§ Where in the course of a criminal trial any member of the jury dies or is discharged by the court as being, through illness, incapable of continuing to act or for any other reason, the jury shall nevertheless, subject to assent being given in writing by or on behalf of both the prosecutor and the accused and so long as the number of its members is not reduced below 10, be considered as remaining for all the purposes of that trial properly constituted, and the trial shall proceed and a verdict may be given accordingly.—[Sir W. Joynson-Hicks.]
§ Brought up, and read the First time.
§ The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir William Joynson-Hicks)I beg to move "That the Clause be read a Second time."
This new clause, which I move on behalf of the Government, deals with the case 97 of jurymen taken ill in the course of a trial. When a juryman is taken ill or has cause to leave the jurybox, the whole trial, although it may have taken five or six days, has to be commenced all over again, generally before the same judge, and the, whole business of recalling the witnesses to give evidence has to be gone through, although 10 of the jurymen may have already heard that evidence. This has caused a good deal of inconvenience. I would remind the House that a Committee, presided over by Lord Mersey, came to the conclusion that where a member of the jury fell ill, instead of the jury being discharged and a new one empanelled, the case should go on with the 11 jurymen. The old principle of 12 jurymen has been a palladium of British justice for many years, but we have advanced to a position in civil matters where, if a juryman falls ill, the trial goes on with 11 jurymen. We have now come to the conclusion, after considerable discussion with the legal advisers of the Crown and some of His Majesty's Judges, that it would be no hardship if, under these circumstances, we were to allow the trial to go on in the event of the loss by death or otherwise of one or two jurymen. In order that there should be no hardship in such a case, we provide that this shall not be done unless the Crown prosecutor and the defendant in the box consents in writing to this course. We do not want to put the defendant in the position of having to say openly that he does not object to the same 11 men because the same 11 and one extra man might take an opposite view. We do not suggest that this consent should be given orally, but the judge would be able to ask counsel in the case to consult together and find out whether both sides were agreed, and were willing to take the verdict of the remaining 11 or 10 jurymen. We have tried to make the cast: absolutely fair.
There are three or four Clauses standing in the name of the hon. Member for North Kensington (Mr. Gates), the hon. Member for South West Hull (Mr. Grotrian) and the hon. Member for Watford (Mr. Dennis Herbert). The main suggestion in these three or four Clauses is that, instead of allowing the trial to be taken with 10 or 11 jurymen, there should be sworn 98 beforehand two extra, supplementary jurymen to take the place of any one who falls ill or dead during the trial. I think the proposal of the Government is much simpler. The jury system is already a great strain on those who are called upon, and, if you are to have two extra jurors sworn without any right to take part in the trial, I think it will add something like 16 per cent. to the number of jurors who will be summoned. I do not quite gather from the Amendments whether these two supplementary jurymen are to sit in the jury box with the other 12 and talk to them, and more or less take a part in conducting the case, or whether they are to sit outside and take no part in the case at all.
In the first case, you would have two men, not jurymen, and they might influence the 12 real jurymen, and, even if they were sitting outside the jury box, they might be called upon on the fifth or sixth day to take part with the real jurymen, although they would not have had the advantage of four or five days' discussion with their new colleagues, and would not have gathered the real mind of the jury. I hope my hon. and learned Friends who have put down these new Clauses will agree that on the whole the proposal of the Government is the best, and would be to the real advantage of the jury system, and, what is more, that it would be perfectly fair to any accused person in any court in the land.
