CLAUSE 7.—(Right of Person Registered to Vote.) (Hansard, 26 June 1917)

§ The CHAIRMAN
The Amendment standing in the name of the hon. Member for Watford (Mr. A. Ward) and several other hon. Members to insert at the beginning of the Clause an Amendment relating to a referendum on the question of female Parliamentary suffrage is out of order, as I ruled on Clause 4. The next Amendment, in the names of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Cambridge University (Mr. Rawlinson) and the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Rutland (Colonel Gretton), to insert at the beginning of the Clause the words, "in accordance with the provisions of this Act, and, notwithstanding 242 the provisions of any Statute to the contrary," I think is unnecessary. It does not add to the Bill in any way.

§ Colonel GRETTON
On a point of Order. The purpose of this Amendment is to do away with the disabilities imposed on a person by the Ballot Act, 1872, from voting in two constituencies of a divided Parliamentary borough. In another place this Bill gives to certain persons a residential vote and a business vote as well. In the case of Parliamentary powers, unless an Amendment of this kind is inserted that provision will be null and void; and in order to avoid this I desire to move the Amendment. If it is not out of order I should like to state my arguments to the House.

§ The CHAIRMAN
I do not yet quite follow the point. The difficulty, as the hon. and gallant Gentleman will see, is that if we put in these words at the beginning of this particular Clause they may have an effect not foreseen on other Clauses. Is this part of a proposal which leads up to some subsequent Amendment which the hon. and gallant Gentleman wishes to propose, or has he some other point in his mind?

§ Colonel GRETTON
No, Mr. Whitley; no other Amendment is necessary. The effect of my Amendment, if accepted, will be that this Act will be self-contained, and the provisions of other preceding Acts, which are contrary, especially to this Clause, will be set on one side. The intention of Parliament, as expressed in this Act, would be the law, and we should not be working under an old law intervening in the operation of this present Act.

§ The CHAIRMAN
I now apprehend the point clearly. But surely that line of reasoning applies to a number of other Clauses: in the Bill? The proper course is to repeal in the Schedule when we have decided the matters in relation to the various Clauses as we go through them. The same thing applies, for instance, to women's disability now removed by Clause 4. If these words were necessary in this Clause, they seem to me, by the same argument, to be necessary in every Clause where we are repealing or amending a Statute.

§ Sir F. BANBURY
On a point of Order. I do not think that is so. I think this is really a case which has been entirely over- 243 looked. Most of the Acts dealing with registration have been repealed. The Ballot Act has been continued. So far as I remember at the present moment there is nothing in the Ballot Act exempting a Clause like the present. Under the Ballot Act a constituency which was one constituency, and which was then divided into two or more constituencies, has certain provisions applied to it. Take my old constituency of Peckham as an illustration. Camberwell was originally one borough. Camberwell was divided into three constituencies — Peckham, North Camberwell and Dulwich. A man who was registered in North Camberwell and Peckham could only vote in one, but if he was registered in Peckham or one of the divisions of Lambeth, he could vote both in that division and in Lambeth, but he could not vote in Dulwich because it was argued this was only part of the division of one original constituency. The Bill we are discussing proposes to make London one whole constituency. Under the Bill, according to the terms of the Speaker's Conference, which I believe the Bill intends to carry out, each person having a qualification in St. George's, Hanover Square, or the Strand, can vote in both of those places. Unless, however, there is put in a repealing Clause in relation to the Ballot Act, which prevents a person voting more than once in one whole constituency—or, I should say, a constituency which is a part of a whole constituency— the result will be that plural voting will be abolished in London. I do not know whether the right hon. and learned Gentleman opposite knows that.

§ The CHAIRMAN
The right hon. Baronet is dealing with a point of Order.

§ Sir F. BANBURY
Yes, of course, Mr. Whitley. The result of that would be that plural voting in London would be abolished. Therefore, it is necessary to put in the words suggested to the effect that notwithstanding any Statute to the contrary, such things may occur. It does not touch women's suffrage because that has never been dealt with before. It is a particular Statute which has not been repealed, but which ought to have been repealed and which, if it is not repealed, will create a situation which was never contemplated either by the Speaker's Conference, or, as I believe, by this Bill, and which applies wholly and solely to a position which would arise where several 244 constituencies are merged into one whole while at the same time the divided constituencies are left in the whole. I do not know whether I have made it clear?

§ The CHAIRMAN
The point is perfectly clear to my mind. The hon. Baronet claims that there is something in this Clause which conflicts with the Ballot Act.

§ Sir F. BANBURY
The other way about. There is an existing Clause in the Ballot Act which conflicts with the provisions of this Bill, and it is necessary in order to bring it into harmony to repeal that Clause in the Ballot Act.

§ The CHAIRMAN
That is so, but surely that applies to every Clause in the Bill, and necessarily to every Bill which we amend. That is my point. If these words are in order now they will be in order in nearly every Clause we discuss, and probably in every Bill?

§ Lord HUGH CECIL
I do not think my hon. Friend has quite made his point clear. The point is this: that the meaning of this Clause would be obscure unless these words are inserted. I should say then that it would still be ambiguous, and that it would not be certain whether it is intended to be read with the Ballot Act or whether it is intended to repeal the Ballot Act, or nullify its provisions. For the sake of clearness you must put in some words. I do not think those proposed are the best to make clear the distinction, and the true meaning of this Clause, which is intended to overbear the existing provisions of the Ballot Act.

§ The CHAIRMAN
That is more a technical point, I think, than a point of order. I think it will safeguard the future if the hon. Gentleman will move his Amendment in this form. "notwithstanding any of the provisions of the Ballot Act, 1872"

§ Colonel GRETTON
Yes, that exactly meets my point, and I beg to move the Amendment as suggested by you, Mr. Chairman. I do not want to delay the House by repeating arguments which have already been stated. The meaning is not that no elector would ask for two ballot papers in the same constituency, as it has been held that a borough divided into three, four, or five different divisions for Parliamentary purposes is, in fact, one constituency. The difficulty of 245 putting these matters into the Schedule is, as I understand it—I am not very skilful in these matters—that, I am informed, the Clause in the Ballot Act contains other matters which it is desirable to continue, and which the House does not wish to repeal. It is very difficult in a Schedule to make it quite clear what provisions of a Clause it is desired to retain or to repeal. I think the case has been made quite clear.

§ Mr. GOLDSTONE
I hope the Government will not too readily give any assent to this proposal. It seems to me an effort to pre-judge the point which will be raised at a later stage of the Bill. For the present the question of proportional representation has been rejected by the House. In the compromise which was reached the parties assented to the second vote being given in respect of the occupation of business premises. It was understood that the large constituencies were to be divided, and proportional representation brought in as a kind of countervailing—

§ The CHAIRMAN
That really does not arise at this point. The only point for the moment is whether these words are necessary at the beginning of the Clause to clear the- way for the consideration of subsequent words.

§ Mr. GOLDSTONE
With respect, Mr. Whitley, it would appear to me that the object the Amendment is intended to accomplish is to safeguard, under any circumstances, the second vote in constituencies which under the existing law is not given. That is as I appreciate the point. I hope I am wrong. If not so, I hope the Government will carefully consider it, and not at this stage assent to the proposal of the hon. and gallant Gentleman.

§ Sir G. YOUNGER
The hon. Gentleman who has just spoken has made a very interesting remark in relation to proportional representation. In this particular case, however, unless some words are inserted here, and there is some specific repeal of the Clauses in the Ballot Act, it will be impossible to vote twice in the two divisions of a single borough. As the matter is now proposed it is very clear. Everyone sees what they mean, and the desire is to bring things into line with Clause 1 of the Bill.

§ Sir F. BANBURY
The hon. Member for Sunderland spoke a few moments ago 246 about proportional representation, but this really has nothing whatever to do-with it.

§ Mr. GOLDSTONE
Perhaps the right hon. Baronet will say whether the intention of the Amendment is to safeguard the second vote in cases where, under the existing law, the second vote is not given?

