Motion made, and Question proposed,
That the Clause stand part of the Bill.
§ Sir HENRY SLESSER
On a point of Order. The hon. and gallant Member for Stirling (Commander Fanshawe) rose to move an Amendment standing in his name on the Paper, to omit the Clause. Several of us on this side who wish to speak remained in our seats thinking that the hon. and gallant Member would be called.
§ The CHAIRMAN
There can be no Amendment to leave out a Clause, and no precedence is obtained by hon. Members 879 who put their names on the Paper to such an Amendment. It is quite unnecessary on the Committee stage to put down an Amendment to leave out a Clause. The Question is put from the Chair, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," and on that Members can speak and vote.
§ Sir H. SLESSER
The hon. and gallant Member rose to speak, and because of that the rest of us remained seated.
§ The CHAIRMAN
If that be so, there has been a mistake. I did not observe the hon. and gallant Member.
§ Commander FANSHAWE
I would like to give the reasons for which we wish Clause 10 to he left out of this Bill. In the first place, we object because Clause 10 interferes with no less than three Acts of Parliament— the Ballot Act, of 1872, the Representation of the People Act, 1898, and the Representation of the People Act, No. 2, of 1920. We think it is a very dangerous thing in a Bill of this short, dealing with all kinds of subjects, to interfere with Acts of Parliament that have gone through all the machinery of this House and have been duly passed. The Prime Minister last year promised that we should have a Speaker's Conference to consider the great question of franchise to women, and I also understood him to say the election law and redistribution of seats and the various anomalies, I believe he said, which exist to-day in our election laws. Surely, after the Speaker's Conference reports to this House— it will be a conference of all parties and, therefore, it will be an agreed Measure which will be presented to the House— obviously that will be the time to review, and, if necessary, amend the Ballot Act, 1872, and the other two Acts I have mentioned.
Our second reason for objecting to Clause 10 is that it may remove some of the safeguards which exist to-day against malpractices at the poll. If by keeping Clause 10 in the Bill we are going in any way to jeopardise any of the safeguards which exist at present, I personally think that it is not worth it. What is the economy going to be? Who can say. What Member of this Committee, what permanent official can 880 say, what economy is to be obtained by keeping this Clause in the Bill? On the contrary, by Sub-section (2) of Clause 10, it is extremely likely that, instead of effecting economy, we shall be actually spending more money at elections. I believe that in the great search for economy, the General Elections held during the last five or six years have come under review. During that time there have been many General Elections and everyone, I believe, in this Committee on both sides, hopes that we shall not have in our parliamentary history elections following each other with such great rapidity as we had during that time. I am not saying this for party purposes; I think we are all agreed on that, for obvious reasons. I do not think, however, that the expenditure on elections during the last five or six years is a true test in any way. I ask that the Government will consent to leave out Clause 10 for those two reasons which I have attempted to submit to the Committee this afternoon. They are, first that the Clause would interfere with three Acts of Parliament, and, secondly, that there is a possibility of removing some of the safeguards which exist against malpractices at the poll. I submit that no economy would be effected and that perhaps extra cost will he involved.
Lieut--Colonel DALRYMPLE WHITE
I rise to support my hon. and gallant Friend in appealing to the Government to consider whether they will not omit this Clause from the Bill, My hon. and gallant Friend has covered the ground very well, but he did not mention, what I believe to be the fact, that all the alterations made in the Ballot Act, 1872, have always been made in a Bill dealing with franchise matters. Therefore, I think this proposal is a departure from precedent which we should not encourage. As my hon. and gallant Friend has said, this proposal is included in an Economy Bill, but we are quite unable to find out what economy it would effect. On the other hand, we can see a certainty of increased expenditure in some directions. If Sub-section (2) stand part of the. Clause, there will be extra presiding officers and poll clerks to pay. The whole matter of the franchise law requires to be looked into. The Ballot Act, 1872, was passed at a time— I have 881 not looked up figures— when the electorate was only about one-eighth of what it is at the present moment, and we must bring the electoral law and the Ballot Act into line with the vastly increased electorate which we have at the present time.