§ Mr. GATESThe Clause I have put down on the Paper was suggested to me by a very high legal authority, and at the moment I put it down I was not aware that the Government were taking any particular action in this matter. Of course, the criminal's right to be tried by 12 jurymen has always been one of the bulwarks of the liberty of the subject, and it dates back to the time of Edward III. The Home Secretary has referred to the disadvantages of the present system, which was particularly exemplified in a recent case in which one member of the jury died, and counsel were put to the trouble of repeating their speeches over again, and the witnesses had to be recalled. The new Clause provides that the verdict shall be given by not less than 10 jurymen, provided that the accused and the prosecutor consent. It seems unfair that an accused person in a criminal trial 99 should be asked that question at all, because by our ancient law he is already entitled to a verdict by 12 of his fellow citizens, and he should not be asked to accept a verdict of 10 or 11. I cannot imagine that any criminal on trial for a capital offence would agree to what is now suggested in the case of a juror falling ill, and he would naturally refuse to be tried by a jury of 10 or 11.
§ Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKSI have explained that any prisoner charged with a capital offence has the full right to say whether he should be tried by 10 or 12 jurymen.
§ Mr. GATESI cannot imagine that a man on trial for a criminal offence would agree to such a course for one moment. My Clause provides for two extra jurors to be sworn to take the place, if necessary, of any member of the jury who may through illness be unable to complete his or her duties. The new Clause to which the hon. Member for South-West Hull (Mr. Grotrian) has put his name is on the whole, perhaps, rather a better proposal than mine, because it gives the learned Judge the right to say when the two extra jurors shall be sworn. It seems to me that all our views are the same, and we all feel that it would be fairer to have two extra jurors in the box during a protracted or difficult criminal trial. The Home Secretary thinks that this would be a severe strain upon jurymen.
I think we all fully appreciate the valuable work done by those who serve upon our juries in the public service, but after all, when jurymen are summoned to the Court at the present time, a great many more than the 12 required to form the jury are summoned. I suppose that as a rule at least 18 or 20 jurymen are summoned to the Court, although only 12 are empanelled and sworn, and the remainder who have been summoned frequently have to wait about in the Court until the Judge sees fit to discharge them. Therefore, I cannot see that there is any great hardship upon jurors by two extra men or women being sworn, although they are not put into the jurybox, with the other 12, although they may have to stay in Court during the whole of the trial. I admit that in the course of a long trial the two extra 100 jurors would have to be locked up with the 12 jurymen in whose hands the decision of the case rests.
I would like to point out that the system I am advocating is not a new one, because in France at the present time two extra jurors are always sworn, and 14 are always sworn in a French criminal case. I would also like to point out that in Scotland 15 jurors are always sworn, and, if the citizens of France and Scotland have not found it a hardship, I find it difficult to believe that the citizens of England would find it a hardship to have 14 jurymen sworn in a protracted criminal case. In these days of mixed juries, there is much more likelihood of a member of a jury being taken ill, and I think something should be done to meet this position. I do not like to move my Amendment, but I really do not feel that the Clause proposed by the Home Secretary meets the position. I hope my hon. Friend the Member for South-West Hull will move his Clause as an amendment and, if he does, I shall be quite willing to give him my support.
§ Mr. GROTRIANI think we are all anxious to achieve the same object, and my only objection to the new Clause which has been moved by the Home Secretary is that it will not effect the purpose he has in view. Before it can come into operation, both sides have to agree in writing that they will accept the verdict of the 11 or 10 jurors in the case. Anyone who has taken part in criminal cases, and especially murder cases, will know that you will never get any such consent from the defendant. If a man is being tried for his life with 12 jurymen, he has 12 chances, and, naturally, he would not agree to either 10 or 11 jurymen. Therefore, in no case of such gravity as a murder case would you over get anybody to agree to go on with the case with 10 or 11 jurymen. The Home Secretary has said that both sides must agree in writing before this course can be taken. In such circumstances, when there was an objection, everybody would know that it was the defence that had objected, because in no circumstances would counsel for the Crown object to going on with 10 or 11 jurymen. It would be perfectly well known to jurors and every man in Court that it was the defence that objected and not the prosecution.
101 7.0 P.M.