§ Sir F. BANBURY
I will explain the Amendment. Proportional representation has nothing whatever to do with this particular Amendment, because, so far as I know, the Government still adhere to the proposal of the Conference that London should be made one constituency, and that all the big towns in the country should also be made one constituency where they are not one constituency at the present moment. The result of that would be that if this Amendment were not inserted no one in London would be able to vote more than once. That was never intended. If the Government were to say they are going to leave the constituencies as they are, no no one would want this Amendment; but it is because the Government intend to make London and other places, which have hitherto been different constituencies, into one constituency, and then divide that one constituency into different divisions, that it is necessary to repeal the Clause in the Ballot Act which says that, where there are different Parliamentary divisions in one constituency, a voter in different divisions; cannot vote in more than one. It is perfectly clear that it was never the intention of the Government or the Conference to do this, and I do not see that it has anything to do with proportional representation.

§ Mr. LESLIE SCOTT
I think there is reality in this point, because something to this effect is necessary, I believe, to carry out the basis of the Speaker's Conference, which was that, whilst the system of having a large number of votes was, broadly speaking, abolished, a compromise was made by retaining a business vote, in addition to a residential vote. That was the character of the compromise, good or bad. Different views are taken in different parts of the House as to that. But it is that which is effected by this Amendment. This Amendment is to give effect to one element of the Speaker's Conference compromise, which, as the Bill stands, will be lost without the Amendment.

§ The CHAIRMAN
I am much obliged to the hon. Member (Mr. L. Scott). He 247 has made my mind now quite clear. If this proposition is required at all, it must be introduced at the end of this Clause as a new Sub-section. That would be the right way to do it, but we may amend the Clause so as to make it unnecessary. Therefore we had better bring it in on that basis at the end of the Clause if required. If the hon. Member will take that course, I will make a note of his name and will call upon him then to move the Amendment.

§ Colonel GRETTON
I am very glad to take the course you suggest. My only object is that the matter should be dealt with, and dealt with in the most convenient and correct manner. I, therefore, beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

§ Sir P. MAGNUS
I beg to move, in Sub-section (1), to leave out the words "but a man shall not vote at a general election for more than one constituency for which he is registered by virtue of a residence qualification or for more than one constituency for which he is registered by virtue of other qualifications of whatever kind, and a woman shall not," and to insert instead thereof the words "no person shall."
In any circumstances, I take it, this Clause will have to be altered, because as it stands it gives a privilege to women which is denied to men, and as women are obtaining the vote for the first time under this Bill it would not be recognised as fair or right that a privilege should be given to the fair sex which is denied to the male sex. Therefore, in accordance with the Amendment that stands in my name, the Clause would read,
no person shall vote at a General Election for more than two constituencies. That implies that a person may vote for more than one constituency, although he may not vote for three or more constituencies. It might be said that by altering the Clause in that way, without making some other alteration, a person who had a house, we will say, in London, and a house in the country, might be able to vote for both those constituencies, which, I understand, is not intended by the Report of the Speaker's Conference. In order, however, that the question I have raised may be fully considered, I think it right to move the Amendment as it stands in my name.

§ Sir G. CAVE
This Amendment would make a very serious change in the Bill. I quite agree with my hon. Friend that we cannot give a privilege to women which we do not give to men. The Bill provides that a man may have two votes, but may not vote in respect of two residences. Of course it is quite possible that a man may have residences in two places, but the Bill provides that he may not vote for those two residences, but may have one vote for a residence and one for business premises, or for a university. The Bill goes on to provide that a woman shall not have more than two votes, and that, I agree, gives her an advantage which her husband has not. Therefore, I have put an Amendment down which says that a woman shall have one occupation vote and one for any other qualification she may have. That places her as nearly as possible on the same footing as the man.

§ Sir P. MAGNUS
Could she have a second vote for a business residence if she had a business residence as well as a private residence?

§ Sir G. CAVE
No; because the provision as to business premises does not apply to the woman's vote.

§ Sir G. YOUNGER
Obviously there is a mistake in the Bill, and the only chance to get that rectified was to put the man in exactly the same position as the woman. This Amendment was put down with that object. It has served its purpose of inducing the right hon. Gentleman to put the matter right by another Amendment.

§ Colonel GRETTON
There is still doubt in my mind as to whether it is intended that the woman is to have a vote for a business occupation. It is not at all clear. The Amendment that has been moved would leave a woman's qualification as it is, and put a man on the same footing as a woman. That is to say, a man might have two qualifications, or he might have twenty qualifications, but he could only vote for two constituencies, and the same in the case of a woman. Of course, we have not come to the Home Secretary's Amendment, but it appears to me rather doubtful whether he will not deprive the woman of a business vote if there is one. I think that is so, and therefore I am rather unwilling that this Amendment should be abandoned. This Amendment proposes to leave out words which are very complicated and very long. Why not say straightly, clearly, and 249 simply that no man may vote more than twice in one General Election, whatever his qualifications are? It is stated elsewhere in the Bill what are the qualifications for the Parliamentary vote, and why not state simply that no man may vote more than twice, and the same with a woman? You put them on an absolute equality, and I cannot follow the argument against the omission of these complicated and, to many of us, rather meaningless words.

§ Mr. ROCH
I am rather inclined to agree with the last speaker, that the effect of what the Home Secretary has said is that a woman is deprived of a business vote. That, I think, is clear under an earlier Section of the Bill, and I must confess that when I read this Section I thought the policy was, in a clumsy way, to give a man a duality of votes for residence and business premises, and then in a muddled way to give a woman equality by giving her two votes. If the right hon. Gentleman wants to put it on a proper basis, let him give two votes to men and women who are qualified, and let a woman have a business qualification in the same way as a man.

§ Sir J. D. REES
Is it necessary to provide for a business qualification for a woman? According to this, may not a man have a residence qualification and a business qualification and may vote in respect of both in a General Election, and that a woman may do the same?

§ Sir G. CAVE
A woman does not have a residence qualification, but can have an occupation qualification and a university qualification.

§ Sir J. D. REES
But she has two qualifications. Was that laid down by the Speaker's Conference or have the Government departed from that in that respect?

§ Mr. DICKINSON
What has happened is this: The right hon. Gentleman first of all gave a woman two votes in any circumstances if she had any two qualifications. The Conference, however, proposed that the man should have first of all a residence vote, and if he had a business qualification he should have one for that also, and that is the proposal put down in the Bill as it stands. Having given the woman more than she is entitled to, the Government now find it is necessary to give her rather less than she is entitled to. Personally, I am not unwilling to 250 accept it. I do not think it is going to be a very harsh measure on her, and I do not see why, in giving this new franchise, we should give a woman a second vote in respect of her business qualification.

§ Mr. RAWLINSON
Why not?

§ Mr. DICKINSON
I object so mush to second votes that I do not see why a woman should come in under a system to which I object. The point, of course, is that the woman gets her vote for her place of business. Why does she get it? Because she occupies that business place, and therefore she has got a vote. She may be living with her husband. [An HON. MEMBER: "May be? I hope she is!"] Every woman who has a business qualification is not living with her husband, but we hope, she is, and, if she is, then she would get a vote in respect of that or in the place where she has her business qualification. My own personal view is that that is sufficient, and I do not feel inclined towards the Amendment put down by the Home Secretary. I have, however, a very strong objection to the Amendment before the Committee because under it if a man has two or three or four business qualifications he is to be able to give two business qualification votes. [An HON. MEMBER: "Yes, but only two!"] That is quite right, but it would be an extension of the principle which divided the Conference. Myself, I think it is sufficiently generous to give a man a right to vote for his home and a right to vote once for his business. I hope the Committee will not listen to this Amendment, and if the price of rejecting this Amendment is to accept the Amendment of the Home Secretary, I am prepared to accept it.

§ Mr. RAWLINSON
I think it is generally agreed in the Committee that the Bill as it stands cannot possibly become law. I am very glad of that, because I have repeatedly pointed out the anomaly which is now raised when dealing with the local government franchise and women franchise. The point is which of the two Amendments are we to have. The Amendment moved by the hon. Member for the London University (Sir P. Magnus) is perfectly plain, and it lays down that nobody, man or woman, shall vote more than twice. That is perfectly plain. The Amendment proposed by the Government which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for North St. Pancras said he is 251 willing to accept, is a very complicated one, and provides that a man may have one residential vote and one other qualification; but as far as women are concerned, they are to have one local government qualification vote, and one vote for any other qualification to which she may be entitled. I know of no other qualification provided in the Bill except the university vote. Surely the words which have been suggested are cumbrous and very difficult for people to understand who have to administer this law. A woman may be living in one constituency and she may have a business qualification in another place, and she would be entitled to vote for her business qualification, but she will not be entitled to have a second vote because she is not entitled to a residential qualification. I have protested all along against women franchise in this Bill being based upon the local government qualification, and I have never been able to understand why it was done, but that being so, surely we ought to make it as simple as we can now, and when there is a choice between two Amendments I should have thought the Committee would have preferred the simpler Amendment proposed by my hon. Friend rather than the complicated proposal put forward in the name of the Government.