§ Sir H. SLESSER
This question is not a party question at all. We are equally concerned in seeing that the machinery of representative government works properly. I wish to add, if I may, my appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to consider seriously whether the Clause should not be removed from the Bill. I am rather interested to hear hon. Members opposite saying—I think with perfect justification— that this is an entirely unsuitable subject for legislation in an Economy Bill. I used the same argument on Thursday or Friday morning with regard to the question of a double register. I said that was a matter for the Speaker's Conference. I do not know if the two hon. Members opposite voted for leaving out Clause 9 on which my Amendment arose.
§ Commander FANSHAWE
Will the hon. and learned Gentleman excuse me interrupting him? There is an economy, I believe, possible under the single-register system of about £250,000 per annum. One of our chief reasons for objecting to Clause 10, as a Measure of so-called economy, is that it will not even effect an annual economy. It may be a periodical economy Out, in our opinion, it is a periodical adding to the expenditure.
§ Sir H. SLESSER
I was dealing with the other argument of the hon. and gallant Gentleman which was not specifically related to economy. This is a matter affecting the franchise law, and the Prime Minister stated that a conference was to be held to consider the election law, registration, representation and all matters cognate. I was venturing to point out that that argument was as strong against Clause 9 as it is against Clause 10, but we are now discussing Clause 10, and I wish to support the suggestion which has been made that the law dealing with this matter should be left as it is to-day. I do not know if there will be any economy in this change or not. I do not think it is very material, because in any case it will be so small 882 that it cannot affect the issue. But there is in this Clause a very significant and, if I may say so, a very sinister proviso. The Clause, after stating thatat any election to which the Ballot Act applies the Returning Officer may direct that the register or the part of the register containing the names of electors allotted to vote at a polling station shall be divided for the purpose of making separate issues of ballot papers to the electors,has this very sinister proviso:Provided that the Returning Officer, before giving any such direction, shall be satisfied that if any such division of the register is made the proper conduct of the election will not be prejudiced.With every respect to returning officers, this Clause seems to assume that in certain cases the proper conduct of the election will be prejudiced, because it says that it is only where that official is satisfied that there is no prejudice to the election that the Clause is to operate. Therefore, the House is dealing with a fundamental question of the franchise and the arrangements for elections, and it is asked to give the authority to decide whether this Clause shall or shall not operate ill particular cases to returning officers. We know in in what way returning officers are appointed, but to add this additional power that a returning officer shall be the person to decide whether an Election will be prejudiced or not by the division of the register does seem rather an absurd thing to incorporate in this Bill.
Surely it is for this House to decide whether any new method of dealing with the register is to be considered, and surely it would be far better to leave matters as they are. It is strange that we on this side of the House are trying to persuade the Members of the Conservative party to leave matters as they are. They seem to have, an itch for change and especially for changing matters affecting the constitution. I do not say they are so much interested in attacking financial interests and effecting changes so far as they are concerned, but they seem to he very eager to make constitutional changes. This, I submit is an excellent opportunity for the right hon. Gentleman to show his true Conservatism by leaving matters exactly as they are. I appeal to him to leave the present election law as it is, until at any rate a Royal Commission or a Conference has gone into the whole matter and con- 883 sidered all the different questions of franchise in relation to one another, and not to bring in the question by a side wind in the middle of a Bill of this character.
