left it for good and made the Army life his life and has lived for the Army. He may have ceased to take an interest in his native village, and may have no desire to be registered in it. There is also the case of the officer who has made the Army his profession, whose home is no longer in the place of his birth, or of his origin, and who has taken a house and perhaps made a. home in another place, or who lives in the place where he serves, and has made that his home. To meet cases of that kind, it is necessary to make special provision, and our proposal is that there shall be power for any soldier or sailor to be registered for the place where he is serving or for the place where he is, in fact, in residence.

Captain DOUGLAS HALL

May I ask where is a sailor serving?

Sir G. CAVE

There are many sailors, I think, as to whom there can be no doubt where they are serving. There must be thousands of sailors who serve in Portsmouth and who serve there practically the whole time. Of that there is no doubt whatever. As to the sailor at sea, there may be a question as to the place where he is serving. It may be suggested that the ship's home port shall be treated as the place where he is serving. There may be some solution of that kind, but at present we have no proposal on the Paper dealing with that point. But that is one alternative that may give him the right to be registered where he is serving.

Mr. MacVEAGH

How long will he be registered for?

Sir G. CAVE

He will be registered for the half-year.

Mr. MacVEAGH

Then his vote expires at the end of half a year.

Sir G. CAVE

Yes; there is half-yearly registration. Of course, he might be freshly registered. That is one of the advantages of a short qualifying period, and makes it less unfair, less unusual to register him at the place where he is serving. We give a second alternative of the residence or place, where, in fact, he has an actual residence.

Mr. M. HEALY

May I ask the right hon. Gentleman to consider this case? For instance, some time before a General Election you might have a battalion of the Munster Fusiliers transferred "to the City of Derry.

Sir G. CAVE

We are empowering the soldier to have a vote for his actual residence.

Mr. MacVEAGH

He has not this vote for life wherever he may be?

Sir G. CAVE

No—for the six months. Therefore, the scheme is that primâ facie he goes on to the register for the place where his home is. If he satisfies the registration officer as to the place where he is actually living he will have the right to be registered for that place where he is actually resident.

Sir C, KINLOCH-COOKE

Is there not some period of residence, some length of time that the man must be resident before he can be registered.

Sir G. CAVE

Certainly. There is no period of time in respect of his home residence but there are many soldiers resident in London or elsewhere who left their homes years ago and who would say, "I do not want to be registered for the home where I might have been, but I am living in London and I prefer London." In that case he is put on the register for London if he Las a residential qualification there.

Mr. HEMMERDE

If he loses his residential qualification does he revert automatically to the qualification of origin?

Sir G. CAVE

Certainly, if he has nothing to put in its place he has his home qualification. In any case he has the home qualification and if he qualifies for registration elsewhere and chooses to be registered for that place he may exercise his vote in that place.

Colonel Sir NORTON GRIFFITHS

What will happen, for example, to a soldier who comes home and is discharged say to-day from the Army—does he qualify as a voter. Does the Clause apply to him whether serving or not

Sir G. CAVE

Those men are dealt with in a special way in the next Clause. They must he one month out of the Army and at home in order to qualify to be registered. Under the next Clause a man who has been in the Army and who is discharged and goes home qualifies in one month instead of the ordinary period of six months.

An HON. MEMBER

May I ask if soldiers from the Dominions are qualified for the vote—as, for instance, Canadian soldiers?

Sir G. CAVE

The main part of the Clause will hardly operate in their favour because their home is in the Dominions, and they cannot have a home address here. They can only qualify under some other part of the Bill if they reside six months and acquire a residence qualification.

In view of the many questions that have been raised I think it will be appreciated that we have had a very complicated problem with which to deal. To the best of our ability we have endeavoured to meet the points. I do not for a moment say that we have met them all. We have done our best, and after many discussions we have, I think, beaten out a workable solution of the problem. But I am ready to listen to criticisms and Amendments. Possibly hon. Members, after a short discussion on the consideration of the solution, will come to the conclusion that we have found a solution which, broadly speaking, will, as we believe, meet the wishes of the House. There is just one more point. A soldier or a sailor will not have to claim the vote. We desire that it shall be the duty of the registration officer to put him on the register without his claiming at all. We believe that is the effect of our Clause, and that no further words are needed to give effect to what we desire. I would conclude by saying: if I have made the proposal clear to the House, and if after a short discussion—if a discussion be necessary—hon. Members approve of the main lines of our proposal, I hope we may possibly arrive at this, that the Committee will accept the Amendments suggested and allow us to get the Clause through Committee, and then to take time to ascertain exactly how the matter stands. I am rather keen about my Bill. I should like, if it were possible, to get the Clause through Committee, reserving further criticisms for the Report stage. If the Committee takes the opposite view to that, then I shall have to do the best I can to meet the views of hon. Members.

