§ Major CRAWFURDOn a point of Order. May I draw your attention, Mr. Deputy Chairman, to the very low temperature, at any rate in this part of the House. I understand that physiologically there are times when the vitality is low and the human frame is susceptible to temperature, and I would like to ask your ruling as to whether anything can he done as to heating this Chamber?
Mr. THOMASOn the same point of Order. We are ever ready to help anyone in distress. If the difficulty is temporary, may I suggest to my hon. Friend that they are getting very scanty in numbers, and could they, therefore, not choose a better atmosphere and a better place?
§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMANI can only ask the hon. and gallant Member to apply to the proper quarters.
§ Major CRAWFURDMay I ask your ruling as to who are the "proper quarters"?
§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMANThe Serjeant-at-Arms?
§ Major CRAWFURDMay I from my own place ask the Serjeant-at-Arms?
§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMANThat is not a point of Order at all.
Mr. THOMASI beg to move, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."
It is now six minutes to four—[Hon. MEMBERS: "Seven minutes !"]—and the Government have succeeded beyond, I am quite sure, their own expectations and I am going to say quite sincerely it is due to the fact displayed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I have no hesitation in saying that we are all disappointed at the blank refusal on his part either to listen to reason or to common sense or to save their own skins. That we are agreed upon, but when we remember the atmo- 688 sphere of last night and all that took place, I certainly am quite sincere when I say that the method of treating the Opposition of which we have had experience to-night is something which will at least tend to the smooth working of Parliament. Therefore, having paid that tribute on behalf of my friends as well as myself, the result of it must be something which the Government will remember. It cannot but help the Chancellor. You have got Clause 8. Surely you do not want any more. It is more than you really expected and more than you deserve. I think now we have reached a stage where I presume it is the intention to give us at least the whole of next week for the further Committee stage. We are going now to two vital questions and I put it to you that four o'clock in the morning is hardly the time to discuss the electoral law of this country. I want to draw attention to this fact that, when the Prime Minister at the early stages of this Session was asked what his intentions were in regard to the franchise, his answer was, with reference to a Bill in which we were interested, that the whole question of electoral reform was to be dealt with as one subject and dealt with comprehensively. I am sure he meant that at that particular time, but now we are here at four o'clock in the morning discussing a Clause that means absolutely taking some people off the register and disfranchising them. For these reasons and the fact that it is now four o'clock I beg to move that we report Progress.
§ Sir A. SINCLAIRI also appeal to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The issue involved in Clause 9 is a matter which he cannot consider as unimportant and insignificant. It is of fundamental constitutional importance. If this Clause be passed, it will result in the disenfranchisement of some thousands of people divided into 15 or 20 categories. At this hour of the morning it is not the time when these grave matters can be discussed in the very serious spirit in which alone they can be handled, and I would appeal to the Chancellor of the Exchequer not to ask 689 us to discuss this very fundamental question of the liberty of the subject and the constitutional rights of the people of this country at four o'clock in the morning.
§ 4.0 A.M.
§ Mr. CHURCHILLThe appeal made by the right hon. Gentleman, re-inforced as it is by my hon. and gallant Friend, who I am very glad to see is leading the Liberals, has my sympathy, but I must frankly say that the Government have set before themselves the task of reaching the end of Part III. It is not from the selfish Government point of view that we are taking that course, but because Part IV, which deals with education, is rather controversial, although it does not lend itself to very lengthy discussion, but a great many sharp things can be said about it no doubt. Personally, I am very strongly in favour of always trying to brings the points of controversy in debate into the House so that the Country can follow exactly the lines which are taken. I think that will be much the best course in the general interest. How ever, if the right hon. Gentleman and the hon. and gallant Gentleman would assure the Committee that the Representation of the People Clause would be disposed of in the first two hours of Monday, so as to enable the educational matters to be discussed in a reasonable manner in the course of the evening, it could be considered, but it would have to be a perfectly clear statement. It is not in the interest of the Government's carrying through their business that the arrangement should be made, but with a view to having the important interests threshed out at the right time.
Mr. THOMASThe right hon. Gentleman pretends to oppose our Motion to report Progress on the ground that he wants to have the best report of our speeches. It is only fair to say clearly and definitely that, whatever view he may have of Clause 9, it is perfectly foreign to the view we have. We attach the greatest possible importance and consideration to the Clause. If I were to attempt to say we could get this Clause in two hours, it would be deceiving you, and therefore I want to say quite frankly "No."
§ Mr. BARRI wish to advance two reasons why we should report Progress. The 690 first is we are discussing an Economy Bill and are defying all economy. Shakespeare says:
There's husbandry in heaven,The lights are all put out.Yet look at the lights above us ! By continuing we are causing a great public expense in keeping up this institution, with all its reporters, messengers and staff. The second reason is that on the subject of the franchise we should need to go back to the time of the Reform Bill and come down to 1866 and 1867 and recall the fact that Mr. Gladstone brought in a Bill. I think it is most important to remember that he lowered the franchise to £7 and it was said he would disturb the whole order of society.
§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMANThat argument is very remote from reporting Progress.
§ Mr. BARRI accept your ruling, Sir, and perhaps I may have an opportunity when we discuss the franchise to give that historical review, but you will allow me to continue for the third reason. It is because these continued late sittings are disturbing the whole arrangements of this House. This morning I was unable to attend an important Committee dealing with heather burning; I wish to say that that is a burning question in 'Scotland, and altogether I feel that we ought really to have a reform of this House so as to do the work of the House and its Committees, and after all the Committee work is the most important. We should not continue longer this morning and should consider the health and general efficiency of the members of this House.
§ Mr. R. MORRISONWill the right hon. Gentleman say if the Government propose to set the whole of Part III tonight, which includes Clauses 9, 10, 11, 12 and 13, or is he ready to abandon any of those?
§ Mr. CHURCHILLIt is proposed to obtain those Clauses to-night, or this morning I should say.
§ Question, "That the Chairman do report Progress and ask leave to sit again" put, and negatived.
691§ Sir A. SINCLAIRI handed in three manuscript Amendments, but I did not suppose the Government would take a Clause of such importance at this time of night. I am not quite clear which Amendment comes first.
§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMANI have put the Question of Clause 9. I should have put the Question of postponing the Clause before putting that Question, so that I cannot put it now.
§ Sir HENRY SLESSERI beg to move, in page 8, line 5, to leave out the words "three months," and to insert instead therof the words "one month."
As has already been stated by the right hon. Member for Derby (Mr. Thomas), this part of the Economy Bill is dealing with the question of the franchise. So far, harsh and unconscionable as we think the proposals of the Government have been, at any rate they have been dealing with financial matters as such, but in this part of the Bill we are, in fact, not dealing with the question of Finance at all, but are really dealing with the question of a change of the franchise laws of this country. It has always been understood that in the change of the franchise law consultation and consideration by all parties, and careful note of all the views of persons interested and affected, should be taken before legislation is introduced dealing with any such point. What has happened in this case? There is no doubt at all that this part of the Bill does directly deal with the franchise as such, and my Amendment is directed to mitigating, in some measure, the. changes which the Government propose to make in the existing franchise law. It is quite idle for the Chancellor of the Exchequer to say that this is merely a simplification of the register for purposes of saving a certain amount of expenditure. The Clause states at the very outset:
One register only of electors shall be made in each year and the qualifying period shall be reduced from six months to three months.At present there are two registers prepared in each year and a consequence of this Clause must necessarily be that if there be one register substituted for two registers many persons now competent to qualify as electors and be placed on the register will lose their opportunity 692 because of the infrequency with which the register is made up. Another matter —and my Amendment is particularly directed to this—is that the qualifying period normally is the same period as the period of registration. The period under the Act of 1918 is made up to nearly 6 months, and the qualifying period under the same Act is also 6 months. Entirely new provisions and entirely new machinery are introduced by this Clause. It is provided that the qualifying period shall be reduced from 6 months to 3 months so that instead of having a qualifying period and a period of registration coinciding as under the existing law we are to have one period for qualifying and one period for registration. That very substantially affects the franchise law.When from the report given to us we see the saving resulting from this very drastic Amendment of the franchise law we find that, unlike some of the cases which have been before the Committee running into several millions of pounds, this change must necessarily produce only £125,000 as a whole saving. Even on the ground of economy which it has been suggested ought to justify so much that has been done here, to say that thousands of persons shall lose their electoral qualification merely in order to save £125,000 is surely putting a strain on this Economy Bill which it will not bear. It is quite obvious that the Treasury has been round to all the different Departments and demanded a reduction in their expenditure. The Home Office, seeing no other way to save expenditure have hit on this wonderful method to save in the printing of electoral lists. I am not going to make the accusation against the Government that this is an ingenious dodge to disfranchise the poorer parts of the population, who are more mobile. I do not think the Government would be so dishonourable, after having promised that a properly constituted conference should give consideration to any proposed change in the franchise law, as to come forward at quarter past four in the morning with a change in the law in order to save £125,000. Be that as it may, the result is that under the nominal desire to save £125,000 they do disqualify a large number of people, and very seriously alter the electoral rule. I propose to point out to the Committee just 693 what my Amendment would do and just how the law is altered and how people are affected by the changes proposed here. If the register be only made up once a year then we find that several results follow from that. In the first place, there may be an elector coming into the county or borough after the commencement of the three months' qualifying period from a different county or borough not contiguous. He will be disfranchised in respect of both Parliamentary and local franchise for 12 months. A wife, if she is of the requisite age, after the commencement of the three months' qualifying period if she moves from a different county not contiguous will be disfranchised both in respect of Parliamentary and local franchise for 12 months. Electors, both male and female, entitled to the Service franchise will be affected. A male elector attaining the age of 21 years will in certain cases be disfranchised for six months longer. A naval, military or air-force elector on the absent voters' list will also be effected if there is only a yearly qualification. Without any desire to waste time or to go into all the changes I am right in saying that in all I have detected about 25 changes of franchise which will take place. It cannot be denied that the effect of Part Ill of this Economy Measure is to work serious changes in our election law. If hon. Members opposite are willing to support it let them do so, but let them he under no delusion. They are altering electoral law and disqualifying particularly that class of person who moves about from one place to another. In these circumstances the Government cannot complain when we offer a very strenuous opposition to the Clause.