§ Mr. A. R. KENNEDY
I desire to associate myself with the objections which have been taken to this Clause. It seems to me that if one looks behind the alteration proposed to be made, the desire to make the alteration arises from this. It is desired, for some reason which I do not appreciate, to reduce the number of presiding officers at elections. It is stated that an economy of some thousands of pounds may be made by that change. It is said that in some northern towns the system which it is proposed to introduce has been adopted—that instead of having a presiding officer in each polling place, there is to be a presiding officer at a station and a number of clerks in responsible charge of the different polling places. It is not stated in which northern towns this practice has been adopted. I have made inquiries of a very experienced returning officer in a northern town of some importance, and the reply which he sends me is that he is aware that in a few constituencies there is a policy of having only one presiding officer for every polling station, but that that policy has never found favour with him except in very exceptional circumstances. He says:I have always considered that difficulties may arise, particularly during the last hour and a-half at the polling station when the great majority of voters attend. At this time of day it is essential that the progress of voting should not be delayed, and there is a danger that if several stations were order the charge of one presiding officer he may be engaged in exercising the powers entrusted to him alone at one station when his services might be required at another station.5.0 P.M.
There is great force in the observation with regard to the position of things which would prevail, certainly in the urban areas, in the last one or two hours, when there is a constant stream of voters and misconduct or possibly disorderly scenes might take place unless voters are taken rapidly and passed through the station. I look with great misgiving on the putting into force of any such idea as dispensing with presiding officers adequate in number to discharge the duties they hold. The presiding officer has several duties to 884 perform which may at any time make him concentrate his attention to a particular place. He has not only the responsible duty of keeping order in the place, but of marking the votes of illiterate persons —of whom there are still some—of blind persons, and persons who for one reason or another are unable themselves to mark their papers. In addition to that, he has the sole duty of putting the statutory question to be put in certain cases, and taking down the answers, and of also making up the voters' lists. Any one of these duties he may be called upon to perform at any moment. The presence-of the presiding officer may be required at more than one place at the same time to fulfil these duties, and he is more likely to be required in crowded areas. It is a retrograde Measure to propose to restrict the number of presiding officers at this stage, and those who know the services rendered by presiding officers at elections will realise the importance of not tampering lightly with the safeguards which at present exist.
§ Captain W. SHAW
I wish to associate myself with the remarks made in favour of the deletion of this Clause because I think it is important that it should be deleted. It is giving a very great power to the returning officer to decide whether there shall be more than one polling station for one district. I think that decision should not rest with one man. After all, it is the political parties who are concerned in it, and therefore, if there is going to be any decision as to whether a polling station shall be split up and extra expense thereby incurred, it should rest in the hands of the parties and should be left, in my judgment, to a committee formed amongst the three political parties. Again, I would like to add, it is a question of extra expense. All candidates know the tremendous expense to which we are all put when undertaking to run as candidates, and undoubtedly it is going to add very materially to the expenses of every candidate if it is going to be left entirely in the hands of the presiding officer as to whether a polling station shall be split into two or not. We all know what these expenses mean. They run from anything between 2d. and 5d. per elector. In boroughs it is cheaper, and probably comes out at about 2d., but in many parts of the country it runs up to 5d. You are going to add to 885 these expenses by this Clause if it is going to stand, and I do ask the Government seriously to consider the matter and to allow the deletion of the Clause. After all, this is an Economy Bill, and it would be only a waste of money for candidates.
§ Mr. MORRIS
As I understand it, the Government hope by this Clause to effect an economy by reducing the number of presiding officers. They hope to effect a saving of an amount not stated but which it. is suggested may be sonic thousands of pounds. As stated in the explanatory memorandum, in each ease a larger number of electors can be allotted to each polling station, and fewer presiding officers are required. It is trite that the Clause makes provision for dividing the register, but I cannot see—and I should like to know what the position is—what authority the Clause gives to reduce the number of presiding officers at all. There is no suggestion in the Clause of any power to reduce the number, and presumably it would multiply the polling stations and the number of presiding officers. On the other hand, if the Clause is to be effective, does it mean that the presiding officers are reduced, and the number of polling stations are reduced? If so, that is seriously going to affect the rural areas. What is necessary there is a multiplication. In some rural areas voters have to come seven, eight or nine miles to the nearest polling station, and it would he a very serious thing from the rural area point of view that anything of this kind should be done.