Lord H. CECIL

Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman explain the earlier part of the Section? I did not quite follow the second main Sub-section.

Sir G. CAVE

In most cases the Subsection would not apply at all. If for some reason the soldier has not got a home residence he is invited to make a claim to be put on the register, and if his statement is verified in the proper way he is registered for the place where he would have been but for the fact that he was in the Army. Those cases where a claim will be necessary and where the registration officer has some doubt, and a statement is asked for. We do not put the soldier to the trouble of making a formal statement on oath or a declaration. We enjoin the registration officer to accept his statement in the prescribed form, as sufficient evidence, in the absence of evidence to the contrary.

An HON. MEMBER

Sufficient evidence?

Sir G. CAVE

Sufficient evidence does not mean conclusive evidence, but means sufficient evidence, subject, of course, to contradiction. We have had a good many discussions in this House about the difference between sufficient evidence and conclusive evidence.

Mr. GILBERT

If a soldier be absent from a constituency, is it provided that a person may make a declaration on his behalf? That is the purpose of an Amendment further down on the Paper. What I want to know is this: Where the registration officer does not find a man on the register, and it is possible for someone else to find that man's residence, and the man is abroad, will it be possible for anyone else to make a claim on his behalf?

Sir G. CAVE

I think in most cases he would be put on the register. If the officer is satisfied he will put him on without a formal statement and claim, but if a formal claim and statement are made, I think it ought to be by the soldier himself. I think that is the safest line to take.

Mr. ROWLANDS

The fact that this statement is given to the registration officer will have the same effect as if obtained at the door by the officer?

Sir G. CAVE

That might be so if it is left to the registration officer to be satisfied. He would know the people, of course.

Sir F. BANBURY

I do not quite understand the right hon. Gentleman's answer about Sub-section (2), which says: "The statement of any person made in the prescribed form and verified in the prescribed manner that he would have had the necessary residence qualification in any constituency but for his services as a member of the naval or military forces of the Crown shall for all purposes of this section be sufficient." Therefore apparently any statement made, provided it was made on the prescribed form and verified in the prescribed manner, whatever it might be, would be sufficient for the purpose. Is that right?

Sir G. CAVE

Quite sufficient standing by itself, but I think not conclusive. If my right hon. Friend desires that words should be put in such as "in the absence of evidence to the contrary," of course that might be done, but my own view is that that is the effect of the Bill as drawn. Might I just add one observation with regard to the last Sub-section of the Clause as we desire it to stand? The early part of the Clause applies to persons serving in the naval or military forces of the Crown, of course including Army nurses. We propose to apply the Section to persons in service of a naval or military character, or who are serving in the British Red Cross Society, the St. John Ambulance Association, and so on. As to this we limit the application of the Section to those in service abroad in war time. In ordinary peace times Red Cross nurses and persons in Labour Battalions, and so on, would be living at home, and would qualify by residence in the ordinary way.

Sir NORTON GRIFFITHS

Irrespective of age?

Sir G. CAVE

Oh, no! If twenty-one years of age and upwards.

Captain DOUGLAS HALL

Would female nurses get the vote at twenty-one?

Sir G. CAVE

No. That would be governed by the provisions of the Bill.

Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE

Later, I have an Amendment on the Paper with regard to conscientious objectors, or so-called conscientious objectors. I take it that the right hon. and learned Gentleman does not mean to enfranchise any conscientious objector who is in the Red Cross Society or any similar society—because I am totally against that.

Sir G. CAVE

I do not think that arises.

Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE

I beg your pardon, I think it does

Sir G. CAVE

I do not think it arises on this section. That will, for my sins, have to be dealt with on a later section.

An HON. MEMBER

Is it intended to apply to the merchant service as apart from the naval service during the War?

Sir G. CAVE

This Clause does not have any reference to the merchant service. Of course the provision as to absent voters might apply to them. That is a different question. I ought to have added another thing with regard to putting the soldier or sailor on the absent voters' list I think he should be placed on that list unless he desires to be placed on the ordinary register. That, of course, will be dealt with on the Schedule of the Bill which relates to absent voters' lists.