§ Sir J. SIMON
The hon. and learned Gentleman who has just spoken urged us to accept this Amendment because it is so simple, but the real question is whether this Amendment makes a material alteration in the Bill, and if so whether it is one which the Committee is prepared to accept. Now this Amendment does make a material alteration, and it is one which I am not prepared to accept. What does it do? It provides that wherever a man has two residences in different constituencies he may have two votes. Now that is quite contrary to the scheme of the Bill, which only allows in limited cases a second vote. This proposal has this result, that whereas a poor man who in 999 cases out of 1,000 only has one residence he can never vote more than once, but if you happen to belong to the rare class of people who have two residences, one in London and another in the country, then you get two votes. This point raises the whole of the plural voting controversy in its most objectionable form. If that is the result of the Amendment moved by the hon. Member for London University, 252 who is much too clear-headed not to see that point, the question is whether we prefer the one thing or the other. I could not consent to the very large extension of plural voting involved in this Amendment. I agree with my hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Rawlinson), who has just spoken with regard to women, and I would like their position stated a little more clearly. I think, however, the explanation is that which was given just now by my right hon. Friend.
Some of us interested in woman suffrage noticed when this Bill was introduced that it really gave women more than they were entitled to, because, whereas men who happen to have two residential qualifications in different parts of the country could not use them both, it conferred upon women who happen to have two local government qualifications in different parts of the country the right to use them both. That appears to me not to be dealing on level terms with the two cases. I understand the Government have now put an Amendment down to prevent that, and it has this consequence, that whereas a woman would in fact have a business vote because she occupies premises, and she is a local government elector, I do think the Home Secretary's Amendment has an incidental and probably an intended effect of not giving the woman the business vote. If that is so it can be altered, but on the whole I do not think it is a very serious matter. I am not anxious to see any unnecessary multiplication of plural votes, but I do not regard this from a woman suffrage point of view as very important. So far as this Amendment is concerned, to accept it would not be taking clear words and putting them in place of obscure words. What you would be doing would be to remove a limitation on plural voting, and you would be creating a new form of plural vote.

§ Lord H. CECIL
There seems to be a good deal in what has been said by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Walthamstow (Sir J. Simon). There is one point I wish to submit to the Committee. The right hon. Gentleman says this Amendment will bring back the plural vote in a form in which it has been excluded by our arrangement, because it will allow a man to give two votes in respect of two residences. I suggest that that is impossible, because a man cannot have two residences, and I should have thought it is clear that a man can only re- 253 side in one place at the same time. I know he can successively reside, but only in one place at any given time, and he can never be registered twice at two residences. I live in London, but I occasionally reside at Oxford. What happens is that I cease to reside in London and I go and reside somewhere else, but you cannot reside in more than one place at a time at any given moment. When I go to Oxford I cease to reside in London. I know that a vagrant who resides within the limits of the successive vote takes his vote with him wherever he goes. If that is not so, let me again appeal to the Government to define what "residence" means. I put down last night a definition which is intended to express in simple language the true meaning of "residence." I do not understand the arcana of the law, but I have tried to put it down in what is called King's English—that is, plain, intelligent language such as lawyers ought to use, but which they do not always use. If that definition is a good one, I suggest a person cannot have more than one qualification, and cannot regard more than one place as his home. It is absurd to say that when I am at Oxford I regard London as my home. Would it not be better to have adopted some basis of the franchise which is not susceptible to all these difficulties? If residence is this very ambiguous thing, this transitory thing that may be multiplied in such a way that you might have any number of residences; if it is this sort of doubtful, metaphysical phrase, is it not a pity that it was ever put into the Bill at all?

§ Mr. RAWLINSON
I said a long time ago that I was surprised and could not understand why the word "residence" was ever introduced into the Bill, because it is a most difficult thing to decide what residence is. I have frequently asked the Government to define it, and it is not a very simple matter. Hon. Members will recollect that on one occasion I quoted from a book which I wrote quite a number of cases in which I showed the difficulties of using the word "residence" as an electoral qualification. I have not got it with me now. We are all agreed that it is an extraordinarily difficult and complicated point, which some unfortunate registration officer will have to decide, and which, as the Government says, he will be able to decide without any difficulty. I can imagine my hon. Friend the Noble Lord the Member for Oxford 254 University (Lord H. Cecil) or the right hon. Gentleman the Member for St. Pancras (Mr. Dickinson) appearing before the registration officer on this very point, and I can only wish them joy of the interview. I agree with the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Walthamstow (Sir J. Simon) that you must first understand what you want to do. The Bill as it stands gives the plural vote in a very advanced form to women. It is agreed on all sides that is to be altered. The Government are going to alter it, and this Amendment would alter it. You have therefore departed from the Bill, and not even the right hon. and learned Gentlemen the Member for Walthamstow or the right hon. Gentleman the Member for St. Pancras can seriously defend the Bill in its present form. The Bill in its present form is not what the Conference sent us, and when we are departing from the recommendations of the Conference it is not for the right hon. and learned Gentleman to get up and say, "I cannot accept this. You must accept what I give you." You are curtailing the ridiculously wide power of plural voting, giving it to women by the Bill whether you accept my hon. Friend's Amendment or the Government's Amendment, and, if you are going to curtail it in that way, why not equalise it and make it simpler by an extension of the plural vote and by saying that every elector shall have two votes and two votes only. The Bill as it stands gives a man the right to vote for his residence, his business premises, and his university. Is it a great extension of the principle to say that he shall have two votes whether he gets them for his residence or for his business premises.

§ Sir P. MAGNUS
He "may" have two votes.

§ Mr. RAWLINSON
Yes, he "may" have two votes. Surely that is not a very large extension. It is a common-sense extension. It is a common-sense extension, and it has the further advantage of extreme simplicity. Why should you not have the same principle as regards women? I say, that if a woman has two qualifications she shall have two votes. Why complicate a perfectly simple matter by saying that one shall be a business vote and one a residential vote, and, as we are altering the Bill, why not reduce it to the simple Amendment my hon. Friend proposes, namely, that no person shall vote more than twice, but that he or she shall have 255 separate qualifications and shall select which of those qualifications he or she shall use? The Noble Lord has pointed out the difficulty of a residential qualification. Surely a person is entitled just as much on a priori grounds to a residential qualification as he is to a business premises qualification. There is no particular difference in the bedrock principle between the two, and, that being so, I submit that a simpler Amendment is the proper and fair one to accept.

