Weekly Rest-Day Bill
I beg to move, "That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend and consolidate the Acts relating to Sunday employment, and to regulate the conditions of labour upon the basis of six working days in the week with Sunday as the normal rest-day, and for other purposes connected therewith."The Bill is framed on the assumption that one day in every seven should be allowed for rest and for recuperation—both mentally and bodily. It declares that Sunday is the normal day of rest, but, if it is not possible, some other day should be set aside. Clause 6 provides that if it is necessary to work on Sunday, no two successive Sundays shall be worked—in other words, no person shall work on more than twenty-six Sundays in the whole of the year. The promoters of the Bill, entertaining strong opinions as to the necessity of having Sunday as the normal day of rest on moral and religious grounds, and in order to preserve the health and strength of the nation, recognise that there are certain works of necessity and mercy which must be performed on Sunday, and in the First Schedule there are set out a number of exemptions—for instance, the serving, sale or delivery of medicines, bread, fresh milk, newspapers and periodicals for a period not exceeding two hours, the receiving and transmitting of telegraph and telephone messages, and the doing of any work essential to any industry, or absolutely necessary branches of work or industrial process of such a continuous nature that it cannot be stopped without serious injury to such industry. The exemptions also include the conveyance and delivery of milk and other perishable dairy produce, and the conveyance by railway and omnibus of passengers and travellers, and the hiring, letting, and repairing of motor cars. If I went through the whole list of exemptions I should exceed the time limit allowed for introducing the Bill. Suffice it to say that the measure is not framed in the spirit of the pedant or the Puritan, or for the purpose of enforcing a dreary Sabbatarianism on the people of this country. If there are objections to the proposals in the Bill they can be discussed in Committee. There is a strong body of public opinion in favour of the Bill, and the greater the strain of modern industry and the keener the competition the stronger does public opinion become. Two Parliamentary Committees have already sat on the subject—one in 1905 and the other in 1906. The evidence given before the Committees showed that there was an overwhelming mass of opinion favourable to the proposals contained in this Bill. All the shopkeepers' associations, with one exception, embracing nearly the whole of the trades of the country, gave evidence in favour of the principle of Sunday rest. The Trade Union Congress at Nottingham passed a resolution in favour of restricting Sunday labour within the smallest possible limits. The Imperial Sunday Alliance conducted an investigation among trade unions, and found that there were 600 organisations, representing 2,000,000 workpeople and employers, who were enthusiastically in favour of the principle that the working week should consist of six days. I would remind the House that about a year ago there was a long and, unfortunately, unsuccessful strike among the spelter men in South Wales in favour of Sunday rest. It may be urged that to give workmen one day's rest in seven would be very detrimental to several industries, and that it would be almost ruinous to dividends, but it has been the business of social reformers and philanthropists, from Lord Shaftesbury downwards, to break down the necessitarian plea, and, after all, they have been most successful in doing it. Social reformers and philanthropists have proved to be better business men than either they or anybody else imagined. In the 'forties Nassau Gineot said it was absolutely necessary that factory workers should work twelve hours a clay, because it was only in the eleventh and twelfth hour that a profit was made by the manufacturers. However, now, thanks to the instruction of meddlesome social reformers, enlightened employers of labour have come round to the idea that the most economical method of working is only to employ the workman when at his best. But this is not entirely a question of dividends and money-making. The senior Member for the City of London (Mr. Balfour) said that not all the international Commissions in the world could fix a unit of happiness. That may be so. "One cannot draw nectar with a sieve." But, at all events, this country should be able to fix a standard above which it should be possible to rise, and below which they should not be degraded—their bodies tired out and brains dulled. Matthew Arnold said that it was in ceaseless expansion of its powers, and ceaseless growth in wisdom and beauty that the spirit of the human race found its ideal. What unit of happiness or welfare has the State fixed for the spelter men who work ten hours a day for seven days in the week? And what chance of expansion of mind or growth in wisdom have the steel workers who often work twenty-four hours on a Sunday? It is in the hope that this Bill may do something to limit man's inhumanity to man, and smooth away some of the injustices of our industrial system that I beg leave to introduce it.
Question put, and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Lord Henry Cavendish-Bentinck, Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Noel Buxton, Mr. Dickinson, Mr. Gladstone, Mr. Goulding, Mr. Arthur Henderson, Mr. W. Hudson, Mr. W. Redmond, Mr. P. Morrell, Mr. Harold Smith, and Colonel Williams. Presented accordingly, and read the first time; to be read a second time upon Thursday, 17th July, and to be printed. [Bill 243.]
