- (1) A person shall not be disqualified from being registered or from voting as a Parliamentary or local government elector by reason that he or some person for whose maintenance he is responsible has received poor relief or other alms.
- (2) Any person who has been exempted from all military service (including noncombatant service) on the ground of conscientious objection, or who, having been convicted by court-martial of an offence against military law, and having represented that the offence was the result of conscientious objection to military service, has been awarded imprisonment in lieu of detention, shall be disqualified during the continuance of the War and a period of five years thereafter from being registered or voting as a Parliamentary or local government elector:
Provided that this disqualification shall not apply to any person who, within one year after the termination of the War, proves to the Central Tribunal. as established for the purpose of the Military Service Act, 1916, that he had during the continuance of the War taken up either—- (1) service as a member of any of the naval or military forces of the Crown on full pay; or
- (2) service in connection with the War of a naval or military character for which payment is made out of money provided by Parliament; or
- (3) service afloat or abroad in connection with the War 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; or
- (4) that having been exempted from military service on condition of doing work of national importance, he has done such work in accordance with the decision and to the satisfaction of the appropriate tribunal or authority;
Provided also that no woman shall be disqualified from being registered or voting as a Parliamentary or local government elector by reason of any disqualification imposed upon her husband by this Section.
The Central Tribunal established under the Military Service Act, 1916, shall be continued for the purpose of this provision for a period of a year after the termination of the present War. - (3) A person shall not be entitled to be registered or to vote as a Parliamentary or local government elector if he is not a British subject, and nothing contained in this Act shall, except as ex-
1877 pressly provided therein, confer on any person who is subject to any legal incapacity to be registered or to vote either as a Parliamentary or local government elector any right to be so registered or to vote. - (4) A person shall not be disqualified from voting at any election as a Parliamentary or local government elector by reason that he is legally employed for payment by or on behalf of a candidate at any Parliamentary or local government election.
§ Lords Amendment:
§ In Sub-section (1), leave out the words "or local government" ["as a Parliamentary or local government elector"].
§ Sir G. CAVEThis Amendment is connected with the next, dealing with disqualification. The meaning of the two Amendments, I understand, is that whereas this House had practically abolished the disqualification consequent on Poor Law relief, it is proposed in another place that that disqualification should continue as regards local government elections. Of course that is a point of substance. The effect of the Amendment, if adopted, would be somewhat singular. So far as the election of guardians is concerned, there is of course something to be said for the Amendment. It was thought, I understand, that it would put both the elector and the candidate in rather a difficult position. The same observation applies to the election of rural district councillors, who of course act as guardians, though only to some extent, because there you are voting for a man who is not only a guardian of the poor but has certain duties of local government connected with highways and nuisances and all the other functions of a local authority. But the Amendment goes further than that. It disqualifies the receiver of Poor Law relief from voting even for an urban district councillor, who has no Poor Law powers at all, for a county councillor, who has practically none, and for a parish councillor, who has none. I think that goes too far, and it is contrary to the policy adopted, at all events in this House, that the receipt of Poor Law relief should disqualify a man from voting for all these purposes. I appreciate the argument in respect of Poor Law guardians only, and it has been suggested to us that instead of taking the whole Amendment, 1878 we should move a substituted Amendment proposing disqualification in respect of the elections of guardians only.
§ Mr. M. HEALYI thought guardians were to be abolished.
§ Sir G. CAVEI think there is a good deal to be said for that. It introduces an awkward disqualification. It is very awkward to have a class of voters who may vote for some local government purposes, but not for all. You would have to have the list cumbered with a number of marks indicating that certain persons had received Poor Law relief. It, would be very awkward, and would impose a good deal of work upon the registration officer. It would mar the lists and give a good deal of trouble which is not really worth while. On the whole, I think it would be better not to accept the Amendment, but to let the Bill remain as it left this House.
Therefore, I beg to move, "That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
§ Mr. PETOWhile not disagreeing with what the Home Secretary has said in the main, I am bound to point out that resolution 35 of the Speaker's Conference, which dealt with this matter of Poor Law relief, specifically uses these words, that they are "not to be disqualified from being registered as a Parliamentary elector." That was the subject which we considered upstairs, and we regarded it from the point of view of the loss of electoral right from the national standpoint. I think the House of Lords, in putting in this Amendment, have more accurately carried out the decision of the Speaker's Conference than the Bill as it left this House. But for the technical objection, which had more weight, I think probably the Home Secretary would agree, especially as his speech was mainly devoted to the disadvantages of persons in receipt of Poor Law relief voting for boards of guardians, that it would have been better to accept the Amendment. I do not want to oppose the Motion on the grounds which I think really carry the most weight, namely, that it is not worth while marring the voters' list in order to prevent what I think is an undesirable thing and one which was not contemplated in the resolution of the Speaker's Conference.
Question put, and agreed to.
Lords Amendment disagreed with.
1879 Lords Amendment:
At end of Sub-section (1), insert the words, "But a person shall not be entitled to be registered as a local government elector if that person has, curing the qualifying period, received poor relief, which would have disqualified that person from being registered as a Parliamentary elector if this Act had not passed."—Disagreed with.
Lords Amendment:
Leave out Sub-section (2), and insert the following Sub-section:
(2) Any person being a conscientious objector to whom this Sub-section applies shall be disqualified during the continuance of the War and a period of five years thereafter from being registered or voting as a Parliamentary or local government elector unless before the expiration of one year after the termination of the War he proves to the Central Tribunal as established for the purposes of the Military Service Act, 1916—
and obtains a certificate from the Central Tribunal to that effect.