We are apparently allowed to discuss Clauses similar to the one which has been moved without trespassing outside order, so therefore perhaps I may be allowed to say one or two words upon the Clause which I myself have got down on the Paper with my learned Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Sir H. Curtis-Bennett). That Clause proposes that where the Judge thinks it is necessary, but not in all cases like the Amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for North Kensington (Mr. Gates)—and of course Judge and counsel always know pretty well whether a case is going to last five hours or five days—two extra jurymen should be sworn. The Home Secretary has said, I think, if I quote his figure aright, that it will add 16 per cent. to the number of juries. I do not know how his calculation is made up, but I should say that it will do nothing of the sort, because it is only very seldom, only when the case is going to be a very long one, that the Judge thinks it necessary to swear these two extra jurymen. Supposing it did add 16 per cent., what has that to do with the point whether a man is to get justice in the long run in a better way than he can obtain it in any other way? I do not think that the point will really carry very great weight. Then it is said: How are you going to find room in the Court? I am perfectly well aware that there is only room for 12 jurymen in the box, but surely room can be found for two more? As my hon. Friend the Member for North Kensington has said, there are always about 40 jurors summoned at these trials at thy Assizes, and they are all sitting in Court in case they are wanted. They are listening, and in any case they have got to sit and listen, and the only difference is that two of them will be selected, and will be brought forward to a little more prominent position, and sworn to listen to the. evidence instead of listening to it unsworn. I think those really are small matters, and are not objections to our proposals.
There is one difficulty, and I admit it at once, that will be found in murder cases. The jury in a murder case is always locked up. They are not allowed to disperse for the night, and a question will arise whether you should lock up these two extra jurors with the 12 or whether it would be bringing the jury 102 into communication with two outside people who turned out, eventually, not to be jurors, and whether that would be objectionable. There, again, surely that is a matter for arrangement. If you had to lock up these two extra people separately I do not see that any great harm would be done. All these points are really matters of detail, and they do not go to the substance of the case. It has already been pointed out that in France and in Scotland you do already get extra jurors sworn, and I do not see why we should not do the same thing here. I do not think my right hon. Friend's new Clause will achieve the object that he and we have in view. One knows how difficult and almost impossible it is to get a defendant even in a civil action to agree to take the verdict of the majority or less than a full number, and I believe that in criminal trials, especially in serious cases like murders, no counsel dare advise his client to take the verdict of 10 or 11 men when ho might have 12, and therefore, for this reason, among others, I certainly do not see that the Home Secretary's Clause will meet the case at all.
§ Mr. DENNIS HERBERTI will say just a few words in regard to this matter. The Clauses standing in my name and the Clauses put down in the names of my hon. Friend, have moved the Home Secretary to try and do something, but I am bound to say that I entirely agree with what my hon. Friend the Member for North Kensington (Mr. Gates) has said as to this almost certainly being inoperative in practically every criminal case of any real importance. The objections which he urged to the other Clauses, I think, are not really so great as they will seem to be, and, so far as concerns the question of the difficulty of dealing with two men who may or may not be members of the jury, what I should have suggested would have been that the whole 14 should be treated as being the jury, and that they should all sit together and nobody but the Judge should know who were the extra jurymen or women. He would place their names on a piece of paper and when the jury retired to consider their verdict would direct that those two should be withdrawn. It seems to me chat the Clause in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for South West Hull (Mr. Grotrian) 103 or the one in my name is certainly preferable. Of course, if the Home Secretary, in spite of all we can say to him, prefers his own particular Clause, I am afraid we have got very little to do with it, but to thank him for very small mercies indeed and to hope that when he sees the lack of result of his Clause he may in future years support us in an attempt to get something more on the lines of the Clauses which we have put down.