§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMANI should point out to the hon. and learned Member that if on this Amendment there is a general discussion on the Clause, we shall not be able to have that discussion on any other Amendment. That must be the final discussion on the Clause.
§ Sir H. SLESSERI do not propose to deal with the matter more generally. I really did so in order to explain the purport of my Amendment. I had to deal with the general situation. The matter had not been opened to the House. I do not wish to prejudice anyone else who wishes to raise a different point.
§ Sir H. SINCLAIRWould it not be convenient if the hon. and learned Member could deal with the general question on this Amendment.
§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMANThese arrangements are sometimes open to misunderstanding unless it is agreed we had better confine the discussion to the Amendment.
§ Sir H. SLESSERI had in mind the hon. and gallant Member for Caithness (Sir A. Sinclair) because. J understood he was going to raise certain points. If he does not object, I think it would be convenient if we were to have a general discussion because all the Amendments relate to substantially to the same point. It is a matter of indifference to me.
§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMANI do not think they do raise the same point and that was why I warned the hon. and learned Member as to what the result of his speech would be.
§ Sir A. SINCLAIRif we had a general discussion on these Amendments it would not rule out others.
§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMANI think it is better to confine the discussion on the particular Amendment before the Committee.
§ Sir H. SLESSERI was explaining the purport of the Amendment which I am moving. It seeks to mitigate in some measure the hardship of the changes which these so-called economic proposals of the Government entail. The proposal of the Government is that for the six months' residential qualification which is now laid down by Section 6 of the Act of 1918 shall be substituted three months. By itself it is quite an illusory gift because it is accompanied by the further qualification that there shall only be one annual register.
§ Mr. WALLHEADOn a point of Order. I should like to know whether at the end of the discussion of the various Amendments you will allow a general discussion on the proposal that the Clause stand part.
§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMANI should like to see how the Debate developed before giving any undertaking.
§ Major CRAWFURDYour predecessor in the Chair accepted the Closure Motion that the Clause stand part presumably because there have been a general discussion on a certain Amendment. If hon. Members do not know that, it seems a little hard that they should not be allowed to discuss generally on the Amendment.
§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMANI am only anxious to meet the Committee, but if any arrangement is come to it must be adhered to.
Major CRAWFURDMWe would adhere to the arrangement that the Amendments were discussed, and then there is a, general discussion at the end on the Motion that the Clause stand part.
§ Sir H. SLESSERPerhaps the right hon. Gentleman will help us in this matter, and that the Government will allow us to have a general discussion on the Clause.
§ The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Captain Hacking)I am anxious to suit the convenience of the Committee. As this discussion has already started in regard to the whole Clause, it may meet the wishes of the Committee if the general discussion took place now, and we deal with the Amendments separately, with no general discussion on the motion that the Clause stand part.
§ Sir H. SLESSERI would wish now to continue solely on my Amendment. The point I was putting, was that we should have a general discussion on the Clause after the Amendments at the end. A change in the franchise in an Economy Bill is a matter of very general importance. Apart from the particular Amendments we are asking that we should confine our discussion to the Clause.
§ Captain HACKINGI cannot agree to that. I have offered that we should have a general discussion now. Otherwise I can give no promise that there will be a full discussion.
§ Major CRAWFURDYou gave a definite promise from the Chair that the hon. and learned Member should confine himself to the interests of the Amendment Clause. I think we are entitled to know that we shall not be closured on the Question that the Clause stand part.
§ Sir A. SINCLAIRI think we should protest against such a. statement. It is not for the Minister to say whether he will allow it or not. Surely, Captain FitzRoy, we are entitled to appeal to you.
§ Captain HACKINGOn a point of Order. I did not make the statement now attributed to me.
§ Sir A. SINCLAIRThat is not a point of Order. The hon. Member must allow me to finish my sentence before he rises. We are entitled, I submit, to the protection of the Chair. It is for you, Captain FitzRoy, to see that we get our rights on a general discussion of the Motion that the Clause stand part.
§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMANI assure the hon. and gallant Member that I shall protect him from every encroachment on his rights. As regards the point under discussion, as to whether a general discussion should take place on this Amendment, I am entirely in the hands of the Committee.
§ Sir H. SLESSERI think it would he wise to have a general discussion.
§ Captain HACKINGI am sure hon. Members do not wish to misrepresent me. I did not lay down the law and say I would not allow. The words I used meant that I could not guarantee. I have not the power to say that I would not allow. That power belongs to the Chair. I thought I was helping Members opposite by saying that they could have a discussion now.
§ Mr. JOHNSTONI think all the trouble has arisen over the "generous offer." There is no such thing as a generous offer in allowing us a discussion on this Clause. I have not spoken on this Economy Bill before. I cannot be accused of obstruction in any degree. I object, however, when we come to the coping-stone of the Bill, Clause 9, and trust, Captain FitzRoy, you will see that there is no attempt. on the part of the Government to prevent adequate discussion.
§ Major CRAWFURDI am sure no hon. Member on this side will accuse the hon. Member opposite of any desire to curtail discussion. I trust that on the Motion that the Clause stand part we shall have a general discussion.
§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMANI think that probably the best course would be to have a full discussion on this Clause.
§ Sir H. SLESSERI would like to accept the decision you have come to, to take now a general discussion on this Clause. I was saying—and I will emphasise the point now—that we do attach the very gravest importance to the proposal which has admittedly as its result and effect the disfranchising of a large number of people. Even if only a small number of people were to be affected by this Measure, even then it would be a serious question of complaint. What is the position to which we have arrived? Before 1918 there was a general discussion, I believe, presided over by the then Speaker, to decide what should be the electoral rights of His Majesty's subjects. That conference resulted in agreement which found expression in the Representation of the People Act, 19l8. From that time until now no alteration, certainly no alteration in the restriction of the franchise, has ever taken place, and the House, until the appearance of this Bill—I am sure that there was not a single Member in this House, belonging to any party, who had the least idea that there was any proposal to alter the franchise until some further conference had considered the matter and reported once again. Many hon. Members will recollect that when we were discussing the question of extending the franchise to women it was said by the Home Secretary, in opposition to the Bill moved from this side of the House, that we could not alter the franchise until there had been such a conference and some decision reached. It is a constitutional practice that the franchise is not altered in the middle of a Parliament, That is not perhaps a binding rule, but it is a custom. We are therefore confronted by the Government with a proposal, notwithstanding the practice, that no alteration of the franchise does take place in the middle of a Parliament—we are confronted with electoral changes with the rights of a number of people for the purpose of saving £125,000 per annum. Here the question of economy is not seriously maintained. You are dealing with a question which was disenfranchising some 100,000 persons. We propose to give this the most stubborn resistance at every 698 point. I really hope that when the Government do consider this thing in all its naked horrors, they will come down to the House and say, "We do agree that what we are doing we did in all innocency. The Home Office were asked by the Chancellor of the Exchequer to save some money and they could not do it on anything except the register. We really will drop this proposal to save £125,000 a year rather than labour under a suspicion."
Now if I may deal with the particular Amendment before the Committee, we object to any change in the franchise at all. We believe that if the register is only to be made up once a year, the mere fact that the reduction of the residential qualification is made from six months to three months is of no value at all. You are gaining nothing at all. What is the use of having a qualification if you cannot get on the register. It is merely tempting a man to a rosy paradise with iron gates. If it is to be of any value at all, it should be a one month's qualification and not a six months qualification. The reason we have chosen one month is that under the Act of 1918 there is what is called -a special qualification period. It arises under the proviso of Section six. I find in existing law there is a case where one month is. substituted for six months. Therefore we suggest that if you are going to make this change you should bring it down to the special qualifying period in the Act of 1918.
I would again emphasise that before this Measure leaves this House we do regard this matter as one of the most vital importance. I was horrified to hear the Chancellor of the Exchequer suggest that this and another Measure dealing with official marks were both to be discussed in two hours. It is with the very greatest restraint that I am not going to take two hours myself on the matter. It is only because I know that hon. and right hon. Gentlemen in the House will continue the debate and that it will he more than two hours before we finish. I would say it would even be improper to extend the franchise in a Bill dealing with economy. My point is that we have no business to alter the franchise in any way in this hole and corner manner. If the franchise is to be altered or tampered with in any way on the ground merely of saving money on. 699 registers, you are here introducing the undesirable novelty into the House of Commons.