§ Sir F. BANBURY
I thought that we had long ago abandoned the idea that any Amendment must be rejected because it is contrary to the provisions of the Bill or to the recommendations of the Speaker's Conference. We have on two occasions, if not on three, departed from the Conference, and on more than one occasion I have certainly said that I hoped we should hear no more from the Government of it being impossible to accept an Amendment because it was contrary to what was laid down by the Conference. The question of residence has always puzzled me very much. I could never make out how the registration officer was going to define residence. I have puzzled my brain over and over again whether it means that you must reside there six months or must be there on the last day. I raised the question a long time ago, and I was told both by the Home Secretary and the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Walthamstow (Sir J. Simon) that it was a simple matter, but here is my hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Rawlinson), for whose legal opinions I have great admiration, in absolute conflict with them, because he holds that residence is a very difficult word to define. He has written a book proving that it is a very difficult word to define. I presume it is a text-book, and I do not understand how the Home Secretary and the right lion, and learned Gentleman the Member for Walthamstow have departed from such a well-known text-book, which lays it down that it is very difficult to define "residence" and which gives learned reasons which, being a layman, I do not understand, for that particular view. This being so, we are in a very difficult position, and we, as laymen, cannot possibly solve it.
There is no doubt that the Amendment of my right hon. Friend opposite would give an additional plural vote. It would give to a man who has a residence in 256 London and another residence in the country a vote for both, whereas, as the Bill originally stood, a person would not have a vote for a second residence, but only for a business premises qualification in some other constituency. Therefore, my hon. Friend's Amendment does go beyond the Bill, though, I think, in the right direction. I have never concealed from the House or from the country that I am in favour of plural voting. If a man pays rates and taxes in a place he has just as much right to vote there as somebody else who, as my hon. Friend (Lord H. Cecil) suggests, may be in a gaol, or may be just coming out of a gaol, or maybe in a lodging-house. There is no doubt that the Amendment does go beyond the original terms of the Bill and I presume it is no use attempting to pursue it, because I fancy neither the Government nor the majority of the Committee would accept it. Then there comes the question as to what is to be done with the women. A woman is in a better position than a man under this Clause. Supposing a man has a house in the country and business premises in town, he is entitled to be registered in both under this Bill and his wife would get a Parliamentary vote in both places, whereas he would only get a Parliamentary vote in one. The Amendment of the Home Secretary as far as I can make out—and it is difficult to understand— would result in the woman only having a vote in one place in which her husband was a registered local elector.
The result of that would be to put her in a worse position than the husband. The husband must reside somewhere, and he resides, say, in some part of London. He is a local elector there, and he has a business premises qualification outside of London or even in another part of London. He is also a local elector there. Therefore, as the Bill stands, the woman, if you are going to give votes to women, will have a vote for both those places, a vote for her husband's residential qualification, and another for her husband's business premises qualification. If the Amendment is carried, she will lose one of those votes and only be able to vote once. Therefore, though personally I should like to see my hon. Friend's Amendment carried and should certainly vote for it, I think it is necessary that some words should be put in which will give the woman the same right to vote as the man. I think it should be made clear in the 257 Clause that the woman should have the right to vote where her husband is registered for a residential qualification. She should also have the right to vote where her husband is registered for a business premises qualification. That would put them in the same category. I have always been against the vote being given to women. I have not changed my mind, and, if I could prevent her having the vote, I would do so. But if you are going to say that sex is no disqualification, then in common sense put her in the same position and give her the vote on the same terms as men. While I support my hon. Friend's Amendment, I am afraid that he will not have much chance of carrying it, but I hope some other Amendment will be put in.

§ Sir P. MAGNUS
In withdrawing the Amendment, I would like to ask the Home Secretary whether when we come to his Amendment he will endeavour to find some words which would place the woman in the same position as the man with regard to the two votes. I think as we are giving votes to women under this Bill, we ought to give them under exactly the same conditions as they are given to men. There ought not to be any disqualification of women that does not apply to men. As the Clause stood women were placed in a better position, but that if course must be altered, and I hope that the Home Secretary will be able to find some form of words—I cannot in the least suggest them—by means of which the position of women with regard to the two votes shall be the same as that of men.

§ Mr. TICKLER
I understand that the Home Secretary has promised to bring in an Amendment which docs away with the necessity of this Amendment, to the effect that a woman shall have only one vote instead of two votes in two constituencies, and therefore I do not wish to move.

Mr. BUTLER LLOYD
I presume this Amendment falls with the other, though otherwise I am quite prepared to move it.

§ Sir F. BANBURY
On a point of Order. I do not think it does fall with the other Amendment, which provided that" a man might vote for a residence. This merely says that if he has no occupation, and therefore cannot get a second vote, he may vote for a residence twice.

Mr. LLOYD
I beg to move, in Subsection (1), after the word "kind" ["other qualifications of whatever kind"], to insert the words "but if he has no such other qualification he may vote for two residence qualifications."

§ Sir G, CAVE
This is the very point we have just been discussing and decided not to press. We did not divide upon it; we merely discussed it.

§ Mr. P. A. HARRIS
I beg to move, in Sub-section (1), after the word "kind" ["other qualifications of whatever kind"], to insert the words "nor in more than one division of a Parliamentary borough divided into separate constituencies."

§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (Mr. Maclean)
I think this Amendment ought to come on Clause 28, Sub-section (1), and not here.

Mr. H. SAMUEL
Clause 28, Sub-section (1), deals with the definition of a constituency. If we were to alter that definition it would go very much further than the limited point the hon. Member wishes to raise.

§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN
I am quite prepared to hear the hon. Member.

§ Sir F. BANBURY
On a point of Order. I would point out that we have already had a discussion upon this matter, when the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. H. Samuel) was not in the Committee. We had a discussion on an Amendment moved by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Rutland (Colonel Gretton), and the Chairman of Committees ruled that it would be better if the hon. and gallant Member brought in his Amendment at the end of this Clause.

§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN
That is another point.

§ Sir F. BANBURY
I submit it is the same point, and that this Amendment is unnecessary, because the Bill as it stands does exactly what the hon. Gentleman (Mr. P. A. Harris) wants to do.

Mr. H. SAMUEL
No, it does not.

§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN
I think I had better not rule the Amendment out, but hear what the hon. Member has to say.

§ Mr. HARRIS
The Bill as it was introduced provided for larger constituencies in order to give an opportunity for the introduction of a system of proportional representation. With the dropping of proportional representation, it seems necessary to go back to the present state of the law. Even when plural voting was general it was always the law that a man living in a borough could not vote in more than one constituency, the borough being regarded as one unit for electoral purposes. In large boroughs like Bradford, which has three divisions, or Bristol which has three divisions, or Manchester which has five divisions, although a man might vote in several parts of a borough he could only exercise the franchise at one opportunity. By the arrangement to create larger constituencies and introduce proportional representation, we should have departed from that principle. We hare this curious anomaly, that although Mr. Speaker's Conference agreed to limit the opportunity for plural voting, this arrangement gives an increase in the borough where there is really no justification for it at all. When the Conference agreed to allow a man a business vote in addition to a residential vote, the idea was that when he lived outside a town he would vote as an elector in the county, but that for the business premises in the town he should have the opportunity, as a citizen of that borough, of exercising the franchise. I take it that there was no intention at the Conference to give increased opportunities for plural voting within one borough. Of course, there may be a departure from the principle already laid down by the House by a majority that proportional representation should not be introduced into the law of the land. In the meantime, if it is laid down that we are not to have proportional representation, it ought to be laid down that the old principle that a borough is one unit for 260 electoral purposes should be retained. That is all the more important if proportional representation is not going to be adopted, because the system of a borough being divided for electoral purposes into several constituencies does give an opportunity for the representation of minorities. In most boroughs, although not in all, the geographical division of a town usually takes the form of representing the various classes of the community—there is the west end or residential district, the working class district, and the business-district, so that it is a common thing in boroughs to find that the representatives are a Labour man, a Conservative, and, perhaps, a Liberal as representing each division of the voters. In that way, in spite of our system of voting, we did get a representation of minorities. That, to-a certain extent, will be counteracted if, under this new arrangement an elector is allowed to vote twice in the same borough. It would be an increase instead of a decrease of the system of plural voting which we all desire to decrease by means of this Bill.

Mr. H. SAMUEL
This Amendment is-one to which many of us attach very great importance. It raises a question of much wider range than any of the Amendments which have been before the Committee for a considerable time. The difficulty arises out of the decision of the House to adopt proportional representation in the large boroughs. If the Committee on Clause 15 adheres to that decision the effect will be, in practice, to depart widely, to the extent of many tens of thousands of votes, from the recommendations of the Conference with respect to plural voting. The position arises in this way: The present law is embodied in the redistribution of Seats Act, 1885, Section 8, Sub-section (3), which says: Where any Parliamentary borough is divided into divisions in pursuance of this Section a person shall not be registered as entitled to vote and shall not vote in more than one such division. The Conference recommended two things with regard to the Parliamentary boroughs divided into divisions, first, that that should be repealed and that a person should Be entitled to vote in more than one division of the borough, but secondly, it recommended that those divisions should be amalgamated into large three, four, or five Member constituencies, the effect of which would be practically to 261 restore that provision. If the Committee decides not to have these large constituencies, but to maintain the repeal of that provision, then it will be creating a vast number of plural votes which do not now exist and which the Conference never intended should exist. Let me give the Committee a concrete illustration. Take the City of Edinburgh, which has four divisions. There is a large number of men in that city, as in all other cities, who reside in one part of the town and have an office or business premises in another part of the town. At present, under the existing law, such persons have only one vote, because of the provision of the Redistribution of Seats Act, 1885, which I have read. If the recommendations of the Conference were carried out in their entirety, such persons would still have only one vote, because all the four divisions of Edinburgh would be one constituency for the purposes of proportional representation. If we reject proportional representation, and, at the same time, leave in this repeal, then for the first time all these persons will suddenly be converted into dual voters. What will happen in Edinburgh will happen in the same way in all the other great boroughs throughout the country, except London, to which my remarks do not apply.
It is true that if you take a city such as Liverpool, which has nine divisions, under the recommendations of the Conference, with proportional representation, that would probably be divided into two constituencies for the purposes of proportional representation, and that if a man happens to live in one of those and has an office in another he might have two votes under the Conference proposals. But under the Bill as it will stand, if he lived in any one of these nine divisions of Liverpool and had a residence or a place of business in any other one of the nine, he would get a dual vote. Consequently, you will be creating many times more plural voters than were contemplated by the Conference. I do not suggest to the Government that the Committee ought properly to decide this matter to-day because we do not yet know what the Committee will decide on Clause 15 with regard to proportional representation. It may be that proportional representation will be retained in the Bill, in which case the point I am now endeavouring to press on the Committee will not arise, but it is essential that at this point we should make our views clear in order 262 that the Government and the Committee should be cognisant of the point that if proportional representation is struck out we must press that the repeal Section should not include, as it now does, Subsection (3) of Section 8 of the Act of 1885, and we must press on the Report stage that this provision shall be inserted in this Clause I do not wish in any way to revive any old controversies. I hope that nothing I have said has been in any way partisan or raises any of the old points in a controversial spirit, but we do attach importance to this, and we ask that, if proportional representation is struck out, fresh plural voters shall not be created incidentally and by a side-wind, and shall not be created in a way which the Conference never recommended and never intended should be done.