Nationalisation Of Coal Mines And Minerals
I beg, to move, "That leave be given to bring in a Bill to Nationalise the Coal Mines and Minerals of the United Kingdom and to provide for the national distribution and sale of coal."The Bill which I desire the leave of the House to introduce is one entitled a "Bill to Nationalise the Coal Mines and Minerals of the United Kingdom and to provide for the national distribution and sale of coal." It is a Bill of about seventeen or eighteen Clauses. It is hardly possible for me to do justice to them within the limits of the time allowed. There are, however, about half a dozen provisions that I think the House would like to hear very briefly, in order to judge as to whether they ought to give leave for the Bill to be introduced. First of all, we propose on an appointed day, to take over the whole coal mines of the country. We cannot quite give the date at the moment, but we propose that, in order to bring that condition about, there shall be appointed a Minister for Mines, who shall have Com- missioners appointed by Parliament under him to give him the necessary information, and he shall hold office during His Majesty's pleasure. The Minister is to be empowered to purchase the coal mines on an appointed day, and there is to be value given to those who own the mines, that is to say, who are actually working the mines and who have actually invested their capital in the process. We want to make it quite clear that in the Bill there is no suggestion of any compensation to or recognition of any right on the part of the royalty owners. That might seem what is sometimes described as a tough proposition. I do not intend to press that point further, except to let the House know with perfect clearness what we are pressing forward in this Bill. We do not introduce it in a hole and corner manner. We say that those who have invested their money in these large undertakings are entitled to definite and unmistakable compensation. The other point is quite a debatable one, and in the Bill as proposed we do not recognise the rights of royalty owners. The Mines Commissioners are to be composed of ten people, one of them the chairman to be appointed by His Majesty or His Majesty's Government, the other nine to be composed of three representatives of the Mining Associations of Great Britain, three representatives of the Miners' Federation, and three representatives of the Trades Union Congress. That, you will perceive is a combination of practical experts with political control that does not always exist at the present time. The valuation which is suggested in the Bill is to be based upon the output in the previous five years, dating from the appointed day. Pits that have an output of 100,000 tons per year are to be paid on a maximum of 12s. per ton. Pits exceeding 100,000 tons per year are to be paid on a maximum of 10s. per ton. To raise the necessary revenue, it is proposed that there shall be a Coal Mines 3 per cent. Stock issued, and that the owners of mines, those who can prove their title, are to receive dividends payable out of the coal mines fund. The Ministry may compulsorily acquire land and carry on the business of coal mining and vending in all its branches. The business proposition we commend to the House is one that I think can really be proved. We are not asking the House to take over any proposition in a decaying industry. A Commission that reported eight years ago stated that in the proved and known coalfields there were still 100,000,000,000 tons of coal, and in the coalfields that were known to exist, but which had not been tapped, it was stated that there were 45,000,000,000 tons still remaining, and that this coal was to be found not only at workable depth but in workable quantities. 80 per cent. of the 100,000,000,000 tons was of two feet thickness and over in measures that are well within the competent working of skilled mining engineers. So we say that we are not asking the House to consider a proposition that will not pay. It will pay in the very near future, but it will pay still more in the years that are to come. 4.0 P.M. It does seem a large proposition to lay before this House, but propositions not so great in extent have been laid before similar Houses. Prussia owns its own mines; New Zealand has an extensive business in State-owned mines; Belgium has State-owned mines, and what can be done in the localities to which I have referred need not, baffle the power of the British Parliament. We submit that it is time that this House should consider very seriously the question as to whether it ought not in the interests of the nation at large take over the coal supplies of the nation. We say that we should do it; first of all, because often as we have been told to think Imperially, this is the true line of Imperial thought. This island nation is dependant both in war and in peace upon its coal supplies. The coal supplies are available for five hundred years at the present rate of consumption, and therefore, we are not asking the House to consider the taking over of an exhausted concern. Coal mining is" really in its infancy, and when Members consider the vastness of the figures I have laid before them, they will see that it will really pay the nation, both in the near and also in the distant future, to deal with the proposition on the lines that we state. But we do it on other lines. We submit that the coal supplies of the nation, being vital to the life of the nation and being the result of no man's energy, but as we say fundamental to the life and continued existence of the nation, should become the property of the whole nation. In war an in peace, wherever we extend our vision, we are bound to see that the safety, the progress, the prosperity of this nation is dependent almost entirely upon the proper utilisation of its coal supply. It has been proved by evidence repeatedly given that great waste has taken place under private ownership. The waste we could prevent. We could give a greater social justice to the poor who stand most in need. It is disgraceful to us that in times of industrial crisis the burden should fall with heaviest weight upon those least able to bear it, and that in our great cities particularly, London, Liverpool, Manchester, where the needs of the poorest are the keenest, there, because of private profit and the conditions appertaining thereto, we should make the burdens press most heavily upon them. There is one more point I would like to refer to—the point that while the conservation of our national resources is very important, the conservation of human life is even more important. It cannot be denied—it has been given in evidence repeatedly and constantly substantiated—that the terrible loss of human life and the awful rate of disablement of limb in our mines is largely due, I will not say wholly, but certainly largely due to the conditions under which private profit compels the working of the mines. When it is considered that during the last five years there have been killed in our coal mines on the average nearly 1,400 each year, and that 160,000 have been injured, it certainly does seem time that the House, not with ill-concealed humour or derision, should take up this question as to whether they are doing right to the vast army of workers below ground, and whether, in the highest interests of the nation, both in the present and the future, they ought not to do their best to pass this Bill into law.