Mr. PETO

On this question of automatically putting soldiers and sailors on the absent voters' list, am I to understand that the right hon. Gentleman will put down an Amendment to the Schedule to deal with that question or must we see to the Schedule? Under sub-Section (3) it says

"This Section shall apply to any person who, in connection with any war in which His Majesty is engaged, is abroad and is:—"

Does the right hon. Gentleman mean the whole Section? If so, it is not in accordance with the recommendations of the Speaker's Conference. Resolution No. 32 of the Speaker's Conference does not deal with war at all, but with the right of soldiers and sailors to be put on the register at any time. Does the right hon. Gentleman mean the whole Section to apply only in the case of any war, and, if so, how are you going to deal with the intervening peace time?

Sir G. CAVE

We shall put down provisions for putting soldiers and sailors on the absent voters' list. The earlier part of the Section deals with soldiers and sailors irrespective of war, and it is only as regards Red Cross nurses and others who in ordinary times are resident at home, that the last sub-Section applies. I hope I have now made my points clear.

Mr. BUTCHER

Clause 5 as it is proposed to be amended, as it appears on a separate Paper, reads: (1) Any person who is of full age and not subject to any legal incapacity and who is serving on full pay as a member of any of the naval or military forces of the Crown, shall be entitled to be registered as a Parliamentary elector for any constituency for which he would have had the necessary residence qualification for such service. I should like to know what the meaning of the last words are. Does it mean that he could not get on the register unless he had six months' residence in the constituency, or does it mean that although in fact he had only had one month at home if he was able to say that "but for my service I should have completed my six months," then he would be entitled to go on the register? Is that the true meaning of the proposal?

Sir G. CAVE

Yes.

Mr. BUTCHER

How can a man possibly say that but for his service he would have completed his six months' qualification?

Sir G. CAVE

If he lives in a place for a month, then joins the Army, serving for two months, he cannot then say that but for his military service he would have been there six months. On the other hand, if he had lived in a place for a month and had served five months in the Army he could then say that but for his service he would have been there for six months, and therefore he would have his qualification. I hope I have now passed my cross-examination.

Major HUNT

Considering that this Clause affects millions of men, would it not be better to give us a chance of really understanding what the new Clause means rather than trying to pass it now?

Sir G. CAVE

I think we have had the view of hon. Members now, and I hope we shall decide to proceed with it.

Mr. R. McNEILL

It is difficult to understand this new Clause, because a great number of Amendments have been put in. I have an Amendment down recognising the difference of age in the case of the military franchise from the age prevailing for the ordinary franchise. I want to know whether the Amendment of my right hon. Friend can be put in such a way as to preserve my right to make that Amendment in the proper place? It is rather difficult to see, under the circumstances which have now arisen, exactly whether it would be possible or not, but I wish to have my right preserved if possible.

The CHAIRMAN

I quite think so, subject to anything that may arise. I have it marked to bring it in either on the Clause as it now stands or as amended with the Government Amendments.

Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE

I understood that I was to raise that point now and not wait until the time came in the ordinary course of events.

The CHAIRMAN

Not at all. The point of age on this Clause, either as regards men or women, can be raised separately.

Colonel SANDERS

I think I am voicing the opinion of all those who take a special interest in this subject when I say that we are deeply grateful to the Home Secretary for the way in which he has remodelled the Clause. A good many of us have been spending a considerable time in framing Amendments, and it is not a very easy thing on a Bill like this to frame Amendments that are in order and that meet the exact point one wants to get altered, but by the Amendment that he has put down the Home Secretary has, I think, met almost all the points that we wanted to raise, and we are deeply grateful to him for doing so. I am especially glad that he has made it clear, as it was not made clear in the Bill, that this Clause is to apply not only to the time of war but to the time of peace as well. A man is to have a vote qua soldier or sailor, not only in time of war, but also in time of peace. That is a thing that we ought to have done long ago. It has always been a blot on our franchise law that directly a man joined the Services of the Crown in a naval or military capacity it was almost impossible for him to have a vote. There is another alteration which the Home Secretary has made which will also be generally appreciated. He has altered the segregation of the soldier. It was a danger in the Bill as it stood that the soldiers were all to be taken together in one or two constituencies, and would not get any real representation at all, whereas what we all desired to see and what the Amendment will bring about, is that the soldiers should influence practically every constituency in the country. We think that is right, we think that is what the soldiers want, and we believe that that is what all those who are interested in them want. I should like to ask you, Sir, if you could give us a little guidance upon the matter? What will be the fate of the other Amendments which stand on the Paper on this subject? What will be the procedure on this Clause? Are all Amendments except the Home Secretary's to be ruled out of Order?

