HC Deb 31 January 1918 vol 101 cc1857-67

(3) This Section applies to any person who is of the age required under this Act in the case of that person and is not subject to any legal incapacity, and who—

  1. (i) is serving on full pay as a member of any of the naval or military forces of the Crown; or
  2. (ii) is abroad or afloat in connection with any war in which His Majesty is engaged, and is engaged, and is—
  1. (a) in service of a naval or military character for which payment is made out of moneys provided by Parliament; or
  2. (b) serving in any work of the British Red Cross Society, or the Order of St. John of Jerusalem in England, or any other body with a similar object.

Lords Amendment:

In Sub-section (3, ii, a), after the word "Parliament" ["provided by Parliament."], insert the words, "or out of the public funds of any part of His Majesty's Dominions or in service as a merchant seaman, pilot, or fisherman, including the master of a merchant ship or fishing boat and an apprentice on such ship or boat."

Mr. FISHER

I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

This Amendment is in two separate portions, one of which is designed to include Dominion soldiers, and the second part to bring in merchant seamen.

Mr. SAMUEL

This raises a point of very considerable substance and importance which seems to have been overlooked in another place. It is a proposal to insert that any person shall have the military or naval vote who has received payment not only out of moneys provided by Parliament, but also out of public funds of any part of His Majesty's Dominions. I should like to know why those words have been put in. We, of course, have every reason for appreciation and gratitude for all the soldiers who have been sent to the assistance of the Empire in this War from other parts of His Majesty's Dominions. But mark what would be the effect of this Clause if inserted in this form! I ask the special attention of the House to the matter, because it is one of importance and gives rise to some very surprising results. Any Canadian battalion which has been here for six months will be enfranchised under the Bill as it stood. That is, perhaps, rather a surprising thing, but still the effect of the residence qualification is that any person who has lived anywhere for six months in this country and who is a British subject—as, of course, they are—will have the vote. However, that would not very much matter, because in all probability when the election comes they will have moved elsewhere. Now they are brought in as naval and military voters, and consequently will be enfranchised from the age of nineteen, and they will have the postal vote if within reach of the post at election time, and, if not, they will have the proxy vote. So that any portion of the Canadian or New Zealand or South African Army or any of our Indian forces or subjects from Africa or anywhere else who have lived in this country for six months for the purposes of training during the War will not only be put on the register for the purpose of voting, but will have ballot papers sent to them in France, or be called upon to appoint proxies if in different parts, and will have to vote apparently for the constituency in which they carried out their training. Surely that is not what is intended by either the Government or by those who inserted this Amendment in the other House. It may be said that there are comparatively few who would have been here so long as six months. I do not know whether that is so or not, but it is generally supposed that there is one Canadian division which has been here for a prolonged period. I do not know whether it is still here or not. I would like to ask the representatives of the Government how this matter stands, and whether I am wrong in thinking that the somewhat surprising result which I have sketched will really follow from the acceptance of the Amendment?

Mr. FISHER

I think the right hon. Gentleman is right that the effect of this will be that all those who obtain money out of the public funds of any part of His Majesty's Dominions will, by this Amendment, be entitled to the vote, and I think it would include a large number serving here at the present time. I am not sure that I should object, on merits, if these soldiers were residing, and are residing, in this country for some considerable period, to their being on the register and taking part in the political life of this country.

Mr. HEALY

They would also have the vote in Canada.

Mr. FISHER

They would, to that extent, be double voters.

Mr. SAMUEL

If any of our soldiers were quartered in Canada for six months' training, should we expect the Canadian Government to enfranchise them for the election for the Dominion Parliament?

Mr. FISHER

I am not sure they would not be enfranchised if quartered there for that period. I rather think they would be. As a matter of fact, it would work out in this way. If British soldiers were quartered in Canada for a year, and if they did obtain votes for an election for the Canadian Parliament, that would cease to operate, because probably at the end of the year they would return to their own country; similarly, after this War, we can hardly expect that any large number of Dominion troops will be stationed in this country. If they attain the qualification in the usual way, why should they not have the vote?

Mr. SAMUEL

My point is that they are here for training, and when they leave they will be given proxy votes by this Clause.