This Bill would seem to involve some slight charge upon the taxpayers. I am not at all sure that the hon. Member ought not to bring it in in Committee of the Whole House. I have not had an opportunity of seeing it, and it may be that money is not the chief part of it. I will, however, give the hon. Member the benefit of the doubt and allow him to bring it in, subject to the caution that I may subsequently have to rule it out on the ground mentioned.
It is with very great regret that I feel bound to oppose this Bill. I feel all the more regret because I am greatly impressed with many of the arguments which the hon. Member on the other side of the House, with his usual ability, has submitted in support of this Bill. If anything could be done to sub- stantially reduce the cost of living the increase in which is largely due to the increase in the cost of coal, and if anything could be done by the Government; to reduce the number of casualties occurring in the mines, I for my part would support such proposals. Apart from the enormous cost to the nation which it would involve; I feel bound on principle and as a matter of justice and equity to oppose the Bill. In the first place, I oppose it frankly for the reason that the hon. Gentleman makes no provision for any sort of compensation being given to those who actually own the coal. A great deal of land has changed hands during the last thirty or forty years, and in the purchase of that land full value has been given by the purchaser for the land, including the coal under it. That being the case, the suggestion of the hon. Member amounts to this, that he proposes to entirely confiscate property for which its owners have fully paid. That, however, is not the main reason why I object to this proposal, and I think that if there were a Labour Member in this House representing the miners of the Forest of Dean, the hon. Gentleman would never have risen in his place to ask the House to accept this Bill. I myself live in the Forest of Dean, and I can testify to the fact that practically the whole of the coal in the Forest of Dean, with the exception of a very small portion of it, which belongs to myself, is subject to the rights of the Crown, the property of the free miners themselves, who are working in the mines. If you propose to give no value whatever to the royalty owner when the coal of the country is taken over by the nation, you are going to deprive poor men, who are themselves at work in the mines of a large amount of property for which they have paid full value, and in order to earn which they are working hard and strenously every day of their lives. It is mainly in the interests of my poor neighbours in the Forest of Dean that I rise in my place to oppose the introduction of the Bill.
Question put, and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Stephen Walsh, Mr. Tyson Wilson, Mr. William Edwin Harvey, Mr. James Parker, Mr. Pointer, Mr. Keir Hardie, Mr. George Roberts, Mr. Thomas Richardson, Mr. Sutton, Mr. John Taylor, Mr. Goldstone, and Mr. Hancock. Presented accordingly, and read the first time; to be read a second time upon Wednesday, 30th July, and to be printed. [Bill 244.]
Plural Voting Bill
Further considered in Committee. — [ Progress 4th July.]
[Mr. WHITLEY in the Chair.]
New Clause— (Expiration Of The Act)
Unless Parliament shall otherwise determine this Act shall not continue in force for a longer period than five years from the date of the passing thereof.
Motion made [ 4th July], and Question again proposed, "That the Clause be read a second time."