§ Lord H. CECIL
The speech of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. H. Samuel) has succeeded in convincing me that this Amendment ought not to be accepted either now or on the Report. Observe how the matter stands. The House has departed from the recommendations of the Conference by rejecting proportional representation. [HON. MEMBERS: "NO!"] It has up to this point. It will either adhere to that decision or will change its decision. Let us suppose, in the first case, that it will adhere to that decision. Those who, like myself, regard proportional representation as a very, important safeguard, will be bitterly disappointed. The right hon. Gentleman suggests that as a sort of consequence the proposal of Mr. Speaker's Conference which permits a plural vote in different constituencies should be modified, so as to' prevent people having two votes if they have a residential qualification in Liverpool and a place of business in Liverpool or in any other great town. Those of us who think this Bill dangerous, as leading to violent movements of opinion, are first of all to have the safeguard of proportional representation taken away from us, and then are not to be permitted to have the slighter but still valuable safeguard of the plural vote in places like Liverpool and Manchester, where there are both residential and business qualifications. The two wrongs do not make a right. You do not make the departure from the Speaker's Conference arrangement any better by making a second departure. Indeed, from the point of view of all Conservatives who 263 are supporters of proportional representation, you manifestly make it much worse. You add another grievance to that which you have already inflicted upon us. I therefore very earnestly hope the Government will not assent to anything of the kind. The Speaker's Conference made this proposal, that the plural vote should be allowed where there was a residential and a business qualification. It is obvious that an incidental limitation of that arising out of the adoption of proportional representation does not vary the principle. The principle is that where a man has a residential qualification and a business qualification he is entitled to two votes. That, of course, imposes a very considerable limitation upon the plural vote as it now exists, because it destroys the ownership vote. It is acting very much contrary to the principle of the compromise to abolish the operation of this in all the large towns merely because proportional representation is destroyed. I quite agree that the right thing—and I hope we may persuade the House that it is the right thing—is to retain proportional representation, and that is advantageous both from the point of view of those who like the plural vote and those who do not like it. The compromise holds in respect of the plural vote completely. But if the compromise is broken at all, I earnestly protest against the unfairness of breaking it again in such a way as to injure the Conservative supporters of proportional representation by inflicting upon them a second wrong. I hope the Government will not accept this Amendment either now or on Report.

§ Mr. WARDLE
I think the Noble Lord looks at this matter entirely from the point of view of his party and the Conservative opinion to which he refers; but it must be, understood that, when proportional representation was adopted, and the whole question of the plural vote was under consideration in the Speaker's Conference, this very point arose, and the point which has been put by the right hon. Gentleman from the other side was discussed at very great length. The question of the second vote for the occupation of premises was left at a certain stage in a very anomalous position. There was for a long time no question at all of the repeal of the old Act, which said that a man should only have one vote in places like Manchester or Liverpool or Glasgow or Edinburgh; and 264 it was not until proportional representation had been agreed to that my friends and those of us who on principle are opposed to plural voting altogether, and who do not even like the dual vote in the compromise, agreed to it, because we saw that it made a complete compromise, it destroyed anomalies all over the country, and put people in Manchester, in London, and everywhere else on the same footing. But if the compromise is destroyed with regard to proportional representation, that goes far beyond what we were willing to agree to in the matter of the dual vote, although the Noble Lord gets what he calls an additional safeguard by having many hundreds of votes which lie would not have had. If proportional representation had not come into this Bill this part never would have been agreed to upstairs, and I do not think it would ever have been asked for. It certainly was not asked for until proportional representation was in the Bill, and therefore we are in this peculiar position. Like the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Samuel), I do not want to put it in now, but I say to the Government that if, after full consideration, the compromise is departed from and proportional representation is not inserted, I, for one, cannot agree to creating a large number of dual voters in cities like Liverpool, where there are nine opportunities for it against three under the compromise; or in Glasgow, where there are probably eleven; or Manchester, where there are twelve or thirteen. I cannot agree to such a multiplication of dual voters in those cities as would occur if this Amendment is not inserted, providing the House does not eventually agree to proportional representation. Wherever we depart from the compromise I think we shall find we have upset some other part to such a degree as to endanger the whole compromise. This compromise gives us an opportunity for putting upon the Statute Book a Franchise Bill which if accepted in the spirit and in the totality with which it was brought into this House, will take us a huge stride forward and will give Members of all parties, I believe, a fair opportunity, and the more you depart from it the worse it is.

§ Mr. DICKINSON
On a point of Order This Debate turns really upon the question of what is meant by the word "constituency." The definition of "constituency" is in. Clause 28, and I submit 265 that that is the point where this matter should be discussed. It was defined in Clause 28 so that it coincided with the recommendations of the Conference, including proportional representation, and therefore if, before we got to Clause 28, the Committee has decided definitely about proportional representation, it will be necessary to make some alteration in Clause 28 in the definition of "constituency," and I submit that it would be better, not only from the point of view of order, to have the discussion on Clause 28 but it would be better from the point of view of the convenience of the Committee, because by that time we shall know more about what the House decides on proportional representation.

§ The CHAIRMAN
I have actually on my notes here, "See Clause 28, Sub-section (21). Not needed here." So I had in mind the same point. But a preliminary discussion like this does not do any harm and it draws the attention of the Committee to what we shall arrive at. Of course its need or otherwise will depend upon the decision of the Committee when we come to Clause 15. I think the hon Member was quite sound in that respect, and perhaps, after this preliminary canter, he will be satisfied with having drawn so much attention to it.

Mr. FISHER
I think it is well to have some preliminary conversation at all events on the effects of this Amendment. It raises a very important question. Of course, the discussion must take a somewhat wider range than that taken by some of the Amendments which have been raised this afternoon. After all, it raises the whole question of the amount of plural voting which the House is ready by general consent to allow. There has been very sharp cleavage of opinion in the past about plural voting. The Speaker's Conference came to the conclusion that it did not desire to shut out an additional vote for business premises, and it deliberately allowed a vote for residence and a vote for business premises. But at the same time, when it came to consider the question of great areas like London and other large towns—but most particularly London—it said, "Yes, we will allow that amount of plural voting for your residence and for your business occupation, but we intend that London shall adopt a system of proportional representation." And if the system of proportional representation, had been 266 adopted, this question never could have arisen as to whether a plural vote should be exercised in a division of a Parliamentary borough. That is the whole question. There is no desire to disturb the decision of the Speaker's Conference, that a vote shall be accorded to one particular person for his residence and to that same person for his business qualification, provided that it is in a different constituency, and that constituency is not a part of the same Parliamentary borough. That is the question raised by the Amendment, and it is very difficult to obtain any real light or leading from the Speaker's Conference on the point. I am not going to say on behalf of the Government that this is not the point at which we ought to come to a decision, because I quite agree that this must be governed to a very large extent by the decision to which the House comes when we come to finally dispose of Clause 15 and the whole question of proportional representation.