Sir G. CAVE

I have only moved the first Amendment.

Colonel SANDERS

I know; but if we go on with this Debate should we take the Amendment of the Home Secretary, then, perhaps, an Amendment moved by somebody else on the Clause as it is and coming afterwards? I do not know whether it would be possible, but the convenient way would be to get the Home Secretary's new Clause on the Paper and then to have a chance of being able to debate and move Amendments to it. Is there any possibility of being able to do that without leaving the whole thing over to the Report stage?

Mr. M. HEALY

On that point of Order. Would it not be possible to pass the Clause pro forma, with the Government Amendments, and then recommit it, when hon. Members would have the right to move their Amendments to the Government Clause in its new form?

Sir C. HOBHOUSE

Am I not right in thinking that if the Clause were recommitted—I should offer no objection, because it would be a good thing to do— under the Rules of the House it would have to come up at the end, and could not be recommitted now? If that is so, it seems to mo to be not a very good method of dealing with the difficulty which has arisen and which the Home Secretary has been good enough to allay. I do not know whether I am entitled to ask the Home Secretary this: whether, after the very lucid and careful explanation he has given us, which we all appreciate, but which was punctuated by a great number of questions—the answers to which it was very difficult to follow, although they were so clear, owing to their number—he would not feel disposed to let us adjourn this Debate, so that we should have the advantage of considering the explanation he has given to us? In that way we should save him and the Committee a good deal of time.

11.0 P.M.

The CHAIRMAN

I wish to deal with the point of Order, because the hon. and gallant Member (Colonel Sanders) was still in possession. There is no way, I am afraid, of recommitting the Clause at this stage. It would necessarily have to come at the end of the Bill. With regard to the hon. and gallant Member's second point, as to whether I would take the intervening Amendments as they stand on the Order Paper, of course I should certainly feel bound to do so, if hon. Members desire to move them, in so far as they were not covered by the previous decision of the Committee to leave out certain parts of the Clause. And I should say that I have a considerable number of manuscript Amendments handed in to the Home Secretary's Amendment which I think are designed to meet the points now in another form on the Order Paper. There are two possibilities open to the Committee, either to take these seriatim as Amendments to the Government proposal or the suggestion made as far as this stage is concerned to pass the Clause and leave the improvement of it to another stage.

HON. MEMBERS

No!

Colonel SANDERS

I beg to move, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."

My own feeling is very strongly that it would be a mistake to shelve this Clause right off to the end of the Bill. It is really the most important Clause in the Bill, and I think we ought to have a chance of discussing it when we are still fairly fresh to the Bill. There are one or two important questions, more or less of principle, which must arise at an early stage of the Clause. First of all there is the question, which I think the Home Secretary treated rather unduly scornfully, of the next-of-kin. I quite agree that the next-of-kin is much too loose as a legal phrase, but as a military phrase it is perfectly well understood. Next-of-kin is the next-of-kin whose name appears on the pay book and on the attestation paper and if it is from a legal point of view necessary that those words are to be put in, of course they can easily be put in, but the next-of-kin is a perfectly well-ascertained person, and it is perfectly well-known to every soldier what is meant by the phrase in a military sense. If it is not denned in the Amendment it can be very well defined in the definition Clause. It includes anyone you like to put down. It is is always one defined person. There is also the important question which is to be raised as to age. I know there are several hon. Members who think the members of the forces ought to have the vote, whether they have attained the age of twenty-one or not. Those are two big questions which are bound to be raised and discussed, and there is also the important question of the sailors under the provisions of this Clause. All these are questions which I think ought to be discussed, and which will take some time to discuss. If we report Progress now we shall have the Clause printed, we shall be able to move Amendments and to cut out the old Amendments which no longer apply, and we shall really be working knowing what we are dealing with and in an orderly manner, instead of in what must be a very haphazard way.