On the adjournment of the House on Friday I was submitting to the Committee certain considerations why they should embody in this Bill a new Clause that provides that the Act shall remain in operation for the period of five years only. As I have already submitted some of the reasons which lead me to think it advisable to embody this proposal in the Bill, I do not think it is necessary to detain the Committee at any great length; but before recapitulating the reasons and developing my further arguments, I should like to call attention to the words at the beginning of the Clause, "Unless Parliament shall otherwise determine." During the adjournment it has been suggested to me that these words are really unnecessary, and that they ought not to have found their way into the Clause. It is said that whatever legislation finds its way on to the Statute Book it is always within the power of a subsequent Parliament to alter it and fix another period. If subsequently Parliament prefers sonic other period to five years, it will always be in its power, without any express words in the Act, to make that change. I fully recognise that there is some force in that objection, because the only limitation to the omnipotence of Parliament is that it cannot limit the omnipotence of its successor. At the same time, I wish to refer to one or two precedents which I think have been adopted. The first is in the Government of Ireland Bill, of which Clause 13 deals with the number of Irish Members in the Imperial Parliament, after the establishment of Home Rule. The Committee will find the words appearing at the beginning of the Clause," Unless and until the Parliament of the United Kingdom otherwise determine," following very closely the lines of the words which I have adopted in my Clause, and following them for the reason that the Legislature wishes to mark the fact that it is within their contemplation that at some future date it may have reason to alter the determination to which it now has come. A more closely corresponding parallel even than that is to be found in the Bill of last Session entitled, "The Railways and Canal Traffic Bill," in which this House introduced a Clause containing almost precisely similar words to those appearing in the Clause which I now propose. That Clause was introduced in this House, but the House of Lords struck it out, and when the Lords Amendment came to be considered in this House, it adhered to the view taken by the House of Lords. I wish to call attention to the actual wording in that particular Bill:—
That is a precisely similar form of words to that adopted in my Clause. These two precedents justify me, notwithstanding the criticisms that have been offered, and offered with some reason, to the particular form I have adopted, in retaining these words in the Clause. Let me put what. I consider the main reasons for desiring to insert it. I am bound to accept that the Committee have decided in favour of plural voting, but I submit that this Bill is obviously framed as a temporary expedient. It is framed in a way which is not the best to deal with this problem, nor yet in a way which the Government themselves consider the best; it is dealt with simply in a way which enables the Government to produce a one-Clause Bill, so that there may be the minimum opportunity for Parliamentary discussion. I submit that when the Government frames its legislation in such a manner, when, dealing with the problem which confronts it, and not in the ordinary way, it makes it clear that it is a temporary expedient, and nothing more than a temporary expedient. I could imagine their having said to their draftsman not, "How can you best frame a measure which will deal with this question? "but," How can you frame us a measure which will be the shortest, which will be in one Clause, and which will afford the minimum opportunity to an Opposition for the criticising and for discussion?" This Bill is framed with one eye on the Bill and the other eye on the country. That is perfectly obvious from the frantic efforts that the Government are making to try to get all the Parliament Act Bills through in the present week. They used to taunt us with wishing to end the Session on the 1st August. Has it occurred to them that they are trying to get these Bills through by the 11th August. The Parliament Act provides that a month should elapse after the Bill is sent up to the House of Lords, so that the Government are straining the rights of government and interfering with the rights of the Opposition in order to be able to prorogue Parliament by the 12th of August. I may say that this Bill was framed with one eye on the Bill and the other on the grouse, and I submit that a Bill framed under such conditions deserves to be made a temporary Bill. I would ask the Government, do they not admit that this is not the way that this problem ought to be dealt with? I am quite prepared to give way to the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Education if he will say that this Bill deals with the problem in the way he thinks best. If there is no reply, I think I am entitled to assume that my proposition has the assent of the Government, namely, that this Bill does not deal with the problem in the way in which the Government itself considers the right way. I can prove that by referring to the statements of two Members whose names appear on the back of this Bill, that is the Financial Secretary to the War Office (Mr. Baker) and the President of the Board of Education. Last Session we had under discussion a Bill introduced by the Financial Secretary to the War Office which provided in the case of persons who had a number of qualifications, that the voter should be entitled to choose one place where he could be registered as a voter, and that he would be only entitled to exercise the vote in that one place. This Bill proceeds on a basis which the Government itself declared to be a worse basis, namely, that of allowing persons to be registered in the different places, and then imposing heavy penalties for using those rights in more than one place. Speaking on the 1st of March, 1912, the Financial Secretary said:—"This Act shall continue in force for five years after the passing thereof and no longer, unless continued by Parliament."
The President of the Board of Education, speaking on 1st March, 1912, said:—"There are certain differences between the Bill we are dealing with to-day and the measure introduced in 1906. The Bill of 1906 proceeded on the principle of penalising the plural voter if he exercised the plural vote. It allowed him to he registered freely wherever he had the qualification, but it compelled him to star himself in the register of the particular constituency in which he wished to exercise his single vote, and if he voted elsewhere, he was subjected to very severe penalties. Those penalties, which were thought by some too severe, were considered carefully in Committee and reduced to appropriate dimensions. This Bill, without any disrespect to its predecessor, offers an alternative suggestion. It destroys no qualification; it inflicts no penalty beyond the ordinary penalties that attach to any false, statutory declaration."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 1st March, 1912, cols. 16913–4, Vol. XXXIV.]