HON. MEMBERS
Why should we?

Mr. FISHER
Because proportional representation really affects the whole decision of the Speaker's Conference. I was not a member of that Conference, but I am quite willing to believe the members of it who tell me they never would have consented to allow the additional vote to be given to a particular man for his residence and for his business premises in divisions of the same Parliamentary borough, but that when they were considering that they had it in their minds that the whole of the Resolutions of the Speaker's Conference would be carried out by the House, and therefore they never would have had to decide that a man would have a vote, say, for a residence in West Islington, and also a vote for business premises in East Islington, or you may take Bristol or any other town. That, I believe, was at the back of the mind of those who were willing to agree to that amount of plural voting. Then it is hardly fair to ask the Committee to come to a decision on the point until it has come to its final conclusion as to proportional representation. After it has come to a conclusion about proportional representation the law will stand in this way. The man will have a vote for his residence, say, in Islington, and he will also have a vote for his business premises in St. Pancras, in another Parliamentary borough. A doubt will arise in the minds 267 of many as to whether the man ought to have a vote for his residence in one division of a Parliamentary borough and another vote for his business premises in another division of the same Parliamentary borough. I have given no opinion upon that at all. I quite agree that this is a matter which ought to be left an open question to be debated later. My hon. Friend's Amendment would go too far, because the man would be able to vote in more than one division of a Parliamentary borough provided it has separate constituencies, even though that borough were divided into only two separate constituencies. That might possibly be going too far. It is not really important to go into that matter now as to whether particular words would carry out the intention of the House. On behalf of the Government I think I have satisfied the Committee that this is a matter which ought not to be disposed of until we come to a final decision as to whether or not we adopt proportional representation, and then we can argue this case whether plural voting should be allowed where the plural vote is in another division of the same Parliamentary constituency. There may be something to be said for that, and there is something to be said against it. The Committee must remember that as the Clause stands now a man may have, and does have, and justly has, a vote for his residence, say, in Islington, and a vote for his business premises, say, in the City of London; but lie cannot have a vote for his residence in one division of Islington and another vote for his business premises in another division of Islington. If you are not going to accept some such an Amendment, undoubtedly the House would be giving its adhesion to a considerable augmentation of the present plural voting power.

§ Mr. HARRIS
I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

HON MEMBERS
No!

§ Sir F. BANBURY
This is a very important Amendment, and I want to say something in regard to it. I have listened with great interest to what the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Hayes Fisher) has said, and I agree with him that a person having a vote in East Islington in respect of his residence, and a business qualification in West Islington, cannot vote in both cases. But I want to draw his attention to what 268 the Speakers Conference Report says, in paragraph (11), Sub-section (b). It says that a constituency, where a county or borough is divided (or the purpose of Parliamentary elections, means a division of the county or borough so divided. It is quite clear that the Speaker's Conference recommend that where a Parliamentary borough is divided into constituencies for the purpose of Parliamentary elections, that that division should be a Parliamentary borough. A person would be entitled to have a vote both in that particular borough for his residential or occupation qualification and in another borough. It is quite true that paragraph 16 says: Where there are contiguous boroughs which, if formed into a single constituency, would he entitled to return not less than three, nor more than five members, it shall be an Instruction to the Boundary Commissioners to unite such boroughs into a single constituency. Underneath that, however, there is a paragraph in brackets, which says: This resolution would only become applicable in the event of a system of proportional representation being adopted, as recommended in a subsequent resolution. It does not refer to the other point to which I have just alluded. That is left as it 1s. It is left as a recommendation of the Speaker's Conference that where a county or borough is divided for the purpose of Parliamentary elections such division shall mean a Parliamentary borough. The only thing which is not applicable is paragraph (16), which I have read. Let me point out to hon. Members what the Conservative party have given up. Nobody seems to consider for a moment what we have given up. All this is based upon the statement that the Liberal party are opposed to plural voting. We knew that already. They are opposed to plural voting, and they have very nearly abolished it, but the Speaker's Conference have left certain remnants. Now hon. Members come down and say, "We thought that proportional representation would nullify that to a certain extent, and now because proportional representation has not been adopted we want to go behind the terms of the Conference and take away the remnant which is left of plural voting." That is one of the reasons why I left the Conference, because it became apparent to me at once that the members of the Liberal party and of the Labour party never recognised that we had certain things. They wanted us to give up what we had got and to give up nothing that 269 they had got. They call that a compromise. I do not call it a compromise. A compromise is when both parties give up something; not something which they have not got—but what they would like to get—but something which they have got. That was not the attitude of the Liberal party. They did not want to give up anything they had got. They said, "We have not got this, but you have got it. We should like to take all of it away, but we cannot do that, so we will take away what we can." That is not my idea of a compromise. This is a very important point, and I hope we shall take a very strong stand upon it. Look what the Conservative party are going to give up. They are giving up the ownership vote, they are giving up the treble, as it may be, residential vote, and all they are going to retain is one extra vote, and that only if it is obtained for business premises. Surely, wherever that extra vote is, they ought to be allowed to exercise it. It is a very simple proposition which is not touched in any kind of way by proportional representation, and which, as I have shown by quotations from the Report of the Speaker's Conference, is not touched. By the words in brackets after paragraph (16) it is evident that the Speaker's Conference thought it was possible proportional representation would not be carried, and they put in words to say that paragraph (16) would only become applicable in case proportional representation was carried. They do not say anything about alteration in this matter. Therefore, I do hope that this Amendment will be rejected, and that we shall stand boldly for the very little that has been left to us in this so-called Conference.

§ Sir R. ADKINS
I understood you, Mr. Whitley, in reply to the right hon. Member for St. Pancras (Mr. Dickinson), to say that in your judgment this Amendment was more appropriate to the Clause which defines a constituency. You said that before acting as Chairman of the Committee, in accordance with that view, you would allow what was pleasantly called a preliminary canter. That preliminary canter has now taken the form of alarms and excursions, which must lead to similar kind of utterances from other parts of the House; and I ask you whether this Amendment at this place is not out of order, and whether it would only be in order on Clause 28, when the definition of "constituency" has to be settled?

§ Lord H. CECIL
I submit that it is not now in the power of the Chair to restrict the discussion. The matter is now in the hands of the Committee, and I most earnestly protest against the efforts which some hon. Members are making to diminish the fast waning powers of the Committee over its own business, thus placing authority increasingly in the Chair, which means—however much confidence we may have in the occupant of the Chair—the destruction of legitimate Parliamentary debate.

§ The CHAIRMAN
I think the Noble Lord himself has put points of Order now and then. I am afraid I cannot agree with him.

§ Mr. WHITEHOUSE
May I ask whether, permission to withdraw this Amendment having been refused, you have to put it from the Chair, and, if it is negatived, will it prevent the same point being raised on a later Clause?

§ The CHAIRMAN
Dealing strictly with the point of Order, I do not think I can absolutely say that this Amendment is out of order. It has been permitted to be moved, and certain discussion has proceeded. It is quite true that, contrary to what the Noble Lord suggested, it is within the power of the Chairman, and it is his duty in certain circumstances, to withdraw an Amendment from the Committee, even after debate, if it appears to him during the Debate that it is not in order. I have exercised that power in certain circumstances, but I do not feel called upon in the present circumstances to do that. If, however, the Committee is at all willing to accept my advice, I will repeat what I said before, that it is clear that this Amendment depends upon the decision of the House upon Clause 1s. [HON. MEMBERS: "NO, no!"] That is my opinion. On the actual point of the Amendment I am not prepared to rule that it is out of order. With regard to the other point raised by the hon. Member (Mr. Whitehouse), if an alteration is made in the Bill in Clause 15 which affects this matter, I shall not now rule against the matter being subsequently brought up in the place which I suggest as the right place, namely, Clause 28. I think that makes the point clear.

§ Mr. WHITEHOUSE
Does that mean I that if any alteration is made with regard 271 to reversing the decision of the House on proportional representation it would not be possible again to raise this matter?

§ The CHAIRMAN
I do not think so. On Clause 28, I think, it would be open to the Committee to review the position with regard to this second vote in the light of what has been done on the previous Clauses in the Bill. The Committee will then be in a clear position to come to a decision in view of all the circumstances. At the present moment the Committee cannot be in possession of all the circumstances.