§ Sir PATRICK HASTINGSI am very anxious not to be thought to be seeking to put any hindrance in the passing of this Bill, because I highly approve of its main provisions, and I have not the slightest desire to do that. But in regard to this Clause I must say, quite frankly, that I do not like it, and I do not think it really has been very fully considered. May I suggest to the Home Secretary one or two reasons why I think that? He has told us that one of the grave difficulties he sees is the possibility of the defence being prejudiced by reason of their refusal to accede to a suggestion that they should dispense with one or two members of the jury, and he suggests that this should be done secretly. It is quite true that assent, to be effective, must be in writing, but there is no indication in the Clause of any desire for secrecy. A Judge or anyone else at a certain moment might think he was acting entirely in the spirit of the Act if he merely said to counsel appearing for the prisoner, "Now do you consent or do you not consent to going on with 10 jurymen?" Therefore, the very danger that the Home Secretary seems to have in mind is still here. Then there is another danger, and a very serious one. If it really be desired that a defendant should not be prejudiced by this Clause, there could not be any reason at all why it should not be provided in it that the same 10 jurymen should not be empanelled to try the case. If two more jurymen would have to have the whole case put before them again, it takes no longer to put it before 10 new jurymen as well. I should like to say that I should have been glad if I could have said that I preferred the other Clauses.
There is a theory with young men at the Bar that they really can tell what a jury sometimes is thinking, and they address themselves particularly to certain members of the jury. I look with the 104 greatest anxiety upon the position of my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Sir H. Curtis-Bennett) addressing a jury of 12 in the box and having two others. who may be members, in the Court, and trying to keep one eye on the real jury and the other on the other two. Cannot the Home Secretary leave this until next year? There is no real reason why it should go in this time. I think there is a great deal to be said for some amendment under proper safeguards. Sometimes a defendant is represented by counsel who may be expensive, and it may be that all the resources of the family have been directed towards instructing that counsel, and the defendant may be deterred at the thought of having to begin all over again. We must not sweep this consideration aside as though there were not something to be said for it from the point of view of the defence. As, like the Home Secretary, I really am concerned in passing this Bill, which I believe, in the main, to be a good one, apart from some little difficulties such as we have in mind, I would urge him to consider whether this Clause might not be brought up at a later date, when we can, perhaps, combine on both sides of the House to put in a Clause in such a form as will be acceptable to all.
§ Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKSBy the leave of the House I may, perhaps, reply to what has been said by the right hon. and learned Gentleman (Sir P. Hastings). I realise the fairness with which he has met this case, and the way in which he has demolished all the evidence on my own side, but this matter has been hanging over us since 1913, and it is time that something was done. May I suggest that the House should give us this Clause to-night, and that the right hon. and learned Gentleman should see me and suggest any Amendment which would make for greater security for the defendant, because I am quite as anxious as he is that the prisoner should not be in any sense of the word damnified by this Clause. If the right hon. and learned Gentleman can suggest anything that can be put in when the Bill goes to another place, I shall be glad to give him that assurance.
§ Sir GERALD HOHLERThis Clause never appeared in Committee, it was never discussed by the Committee, and I 105 entirely concur in the arguments of the right hon. and learned Member for Wallsend (Sir P. Hastings). This cannot be vital to the Bill. Is it possible that the Home Office, who have had this Bill before them for some time, and have considered every amendment of the law that they thought reasonable and proper, can have escaped such an obvious question as this? Is it not true that in fact, while this Bill was in Committee upstairs, it so happened that in some case, which had been more or less protracted, a juryman was taken ill, and that the Judge then suggested that it would be desirable that the law should be altered? It is all very well for learned Judges to throw out these ideas, but they do not legislate. This ought to have been discussed in Committee. When my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary opened his case for this Clause, he clearly stated that this would be done out of Court, and that the jury would be ignorant of it, but would that happen as a matter of fact? No such safeguard of any sort is contained in the Clause at all, and it is perfectly obvious that the Judge could then and there say:
Mr. So-and-so, will you go on with 11 or 10 jurymen, as the case may be?If this had been a real evil, if justice had suffered, surely attention would have been called to it earlier, and we should have had it in the Bill. What, after all, does it really come to? It comes to this, that a new jury is empanelled to try the case; probably the 10 jurymen remaining are empanelled as part of the new jury, and two additional jurymen are sworn. The evidence is gone over quite shortly, putting them fully in possession of it, and they have the 10 other
§ members of the jury on whom they can rely to tell them exactly what has happened on any point on which they may not be quite clear.