If' the right hon. Gentleman thought that those were advantages, why has he not reproduced them in the present Bill? The present Bill provides for additional questions, and introduces a new penalty. Why has he reverted to that old principle unless his object merely is to burke Parliamentary discussion and get a one-Clause Bill, and force it through in such a way as to give the Opposition the minimum opportunity of considering this problem. I say that the Government have chosen to deal with this matter in a way which, on their own confession by the statements of Ministers, is not the proper way to deal with it. That being so, I think we have got the right to say, even if the principle be accepted, that it is right to make out clearly on the face of the Bill that it is a temporary provision. There is one other reason, and a very strong one, why I would urge this Clause on the Committee, and it is that I believe that this time limit introduced in this Bill will operate as an inducement to the Government to deal within a reasonable time with those other problems with which they have promised to deal. I quite agree it is only a very small inducement, because they can always continue this Bill in the Expiring Laws Continuance Act and alter the five years. At the same time, it is something in the nature of a guarantee that within some fixed period the Government shall deal with those other problems, such as Redistribution and the rectifying of those electoral anomalies which have been so constantly pointed out. It will be something also to keep the subject constantly in their mind and to induce them to deal with those problems in a reasonable time. Whether this Clause will have the effect which it is desired to produce in that way, I cannot say. I do not see how any hon. Member opposite can object if the Government mean, as they say, to deal with this question on a more comprehensive basis than this Bill does. If it is really their intention that this question of Redistribution is to be dealt with, and that the whole electoral law is to be put on a sounder basis—"This measure in some respects, I agree, has advantages over the measure which was introduced by the Colonial Secretary when he was at the Office of Works. It is an improvement in the fact that the names on the register in his Bill did not correspond with the right to vote, whilst they would do so under the provision of this Bill. No new questions whatever under the provisions of this Bill would be put to the voter. Under the Bill introduced by my right hon. Friend in 1906, certain additional questions might be put to any elector who came to the polling booth, which cannot be asked under the provisions of this Bill. Another advantage is that no new offence is created under the provisions of this Bill."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 1st March, 1912, col 1747, Vol. XXXIV.]
I must remind the hon. and learned Member that he is repeating what he said at the outset of his speech, and again in the middle.
I think it is the first time I have referred to it to-day, although the other day I made reference to it. 1 only wish to emphasise the point that the main object of the new Clause is to ensure that the Government shall be forced to carry out what they themselves have stated they would carry out. I do not see how the Clause will do any possible harm, from the point of view of the Government, and I submit on both considerations which I have urged that the Clause should be accepted.
I do not propose to follow the hon. and learned Member into some qi the reasons which he put forward in support of this new Clause. Perhaps the fault is mine, but I do not see what the date of the prorogation of Parliament or many of the other points which he has made have really got to do with the main arguments that can be put forward legitimately in connection with the proposed Clause. The last argument which the hon. and learned Member put forward, and the one upon which he dwelt when the Clause was previously under discussion, was that the object he had in view was to ensure that the Government would deal effectively with electoral reform and with Redistribution within the period of five years. I submit to the Committee that that object is really not going to be promoted by the passage of this Clause. We have already expressed our intention as a, Government to introduce Redistribution, electoral reform, and registration reform, before the normal period of this Parliament expires and in the event of our having the opportunity to carry out that intention. In that event this Clause is certainly unnecessary. In the event of the unforeseen circumstances and an appeal being made to the country, and our coming back, as I believe we would to power, it would be the duty and intention of the Government during the period of that Parliament to carry out those reforms to which they have been so long pledged in con- nection with the reduction of the period of qualification and other electoral reforms. The third alternative is that possibly hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite might themselves come back to power. In that event, what would they do, having regard to their attitude towards this Bill. Instead of it being a guarantee that those reforms which we believe in would be carried out, we believe that it would be an excuse for hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite, to allow the plural voter, and by not receiving the Bill permit him to remain permanently on the Statute Book. We do not intend to be parties to any proposal which under any conceivable circumstances would place the Opposition or any other party in a position to revive the antiquated and to us absurd and anomalous system of plural voting. This is not a temporary proposal, as the hon. and learned Gentleman tried to argue. In the event of our getting rid of the innumerable qualifications in connection with Parliamentary votes we would undoubtedly retain for all time if we had our way the system of the single vote, based on the principle of one man one vote. We do not think that anybody ought to have two votes for Parliamentary purposes. Even if a simple residential qualification were secured and an individual had two or three residences, we should still believe that that individual should only be allowed to exercise one of those residential qualifications. While I admit that the principle of this Bill is different from that of the Bill introduced by the Financial Secretary to the War Office and also from that of the proposal of last year in connection with franchise and registration reform, yet we believe that the principle is effectively carried out and will be able to be adapted whether other measures of electoral reform are passed or not. In other words, this measure will neither accelerate nor delay other reforms. We believe that this principle of one man one vote ought to be placed permanently upon the Statute Book, and ought not to be contingent upon any possible event. In no conceivable circumstances would we feel ourselves justified,—after having got rid of an anomaly which we regard as unfair to the poorer classes and absurd in itself,—in reviving a system of voting which is not accepted by any other civilised country—
I am afraid that this line of argument may lead to a Debate on the merits of the Bill instead of the Clause.