Mr. FISHER

I think if this Amendment is accepted they will probably be enfranchised. They will be placed on the same footing as the British soldier. While I have not had the opportunity of hearing the discussion in another place, or of hearing it discussed in this House, again on merits I can perceive there will be no grave objection to including men who are stationed here, say, for six months, amongst those who will elect our Parliament. That is a matter on which, perhaps, there may be a considerable difference of opinion. My own opinion would be that they would be well qualified, and rightly qualified, to take part in the next election. After that election they would probably nearly all return to their own country—all except a very few who are going to make their permanent home here. We must recollect that the whole of this operation of the franchise is almost dominated by war considerations. The next register will be made up on absolutely different lines from any register that has ever been made up before. It will be made up with a view to putting on the register as many as possible soldiers and sailors who have any reasonable claim to be put on, and if any Dominion soldiers and sailors should find themselves on the register because they had been quartered here, say, for six months, and are still residing here when an election takes place, or if a proxy vote has to be sent to them, I do not think we should be a loser in that way, or that we should have a worse Parliament from the fact that even a few thousands of these men were to take part in our election. I know of no argu- ment advanced in another place for this Amendment, because I was not able to follow it, but it is not an Amendment with which I propose to disagree. On the contrary, I agree with it. We enlarge our franchise, and give the opportunity to our Dominion soldiers who have been quartered here some time to take part in the next election, if they are so disposed, and are qualified.

Mr. P. A. HARRIS

I must say I think the argument of the right hon. Gentleman is a very remarkable one. Does he really think it would be a good thing that Colonials in training in this country should be in a position to influence the future development of this country? Take one practical question—take the question of licensing. The system of licensing in Canada and the attitude there on the drink question are very different from this country. During the War the Canadians—I do not say wrongly, and, from my point of view, I think very rightly—decided they would have total prohibition. Now the attitude of this country on that subject is very different. Will Canadians who happen to be in training in this country be able in their district to put in as their member a prohibition candidate, although the English electors may hold very different views on that particular problem? There are a great many other questions. They cannot possibly know the public opinion of this country, and understand the working of our laws, and I think if our soldiers bad to be quartered for various reasons in South Africa, South Africans would be the very first to take Exception to our soldiers interfering with their elections, and sending to their Parliament members not representing South African views, but English views. I really hope the right hon. Gentleman will not accept this suggestion of the Lords. It would be really the negation of representative government, because it would be introducing practically an element with no location and no interest in the future political development of the country, and would, I am sure, be forming a bad precedent that would create, instead of good feeling in the Empire, bad feeling and hostility between the component parts.

Sir E. POLLOCK

I believe that this Amendment is not intended to carry out the wide purpose which was indicated by the right hon. Gentleman the President of The Local Government Board. I think myself, after such consideration as I have been able to give to the Clause, that it is all governed by the question of whether the soldier or sailor is not subject to any legal incapacity, and I think the intention of the Clause is this: you may find some soldier or sailor who is for the time being at any rate in, or possibly has joined, some forces which are paid by the Dominions, and not out of moneys paid by Parliament, and if he is receiving pay from some other source—from the Dominions—he is not, therefore, held to be disqualified, and that pay is just as good as the pay received from Parliament. I believe it was only for that purpose that this Clause could have been put in. A very large question indeed would arise, because, so far as I know, a man shall he entitled to register if he is of full age and not subject to any legal incapacity. For that purpose he must be an actual subject of the King in Great Britain. I am not going to develop a long, legal argument, but I venture to say that I think that would be held to be the law. If that be so, that is one of the reasons why in this Clause, as well as in all other Clauses which refer to this matter, you get the words "or not subject to any legal incapacity" over and over again. Whilst I am not prepared at this stage of the Bill, and would think it very unwise, to discuss all the persons who may be British subjects, it is evident, I think, that it was not the intention of the House of Lords to make Empire plural voters, and to give the right suggested here to any soldier or sailor belonging to the Overseas naval or other contingents who have been quartered for the purpose of the War here for a short time to become voters. The right hon. Gentleman has said that his other duties prevented him hearing the Debate in the House of Lords; for my own part I cannot help feeling that there must have been some indication of the sort to which f have referred in the House of Lords when this Amendment was put in.