§ Sir W. BULL
I wish to enter a caveat at once in order to describe exactly how this came about. I would not like it to be said later that one did not give one's views of what happened at the Conference. Therefore, I should like to put those views before any decision is arrived at. I do not agree for one moment that this matter depends upon what happens in regard to proportional representation. This part of the reform franchise was dealt with long before we considered proportional representation. It is within the memory of members of the Speaker's Conference that when we gave up the duplicate vote we said very strongly that there should be two votes, and a university vote as well. Mr. Speaker said that he thought that three votes were out of the question, and he thought it was better we should only have two. He agreed that a compromise should be come to in regard to two votes, as a fair arrangement. We came to that agreement. I think it was the hon. Member for Norwood who finally moved that there should be a fresh plural vote instituted in constituencies adjoining each other. That is, if a man lived in one constituency and had a business in another constituency, that those two votes should stand. That is what we stood by as part of the compromise. Those who were not at the Speaker's Conference do not know what happened. It. really had not anything to do with proportional representation. The two things did not hang one on the other. I believe that if you turn to the minutes you would see the historical way in which the thing was dealt with was that we now and then went backwards and forwards. Perhaps we forgot one thing and the Speaker said, "we will discuss something else." But the question of franchise was dealt with 272 independently of proportional representation. I should not like to come down here on Clause 15 and give this version of the story as if I had made it for the purpose of fitting in with what I wished. In my opinion—I may be wrong—the question of the two votes was a fundamental part of the compromise that was come to.

§ Sir F. BANBURY
May I ask whether it has not always been held that where an Amendment has been negatived that Amendment cannot be brought forward again in Committee though it may be brought forward again on the Report stage?

§ Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT
Apart from the theoretical aspect of it, is it not the case that the Amendment to the definition of a constituency would be quite a distinct Amendment from this, which would have quite distinct reasons, and therefore would be a different Amendment?

§ The CHAIRMAN
That is a matter which I can only deal with when it arises. I think that the hon. Baronet is correct to this extent, that if a specific proposition is decided by the Committee, then as far as this stage is concerned, it stands. The other point I must deal with when it arises.

§ Sir J. SIMON
I am anxious as far as I can to follow what I think is your own suggestion, and not to raise any new matter at this stage of the Debate. The position has been saved by your ruling, and I think that it is much better we should get on. But with reference to the statement of my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith, I regret very much that my own recollection does not in this matter quite agree with his. It is quite easy for people approaching these questions, perhaps from rather different angles to emphasise rather different points, but my own recollection is this, that the question which is now dealt with in 11 (b) namely, the definition of a constituency for the purpose of limiting plural voting was a question which I think was raised at the very end of the Conference proceedings. It appeared quite late in the proceedings of the Conference that that was a point which had got to be considered, and there was quite a natural argument on the one side that the proper model to follow was London, where you do get people voting more than once—it may be inside London—and on the other side that the proper model was 273 the Provincial model in places such as Liverpool and Manchester. I am quite confident, in view of the fact that the constituencies proposed for the big Provincial towns would be large constituencies, that consequently you would not be greatly aggravating what we regard as the plural voting evil. It was in the light of that that some of us, in view of our own opinion on Clause 15, were willing to say that to that extent it multiplied the opportunities for plural voting, compared with what they would be if the law in these great provincial cities remains what it is to-day. On the point of merit, the Noble Lord gave a very odd account of the argument now put forward. He seemed to treat the claim now made as adding insult to injury. He says that the Bill introduced was a Bill which provided for proportional representation, which he said," is a thing which I, among others, care about. When, for the time being, proportional representation is taken out of the Bill that is an insult. Now yon are actually coming down and suggesting that there ought to be no plural voting within the boundaries, say, of Liverpool. That is an injury. It is not an emollient to the first stripe to inflict a second stripe." That is not my notion of the position at all. My notion of the position is say, that the Noble Lord and I made a bargain together, I to hand him my watch in return for his handing me his money. The Noble Lord has now got a decision that he is not to hand me his money, and when I proceed to say that I do not propose to give you my watch then he says that is adding insult to injury.

§ Mr. PETO
The order in which these matters were dealt with is indicated in the Report. First there were the least contentious matters. There was the registration of electors which we considered for a day or two. Then we approached the outskirts of the controversial matters. The first substantial question dealt with was the reform of the franchise. On that the main principle was that plural voting was to go with the exception of two votes, one residential, and the other occupational. It is true that as the right hon. and learned Gentleman has said that the controversy with regard to the definition of constituency came later. It was present to all our minds that, if proportional representation carried the day and was made ultimately part of the settlement, it would limit to that extent even in large 274 constituencies in great places like Liverpool and Glasgow the opportunity for exercising plural votes. As I understand the Amendment before the House goes far, beyond that, and says that in no circumstances is the voter within the confines of a borough to vote in respect both of a, business qualification and residential qualification. The utmost that proportional representation would do would be that in a city like Liverpool to make it possible to exercise only two votes if you happened to live in a different third of that town, and therefore a very large number of people with a residential and business qualification in Liverpool in spite of proportional representation would exercise the two votes in Liverpool. This question of proportional representation is put in on page 5 of the Report in: its proper place in reference to boroughs, and the recommendation is to become applicable only in the event of proportional representation being adopted. That is how we left it. The hon. Baronet will remember it because he was there at the time and it was the first substantial point while he was there. One of our regrets was that Lord Grey's health broke-down, and he left the Conference before the question of proportional representation was ever discussed. Therefore, hon. Members will see that the whole of this idea that the exercise of the dual vote in the mind of any member of the Conference hangs upon the question of proportional representation is altogether unfounded and misconceived, and I do not believe that there was anyone who was present at the Conference and who taxes his memory who will trace any connection between the two things any further than I have indicated. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Walthamstow tried to limit the circle of the exercise of the vote to that small extent. In Glasgow you might have five places and in Liverpool three places, but it was never contemplated by anybody that the exercise of the dual vote is so restricted that in no-circumstances should you exercise two votes within the confines of one great borough.

§ Mr. C. ROBERTS
To prevent possible misunderstanding which may arise, as I understand the point which this Amendment is intended to deal with will be cleared away if the House comes to the-conclusion that the limited experiment of proportional representation may be tried, 275 but if the House comes to an adverse decision then two doubts must be in our mind. The one is the doubt whether it is possible to raise this Amendment again, and on that the Chairman has only ruled that he will decide when he arrives at Clause 28 or on Report. But at all events, we are not very certain of getting this particular point dealt with when we arrive at Clause 28, and the Report stage is not a very favourable opportunity. The other point is this. I listened carefully to what the Secretary of the Local Government Board said. He made a speech very sympathetic towards this Amendment, but did not go very far. What he said was, that assuming that the Committee decided against proportional representation, then he thought that it might be left to the House whether they should accept this Amendment or not. That is possibly as far as he could go, but it is not a very firm or cast-iron undertaking, and it is not much to trust to. It is quite obvious that there is a considerable portion of this House which means by no means to concede this Amendment if it can possibly stop it. I do not think I have misrepresented the attitude of mind of the hon. Member for Hammersmith. Therefore, I think it is for the House to take notice of that when we come to Clause 15.

§ Mr. DICKINSON
Will it be competent to move now, that the question be not now put but to leave the Motion where it remains, and would it preclude a full discussion on this question when we arrive at Clause 28?

§ The CHAIRMAN
I do not think so. I do not think that I have ever heard in Committee of the Motion that the question be not now put. That question, as far as the Committee is concerned, has always been considered irregular. The Report stage is the proper stage for reviewing a decision of the Committee, if it is not open on the remainder of the Committee stage. The hon. Member, who moved the Amendment, asked leave to withdraw it. That leave was refused. Therefore, the Committee, I think, must come to a decision at this particular point.

Mr. H. SAMUEL
If the Amendment is moved now, and if proportional representation be struck out of the Bill, in that state of circumstances can the matter be heard afresh?

§ Sir W. BULL
I have no objection to withdraw the Amendment.

§ The CHAIRMAN
I am very glad the hon. Member is taking that course.

§ Sir G. CAVE
I beg to move, in Subsection (1), to leave out the words" two constituencies" ["for more than two constituencies"], and to insert instead thereof the words" one constituency for which she is registered by virtue of her own or her husband's local government qualification, or for more than one constituency for which she is registered by virtue of any other qualification."