The only conclusion I can come to is that the Government hope that people are not going to take it at its face value. It will be a very proper retribution if the Under-Secretary for the Home Office fails to he returned by just the number of votes he disqualifies by this Bill. I submit that we are justified in offering every possible resistance to this Measure not only for the sake of its own injustice or for the sake of the results which it must inevitably have at the present time on the franchise, but because of the precedent it is going to set up—that in future if people want to alter the franchise instead of doing so by a franchise bill they will be able to use this hole and corner expedient. I beg to move.
§ 5.0 A.M.
§ Mr. FENBYI regard with a good deal of nervousness any interference in what I, with all respect, desire to describe as a very slipshod, slovenly way of restricting the rights of adult men and women of this country who have their full share and opportunity of expressing their opinion at the Poll. I am nervous on another count. This, I take it, is a general discussion on the Clause. We are now to have a restriction, and whatever may he said from the Government bench, the proposals in this Clause will restrict the opportunity of people entitled to vote. We also have been threatened the reform of another place. We do not know what that may be. We have had the experience before. Some people think that the operation of these changes will affect rural parishes more than urban boroughs. Other people, looking at the Clause, think industrial areas will be affected more than rural ones; but having a little experience of both, I am of opinion that you cannot discriminate between the one and the other, but that every kind of constituency, whether rural or urban, will have cases of very great hardship indeed of people who, although they may be on the register, may find it a considerable cost to them to exercise the franchise because of the alteration this Clause proposes to make. There is a section of people in this country for whom we have the greatest respect, namely, the Nonconformist ministers, the Methodist 700 ministers, who, as a general rule, I think, change about once in three years, and they change about the 6th July. Changing as they do on that date, you are going to alter by this Section the qualification period to the end of the 1st June. You are going to make it 16 months before the minister leaving one circuit in a constituency can exercise his vote in another.
To the law-abiding and peace-loving people to whom we make an appeal always for the good government of the country, it is, I submit, a hardship. It is not right that they should be penalised in the way they would be. Then we take rural populations and. the Representation of the People's Act, where the adult male of 21 years of age became entitled to vote. In my part of the country the change takes place of the yearly servant on the 23rd November, so that the register on which he is placed having qualified on 1st June will come in on 15th October. On the 23rd November he may remove 10, 20 or 30 miles distant to follow his occupation. What will be his position when the next register conies round? He will not get a vote at all. If, under exceptional circumstances, he did happen to be on the register, I will submit that in these days of democratic Government and the wide application of the franchise that. we have under the Representation of the People Act, 1918, we have no right in the haphazard way of this kind to wipe people off the roll and make it impossible for others to exercise their vote. Let us look at the opportunities that come along. I hope it will not be regarded as wasting time. It is a very serious matter. I have not spoken on this Economy Bill so far, for I have left the very technical questions to the men absolutely qualified by experience to deal with them. But let us look at the elections. When do they occur? You are to have your register prepared on 15th October. Your qualifying period ends on 1st June. It has to be three months.
In my part of the country you have a county council election in urban and rural areas in March once in three years. Thus you have rural district councils, in an urban area you have the boards of guardians, and then in November you have the municipal elections and so you go on. In my own constituency there is a by-election going on at the moment.
701 By-elections will occur for various reasons and I want to press this point, that whoever speaks for the Government will remember the tremendous responsibility the Government is taking. It is a responsibility because the Government did not get their majority by purely conservative or non-political votes. A good many people not of the Conservative party voted for the Government. You have to remember that scores of thousands of people would never have given their votes to candidates who supported the Government if they had had any idea that a slip shod Amendment of this kind would be brought in. Now let us see the operation of it. A woman elector gets a qualification to vote at 30 She is not an occupier her own right because her husband is not, a Government elector. In my part of the country you have the six months' tenancy—on 6th April and 11th October. What are you going to do? You are going to prevent many women who would be entitled by age qualification under the Representation of the People Act to vote. This is not a party question; it is a constitutional question and we have got to the days when the democracy of the country will not consent to the restriction on their exercise of the franchise. We are getting to the days when people are demanding a broader and fuller opportunity for the expression of their views on local, national and imperial matters. I am not taking the point that this is early in the morning, I think we would get better legislation if we began at 9 a.m. instead of 3 p.m. What I say is that it is a wrong way to push into an Economy Bill matters affecting the Representation of the People Act, 1918, and so to restrict opportunities which people have enjoyed since then of having two registers prepared each year. This gave them a wider opportunity than they had before and now we are depriving them of the opportunity they have had since then. At a municipal election or a by election people are grumbling at the low percentage of persons on the electoral roll who vote. That is not an argument for further restricting their opportunities to vote and what we ought to do is to encourage them by making it easy for the people to exercise their vote and by giving the fullest opportunity to them to get on to the register whether local or national. Instead of that, we are taking away a boon to the workers in rural and 702 urban areas for which their forefathers fought—and for a very restricted franchise. We are getting back to the Conservative Government with the powerful majority of the old narrow days when government was conducted on the principle that "They should take who have the power and they should keep who can." It is a return to the restricted franchise in this miserable Economy Bill, which is tricking the poor of their franchise.
§ Lieut.-Colonel GADIEI am sorry that I do not agree with my hon. Friend who spoke last; if any party has widened the franchise, that claim ought to go to the Conservative Party.
§ The CHAIRMANI am afraid that the hon. and gallant Member will open a very wide field for discussion in that.
§ Lieut.-Colonel GADIEMy point is this. I am very disturbed over the restrictions of this particular Clause and I wonder whether the Minister can say whether any action can be taken to remedy what is at present a serious evil and what this Clause will, I think, make worse. I am thinking of the widow. So long as her husband is in the household the woman gets a vote—as soon as he dies and she assumes full responsibility for the household she losses her vote. Does this particular Clause put her further back still? There is no doubt there is a, wasteful expenditure in these particular matters, and it does not finish with this House. Although we are desirous to assist the Government in every direction, new Members at least think that the Government should make the franchise as broad as possible.
§ Mr. JOHNSTONLike the hon. and gallant Member who last addressed the House, this is the first occasion on which I have spoken during the passage of this Bill, so I cannot be accused of having sought to obstruct, but I do regard this particular Clause as the "blinking limit"—not to use such strong language as the hon. Member who said "Good Heavens!" The late Solicitor-General expressed some incredulity that the Government were doing this with malice aforethought. He rather thought that they would not dare to do a thing like this—that this had got slipped into the Bill by mistake while the Chancellor of the Exchequer was not looking. I do not 703 know whether the late Solicitor-General was speaking ironically or not, or was lightened with the beatific vision of the Chancellor of the Exchequer as the guardian of the public liberties which seems also this morning to have affected my right hon. Friend the Member for Derby (Mr. Thomas). Personally I have no faith in the naivete of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I certainly do not believe he has simply placed this Clause in the middle of the Bill without a specific purpose. That purpose is not the saving of £120,000. It is the last act, the coping stone, in the whole Bill. See how beautifully it fits in ! They began by appropriating in a legal manner the Health Insurance surplus. They go for the poor there. Then they get at the funds of the army, navy and the ex-servicemen. After having seized a certain proportion of a surplus which has accrued from friendly society work and approved society work they then get after the most helpless sections of the defence forces. They are coming on to education to see what they can steal from the children. Everything has been to lift something from the poor and then they come along and they are jolly well going to take care that the poor shall have the maximum of trouble at any rate in paying us for these services. This is an old trick of tyrants in the world's history. As a matter of fact, I happened to see in last Sunday's "Sunday Times" an article by Mr. Gavin Price, a well-known journalist who will be respected on the other side of the House, describing affairs in Greece and how the present revolutionary dictator had seized and maintained power in Greece. He says:
Having all the machinery at his disposal General Pangalos found only two possible rivals, Venizelos and Papoulis, both over 65 years of age. Therefore he issued a decree that the President must be henceforth aged between 45 and 65.First of all you find out what your opponents' ages are, then you pass a law forbidding persons of those ages to oppose you. That is just the trick that the Chancellor of the Exchequer is endeavouring to work off on the House of Commons now. There are classes of workers who will be, if not permanently, at any rate disfranchised for long periods under this Act. Let the Under-Secretary to the Home Office who is in 704 charge of the Bill recollect what is proposed in the Coal Commission Report. It is to be the next big part of Government business, and you are going to close down anything up to 10 per cent. of inefficient and badly managed pits and you are going to migrate roughly 10 per cent. of the colliers in the country. You are going to take them away, compulsorily emigrate them, and under the provisions of this Act you are going to disfranchise them for a period of anything up to 16 months. As I understand it, and hon. Gentlemen will correct me if I am wrong, under this Bill there is to be a qaulifying period of three months—March, April and May—and the register begins and the qualifying period ends on 1st June. If any man therefore has got a qualification for the three preceding months, on the 1st June the operations begin for placing him on the roll. This takes time. There are all sorts of operations that all take time, and you finally arrive at a period of the 15th October, which is the date on which this man who has qualified for the three months becomes on the roll and is entitled to vote. Let us suppose he "flits," as we say in Scotland, in the flitting term in May. In Scotland there are two periods in the calendar when people change their houses, a period in May and a period in November. Let us suppose that at the "May term," as we call it in Scotland, a man changes his residence. He then has lost his qualifying period and cannot have another until a year hence. That is 12 months before he can again qualify, and it is another four and a-half months before he is on the electoral roll—which means that for a period of 16½months large numbers of the working class will he disfranchised. Can anyone dispute that under the proposals of the Coal Commission anything up to 10 per cent. of the colliers will be disfranchised for that period, or at least may be disfranchised for that period? Will anyone dispute that farm servants, for instance, who, in the Scottish term, "fee" themselves—hire themselves—out for a Six monthly period for the May term will ipso facto (as the lawyers say), be disfranchised for another 16½ months? Will anyone dispute that large masses of building trade workers, men engaged in the fishing industry, men at Rosyth, 705 engineering workers, who for reasons of high State policy are compelled to change their residences, will not be taken off the roll and disfranchised for a period of 16½ months?That is a very serious proposal indeed. It cannot be fobbed off or simply smuggled away in the masses of an Economy Bill. It must be justified Ai some very sound reason. The only reason up to now we have got is that it it will save a sum of money in the printing of the electoral registers. The estimate is that the saving in printing will reach the sum of about £125,000. If that is to be the financial arbitral to be used as an excuse for choking off huge sections of the working class I put it to the Government that far more than £125,000 can be saved if they will abolish voting altogether. Set up your Mussolini. Let us abolish your demoncratic system of Government, announce to the people of this country that you refuse to accept the will of the majority. I do not believe in minority Government of any kind. I believe in majority Government so very strongly that I do beg of the Government to consider seriously the vital issues involved in this proposal.