9.0 P.M.

Mr. FISHER

At the very beginning of the Debate, when I moved to agree with the Clause, I did so because in my opinion it was desirable to cover the cases of those soldiers and sailors who had had a residence were, but who, for one reason or another, were paid out of the public funds of Canada, Australia, or the Union of South Africa. Whereupon my right hon. Friend opposite asked "Does not this really cover really more than that? Does it not cover soldiers who have really been Dominion soldiers who have been paid out of the funds of the Dominions residing here possibly for six months, and never in any permanent habitation, but here only for the purposes of the War?" To that I replied that I thought the words were open to that interpretation, and that the little parasol had turned into a rather big umbrella, with a large sheltering capacity. It would appear that—what I take it was never intended—after a residence of six months for the purposes of the War if an election came along Dominion soldiers, if they were physically fit to take part, would be able to be on the register and be able to give a postal vote. I agree with my right hon. Friend opposite in that interpretation. I may be right or I may be wrong, but I still think that the intention of the other House was really to cover those other soldiers who had a residence here, and who for some reason or another were paid out of the funds of the Dominions. I still think that the intention of another place in this Amendment. If the result of it was, as I say, to erect a bigger umbrella which would cover not only a few thousands of soldiers who were Dominion soldiers, either abroad or at home in connection with the War, but many others—if the words were so wide as to cover those and to give them the vote, not for one election—that is, the next election after the new register is made out—but for other elections, then that is another matter. I did not myself see that, and therefore I moved to agree. I did so thinking the Amendment would only cover the smaller section to which I have alluded. If it did so happen that it covered a larger class, as the right hon. Gentleman thinks under this Amendment it would, I do not see any great objection to reconsidering the matter.

Mr. SAMUEL

The right hon. Gentleman said—

Sir W. DICKINSON

Perhaps it might clear up matters if I may be allowed to read, in a few words, what took place in the House of Lords: Viscount Peel moved, in paragraph (a) of Subsection (3), after the word 'Parliament,' to insert or out of the public funds of any part of His Majesty's Dominions'; and after the first 'or' to insert in service.' The Noble Viscount said, 'This Amendment is to meet a point which was raised by Lord Burnham, namely, the case of those members of the Dominion Forces who can claim a vote in this country. These words fulfil that obligation.' Viscount Harcourt: Before this Amendment is moved I should like to ask a question. I imagine that a Canadian resident for six months, say on Salisbury Plain, can become a voter for that district? I think that these words would apply to a Canadian so qualified the privileges which attach to the naval and military voter—that is they would make him a voter at nineteen instead of twenty-one, and I think they would enable him to exercise his vote by proxy or by post, even after he had left this country for good, if he were serving abroad with no intention of returning to this country. So long as the War lasted he would lie able to exercise a vote although he had left the country for good. Viscount Peel; I think the Noble Viscount knows that a man can exercise a vote so long as he is on the register. The question of residence applies only during the six months.' Then the Amendment was agreed to without further discussion.

Mr. SAMUEL

I think we are all agreed that we wish to enfranchise the people that the Lords originally intended to. At an earlier stage it was suggested there was a number of men really resident in England before the War who had for some reason or another joined the New Zealand or Australian Forces and were paid out of the funds of the Dominions. It was suggested that they ought not to lose their votes, and I think we were all agreed that some such Amendment as this should be made. Now it appears that this Amendment, from what it does, has a much wider significance. I do not think anyone will dispute that those concerned are under no legal incapacity seeing that they are British subjects, and they would certainly be enfranchised. The President of the Local Government Board agrees they would be enfranchised—these men who had been here for six months in training. Let the House mark the consequences! The consequences will be that the military authorities will be obliged, by this Act, to get the names of all these men. The obligation is laid upon them to collect the names. The names, having been collected, must be put upon the register, as well as their place of residence. The Canadian or Australian battalions here for six months must be enfranchised for the constituency in Wiltshire in which Salisbury Plain is situated or for the borough of Folkestone, where, I think, Shorncliffe Camp is situated. If we pass this amazing proposal we shall find, as an inevitable consequence, to our immense surprise when we come to look at the register, that there will be ten, twenty, or thirty thousand Canadan and Australian soldiers enfranchised in the borough of Folkestone or in the county of Wiltshire. Is that really a situation which we can seriously contemplate? It is an absurdity. No one ever suggested it! They will be sent the papers for a postal vote for a member for Folkestone or for a constituency in Wiltshire, or, if they are in distant parts of the world, they will be required to appoint a proxy vote. I would, therefore, make this suggestion to my right hon. Friend. The Amendment in its present form clearly cannot be accepted by this House, and, as it is likely the House of Lords will be sitting on Monday or Tuesday to discuss some points of difference which may require to be discussed, I would suggest that we should disagree with this Amendment as it stands now on the understanding that we are quite willing to agree to an Amendment which would carry out what was the original intention of the House; and that the draftsman should attempt to draw up an Amendment which would have the precise consequences required by limiting the vote to those persons in England—the small class that we want to include—and exclude this possibly immense class that the Lords never intended to bring in and which, I think, the common sense of both 'louses agrees ought not to be brought in.