I wish to point out that having once placed this measure on the Statute Book, we could not be parties to allowing it at the end of five years to be taken off. Therefore, we cannot accept this Clause.
The right hon. Gentleman says that he believes in. one man one vote. I do not know whether he believes in one vote one value.
That is just what I feared. We cannot discuss that question over again.
That is really the basis of the opposition to this Bill at the present moment. The object of this proposed Clause is to make the Bill a temporary measure, and the right hon. Gentleman was at great pains to prove that it was not a temporary measure. The word "temporary" is obviously written over the whole Bill. The measure is only a pis aller, because the previous Franchise Bill met with an untimely fate. Had the larger Bill got through, there would have been no occasion to introduce this Bill at all. My hon. Friend was obviously right when he said that this measure was drawn up by the Government simply to make it as difficult as possible for the Opposition to deal with the injustice of the conduct of the Government in dealing with one question at a time. The Government are deliberately dealing with the one question which suits themselves, and leaving unredressed all the greater anomalies which affect the political position and political value of every Bill at present before the House. I think it is in order to draw attention to the fact that the Government, whilst attempting to take away the plural vote, because they think it helps the Opposition, are passing every Bill they have, and maintaining their position in the House, by the plural votes of the Irish. Every elector in Ireland has twice the electoral value of any elector in Great Britain.
Wo cannot discuss that question on this Amendment.
I think we ought to take note of the somewhat remarkable character of the right hon. Gentleman's answer to this proposal. My hon. Friend suggested that at the end of five years there ought, at all events, to be an opportunity for a review of the decision arrived at by this House. The right hon. Gentleman said that that was unnecessary, and he gave a remarkable reason for his opinion. He said: "In the first place, if the Government is returned to power, it is unnecessary, because we intend to proceed with the whole scheme. In the second place, we do not think that this reform ought to be contingent on any possible event." As to the first suggestion, these expressions of intention on the part of the Government are somewhat discredited currency on this side of the House; therefore, I forbear to make any comment upon it. But I must draw the attention of the Committee to the remarkable pass to which the right hon. Gentleman's view of democracy has now come. His view is that what the Government consider to be right is to become law "without being contingent on any possible event." He does not care in the slightest degree what value the country may attach to the proposal. It is to become law without being contingent on any possible event. Sic volo sic jubeo. Because they think it is right, it is at once to become the law of the land. That is a most remarkable theory to come from anyone professing the principles of democracy. All I say, in reply, is that if this possibility of review is given, there will be an opportunity for the country to pronounce judgment on this Bill, as on all the other work of the Government, and we on this side have no doubt as to what the verdict of the country will be.
I confess that. I have a great deal of sympathy with this Amendment, but my difficulty is to find out how far those responsible for it are prepared, in the event of their being returned to power at the next election, to give effect to what is underlying the Amendment. The right hon. Gentleman has told us what are the intentions of the Government with which he is connected, if they continue in office. We, on these benches, are very much dissatisfied with the limited character of the measure; but before we vote for an Amendment such as this, we ought to have some assurance that at the end of five years the Friends of the hon. and learned Member opposite, should they be occupying the Treasury Bench, will really be prepared to tackle the problem, and to give us a much more extended measure. Or is this merely a device which, should they be returned to power, they will forget all about, and leave us in such a position that we shall revert to the old condition of things of allowing people to use their five, ten, fifteen, twenty, or more votes? I am sorry that when we are discussing this very important Amendment the Leaders of the Opposition are not present to back up the hon. and learned Member.
I do not think it is relevant to ask for a declaration of policy from the Opposition on an Amendment of this kind. Such questions cannot be answered; therefore, it is distinctly out of order to ask them.
Without disputing your ruling, have we not a right to be told what those who are responsible for this limiting Amendment propose to do at the end of the suggested period? However, as the Leaders of the Opposition are not present, I cannot put my point to them; therefore, I shall have to content myself with voting against the Amendment.
:I can assure the hon. Gentleman opposite that if we get into office we certainly shall not forget our pledges. We shall bring in not a partial Bill, but a proper Redistribution Bill which will deal fairly for all time. The hon. Member has suggested that we should continue to allow people to exercise five or ten votes, when other people have only one. That is not our position. We shall not continue to allow constituencies of 2,000 electors or less to return one Member while other constituencies of 30,000 electors have only one Member. We want equality of voting power, and the first thing we should do is to secure that, not by a. jerrymandering party Bill—
The hon. Member is clearly out of order.