There are vital issues here. If the Government said we are justified because of a saving of £125,000 and a possible cancellation of, shall we say, 10,000, 15,000, 20,000, 200,000 workers from the electoral work, then you are opening the door to a final struggle between Fascism and Communism in this country. Both refuse Parliamentary majority government; both declare for rule by the minority, and it seems to me the greatest ironic joke that I have seen in polities in this country that a Conservative Government at this time of day coming forward and saying that in the interests of a few thousand pounds we are going to wipe off certain sections of the working class from the roll to declare against rule by the majority in this country. I have not exaggerated the position. Those who would not believe him would not at the bar of history get off by justifying this legislation this morning by a little more mocking laughter. Is it right, is it not true that certain sections of the working class under this Bill will be disfranchised, and if it were true that all classes would be disfranchised, it still 706 would be no justification. It is a defiance of democracy. It means the opening of machinery of government in this country for Facisim and Communism. I stand for neither. I believe in democracy I believe in rule by the majority, and I propose to take every possible step to prevent the Government from getting this Clause. However the Government may spend £10,000,000 on the Super-tax, or give relief to the extent of £10,000,000, you are not entitled to prevent the people at the next time of asking from a free, open ballot. I dispute your right, having got a majority by Zinovieff letter tricks to come to this House—
§ The CHAIRMANWe are dealing with the next Election, not the last.
§ Mr. JOHNSTONI was only making a passing reference to the last Election. Whatever conduct is practised in this House by way of relief to the rich or bleeding the poor—there may be some constitutional justification for it, you have a majority, and the majority is entitled to rule—you are not entitled to jerrymander the voting lists. You are not entitled to prevent the people of this country from ooffing you out at the earliest constitutional opportunity.
§ Sir ROBERT SANDERSThe hon. Gentleman who has just sat down said he hoped some of us would point out to him if he exaggerated. I propose to point out to him that not only he, but those who have been opposing this Clause have been exaggerating very seriously. What is the good of being on the register unless you have a chance of voting at an Election. There are two registers at the present time made in the course of the year—one register in April and the other comes into force in October. The October register is the one effective register. On that register which then comes into force every General Parliamentary Election has been fought for over 30 years. I believe it applies to every municipal election, county council elections and to district council elections. The only elections to which this April register applies are occasional by-elections, so that the effective register for the purpose of an election is the October register. The effect of this proposal is not to decrease but to increase the number of people who are to be 707 put on the effective register. All this talk about the number of people left off is absolute misrepresentation. With regard to economy the amount saved is not very great. But you have not only to consider the economy of the State; you have also to consider the large amount of money, time and trouble in compiling -the registers. By the proposal you are reducing them by half. It inflicts no hardship on anyone except in the case of a by-election. It increases the number of people who are eligible to vote at a General Election by reducing the period from six to three months. It will not deprive people, but will give more working men a chance of getting on the register than now.
Mr. THOMASI do not know who is responsible as far as the Government is concerned and intend to reply, but I am going to ask whoever replies for the Government to tell us before the Division takes place whether in the opinion of their advisers they concur in the extraordinary statements that we have just heard. In a spirit of generosity that always characterises my methods of debate, I can only say that I account for the extraordinary defence we have just heard by the fact that it is 5.30 in the morning. Mr. Hope, I, like my hon. Friend, am not concerned in the least to say that it is a large or a small amount, but I am concerned in trying to bring home to Members that this Clause, this policy and this action can have, unless they are very careful, more far-reaching effect than any thing yet introduced in this House. It is no secret that there are two policies appearing to-day in the ranks of the working classes of this country. Whether hon. Members believe it or not at least I have no hesitation in saying there is in existence today in this country and growing up in every trades union in the country a. strong, determined body of men quite conscientious, quite honest, quite sincere in their views, but who are so "fed up," as they say, with 1what they call the failure of the Parliamentary machine that they are using all their energy and all their power, quite honestly and deliberately, to break the Parliamentary method and revert to industrialism. No one will dispute that. Whilst I am frequently publicly 708 and inside my own organisation pooh-poohing the strength of these people, I am forced to admit that they are not only a strong body, but a determined body. That does not mean that I think they are right; on the contrary, I think they are hopelessly wrong, because I believe they are wrong and their methods are dangerous, because I believe it would be ruinous to this country if that policy was to succeed. I am at least entitled to ask Members on the other side of the House who have more interest in this matter than I have —[An HON. MEMBER: "Why?"]—I do not mean in any personal sense, but in the sense that you always claim, as against us, that you are the Constitutional party. I do not speak personally not in the individual sense, but I do claim to have dope something to stop tills kind of propaganda, both inside the trade union movement and in the interest of the country generally. When I take that attitude, I try to be logical, and I do it on this ground I say: "You have no right to condemn the Parliamentary machine unless it has been given a chance. You have no right to say Parliament has failed until it has been proved to be a failure. You have no right to strike and cause all the misery and suffering that follows from a strike for an object that can be obtained by using your intelligence: by recourse to the ballot." That is my logic. I do not apologise for it. That is my conception of Parliamentary government, and I believe it to be essential to maintain this country and preserve it. If you agree with me that this is necessary and desirable, I must prevent any of these people or any one of those who think like them saying "Yes, we believed with you. We wanted to share your methods; we believed in the Parliamentary Institution, but we are denied the right. We are prevented from following your advice and having recourse to the ballot. We are now being denied by those who are the Government of the day to give expression to our views, and there is no alternative to our method." They are entitled to say that. So far I have assumed we are on common ground. The right lion Member for Wells (Sir R. Sanders) said that this Bill deprives nobody of a vote, but actually gives them better facilities. That is a most extraordinary proposition. The 709 Government have already said: We will give effect to the Coal Commission report. You are in error in assuming that 10 per cent. is going to be the solution of the miners' problem.
Anyone who knows anything about that problem know quite well that it will be nearer 30 per cent. than 10 per cent. Take the basis of 10 per cent., and assume a transfer takes place as between South Wales and Yorkshire. Supposing there is a by-election in a constituency to which a large number of men are transferred, will it be denied that these men, compulsorily transferred by the recommendations of a Royal Commission, are by this Bill prevented from exercising their franchise? That cannot be. We know there are by-elections. We know they do take place and will take place. I am merely putting the point that if they do take place, then it must be admitted that this Clause will have the effect of disfranchising electors.
§ Major O. STANLEYThe effect is that in any election which takes place between October and April, there will be an increase and in any election which takes place between April and October, there will be a decrease.
Mr. THOMASLet us see where we are going. If you are right, this emerges, that for the purpose of obtaining £100,000 you are going to admit to the constituents that you may disfranchise a large number you do not know who they are. The Government are banking on the possibility that no future general election can take place except at a certain period and all this is to be secured under the guise of an economy bill, and the saving of £100,000. I am bound to say there is something more behind it than £100,000. If it was only a question of £100,000 that was involved, I would say "Go on; do what you like". I hope, even at this hour of the morning this House of Commons will not make a mistake, will not give a lever, a handle, a power to people, that they will regret the consequence of.
I look upon Communism as a danger to the World. I took some risks in saying so in front of them, but I think that in its consequences there is only one thing that is as bad as Communism and 710 that is Facism. Both of them would be a danger to this country, and this Clause gives the lever to both. This Clause lets them fight for their hand and will give them an opportunity of weakening the Parliamentary institution. You can sneer at us, you may pretend that your constitutional power if it suits you will prevent that; you can say what you like about us. I am making a stand, and I repeat it is not on the ground of economy or to save a sum of money but because I believe as a loyal citizen of this country that I must do the best I can for the constitution of this country that I oppose the proposal.