Mr. FISHER

This is a matter of legal interpretation. I doubt if any Law Officer were present whether he would be able to give us an opinion which would be reliable on a matter of this kind. There are two possible interpretations to which I am asked to agree. The first is that it would bring in very few men indeed who would have a residence here who came from the Dominions. The second interpretation is one which would undoubtedly place upon the register a great many more electors, but not tens of thousands, as the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Cleveland thought fit to suggest. That is absolutely impossible, for at the most this proposal might possibly bring in 2,000 or 3,000. I am in this position: I have already moved to agree with the Lords in their Amendment, but I admit that I did that before I thought of the possible interpretation which might be put upon this proposal. I do not feel at all sure that the second interpretation is the right one, and my own view is that it would be limited to a very few thousand of those who have been abroad in connection with the present War. I think it would be better for the House to adopt the attitude that it does not refuse the franchise to those who have qualified themselves by residence, and have been to another country for the purpose of fighting our battles. I think the House will put itself in a false position if it takes up the attitude of denying this privilege to these men. I do not say there is not some other way out of the difficulty than by refusing to enfranchise soldiers and sailors who are paid out of the funds of the Dominions.

Sir E. POLLOCK

Would it not be better to adopt the course we have already taken this afternoon, in which the Government have withdrawn their Amendment to agree, and have thus avoided any conflict, and then move to disagree? The Government can move to disagree with this Amendment, and at the same time an undertaking might be given that if this Clause came back in a different form it would be welcomed by this House. This is a course which has already been adopted by the Home Secretary this afternoon to meet a difficulty of a somewhat similar nature.

Mr. SAMUEL

Yes, we might disagree for the purpose of reconsideration.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Sir Donald Maclean)

I do not know what was done previously, but if the Motion were negatived the same effect would be produced.

Sir E. POLLOCK

There is this diference. In one case the responsibility of the Government is that they have definitely asked the House to agree, and possibly the House may disagree; while in the other case the Government would ask toe House not to agree to this Amendment upon the understanding that they would communicate with the other House on the point through their responsible advisers.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER

I will not take tae responsibility of doing anything else contrary to what Mr. Speaker has already done, and if that course has already been adopted by Mr. Speaker, I must follow it.

Mr. FISHER

I take it that the views of hon. Members are not in the least expressed against the desire of the other House that this should apply to soldiers who have a residence here, and who are paid out of the Dominion funds. If that is the intention, then this House will welcome any form of words which the other place would suggest to carry it out.

I understand that this House is apprehensive that these words might be made to cover a very much wider extension which the other place did not intend, and as the only possible way of getting this matter put right and getting the right interpretation we suggest for the moment disagreeing with the other place. On that understanding I am perfectly willing to adopt that attitude. I have made it clear that this House is not taking up the position that it desires to disfranchise the Dominion soldiers whom the other House desires to enfranchise. We are not taking up that attitude at all, but we think the words suggested by the other place cover more than they intend. If that is the understanding, then, I think, we shall put ourselves in a right position by adopting the course which was taken by Mr. Speaker.

Mr. SAMUEL

I fully assent to that course.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

Lords Amendment disagreed with.

Lords Amendment:

At end of Sub-section (3) insert the words "(c) serving in any other work recognised by the Admiralty, Army Council, or Air Council, as work of national importance in connection with the War."

Mr. FISHER

I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

The House will recollect that considerable debate took place on this point, the object being to include those connected with the Young Men's Christian Association and others doing similar work. It was thought impossible to limit this new franchise to the members of the Young Men's Christian Association, and that possibly words might be chosen to cover all those who were doing similar work. These words have been inserted in another place, and are wide enough to cover the Young Men's Christian Association and all others doing that work. It will rest with the Admiralty, the Army Council and the Air Council to determine who are doing sufficient work of national importance to have these privileges.

Question put, and agreed to.