§ The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir William Joynson-Hicks)
I have often been sorry that I was Home Secretary, but never more sorry than this afternoon. There have been volleys from the right, volleys from the left, and volleys from in front, and no one seems to have a kind word for this Clause. May I mention the genesis of the Clause? It is a genuine proposal to attempt to improve the electoral machinery of the country, and it was thought—so careful is the Conservative Government in dealing with small sums of money—that we should be able to save a couple of thousands a year of unnecessary expenditure.
886 With regard to the point raised by the hon. Member who has just spoken, there would be, of course, a reduction in the number of polling stations. As regards the large towns, about which I have been asked, I think in Blackburn, Leeds, and Croydon the scheme has been adopted of grouping together polling stations in one building and putting them under one presiding officer instead of having three polling stations in one room, Like some other hon. and learned Gentlemen I have often been a presiding officer—I was glad to get the job in my younger days—and there were three or four polling stations in one room. The idea has been to put one presiding officer in charge of three polling stations, and divide up the register in that respect. Quite naturally I do not want to go against the feeling of the House, lint the position is that this Clause was submitted to and approved by the central organisation of each of the three parties, of my own party, the Liberal party, and I think, the Labour party. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] That is the information given to me. I certainly thought it was so. I do not think we should have been likely to include a Clause dealing with alterations in the electoral law, even of this small character, without consulting hon. Gentlemen opposite.
§ Sir H. SLESSER
Certainly the last. Clause, Clause 9, was not submitted, and perhaps, therefore, the assumption is sound that Clause 10 was also not submitted.
§ Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS
The hon. and learned Gentleman must not always assume things of that kind. If he knows as a matter of fact it was not submitted, I will withdraw what I am saying. My information was that the two Clauses, Clauses 10 and 11, which are purely machinery—and certainly Clause 11—were submitted. However, I have been very much impressed by the arguments used against this Clause, and nobody has a good word for it. In the circumstances, what I propose is to get in consultation with the representatives of the three party organisations—and certainly with regard to Clause 11 I know that consultation has taken place—and I should he prepared if those organisations agree, as they probably may agree, that these two Clauses are not wanted, I will arrange 887 for their deletion to be ruled in another place. I think that that may meet the views of all hon. Members.
§ Commander FANSHAWE
After hearing the statement of the Home Secretary, I beg leave to ask permission to withdraw my opposition.
§ Mr. A. V. ALEXANDER
It is now apparent that the Government have for some time been a little uncertain as to whether this Clause would get any real support in the House, and for my part it seems to be rather curious to leave a Clause in the Bill all this time and then when it comes to this stage of Committee to give an undertaking to the people con-
§ cerned that it will be deleted in another place. I am not blaming the right hon. Gentleman especially for this—probably it is a question of consultation with the people responsible for the business of the House. It probably means that the Amendment will very conveniently avoid for the Government the possibility of leaving a Report stage on the Economy Bill; but it must not be thought by Members on the Government side that we are not aware of, and see clearly through, their game.