§ Captain HACKINGI think that the Debate has mainly ranged round questions as to whether the provisions which are suggested in this particular Clause will give better facilities or worse facilities. The right hon. Member for Derby (Mr. Thomas) has built up all sorts of horrible things that would happen if the facilities are going to be worse under the provisions of this Clause.
§ Mr. FENBYOn a point of Order. The point I wish to make is that under a Clause of this Bill it is provided that it shall not apply to Northern Ireland. Does that mean that a section of Members in this House will be elected on a different franchise from other sections?
§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMANThat is not the point of Order. It was the hon. Member's interpretation of the Bill.
§ Captain HACKINGThe answer is quite a simple one. Ireland has her own Parliament, and is on a different system now, and when we change our system, as I hope we will be able to, we shall be on the same system as Northern Ireland. As I was saying, the right hon. Member for Derby suggested all sorts of horrors that will take place if the facilities to be given under this Clause prove to be worse instead of better.
§ Captain HACKINGI do not want to exaggerate, so I will say possible dangers. If I can prove to him that the facilities will be better, he would be of opinion that he would have a good deal better control over the people he wishes to help?
Mr. THOMASIf you can show me that no people will be disfranchised I will be satisfied. It is not sufficient to say there will be a few more added, but that a few would be disfranchised.
§ 6.0 A.M.
§ Captain HACKINGI cannot prove that there will not be some people disfranchised, but on the other hand the franchise will be given to other people and on the balance which is, after all, the most important thing, there will be greater facilities given than there were previously. I do not think I need really develop the arguments in connection with that point, because they were put so clearly by the right hon. Gentleman who gave a good accurate account of the position of the General Elections since 1900. I think he said that in the last 30 years, since 1900, the General Elections have never been fought on the spring register, but on the autumn register and since 1900 there have only been 24 by-elections held in the summer and very few, probably not 4 per cent., of the persons whose registration will be deferred by the abolition of the spring register could have voted in a Parliamentary Election on that register. But there is no doubt that advantage will be given under this Clause to a great number of people whose being placed on the register will be accelerated. As far as the actual voting is concerned, the annual register, the register qualification period is three months instead of six months. If General Elections are held in the winter—and there are probabilities that elections in the future will be held in the winter, if one works back on an average of a period of years —if that is so, undoubtedly there will be benefits to a larger number of persons than are penalised by this Clause. If there was a General Election in the spring the general population would not benefit but there are other elections besides General Elections and it is the practice for these elections in this country to take place on the autumn register and therefore if we are going to abolish a register at all for the sake of economy it is natural that we should abolish the spring register and not the autumn register. A point was made about economy being impossible of achievement and the figure of £100,000 was mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby.
§ Captain HACKINGThat sum is much too small. The actual money saved will be £250,000, £125,000 of it to the Government, and £125,000 to the local authorities. That I think will prove to the right hon. Gentleman that we are at any rate considering economy to a larger extent than he thought.
Mr. THOMASIt is not so much a question of being on a register. It is a question of having facilities to vote. Do you undertake on behalf of the Government, to pay the expenses of these people who are transferred?
§ Captain HACKINGI cannot, of course, give a pledge of that character. I am not the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He happens to be in his place now and that question could be put to him.
Mr. THOMASThe question I want to put to the Chancellor of the Exchequer is this. We urge in opposition to this Bill that it will disfranchise certain people. That is admitted on both sides. But it is also admitted on the Government side that it will increase the advantages to a great number. Therefore it follows that the Government are not so much concerned with getting people on the register as in getting people facilities to vote. In the event of a transfer of people, are the Government prepared to pay their expenses to the place from which they are disfranchised?
§ Mr. CHURCHILLI do not know that would be prepared to answer that question without consideration at more leisure, but it is a matter which on a later stage of the Bill I shall be glad to answer.
§ Captain HACKINGThe right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby went into ancient history, back to 1900, on the question of the register. Perhaps he has also forgotten that previous to 1918 there was only a single register. It is hardly a fair comparison to make. There are other things that have to be taken into consideration, and when we consider what has happened in the last few years, and think there is a probability of elections taking place at the same time of the year in the future, we are going not only to effect a large economy, but also to give additional facilities to the people of the 713 country. Surely it is worth while for the Government to undertake that in this Bill.
§ Mr. WALLHEADIs not there a question of removals?
§ Captain HACKINGWe have considered everything in regard to that. I think the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby will realise now that we are not committing such a terrible sin as he thought we were. The hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for South East Leeds (Sir H. Slesser) found fault with making the change from six months to three months and instead moved an Amendment to limit it from three months to one month, so that actually if his Amendment is carried it will make a greater change than the change that we have proposed.
§ Sir H. SLESSERWhat I said was that such a change interfering with the principle of voting ought to be dealt with in a larger measure of electoral reform in conference.
§ Captain HACKINGThe hon. and learned Gentleman's proposals will make that a larger change still. He also said we were making a drastic change in making the qualifying period different from the period of registration. His Amendment makes the position more serious. There is one thing which he says which I was very glad to hear—that he was a good Conservative—and that was his reason for suggesting one month. He said that in the Representation of the People Act of 1918 one month was in existence, but he overlooked the fact that that proviso was only in connection with naval or military voters and it has therefore no connection with the present position. Seeing that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby is more convinced than he was about the chief problems I do not think it is necessary for me to say anything more about the points and I hope the Committee will now reject this first Amendment and thus close the general discussion.
§ Mr. SPENCERI fail to see how, having about five months possible duration of a waiting period is going to facilitate a man coming on to the register. From my calculations the maximum period that a man has to wait at the present time to get on the register is 11 months. If this Bill becomes law it is possible for a man to come into a dis- 714 trict in August and not get on to the register for effective purposes until the October following. Therefore, you are extending the possible waiting period from 11 months to 14 months. If that is making it easier for men to exercise their franchise, it passes my comprehension how it is going to succeed. The point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Derby (Mr. Thomas) with regard to the extra waiting period has not been effectively answered by the Under-Secretary. I am quite certain that Members on this side of the House cannot allow this to go without forcing a Division. We are perfectly justified in laying down the principle which makes it as easy as possible for electors to get on the register so that they might exercise their franchise. This Bill is doing all it is possible to make it much more difficult.
I listened very patiently to what the Under-Secretary said, and I was hoping he would make it clear in what way he was going to make it easier for men to get on the register, and that it was going to be shorter in duration to get on the register. At the present time a man can live in a district for seven months, and then get on the register, and in either a by-election or a municipal election he can vote. Does anyone say that he will be able to do so under the provisions of this Bill? Unless he is there four months before September it will be almost impossible for him to get on the register until 14 months have elapsed. Therefore, if you are giving some slight concession to certain people you are making it very difficult for others. Is not that disfranchising a great number of men? This is not the time when we should seek to disfranchise men. I would like to support the argument of the right hon. Member for Derby, in which he referred to the possibility of what he termed "direct action." If anyone should stay their hand with regard to a step of that character it is the Conservative Government and hon. Members on the opposite benches. They have always stood in the country for constitutionalism, appealing to the electorate and trusting the issues of this country to the electorate. If you take away the franchise of men and make the period of qualification as long- as possible you will create dissatisfaction amongst unfortunate people who from time to 715 time have to pass from one centre to another. Therefore, I feel certain that we ought to pause before this Bill is passed into law. I am surprised that the Government should do this kind of thing at the present time. There is enough unrest in the country without the Government adding to it, and the only logical effect of this Bill can be to put into the hands of those who are the enemies of Parliament a weapon for fighting constitutional methods.
§ Sir A. SINCLAIRThere are many extraordinary features about this Debate, but none has been more extraordinary that the complacency with which the Under-Secretary appeared to think that he had convinced hon. Members on this side of the House. There is one small point with regard to which I am not quite sure, that the Under-Secretary may not be right. With regard to the representation of Northern Ireland, the Act of 1920 says, in Section 19:
The election laws and the laws relating to the qualification of Parliamentary electors shall not, so far as they relate to elections of Members returned by constituencies in Ireland to serve in the Parliament of the United Kingdom, be altered by the Parliament of Southern Ireland or Northern Ireland.At that time the law governing elections in Northern Ireland, as in Southern Ireland, was the law of 1918. That law established the two annual registers with a qualifying period of six months. What change has been made?
§ Captain HACKINGThe hon. and gallant Member is referring to the 1920 Act. I have the 1922 Act. It is quite clear that there is only one date. The end of the qualifying period is 15th July, and the register comes into force on the 15th December. Under the principal Act it was 15th July and 15th October.
§ Sir A. SINCLAIRDoes that only apply to Northern Ireland?
§ Captain HACKINGYes, Northern Ireland. It is the Schedule of the 1922 Act. There was in that Act a Schedule for England and Wales, for Scotland and for Northern Ireland.
§ Sir A. SINCLAIRI am very much obliged to the hon. Gentleman. Returning to the more fundamental issue, there is one vital and fundamental admission made by the hon. Gentleman which 716 really granted us the whole of our case. He said certain people were being disfranchised; and on the other hand that we are giving the franchise to new people. I am not saying there is not a very good case for giving the franchise to those people. That is a matter for consideration on its merits and does not form a case for depriving other people of the rights they already possess. It is surely the duty of the House of Commons to protect the people first and foremost in the enjoyment of their existing constitutional rights. It has been stated in the debate to-day that because all elections for the last 25 years have been on the autumn register, the same thing is likely to happen in the future. As the right hon. Gentleman for Derby pointed out that, just previous to this series of winter elections there was another series of elections in the summer. I do not know why the right hon. Gentleman assumes that all elections are to be in the autumn. By the law of averages it is likely we may in the future have elections in the summer. As a matter of fact a number of things may change. For example, there is a proposal under very serious consideration to begin the Session in the autumn.