I desire to support the proposed new Clause. In the first place, this measure is evidently piecemeal legislation. It is a limiting Bill, and in no sense an enabling Bill. It deprives persons who possess certain electoral powers of the powers they possess, but it does nothing to enable a very large body of British citizens, particularly soldiers and sailors, who are practically disfranchised—
That is out of order on this proposal.
Then may I put my second point, which is even stronger. The sole power of voting, that an individual possesses, is derived under the Ballot Act of 1872. That Act comes every year into the Expiring Laws Continuance Act. The result of the passage of this Bill, as a permanent Act of Parliament, would be that you deprive a person permanently of the right of exercising his one vote, whereas Parliament is not able, under the existing law, to deprive that person of the right to vote unless during the Session the power is reconstituted. It is a farce upon the face of it. If you are going to make this a permanent Act, you must at the same time make the Ballot Act a permanent Act, for this alone gives the electors of this country the power to vote at all. That is a very strong reason why this should be limited in its period of operation. Personally I should prefer to see the Act limited to one year, like the Ballot Act; also, owing to its piecemeal character, but failing that let us, at any rate, decide that it shall not exist beyond the five years.
rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put," but the Chairman withheld his assent, as he was of opinion that the Committee were prepared to come to a decision, very shortly without that Motion. Debate resumed.
When I spoke a little while ago I was drawn away from what I originally wanted to say by the
Division No. 184.]
|Agg-Gardner, James Tynto||Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry||Harrison-Broadley, H. B.|
|Amery, L. C. M. S.||Clay, Captain H. H, Spender||Helmsley, Viscount|
|Anson, Rt. Hon. Sir William R.||Clive, Captain Percy Archer||Henderson, Major H. (Berks, Abingdon)|
|Anstruther-Gray, Major William||Clyde, J. Avon||Herbert, Hon. A. (Somerset, S.)|
|Ashley, W. W.||Coates, Major Sir Edward Feetham||Hewins, William Albert Samuel|
|Astor, Waldorf||Cooper, Richard Ashmole||Hickman, Colonel Thomas E.|
|Baird, J. L.||Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.)||Hills, John Waller|
|Baker, Sir R. L. (Dorset, N.)||Craig, Ernest (Cheshire, Crewe)||Hill-Wood, Samuel|
|Baldwin, Stanley||Craik, Sir Henry||Hoare, S. J. G.|
|Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J. (City, Lond.)||Crichton-Stuart, Lord Ninian||Hohler, G. F.|
|Banbury, Sir Frederick George||Croft, Henry Page||Hope, Harry (Bute)|
|Barlow, Montague (Salford, South)||Dalziel, Davison (Brixton)||Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)|
|Bathurst, C. (Wilts, Wilton)||Denison-Pender, J. C.||Hope, Major J. A. (Midlothian)|
|Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks||Doughty, Sir George||Horner, Andrew Long|
|Beckett, Hon. Gervase||Duncannon, Viscount||Houston, Robert Paterson|
|Benn, A. S. (Plymouth)||Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M.||Hunt, Rowland|
|Benn, Ion Hamilton (Greenwich)||Falle, B. G.||Hunter, Sir C. R.|
|Bennett-Goldney, Francis||Fell, Arthur||Ingleby, Holcombe|
|Bentinck, Lord H. Cavendish||Fitzroy, Hon. Edward A.||Jardine, Ernest (Somerset, E.)|
|Bigland, Alfred||Fletcher, John Samuel||Kerry, Earl of|
|Blair, Reginald||Gardner, Ernest||Keswick, Henry|
|Boles, Lieut.-Col. Dennis Fortescue||Gibbs, G. A.||Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement|
|Boscawen, Sir Arthur S. T. Griffith.||Glazebrook, Capt. Philip K.||Law, Rt. Hon. A. Sonar (Bootle)|
|Boyle, William (Norfolk, Mid)||Goldsmith, Frank||Lawson, Hon. H. (T. H'mts, Mile End)|
|Boyton, James||Gordon, Hon. John Edward (Brighton)||Lee, Arthur Hamilton|
|Bridgeman, W. Clive||Goulding, Edward Alfred||Lewisham, Viscount|
|Bull, Sir William James||Grant, J. A.||Lloyd, George Ambrose (Stafford, W.)|
|Burn, Colonel C. R.||Greene, W. R.||Lloyd, George Butler (Shrewsbury)|
|Butcher, John George||Guinness, Hon. Rupert (Essex, S.E.)||Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)|
|Campbell, Captain Duncan F. (Ayr, N.)||Haddock, George Bahr||Lockwood, Rt. Hon. Lt.-Col. A. R.|