§ Question put, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
§ The Committee divided: Ayes. 210; Noes, 109.889
|Division No. 170.]||AYES.||[5.13 p.m.|
|Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel||Drewe, C.||Hurd, Percy A.|
|Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.||Eden, Captain Anthony||Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.|
|Ainsworth, Major Charles||Elliot, Captain Walter E.||Jackson, Lieut.-Colonel Rt. Hon. F. S.|
|Albery, Irving James||Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s-M.)||Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l)|
|Alexander. E. E. (Leyton)||Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith||James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert|
|Alien, J. Sandeman (L'pool, W. Derby)||Evans, Captain A. (Cardiff, South)||Jephcott, A. R.|
|Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.||Fairfax, Captain J, G.||Joynson-Hicks, Rt. Hon. Sir William|
|Apsley, Lord||Falle, Sir Bertram G.||Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)|
|Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.||Fanshawe, Commander G. D.||Kindersley, Major G. M.|
|Astor, Maj. Hn. John J. (Kent, Dover||Finburgh, S.||King, Captain Henry Douglas|
|Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley||Forrest, W.||Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement|
|Balfour, George (Hampstead)||Foster, Sir Harry S.||Lamb, J. Q.|
|Barclay-Harvey, C. M.||Foxcroft, Captain C. T.||Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.|
|Barnston, Major Sir Harry||Frece, Sir Walter de||Lister, Cunliffe-, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip|
|Beamish, Captain T. P. H.||Ganzoni, Sir John||Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)|
|Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.||Gates, Percy||Locker-Lampson, Com. O.(Handsw'th)|
|Bennett, A. J.||Gault, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton||Looker, Herbert William|
|Betterton, Henry B.||Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham||Lowe, Sir Francis William|
|Bird, E. R. (Yorks, W. R., Skipton)||Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John||Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere|
|Blundell, F. N.||Goff, Sir Park||Luce, Major-Gen.Sir Richard Harman|
|Brass, Captain W.||Gower, Sir Robert||Lumley, L. R.|
|Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive||Grace, John||MacAndrew. Major Charles Glen|
|Briggs, J. Harold||Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.||Macdonald, R (Glasgow, Cathcart)|
|Briscoe, Richard George||Greene, W. P. Crawford||MacIntyre, Ian|
|Brocklebank, C. E. R.||Greenwood, Rt. Hn.Sir H.(W'th's'w, E)||McLean, Major A.|
|Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.||Grotrian, H. Brent||Macmillan, Captain H.|
|Broun-Lindsay, Major H.||Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.||Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm|
|Brown, Brig.-Gen.H.C.(Berks, Newb'y)||Gunston, Captain D. W.||Macquisten, F. A.|
|Buckingham, Sir H.||Hacking, Captain Douglas H.||MacRobert, Alexander M.|
|Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James||Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry||Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel-|
|Bullock, Captain M.||Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent)||Makins, Brigadier-General E.|
|Burman, J. B.||Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)||Malone, Major P. B.|
|Burton, Colonel H. W.||Harvey. Majors. E. (Devon, Totnes)||Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn|
|Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward||Haslam, Henry C.||Margesson, Captain D.|
|Campbell, E. T.||Hawke, John Anthony||Meller, R. J.|
|Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)||Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.||Merriman, F. B.|
|Cazalet, Captain Victor A.||Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)||Meyer, Sir Frank|
|Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)||Henderson, Lieut.-Col. V. L. (Bootle)||Mitchell, Sir W Lane (Streatham)|
|Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton||Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.||Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.|
|Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. Sir J. A. (Birm., W.)||Henn, Sir Sydney H.||Moore, Sir Newton J.|
|Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)||Herbert, S. (York, N.R., Scar. & Wh'by)||Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.|
|Clayton, G. C.||Hills, Major John Waller||Murchison, C. K.|
|Cobb, Sir Cyril||Hoare, Lt-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.||Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)|
|Conway, Sir W. Martin||Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D.(St. Marylebone)||Nicholson, O. (Westminster)|
|Cope, Major William||Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard||Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W. G. (Ptrsf'ld.)|
|Craig, Ernest (Chester, Crewe)||Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.)||Nuttall, Ellis|
|Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.||Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)||Oakley, T.|
|Cunliffe, Sir Herbert||Hopkins, J. W. W.||Penny, Frederick George|
|Curzon, Captain Viscount||Hopkinson, Sir A. (Eng, Universities)||Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)|
|Dalkeith, Earl of||Horlick, Lieut.-Colonel J. N.||Pilditch, Sir Philip|