It is quite clear that large numbers of people will be disfranchised at by-elections and also at local elections such as the Scottish Education Authority. All these matters do affect the fundamental rights now possessed by the citizens of this country. These arc matters affecting their rights of representation. In this House we are their representatives and therefore we have a very special and direct responsibility for guarding these rights which the people now possess and preventing this Government filching them away. There is a large number of whole categories of people who will lose the vote, for 16 months. The late Solicitor-General dealt with them, and read out a list to the House. I find there are 10 separate groups and categories of people who will be definitely disfranchised by this proposel. In foreign countries, France and in many other countries, you have a system whereby people who have been treacherous and committed high crimes against the State are sentenced to deprivation of their civil rights, and you are going to take a certain number of innocent and law-abiding citizens of this country and sentence them 717 to deprivation of their constitutional rights.
Then the right hon. Gentleman says he is going to save £250,000 by this Measure. I think that is arguable. The proposal will be especially bad in Scotland, where the date of the removal term is May 28th, and it will act with very great hardship. There is another innovation which has only yet been touched upon indirectly and that is the reduction of the qualifying period, the importance of which lies not so much in the actual reduction of the period, but in the abandonment of continuity, because at the present time the six months succeed each other. I hold in my hand the opinion of an authority from which the right hon. Gentleman the late Solicitor-General has already quoted and this authority on this particular point says:
The break in the succession of the qualifying periods will—thus reducing the amount of economy estimated by the Minister.
- (a) Render very difficult the detection of duplicate entries, as the tracing of successive residential and occupational qualifications will become almost an impossibility.
- (b) Render inquiries as to particulars of removals—particulars essential in the compilation of the electors' lists—so difficult and lengthy as virtually to preclude attempts to obtain such information.
- (c)Necessitate the employment of a greater amount of casual labour, and consequently lessen the efficiency of the work performed."
The third point therefore is that to abandon the continuity of the qualifying period must have a disastrous effect on
§ the efficiency of the work of compiling a register and must affect the accuracy of the result. I ask the House to remember what these arrangements are that we are invited to tamper with. These are the arrangements which have been come to as the result of a Speaker's Conference. in 1916 and 1917. They were based on the report of that conference. One of the important points in this report is the registration of electors. No fewer than four recommendations are made on this question, and one of the most, important is the revision of the register every six months. The report was agreed to by Members of all parties since it was a great national effort made to reach a compromise. You ought not to go back on that report or fundamentally to alter it unless you get the permission of all the parties to that agreement by referring it to another Speaker's Conference. Another Speaker's Conference has been promised. But the Government preferred instead to bring in this change in a hotly contested highly controversial party Measure—a Measure which is opposed by the Members of the House who represent a majority of the votes cast at the last election. Members may laugh, but that is an undoubted fact; a very relevant fact when considering a question of the franchise, and it would certainly he a constitutional offence to alter the compromise without referring the question in the first place to a Speaker's Conference again. Therefore I beg to support the Amendment.
§ Question put, "That the words "three months" stand part of the Clause."
§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 134; Noes, 64.
719| Division No. 164.] | AYES. | [6.35 a.m. |
| Ainsworth, Major Charles | Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer | Hacking, Captain Douglas H. |
| Alexander, Sir Wm. (Glasgow, Cent'l) | Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D. | Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry |
| Allen, J. Sandeman (L'pool, W. Derby) | Cope, Major William | Harland, A, |
| Applin, Colonel R. V. K. | Couper, J. B. | Harrison, G. J, C. |
| Balfour, George (Hampstead) | Courtauld, Major J. S. | Hartington, Marquess of |
| Balniel, Lord | Cowan, Sir Wm. Henry (Islington, N.) | Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M. |
| Barnston, Major Sir Harry | Curzon, Captain Viscount | Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley) |
| Betterton, Henry B. | Dalkeith, Earl of | Henn, Sir Sydney H. |
| Bird, E. R. (Yorks, W. R., Skipton) | Davidson, J.(Hertf'd, Hemel Hempst'd) | Hennessy, Major J. R. G. |
| Blades, Sir George Rowland | Davies, Dr. Vernon | Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G. |
| Blundell, F. N. | Dawson, Sir Philip | Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone) |
| Brassey, Sir Leonard | Dixey, A. C. | Holt, Capt. H. P. |
| Briggs, J. Harold | Edmondson, Major A. J. | Hopkins, J. W. W. |
| Brocklebank, C. E. R. | Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston.-s.-M.) | Howard, Captain Hon. Donald |
| Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I. | Evans, Captain A. (Cardiff, South) | Hudson, Capt. A. U. M.(Hackney. N.) |
| Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James | Fanshawe, Commander G. D. | Hume, Sir G. H. |
| Burgoyne, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Alan | Finburgh, S. | Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker B. |
| Butler, Sir Geoffrey | Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E. | Kennedy, A. R. (Preston) |
| Campbell, E. T. | Gadie, Lieut.-Col. Anthony | Kidd, J. (Linlithgow) |
| Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City) | Glyn, Major R. G. C. | King, Captain Henry Douglas |
| Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth, S.) | Goff, Sir Park | Lister, Cunliffe, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip |
| Cazalet, Captain Victor A. | Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E. | Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley) |
| Charteris, Brigadier-General J. | Gunston, Captain D. W. | Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (Handsw'th) |
| Loder, J. de V. | Pilcher, G. | Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H. |
| Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harman | Power, Sir John Cecil | Strickland, Sir Gerald |
| Lynn, Sir Robert J. | Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton | Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Frast |
| Mac Andrew, Major Charles Glen | Price, Major C. W. M. | Sugden, Sir Wilfrid |
| Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart) | Radford, E. A. | Titchfield, Major the Marquess of |
| MacIntyre, Ian | Ramsden, E. | Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement |
| McLean, Major A. | Held, Capt. A. S. C. (Warrington) | Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P. |
| Macquisten, F. A. | Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y) | Wallace, Captain D. E. |
| MacRobert, Alexander M. | Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint) | Ward, Lt.-Col. A.L.(Kingston-on-Hull) |
| Malone, Major P. B. | Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford) | Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle) |
| Margesson, Captain D. | Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth) | Wells S. R |
| Mason, Lieut.-Colonel Glyn K. | Rye, F. G. | Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George |
| Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M. | Sandeman, A. Stewart | Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl |
| Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr) | Sanders, Sir Robert A. | Wise, Sir Fredric |
| Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C. | Sanderson, Sir Frank | Womersley, W. J. |
| Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive | Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustavo D. | Woodcock, Colonel H. C. |
| Nelson, Sir Frank | Shepperson, E. W. | Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L |
| Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter) | Skelton, A. N. | Wragg, Herbert |
| Nicholson, O. (Westminster) | Slaney, Major P. Kenyon | Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T. |
| Oakley, T. | Smith-Carington, Neville W. | |
| Penny, Frederick George | Smithers, Waldron | TELLERS FOR THE AYES.— |
| Perkins, Colonel E. K. | Stanley, Lord (Fylde) | Mr. F. C. Thomson and Captain Bowyer. |
| Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome) | Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland) | |
| NOES. | ||
| Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West) | Hirst, W. (Bradford, South) | Short, Alfred (Wednesbury) |
| Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro') | Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield) | Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness) |
| Barr, J. | Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose) | Sitch, Charles H. |
| Batey, Joseph | Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath) | Slesser, Sir Henry H. |
| Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W. | John, William (Rhondda, West) | Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe) |
| Broad, F. A. | Johnston, Thomas (Dundee) | Smith, Rennie (Penistone) |
| drown, James (Ayr and Bute) | Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Slivertown) | Spencer, G. A. (Broxtowe) |
| Cape, Thomas | Kelly, W. T. | Stamford, T. W. |
| Charleton, H. C. | Kennedy, T. | Stephen, Campbell |
| Cluse, W. S. | Kirkwood, D. | Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby) |
| Connolly, M. | Lee, F. | Tinker, John Joseph |
| Cove, W. G. | Lunn, William | Varley, Frank B. |
| Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale) | Mackinder, W. | Wallhead, Richard C. |
| Duncan, C. | MacLaren, Andrew | Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney |
| Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.) | MacNeill-Weir, L. | Whiteley, W. |
| Fenby, T. D. | Maxton, James | Williams, T. (York, Don Valley) |
| Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne) | Morris, R. H. | Windsor, Walter |
| Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan) | Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.) | Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton) |
| Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil) | Palin, John Henry | |
| Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland) | Paling, W. | TELLERS FOR THE NOES.— |
| Harris, Percy A. | Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan) | Mr. Charles Edwards and Mr. Hayes. |
| Hayday, Arthur | Potts, John S. | |
| Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley) | Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring) |
§ Sir A. SINCLAIRI beg to move, in No words page 8, line 5, at the end, to insert the words
Provided that this Sub-section shall not come into operation until six months after the issue of a writ summoning a new parliament.
§ No words of mine are necessary after the speech I have just made.
§ Question put,"That those words be there inserted."