§ Sir F. BANBURY
This question was discussed some time ago, and I pointed out that the House would deprive the woman of one of her votes. I think we ought to have some explanation from the Home Secretary as to whether that interpretation is correct. I think it was admitted that it was correct, and if it is correct, I submit that the Home Secretary should put in some new words which would meet the objections which have been raised, and he might do that on the Report stage. We all desire that the woman should not be in a better position than the man, but, on the other hand, we all wish that she should be put in the same position as the man.

§ Sir G. CAVE
We are all agreed that something should be done in the circumstances, and, if the right hon. Gentleman considers it, he will see that the matter is very difficult, and that it is necessary to put the provision of the Bill in this way. The Bill as drafted went too far, for it gave the woman an advantage over the man, an advantage that it was not desirable she should have. Nobody has yet been able to suggest to me any other form of words which would meet this difficulty.

§ Sir F. BANBURY
So far as I can make out. Clause 4 says that A woman shall be entitled to be registered as a Parliamentary elector for a constituency (other than a university constituency) if she has attained the age of thirty years and is entitled to be registered as a local government elector in respect of land or premises in that constituency, or is the wife of a husband entitled to be so registered. 277 Then the Clause also goes on to say that: A woman shall be entitled to be registered as a local government elector for any local government electoral area where she would be entitled to be so registered if she were a man, provided that a husband and wife shall not both be qualified as local government electors in respect of the same property. My contention is that the woman is qualified under that Clause to be registered as a Parliamentary elector if her husband is registered as a local government elector in the area in which she is registered, that then the woman also gets the vote and is also entitled to be registered as a local government elector, in which case she would also get the Parliamentary vote in respect of the premises. Take the case of a woman married and who lives with her husband at Hampstead. She is entitled to the Parliamentary vote because her husband is on the local government register. She would also be entitled to vote in respect of a theatre, because if she were a man she would be on the local government register for that particular business of the theatre. This Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman takes one of these qualifications from her, and I think that is wrong. I am opposed to the franchise for women, but, now that it is given, I am not like the right hon. Member for St. Pancras (Mr. Dickinson), who is a supporter of women's suffrage, but who seems to be actuated by a desire to prevent women from exercising the vote. I always find that he is desirous of limiting their exercise of a vote, and he voted against women having the vote at twenty-one. If there is any particular Clause which will minimise the woman's vote in any kind of way, the right hon. Member seems only too anxious to do so. For my part I do not hold that view. Having committed ourselves to giving votes to women, we say that you should do it on the same grounds as you do it for men. I think my contentions are right, and I again ask the Home Secretary not to press this Amendment at the present moment as it might put women in an invidious position or in a worse position than the man. The right hon. Gentleman should endeavour, on the Report stage, to put in words which would place her in the same position as the man. I think that is a very reasonable request to make. It is very difficult to remember 278 on the Report stage, which may not be reached for some weeks, what has taken place in the Committee stage, and therefore I think it would be better not to deal with the Amendment now, but to take it on the Report stage, after the right hon. Gentleman has had an opportunity of considering what words should be put in.

§ Sir J. D. REES
I support the right hon. Baronet's appeal, and I think he has expressed the position of many of those who are opposed to female suffrage, but who, now that women are to have the vote, feel that they should have it on exactly the same terms as men. To me it seems that the definition now introduced by the Home Secretary's Amendment would put the woman on a different footing from the man.

§ Sir G. YOUNGER
I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment, to leave out the words "her own or her husband's local government qualification, or for more than one constituency for which she is registered by virtue of any other qualification," and to insert instead thereof the words" a local government qualification in respect of premises occupied by her as a dwelling-house, or by virtue of Her husband's local government qualification in respect of premises occupied in which they both reside, or for more than one constituency for which she is registered by virtue of other qualifications of whatever kind."
I cannot see why a woman should not get the vote in her own right, nor can I understand how she can be kept out of it. Whether or not the words I propose cover the point I do not know, but I submit the Amendment for the Home Secretary's consideration.

§ Sir G. CAVE
I will think about these words and look at them carefully to see whether it can be done. At present I do not see that it can.

§ Sir F. BANBURY
Are we to understand that the Home Secretary will consider this Amendment or propose his own words? Will he really consider whether these or other words can be put in the Bill on the Report stage that will carry out the desire expressed by the hon. Member for Ayr Burghs? I do not think the right hon. Gentleman desires to deprive the woman of a vote, and perhaps he can give us an undertaking in regard to the matter?

§ Sir G. CAVE
I will think about this Amendment and see what it amounts to.

§ Colonel GRETTON
I beg to move, at the end of the Clause, to insert the words, "This Section shall have effect not-withstanding any provision of the Ballot Act of 1872."
Section 24 of the Ballot Act of 1872 provides that it shall be an offence if a man who has voted once applies at the same election for another paper in his own name. The Board of Commissioners are at present considering the boundaries of the constituencies, and, whatever changes may take place, we will have two-member borough constituencies, and the same will be the case in some counties. This does not involve the question of proportional representation, because in two-member boroughs that would not apply. I do not think it is intended that those who get the business qualification vote and the residential qualification vote should lose their votes when in constituencies in the same borough or in a county. As the law stands, there are heavy penalties for voting twice at the same Parliamentary election. For that reason, these words, or words of a somewhat similar kind, are necessary in order to make effective the provisions of this Clause.

§ Mr. L. SCOTT
I think a further word or two of explanation is necessary. Section 24 of the Ballot Act of 1872 provides that it shall be an offence of personation not only if a man votes in the name of some other person, but if he is a man who, having voted once at an election in a borough or county, applies at the same election far another paper in his own name. In the case of a borough like Liverpool, which is divided into different Parliamentary divisions, the effect of that Act is that the voter can only vote once at the election for Liverpool, although there are separate elections for each one of the divisions of Liverpool on the same day. In the Bill, as proposed, a man is to have a second vote for his business premises, irrespective of any such limitation as that. Consequently, if you leave Section 24 of the Act of 1872 standing, it has got to be read with the provisions of this Bill, and it is quite clear, if I may express an opinion as a lawyer, that it would be read in such a way as to 280 take from the business qualification voter the value of his business qualification if he happened to be within the same borough or the same county. The Speaker's Conference did not contemplate any such limitation as that, and, consequently, words to this effect are necessary to prevent that happening.

§ Sir G. CAVE
This seems to raise in, another form the point about which there was a discussion just now. Instead of accepting these words now, my present view is that this point had better stand over for consideration.

Mr. H. SAMUEL
The course which the right hon. Gentleman has suggested is, I think, a very wise one. If the Bill standing in this respect as it is now, certainly before it leaves this House we ought to modify any provision which is inconsistent with it, and I think it is quite clear that we cannot have two Statutes which contradict one another. It seems to me a pity to raise this question afresh and to put in additional provisions in the Bill in a sense which many of us object to if later on. the whole Bill in this particular is to be recast. Therefore, it appears to me that the right course would be to leave this over until we come to a final decision in the Committee stage. I quite agree with the hon. Member (Mr. L. Scott) if it is decided to leave the Bill as it now stands in Clause 7, then at some stage his desire ought to be met, and an Amendment in the sense he desires ought to be included.

§ Colonel GRETTON
Even if the question of proportional representation is decided in a way contrary to the vote given the other day, I would point out to the right hon. Gentleman that the difficulty with which I propose to deal would still arise in a borough with two members. I suggest that it would be safe to take these words, or some such words now for that reason. If the right hon. Gentleman realises that point as to the two-member borough or county, even should proportional representation be adopted, and if he agrees to deal with it on Report, I am quite willing to withdraw. I should like to have an assurance on that point.

§ Sir G. CAVE
I entirely realise the point, and I noticed it myself and mentioned it to my right hon. Friend before we came to this Amendment.

§ Colonel GRETTON
On that assurance I ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

§ The CHAIRMAN
The Question is that leave be given to withdraw the Amendment.

§ Mr. KING
I object to the Amendment feeing withdrawn. I think it is much better that it should be negatived.

§ Sir F. BANBURY
Now that the Clause is amended, I suppose that does not make any difference to the undertaking given by the Home Secretary that on the Report stage he will consider this matter?

§ Sir G. CAVE
No.

§ Mr. KING
In reply to the right hon. Baronet (Sir F. Banbury), I wish to reserve my right to speak on this subject later. There are very good reasons, which arc shared by a great number of Members, why this Amendment should be negatived and not later on put in the Bill.