Mr. C. ROBERTS

Would it be in order before that is done for the Home Secretary to move to leave out Sub-section (1) of this Clause in order to insert his new "Clause, or the greater part of that new Clause, as printed on the Paper which is in the Vote Office? If he did that, and the Committee agreed to leave out Subsection (1), we should get either the whole of the Home Secretary's new Clause, or at all events the larger part of it, on the Order Paper to-morrow. It would then be possible for hon. Members who are interested and who want to do so to put down their existing Amendments, which they would still desire to retain, as Amendments to his new Clause. It would save a considerable amount of time if we were to have the right hon. Gentleman's new Clause, or the greater part of it, on the Order Paper to-morrow. It would only be proposed from the Chair.

Sir F. BANBURY

If words are left out and other words are inserted, then you cannot amend the words inserted.

The CHAIRMAN

Let me see whether I understand what the point of Order is. I understand that the point is that the Committee should agree to the omission of Sub-section (1) —[HON. MEMBERS: "No!"]—and then that the proposition "that those words be there inserted" should be the matter remaining to be debated—

Mr. ROBERTS

The Motion should be made by the Home Secretary, and not accepted by the Committee, and then it would appear upon the Order Paper to-morrow.

The CHAIRMAN

And then it would be open on a future date for hon. Members to move Amendments to the proposed insertion of the Home Secretary.

Sir G. CAVE

If it is in order to take that course, I will at once accept the Motion to report progress.

Mr. J. W. WILSON

I think it will be possible for hon. Members to put down Amendments in that case, but unless they are put down and fitted in with the present Clause they would be open to the ruling that they would not fit in. I think, therefore, that if we can get on the Paper the whole of the new Clause hon. Members can then adopt their Amendments in the interval. It is for the convenience of hon. Members and is in no sense obstructive.

Lord H. CECIL

You could leave out down to any particular words, and then put new words in.

The CHAIRMAN

I think this might be done. I have always deprecated very much leaving out words and then inserting them again; but if the present Amendment was accepted by the Committee— that is, to leave out what I will call the limiting words down to "any person"— the words "any person" would be left as they were in both proposals. Then we could leave out the remaining words in Sub-section (1) and stand on the proposal to insert the words now proposed by the Home Secretary. Those would appear on the Order Paper as a proposition to which further Amendments could be moved.

Colonel SANDERS

How far down this Paper could the words be put in? Could we put them all in?

Lord H. CECIL

Would not such a course as that, at all events without further consideration, be exposed to the objection that some subsequent Amendment might be hindered by the decision taken to-night to leave out certain words?

Sir G. CAVE

We will only move out words which everybody agrees to leave out.

The CHAIRMAN

I think it is desirable not to go further than the first Subsection, because Sub-section (2) stands almost in the same form. I think we had better not go further than the first Subsection, which is the real point at issue. If it is agreeable to the Committee, I would, in the rather exceptional circumstances of the case, be agreeable to adopt that course.

Sir C. HOBHOUSE

There is a difficulty, is there not, about the two Clauses that, before we have finished the next, there must be a discussion on this. We shall get rather further than Sub-section (1), and in that case we shall be in the same difficulty day after day.

Sir G. CAVE

Our Amendments with regard to the later Sub-sections are framed to meet the Amendments to the first Subsection.

The CHAIRMAN

Then I take it that will be the main idea.

Colonel LESLIE WILSON

If that is your ruling it limits the words, and does it leave out any Amendment I have on the Paper?

The CHAIRMAN

Yes, in the form in which they previously appeared. They will have to be brought up as Amendments to the Home Secretary's proposal.

Amendment agreed to.

Sir G. CAVE

I beg to move, to leave out from the word "person," to the end of Sub-section (1), and insert the words, "who is of full age and not subject to any legal incapacity and who is serving on full pay as a member of any of the naval or military forces of the Crown, shall be entitled to be registered as a Parliamentary elector for any constituency for which he would have had the necessary residence qualification but for such service.

Provided that—

  1. (a) Any such person shall be entitled to be registered for any constituency in which he may for the time being be serving or in which he may have an actual residence qualification on making an application to the registration officer of that constituency and making a declaration in the prescribed form that he has taken reasonable steps to prevent his being registered under the foregoing provision for any other constituency; and
  2. (b) Nothing in this provision shall prevent any such person being registered in. respect of any qualification other than a residence qualification."— [Sir George Cave.]

Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause," put, and negatived.

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Monday next.

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

Whereupon Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER, pursuant to the Order of the House of the 12th February, proposed the Question, "That this House do now adjourn."

Adjourned accordingly at Sixteen minutes after Eleven o'clock.