§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 65; Noes, 134.
721| Division No. 165.] | AYES. | [6.4m. 3a. |
| Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West) | Hayes, John Henry | Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring) |
| Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro') | Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley) | Short, Alfred (Wednesbury) |
| Barr, J. | Hirst, W. (Bradford, South) | Sitch, Charles H. |
| Batey, Joseph | Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield) | Slesser, Sir Henry H. |
| Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W. | Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath) | smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe) |
| Broad, F. A. | John, William (Rhondda, West) | Smith, Rennie (Penistone) |
| Brown, James (Ayr and Bute) | Johnston, Thomas (Dundee) | Spencer, George A. (Broxtowe) |
| Cape, Thomas | Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown) | Stamford, T. W. |
| Charleton, H. C. | Kelly, W. T. | Stephen, Campbell |
| Cluse, W. S. | Kennedy, T. | Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby) |
| Connolly, M. | Kirkwood, D. | Tinker, John Joseph |
| Cove, W. G. | Lee, F. | Varley, Frank B. |
| Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale) | Lunn, William | Wallhead, Richard C. |
| Duncan, C. | Mackinder, W. | Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda) |
| Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty) | MacLaren, Andrew | Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney |
| Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.) | MacNeill-Weir, L. | Whiteley, W. |
| Fenby, T. D. | Maxton, James | Williams, T. (York, Don Valley) |
| Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne) | Morris, R. H. | Windsor, Walter |
| Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan) | Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.) | Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton) |
| Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil) | Palin, John Henry | |
| Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland) | Paling, W. | TELLERS FOR THE AYES.— |
| Harris, Percy A. | Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan) | Sir Robert Hutchison and Sir Archibald Sinclair. |
| Hayday, Arthur | Potts, John S. | |
| NOES. | ||
| Ainsworth, Major Charles | Hacking, Captain Douglas H. | Power, Sir John Cecil |
| Alexander, Sir Wm. (Glasgow, Cent'l) | Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry | Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton |
| Allen, J. Sandeman (L'pool, W, Derby) | Harland, A. | Price, Major C. W. M. |
| Applin, Colonel R. V. K. | Harrison, G. J. C. | Radford, E. A. |
| Balfour, George (Hampstead) | Hartington, Marquess of | Ramsden, E. |
| Balniel, Lord | Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M. | Reid, Capt. A. S. C. (Warrington) |
| Barnston, Major Sir Harry | Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley) | Remer, J. R. |
| Betterton, Henry B. | Henn, Sir Sydney H. | Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y) |
| Bird, E. R. (Yorks, W. R., Skipton) | Hennessy, Major J. R. G. | Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint) |
| Blades, Sir George Rowland | Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G. | Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford) |
| Blundell, F. N. | Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone) | Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth) |
| Bowyer, Captain G. E. W. | Holt, Captain H. P. | Rye, F. G. |
| Brassey, Sir Leonard | Hopkins, J. W. W. | Sandeman, A. Stewart |
| Brigge, J. Harold | Howard, Captain Hon. Donald | Sanders, Sir Robert A. |
| Brocklebank, C. E. R. | Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.) | Sanderson, Sir Frank |
| Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I. | Hume, Sir G. H. | Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D. |
| Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James | Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H. | Shepperson, E. W. |
| Burgoyne, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Alan | Kennedy, A. R. (Preston) | Skelton, A. N. |
| Butler, Sir Geoffrey | Kidd, J. (Linlithgow) | Slaney, Major P. Kenyon |
| Campbell, E. T. | King, Captain Henry Douglas | Smith-Carington, Neville W. |
| Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City) | Lister Cunliffe, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip | Smithers, Waldron |
| Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth, S) | Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley) | Stanley, Col. Hon. G. F. (Will'sden, E.) |
| Cazalet, Captain Victor A. | Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (Handsw'th) | Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland) |
| Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer | Loder, J. de V. | Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H. |
| Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D. | Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harman | Strickland, Sir Gerald |
| Cope. Major William | Lynn, Sir R. J. | Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser |
| Couper, J. B. | MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen | Sugden, Sir Wilfrid |
| Courtauld, Major J. S. | Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart) | Titchfield, Major the Marquess of |
| Cowan, Sir Wm. Henry (Islingtn, N.) | MacIntyre, Ian | Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement |
| Curzon, Captain Viscount | McLean, Major A. | Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P. |
| Dalkeith, Earl of | MacRobert, Alexander M. | Wallace, Captain D. E. |
| Davidson, J. (Hertf'd, Hemel Hempst'd) | Malone, Major P. B. | Ward, Lt.-Col. A.L. (Kingston-on-Hull) |
| Davies, Dr. Vernon | Margesson, Captain D. | Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle) |
| Dawson, Sir Philip | Mason, Lieut.-Col. Glyn K. | Wells, S. R. |
| Dixey, A. C. | Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M. | Windsor-Clive. Lieut.-Colonel George |
| Edmondson, Major A. J. | Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr) | Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl |
| Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s-M.) | Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C | Wise, Sir Fredric |
| Evans, Captain A. (Cardiff, South) | Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive | Womersley, W, J. |
| Fanshawe, Commander G. D. | Nelson, Sir Frank | Woodcock, Colonel H. C. |
| Finburgh, S. | Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter) | Wothington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L. |
| Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E. | Nicholson, O. (Westminster) | Wragg, Herbert |
| Gadie, Lieut.-Col. Anthony | Oakley, T. | Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T. |
| Glyn, Major R. G. C. | Penny, Frederick George | |
| Goff, Sir Park | Perkins, Colonel E. K. | TELLERS FOR THE NOES.— |
| Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E. | Peto, G. (Somerset, Frame) | Mr. F. C. Thomson and Lord Stanley. |
| Gunston, Captain D. W. | Pilcher, G. |
§ Mr. WALLHEADI beg to move, in page 8, line 17, at the end, to insert the words
Provided that it shall be the duty of the registration officer to compile quarterly supplements to the register of electors, the first such supplementary register to come into force on the fifteenth day of January, nineteen hundred and twenty-seven.This is a very extraordinary Bill brought forward under pressure by the Government. Before its conclusion is reached we should like to make another endeavour to eave some little of the liberties which have been taken away. The Bill comes under the guise of economy, and tinkers with the franchise. There should be a supplementary list published every three months to do something to preserve the machinery of registration. As I promised not to speak any more on this matter, I shall content myself with formally moving the Amendment. This supplementary list would 722 not be a costly business, and would preserve continuity.
§ Captain HACKINGThe effect of this Amendment would be to make four registers in, the year instead of one.
§ Mr. WALLHEADThe proposal simply means that what will be published will be a list placed in a public place with the names of those persons who qualified in the preceding three months.
§ Captain HACKINGAny other charges which were made during the quarter would have to be given and the effect would be that there would be four registers, and as the cost of compiling the register is twice the cost of printing it, and as this is an Economy Bill, we cannot accept it.
§ Question put, "That those words be there inserted."
§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 65; Noes, 136.