§ I do ask the Home Secretary not to press this Clause. I think that every consideration should be given to the prisoner, and I want to point out that the Crown is not really concerned in this matter. Every additional juryman is an additional chance in favour of the prisoner. He may be the one who might have disagreed with the others, when there would be no verdict, and there might be a new trial the result of which might prove to be an acquittal. In my judgment we ought not to reduce the number of the jury. Ours is not the Scottish system, where they decide by a majority, and I would ask my right hon. Friend to consider whether he will not take the Bill as it came from the Committee as regards this point, and not try, at this late stage, to force through a Clause which does not carry out that which he said it did, and which, to my mind, might deprive the prisoner of one of the rights which he has, namely, to be tried by a jury of 12 of his countrymen. As to the idea that jurors lose time, that is necessarily involved in every case of trial by jury. There is not the least difficulty in getting another jury. I believe I am right in saying that the panel never includes fewer than 36 for petty juries, and, therefore, there is no trouble at all. Accordingly, I would ask my right hon. Friend to maintain the law as it is.
§ Question put, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
§ The House divided: Ayes, 248; Noes, 97.
109| Division No. 359.] | AYES. | [7.21 p.m. |
| Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel | Bourne, Captain Robert Croft | Christie, J. A. |
| Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T. | Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W. | Clarry, Reginald George |
| Ainsworth, Major Charles | Brass, Captain W. | Clayton, G. C. |
| Albery, Irving James | Brassey, Sir Leonard | Cockerill, Brigadier-General G. K. |
| Allen, J. Sandeman (L'pool, W. Derby) | Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive | Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock) |
| Applin, Colonel R. V. K. | Briggs, J. Harold | Cooper, A. Duff |
| Atkinson, C. | Brocklebank, C. E. R. | Couper, J. B. |
| Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley | Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I. | Courthope, Lieut.-Col. Sir George L. |
| Balfour, George (Hampstead) | Broun-Lindsay, Major H. | Cowan, O. M. (Scottish Universities) |
| Balniel, Lord | Brown, Maj. D. C. (N'th'l'd, Hexham) | Craig, Ernest (Chester. Crewe) |
| Banks, Reginald Mitchell | Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y) | Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry |
| Barnett, Major Sir Richard | Buckingham, Sir H. | Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend) |
| Beamish, Captain T. P. H. | Burman, J. B. | Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro) |
| Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake) | Butler, Sir Geoffrey | Cunliffe, Joseph Herbert |
| Bentinck, Lord Henry Cavendish- | Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward | Curtis-Bennett, Sir Henry |
| Bethell, A. | Campbell, E. T. | Curzon, Captain Viscount |
| Betterton, Henry B. | Cassels, J. D. | Dalkeith, Earl of |
| Bird, E. R. (Yorks, W. R., Skipton) | Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston) | Dalziel, Sir Davison |
| Bird, Sir R. B. (Wolverhampton, W.) | Charteris, Brigadier-General J. | Davidson, J. (Hertf'd, Homel Hempst'd) |
| Davidson, Major-General Sir John H. | Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth) | Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford) |
| Davies, A. V. (Lancaster, Royton) | Joynson-Hicks, Rt. Hon. Sir William | Robinson, Sir T. (Lanes., Stretford) |
| Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.) | Kennedy, A. R. (Preston) | Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth) |
| Dean, Arthur Wellesley | Kidd, J. (Linlithgow) | Rye, F. G. |
| Doyle, Sir N. Grattan | King, Captain Henry Douglas | Salmon, Major I. |
| Drewe, C. | Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement | Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham) |
| Edmondson, Major A. J. | Knox, Sir Alfred | Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney) |
| Elliot, Captain Walter E. | Lamb, J. O. | Sandeman, A. Stewart |
| Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s-M.) | Lane-Fox, Lieut.-Col. George R. | Sanders, Sir Robert A. |
| Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith | Leigh, Sir John (Clapham) | Savery, S. S. |
| Everard, W. Lindsay | Lister, Cunliffe-, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip | Scott, Sir Leslie (Liverp'l, Exchange) |
| Fairfax, Captain J. G. | Little, Dr. E. Graham | Shaw, R. G. (Yorks, W. R., Sowerby) |
| Falle, Sir Bertram G. | Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green) | Shaw, Capt. W. w. (Wilts, Westb'y) |
| Fanshawe, Commander G. D. | Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (Handsw'th) | Simms, Dr. John M. (Co. Down) |
| Fenby, T. D. | Loder, J. de V. | Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness) |
| Finburgh, S. | Looker, Herbert William | Smith-Carington, Neville W. |
| Fleming, D. P. | Lord, Walter Greaven | Smithers, Waldron |
| Forestier-Walker, Sir L. | Lowe, Sir Francis William | Somerville, A. A. (Windsor) |
| Forrest, W. | Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harman | Spender Clay, Colonel H. |
| Foster, Sir Harry S. | MacAndrew, Charles Glen | Sprot, Sir Alexander |
| Frece, Sir Walter de | Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.) | Stanley, Col. Hon. G. F.(Will'sden, E.) |
| Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E. | Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart) | Stanley, Lord (Fylde) |
| Ganzoni, Sir John | McDonnell, Colonel Hon. Angus | Stanley, Hon. O. F. G.(Westm'eland) |
| Gee, Captain R. | McLean, Major A. | Steel, Major Samuel Strang |
| Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham | McNeill, Rt. Hon. Ronald John | Storry Deans, R. |
| Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John | MacRobert, Alexander M. | Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C. |
| Goff, Sir Park | Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel- | Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser |
| Gower, Sir Robert | Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn | Sugden, Sir Wilfrid |
| Grace, John | Margesson, Captain D. | Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H. |
| Gunston, Captain D. W. | Marriott, Sir J. A. R. | Tasker, Major R. Inigo |
| Hacking, Captain Douglas H. | Meller, R. J. | Thomas, Sir Robert John (Anglesey) |
| Hall, Lieut.-Colonel Sir F. (Dulwich) | Merriman, F. B. | Thompson, Luke (Sunderland) |
| Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.) | Meyer, Sir Frank | Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South) |
| Hanbury, C. | Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark) | Tinne, J. A. |
| Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry | Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden) | Titchfield, Major the Marquess of |
| Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington) | Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M. | Waddington, R. |
| Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes) | Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury) | Ward, Lt.-Col. A. L. (Kingston-on-Hull) |
| Haslam, Henry C. | Murchison, C. K. | Warner, Brigadier-General W. W. |
| Hawke, John Anthony | Nall, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Joseph | Warrender, Sir Victor |
| Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M. | Nelson, Sir Frank | Watson, Sir F. (Pudsay and Otley) |
| Henderson, Capt. R. R.(Oxfd, Henley) | Newman, Sir R H. S. D. L. (Exeter) | Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle) |
| Henderson, Lieut.-Col. V. L. (Bootle) | Nicholson, O. (Westminster) | Watts, Dr. T. |
| Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P. | Oakley, T. | Wells, S. R. |
| Henn, Sir Sydney H. | O'Neill, Major Rt. Hon. Hugh | Wheler, Major Sir Granville C. H. |
| Hennessy, Major J. R. G. | Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William | Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern) |
| Herbert. Dennis (Hertford, Watford) | Pease, William Edwin | Williams, C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham) |
| Herbert, S. (York, N. R., scar. & Wh'by) | Pennefather, Sir John | Williams, Herbert G. (Reading) |
| Hilton, Cecil | Penny, Frederick George | Wilson, Sir C. H. (Leeds, Central) |
| Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone) | Perkins, Colonel E. K. | Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield) |
| Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard | Perring, William George | Winby, Colonel L. P. |
| Holt, Captain H. P. | Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome) | Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George |
| Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar) | Philipson, Mabel | Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl |
| Honkins, J. W. W. | Pielou, D. P. | Wise, Sir Fredric |
| Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley) | Pownall, Lieut. Colonel Assheton | Wolmer, Viscount |
| Hore-Belisha, Leslie | Preston, William | Womersley, W. J. |
| Howard, Captain Hon. Donald | Price, Major C. W. M. | Wood, B. C. (Somerset, Bridgwater) |
| Hudson, Capt. A. U. M.(Hackney, N.) | Radford, E. A. | Wood, E. (Chest'r, Stalyb'dge & Hyde) |
| Hurd, Percy A. | Raine, W. | Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich, W.) |
| Hurst. Gerald B. | Rawlinson, Rt. Hon. John Fredk. Peel | Woodcock, Colonel H. C. |
| Hutchison, G. A. Clark (Midl'n & P'bl's) | Rawson, Alfred Cooper | Worthington-Evans,. Rt. Hon. Sir L. |
| Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose) | Rees, Sir Beddoe | Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T. |
| Jackson, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. F. S. | Remer, J. R. | |
| Jacob, A. E. | Rentoul, G. S. | TELLERS FOR THE AYES.— |
| Jephcott, A. R. | Rice, Sir Frederick | Major Sir Harry Barnston and |
| Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newington) | Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint) | Major Cone. |
| NOES. | ||
| Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock) | Cluse, W. S. | Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton) |
| Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro') | Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R. | Hall. G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil) |
| Attlee, Clement Richard | Compton, Joseph | Hardle, George D. |
| Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bliston) | Connolly, M. | Hastings, Sir Patrick |
| Baker, Walter | Cove, W. G. | Hayday, Arthur |
| Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery) | Duncan, C. | Hayes, John Henry |
| Barnes, A. | Edwards. C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty) | Henderson. T. (Glasgow) |
| Barr, J. | Gillett, George M. | Hirst, G. H. |
| Batey, Joseph | Gosling, Harry | Hirst, W. (Bradford, South) |
| Beckett, John (Gateshead) | Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.) | Hohler, Sir Gerald Fitzroy |
| Broad, F. A. | Greenall, T. | Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield) |
| Bromley, J. | Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan) | Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath) |
| Buchanan, G. | Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool) | Kelly, W. T. |
| Cape, Thomas | Grundy, T. W. | Lansbury, George |
| Charleton, H. C. | Guest, J. (York, Hemsworth) | Lawson, John James |
| Clowes, S. | Guest, Dr. L. Haden (Southwark, N.) | Lee, F. |
| Lowth, T. | Short, Alfred (Wednesbury) | Wallhead, Richard C. |
| Lunn, William | Sitch, Charles H. | Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah |
| MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Aberavon) | Slesser, Sir Henry H. | Weir, L. M. |
| Mackinder, W. | Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe) | Westwood, J. |
| Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan) | Smith, Rennie (Penistone) | Whiteley, W. |
| March, S. | Snell, Harry | Wilkinson, Ellen C. |
| Montague, Frederick | Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip | Williams, David (Swansea, East) |
| Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.) | Spoor, Rt. Hon. Benjamin Charles | Williams, T. (York, Don Valley) |
| Naylor, T. E. | Stamford, T. W. | Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe) |
| Palin, John Henry | Stephen, Campbell | Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow) |
| Paling, W. | Sutton, J. E. | Windsor, Walter |
| Potts, John S. | Taylor, R. A. | Wright, W. |
| Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring) | Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby) | Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton) |
| Riley, Ben | Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow) | |
| Robinson, W. C. (Yorks, W. R., Elland) | Thurtle, E. | TELLERS FOR THE NOES.— |
| Scrymgeour, E. | Tinker, John Joseph | Mr. T. Kennedy and Mr. Allen |
| Scurr, John | Townend, A. E. | Parkinson. |
| Sexton, James | Viant, S. P. |
§ Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.