|Davidson, J. (Hertf'd, Hemel Hempst'd)||Horne, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert S.||Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton|
|Davies, Dr. Vernon||Howard, Captain Hon. Donald||Preston, William|
|Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)||Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N).||Ramsden, E.|
|Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)||Hume, Sir G. H.||Rawson, Sir Alfred Cooper|
|Dawson, Sir Philip||Huntingfield, Lord||Remnant, Sir James|
|Rentoul, G. S.||Stanley, Cot. Hon. G.F. (Will'sden, E.)||Waterhouse, Captain Charles|
|Rice, Sir Frederick||Stanley, Lord (Fylde)||Watts, Dr. T.|
|Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y. Ch'ts'y)||Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland)||Wells, S. R.|
|Ropner, Major L.||Steel, Major Samuel Strung||Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)|
|Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)||Strickland, Sir Gerald||Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)|
|Salmon. Major I.||Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C.||Windsor-dive, Lieut.-Colonel George|
|Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)||Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)||Wise, Sir Fredric|
|Sanders, Sir Robert A.||Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser||Womersley, W. J.|
|Sandon, Lord||Tasker, Major R. Inigo||Wood, E. (Chest'r. Stalyb'dge & Hyde)|
|Savery, S. S.||Thom, Lt.-Col. J. G. (Dumbarton)||Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich, W.)|
|Shaw, Capt. W, W. (Willts, Westb'y)||Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, S.)||Wood. Sir S. Hill- (High Peak)|
|Slmms, Dr. John M. (Co. Down)||Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell||Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.|
|Skelton, A. N.||Tinne, J. A.||Young, Rt. Hon. Hilton (Norwich)|
|Slaney, Major P. Kenyon||Wallace, Captain D. E.|
|Smithers, Waldron||Ward, Lt,-Col. A. L. (Kingston-on-Hull)||TELLERS FOR THE AYES—|
|Somerville, A A. (Windsor)||Warner, Brigadier-General W, W.||Major Hennessy and Captain|
|Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)||Guest, Dr. L. Haden (Southwark, N)||Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter|
|Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')||Hall, F. (York, W. R.. Normanton)||Salter, Dr. Alfred|
|Ammon, Charles George||Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)||Scrymgeour, E.|
|Attlee, Clement Richard||Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)||Shiels, Dr. Drummond|
|Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)||Harris, Percy A.||Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)|
|Barnes, A.||Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon||Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John|
|Barr, J.||Hayes, John Henry||Slesser, Sir Henry H.|
|Batey, Joseph||Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)||Smith, H. B. Lees (Keighley)|
|Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.||Henderson, T. (Glasgow)||Smith, Rennie (Penistone)|
|Briant, Frank||Hirst, G. H.||Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip|
|Broad, F. A.||Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)||Stamford, T. W.|
|Bromley, J.||Hudson, J. H. (Hudderfield)||Stephen, Campbell|
|Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)||Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)||Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)|
|Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel||Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)||Sutton, J. E.|
|Cape, Thomas||Kelly, W. T.||Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)|
|Charleton, H C.||Kennedy, T.||Thomson, Trevelyan (Middlesbro. W.)|
|Cluse, W. S.||Kenyon, Barnet||Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)|
|Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock)||Lee, F.||Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)|
|Cove, W. G.||Lowth, T.||Thurtle, E.|
|Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)||Lunn, William||Viant, S. P.|
|Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)||MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R.(Aberavon)||Wallhead, Richard C.|
|Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)||Mackinder, W.||Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen|
|Dennison, R.||March, S.||Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhonddn)|
|Duncan, C.||Maxton, James||Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah|
|Edwards, John H. (Accrington)||Montague, Frederick||Westwood, J.|
|Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)||Morris, R. H.||Whiteley, W.|
|Fenby, T. D.||Morrison, B. C. (Tottenham, N.)||Williams, C. P. (Denbigh, Wroxham)|
|Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.||Naylor, T. E.||Williams, David (Swansea, East)|
|Gillett, George M.||Oliver, George Harold||Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)|
|Gosling, Harry||Paling, W.||Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)|
|Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)||Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.||Windsor, Walter|
|Greenall, T.||Ponsonby, Arthur||Wright, W.|
|Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)||Potts, John s.||Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)|
|Grenfell, D. H. (Glamorgan)||Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)|
|Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)||Riley, Ben||TELLERS FOR THE NOES —|
|Groves, T.||Ritson, J.||Mr. Allen Parkinson and Mr.|
|Grundy, T. W.||Rose, Frank H.||Warne.|