723| Division No. 166.] | AYES. | [6.54 a.m. |
| Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West) | Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley) | Short, Alfred (Wednesbury) |
| Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro') | Hirst, W. (Bradford, South) | Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness) |
| Barr, J. | Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield) | Sitch, Charles H. |
| Batey, Joseph | Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose) | Slesser, Sir Henry H. |
| Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W. | Jenkins, W, (Glamorgan, Neath) | Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe) |
| Broad, F. A. | John, William (Rhondda, West) | Smith, Rennie (penistone) |
| Brown, James (Ayr and Bute) | Johnston, Thomas (Dundee) | Spencer, George A. (Broxtowe) |
| Cape, Thomas | Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown) | Stamford, T. W. |
| Charleton, H. C. | Kelly, W. T. | Stephen, Campbell |
| Cluse, W. S. | Kennedy, T. | Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby) |
| Connolly, M. | Kirkwood, D. | Tinker, John Joseph |
| Cove, W. G. | Lee, F. | Varley, Frank B. |
| Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale) | Lunn, William | Wallhead, Richard C. |
| Duncan, C. | Mackinder, W. | Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda) |
| Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty) | MacLaren, Andrew | Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney |
| Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.) | MacNeill-Weir, L. | Whiteley, W. |
| Fenby, T, D. | Maxton, James | Williams, T. (York, Don Valley) |
| Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne) | Morris, R. H. | Windsor, Walter |
| Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan) | Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.) | Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton) |
| Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil) | Palin, John Henry | |
| Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland) | Paling, W. | TELLERS FOR THE AYES.— |
| Harris, Percy A. | Potts, John S. | Mr. Allen Parkinson and Mr. Hayes. |
| Hayday, Arthur | Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring) |
| NOES. | ||
| Ainsworth, Major Charles | Hacking, Captain Douglas H. | Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton |
| Alexander, Sir Wm.(Glasgow, Cent'l) | Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry | Price, Major C. W. M. |
| Allen, J. Sandeman (L'pool, W, Derby) | Harland, A. | Radford, E. A. |
| Applin, Colonel R. V. K. | Harrison, G. J. C. | Ramsden, E. |
| Balfour, George (Hampstead) | Hartington, Marquess of | Reid, Capt. A. S. C. (Warrington) |
| Balniel, Lord | Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M. | Remer, J, R. |
| Barnston, Major Sir Harry | Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley) | Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y) |
| Betterton, Henry B. | Henn, Sir Sydney H. | Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint) |
| Bird, E. R. (Yorks, W. R., Skipton) | Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G. | Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford) |
| Blades, Sir George Rowland | Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone) | Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth) |
| Blundell, F. N. | Holt, Captain H. P. | Rye, F. G. |
| Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W. | Hopkins, J. W. W. | Sandeman, A, Stewart |
| Brassey, Sir Leonard | Howard, Capt. Hon, D. (Cumb., N.) | Sanders, Sir Robert A. |
| Briggs, J. Harold | Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.) | Sanderson, Sir Frank |
| Brocklebank, C. E. R. | Hume, Sir G. H. | Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D. |
| Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I. | Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H. | Shepperson, E. W. |
| Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James | Kennedy, A. R. (Preston) | Skelton, A. N. |
| Burgoyne, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Alan | Kidd, J. (Linlithgow) | Slaney, Major P. Kenyon |
| Butler, Sir Geoffrey | King, Captain Henry Douglas | Smith-Carington, Neville W. |
| Campbell, E. T. | Lister, Cunliffe-, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip | Smithers, Waldron |
| Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City) | Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley) | Stanley, Col. Hon. G. F. (Will'sden, E.) |
| Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth, S.) | Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (Handsw'th) | Stanley, Lord (Fylde) |
| Cazalet, Captain Victor A. | Loder, J. de V. | Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland) |
| Charteris, Brigadier-General J. | Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harman | Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H. |
| Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer | Lynn, Sir R. J. | Strickland, Sir Gerald |
| Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D. | MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen | Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser |
| Cope, Major William | Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart) | Sugden, Sir Wilfrid |
| Couper, J. B. | MacIntyre, Ian | Titchfield, Major the Marquess of |
| Courtauld, Major J. S. | McLean, Major A. | Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement |
| Cowan, Sir Wm. Henry (Islington, M) | Macquisten, F. A. | Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P. |
| Curzon, Captain Viscount | MacRobert, Alexander M. | Wallace, Captain D. E. |
| Dalkeith, Earl of | Malone, Major P. B. | Ward, Lt.-Col. A. L. (Kingston-on-Hull) |
| Davidson, J. (Hertf'd, Hemel Hempst'd) | Margesson, Capt. D. | Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle) |
| Davies, Dr. Vernon | Mason, Lieut.-Col. Glyn K. | Wells, S. R. |
| Dawson, Sir Philip | Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M. | Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George |
| Dixey, A. C. | Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr) | Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl |
| Edmondson, Major A. J. | Moore-Brabazon, Lt.-Col. J. T. C. | Wise, Sir Fredric |
| Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.) | Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive | Wolmer, Viscount |
| Evans, Captain A. (Cardiff, South) | Nelson, Sir Frank | Womersley, W. J. |
| Fanshawe, Commander G. D. | Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter) | Woodcock, Colonel H. C. |
| Finburgh, S. | Nicholson, O. (Westminster) | Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L. |
| Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E. | Oakley, T. | Wragg, Herbert |
| Gadie, Lieut.-Col. Anthony | Penny, Frederick George | Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T. |
| Glyn, Major R. G. C. | Perkins, Colonel E. K. | |
| Goff, Sir Park | Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome) | TELLERS FOR THE NOES.— |
| Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E. | Pilcher, G. | Major Hennessy and Mr. F. C. Thomson. |
| Gunston, Captain D. W. | Power, Sir John Cecil |
§ Motion made, and Question put, "That The Clause stand part of the Bill."
724§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 137; Noes, 65.
725| Division No. 167.] | AYES. | [7.1 a.m. |
| Ainsworth, Major Charles | Applin, Colonel R. V. K. | Barnston, Major Sir Harry |
| Alexander, Sir Wm. (Glasgow, Cent'l) | Balfour, George (Hampstead) | Betterton, Henry B. |
| Allen, J. Sandeman (L'pool, W, Derby) | Balniel, Lord | Bird, E. R. (Yorks, W. N, Skipton) |
| Blades, Sir George Rowland | Henn, Sir Sydney H. | Ramsden, E. |
| Blundell, F. N. | Hennessy, Major J. R. G. | Reid, Capt. A. S. C. (Warrington) |
| Brassey, Sir Leonard | Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G. | Renter, J. R. |
| Briggs, J. Harold | Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone) | Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y) |
| Brocklebank, C. E. R. | Holt, Capt. H. P. | Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint) |
| Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I. | Hopkins, J. W. W. | Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford) |
| Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James | Howard, Capt. Hon. D. (Cumb., N) | Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth) |
| Burgoyne, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Alan | Hudson, Capt. A. U. M.(Hackney, N.) | Rye, F. G. |
| Butler, Sir Geoffrey | Hume, Sir G. H. | Sandeman, A. Stewart |
| Campbell, E. T. | Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H. | Sanders, Sir Robert A. |
| Cayzer, Sir C. (Chaster, City) | Kennedy, A. R. (Preston). | Sanderson, Sir Frank |
| Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth S.) | Kidd, J. (Linlithgow) | Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustavo D. |
| Cazalet, Captain Victor A. | King, Captain Henry Douglas | Shepperson, E. W, |
| Charteris, Brigadier-General J. | Lister Cunliffe-, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip | Skelton, A. N. |
| Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer | Lloyd, Cyril E- (Dudley) | Slaney, Major P. Kenyon |
| Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D. | Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (Handsw'th) | Smith-Carington, Neville W. |
| Cope, Major William | Loder, J. de V. | Smithers, Waldron |
| Couper, J. B. | Luce, Maj.-Gen. Sir Richard Herman | Stanley, Col. Hon. G. F. (Will'sden, E.) |
| Courtauld, Major J, S. | Lynn, Sir Robert J. | Stanley, Lord (Fylde) |
| Cowan, Sir Wm. Henry (Islington, N.) | MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen | Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland) |
| Curzon, Captain Viscount | Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart) | Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H. |
| Dalkeith, Earl of | Macintyre, Ian | Strickland, Sir Gerald |
| Davidson, J.(Hertf'd, Hemel Hempst'd) | McLean, Major A. | Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser |
| Davies, Dr. Vernon | Macquisten, F. A. | Sugden, Sir Wilfrid |
| Dawson, Sir Philip | Mac Robert, Alexander M. | Titchfield, Major the Marquess of |
| Dixey, A. C. | Malone, Major P. B. | Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement |
| Edmondson, Major A. J. | Margesson, Captain D. | Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P. |
| Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.) | Mason, Lieut.-Col. Glyn K. | Wallace, Captain D. E. |
| Evans, Captain A. (Cardiff, South) | Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M. | Ward, Lt.-Col. A. L.(Kingston-on-Hull) |
| Fanshawe, Commander G. D. | Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr) | Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle) |
| Finburgh, S. | Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C. | Wells, S. R. |
| Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E. | Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive | Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George |
| Gadle, Lieut.-Col. Anthony | Nelson, Sir Frank | Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl |
| Glyn, Major R. G. C. | Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter) | Wise, Sir Fredric |
| Goff, Sir Park | Nicholson, O. (Westminster) | Wolmer, Viscount |
| Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E. | Oakley, T. | Womersley, W. J. |
| Gunston, Captain D. W. | Penny, Frederick George | Woodcock, Colonel H. C. |
| Hacking, Captain Douglas H. | Perkins, Colonel E. K. | Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L. |
| Harmon, Patrick Joseph Henry | Peto, G. (Somerset, Frame) | Wragg, Herbert |
| Harland, A. | Pilcher, G. | Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T. |
| Harrison, G. J. C. | Power, Sir John Cecil | |
| Hartington, Marquess of | Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton | TELLERS FOR THE AYES.— |
| Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M. | Price, Major C. W. M. | Mr. F. C. Thomson and Captain |
| Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley) | Radford, E. A. | Bowyer. |
| NOES. | ||
| Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (File, West) | Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley) | Short, Alfred (Wednesbury) |
| Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro') | Hirst, W. (Bradford, South) | Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness) |
| Barr, J. | Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield) | Sitch, Charles H. |
| Batey, Joseph | Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose) | Slesser, sir Henry H. |
| Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W. | Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath) | Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe) |
| Broad, F. A. | John, William (Rhondda, West) | Smith, Rennie (Penistone) |
| Brown, James (Ayr and Bute) | Johnston, Thomas (Dundee) | Spencer, G. A. (Broxtowe) |
| Cape, Thomas | Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown) | Stamford, T. W. |
| Charleton, H. C. | Kelly, W. T. | Stephen, Campbell |
| Cluse, W. S. | Kennedy, T. | Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby) |
| Connolly, M. | Kirkwood, D. | Tinker, John Joseph |
| Cove, W. G. | Lee, F. | Varley, Frank B. |
| Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale) | Lunn, William | Wallhead, Richard C. |
| Duncan, C. | Mackinder, W. | Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda) |
| Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty) | MacLaren, Andrew | Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney |
| Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.) | MacNeill-Weir, L. | Whiteley, W. |
| Fenby, T. D. | Maxton, James | Williams, T. (York, Don Valley) |
| Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne) | Morris, R. H. | Windsor, Walter |
| Grentell, D. R. (Glamorgan) | Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.) | Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton) |
| Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil) | Palin, John Henry | |
| Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland) | Paling, W. | TELLERS FOR THE NOES.— |
| Karris, Percy A. | Potts, John S. | Mr. Allen Parkinson and Mr. Hayes. |
| Hayday, Arthur | Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring) |
Question, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again" put, and agreed to.