- (a) that he has during the continuance of the War taken up and, so far as reasonably practicable, continued service which constitutes a person (other than a person serving on full pay as a member of any of the naval, military, or air forces of the Crown) a naval or military voter for the purposes of this Act; or
- (b) that having been exempted from military service on condition of doing work of national importance he has done such work in accordance with the decision and to the satisfaction of the appropriate tribunal or authority; or
- (c) that having obtained an absolute exemption from military service without any such condition, be has nevertheless (whether before or after the passing of this Act) taken up and, so far as reasonably practicable, continued some work of national importance;
This Sub-section shall apply to a conscientious objector who either—
The Central Tribunal established under the Military Service Act, 1916, shall be continued for the purpose of this Subsection for a period of a year after the termination of the present War.
- (a) has been exempted from all military service (including non-combatant service) on the ground of conscientious objection; or
- (b)having been convicted by court-inertial of an offence against mili-
1880 tary law, and having represented that the offence was the result of conscientious objection to military service, has been awarded imprisonment or detention. If a person disqualified under this Sub-section would have been entitled to be registered as a Parliamentary or local government elector but for that disqualification, the disqualification shall not extend so as to affect the right of the wife of that person to be registered or vote as a Parliamentary or local government elector, as the case may be.
§ Sir G. CAVEI beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
This Amendment is partly a redrafting and partly an Amendment of the Subsection relating to conscientious objectors. Perhaps it would be better that I should explain to the House exactly where the difference lies between the Sub-section as it passed this House and the Sub-section now proposed. In regard to Sub section (a) the House will observe, on comparing it with the old Sub-section, that it is proposed simply to put in a shorter form the different items which appear in the old Sub-section under the headings (1), (2), (3), and (4). Instead of going through the list and putting in all the items of work, it is proposed to include them in the general words that a man "has during the continuance of the War taken up …. and continued service….for the purposes of this Act." I think, perhaps, that is a more convenient form. Otherwise you may have different interpretations of the different words in the two Sections. That, therefore, is nothing more than a drafting Amendment. The second change made is in Sub-section (c). The Amendment which is proposed is to exempt from disqualification the man who, having obtained an absolute exemption from military service, without any condition, has, nevertheless, taken up and has continued some work of national importance. In other words, that puts upon the same footing the man who has been exempted on condition of his doing work of national importance, and who was exempted by this House, and the man 1881 who has had unconditional exemption and, without obligation or condition, has taken up similar work. It was thought that the merits of the latter man were practically the same as those which commended the other man to this House. That is, I think, the only really substantial change in the Sub-section. There are some minor changes. For instance, instead of "imprisonment in lieu of detention," which were the words used in our Sub-section, we have the words "imprisonment or detention," so that if a man has been convicted of a military offence and sentenced either to imprisonment or detention, and has represented that the offence was the result of conscientious objection to military service, he comes within the operation of the Clause. The second minor change is that a man may apply for his certificate of exemption from disqualification now, and need not wait until the War is over before he asks for his certificate of exemption from disqualification.
The last change to which I have to draw attention deals with the case of the objector who gets exemption for having taken up alternative work of national importance, and provides that he must persevere in that work unless he is unavoidably prevented doing it.
Mr. SAMUELBefore the Question is put I wish to move, as an Amendment to paragraph (c) of the Lords Amendment, to leave out the words "taken up," and to insert instead thereof the words "been engaged in."
The Sub-section is certainly an improvement in very many respects on the form of the Bill as it left the House. It will be remembered that in the discussion which took place in this House when the Bill was before us the point was raised regarding a case in which a man was engaged in work of such obvious national importance that being also a conscientious objector when he applied to the tribunal for exemption they said, "You are a conscientious objector; we give you absolute exemption; we know you will continue your present occupation." The man replied, "I am going to continue that occupation." He has not been exempted conditionally, lie is continuing his present occupation, and therefore is entitled to be covered by this provision. The wording of this paragraph, however, has the effect that having obtained absolute exemption from military service without 1882 any such condition, he has, nevertheless, taken up—and these are the two words I object to—and continued some work of national importance. Now "taken up" implies that he has changed his occupation and gone to some other occupation for the particular purpose of securing exemption, and consequently he will find himself excluded from the benefits which this provision is intended to give him.
§ Sir G. CAVEI will accept that as part of the Lords Amendment. I think it is what they meant.
Amendment to Lords Amendment agreed to.
Lords. Amendment, as amended, agreed to.
Lords Amendments:
In Sub-section (4), leave out the word' "legal."—Agreed to.
Leave out the words "any Parliamentary or local government," and insert the word "such."—Agreed to.
After the word "election" insert the words "so long as the employment is legal."—Agreed to.
Insert as a new Sub-section, "Any incapacity of a peer to vote at an election arising from the status of a peer shall not extend to peeresses in their own right."
§ Sir G. CAVEI beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
I suppose the reason why a peer cannot vote is that he has a vote in his own House, but that does not apply to peeresses who have no such right and, presumably-, their Lordships thought they should have a right to vote for Members of this House.
§ 10.0 P.M.
§ Mr. HOLTI do riot think that argument holds good. If the House of Lords deem it proper that peeresses should have some say in the destinies of the country, surely they should invite them to take a seat in their own House. There is no logic whatever in this Amendment, and I do not think we ought to accept it.
Question put, and agreed to.