|Campion, W. R.||Hall, Frederick (Dulwich)||Lonsdale, Sir J. Brownlee|
|Carllie, Sir Edward Hildred||Hamersley, Alfred St. George||MacCaw, Wm. J. MacGeagh|
|Cassel, Felix||Hamilton, C. G. C. (Ches., Altrincham)||Mackinder, Halford J|
|Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)||Hamilton, Lord C. J. (Kensington, S.)||M'Calmont, Major Robert C. A.|
|Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. A. (Worc'r.)||Harris, Henry Percy||M'Mordie, Robert James|
right hon. Gentleman. The reason I think this Clause should be added to the Bill is because it will obviously make it of a temporary character as an Act. If this Clause is added to the Bill in the year 1913 the Bill will be limited in its scope to the year 1918. Supposing the Government carry on till 1915, that very likely may mean that the Opposition will be in power, and "going strong," in the year 1918. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh, Oh!"] I could argue equally well the other way, but it suits my purpose to argue the way I have, and that we shall be on the Government Benches. In 1918, with this Clause added to the Bill, there will be a constant reminder to those in charge of the Government policy that this Bill, the Plural Voting Bill, comes up for reconsideration. I, do not care which party is in power; it is obvious that in 1918 you cannot consider a Bill of this sort—when it comes up for reconsideration—without dealing with the larger question. That is why it is well, after all, to add this Clause to the Bill, and to bring it up for reconsideration, or, at all events, to have it hanging over our heads with a view to reconsideration.
Question put, "That the Clause be read a second time."
The Committee divided: Ayes, 164; Noes, 291.
|M'Neill, Ronald (Kent, St. Augustine's)||Ronaldshay, Earl of||Thynne, Lord Alexander|
|Malcolm, Ian||Rothschild, Lionel de||Touche, George Alexander|
|Meysey-Thompson, E. C.||Royds, Edmund||Tryon, Captain George Clement|
|Middlemore, John Throgmorton||Samuel, Sir Harry (Norwood)||Tullibardine, Marquess of|
|Mills, Hon. Charles Thomas||Sanders, Robert A.||Valentla, Viscount|
|Morrison-Bell, Capt. E. F. (Ashburton)||Sanderson, Lancelot||Walker, Col. William Hall|
|Morrison-Bell, Major A. C.(Honiton)||Scott, Leslie (Liverpool, Exchange)||Weigall, Capt. A. G.|
|Mount, William Arthur||Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)||Wheler, Granville C. H.|
|Newman, John R. P.||Spear, Sir John Ward||Williams, Col. R. (Dorset, W.)|
|O'Neill, Hon. A. E. B. (Antrim, Mid)||Stanier, Beville||Williams, Col. R. (Dorset, W.)|
|Orde-Powlett, Hon. W. G. A.||Starkey, John R.||Wills, Sir Gilbert|
|Paget, Almeric Hugh||Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staffordshire)||Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E.R.)|
|Parkes, Ebenezer||Stewart, Gershom||Wood, John (Stalybridge)|
|Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)||Strauss, Arthur (Paddington, North)||Worthington-Evans, L.|
|Peel, Lieut.-Colonel R. F.||Sykes, Alan J. (Ches., Knutsford)||Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart|
|Perkins, Walter Frank||Sykes, Sir Mark (Hull, Central)||Wright, Henry Fitzherbert|
|Pryce-Jones, Col. E. (M'tgom'y B'ghs)||Talbot, Lord E.||Yate, Col. Charles Edward|
|Randles, Sir John S.||Terrell, G. (Wilts, N.W.)||Younger, Sir George|
|Rawson, Col. R. H.||Terrell, H. (Gloucester)|
|Remnant, James Farquharson||Thompson, Robert (Belfast, North)|
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Major Gastrell and Mr. Barnston.
|Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)||Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Down, N.)|
|Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour)||Dawes, J. A.||Holmes, Daniel Turner|
|Abraham, Rt. Hon. William (Rhondda)||De Forest, Baron||Holt, Richard Doming|
|Adamson, William||Delany, William||Horne, C. Silvester (Ipswich)|
|Addison, Dr. Christopher||Denman, Hon. R. D.||Howard, Hon. Geoffrey|
|Ainsworth, John Stirling||Devlin, Joseph||Hudson, Walter|
|Alden, Percy||Dewar, Sir J. A.||Isaacs, Rt. H on. Sir Rufus|
|Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbarton)||Dickinson, W. H.||Jardine, Sir J. (Roxburgh)|
|Allen, Rt. Hon. Charles P. (Stroud)||Dillon, John||John, Edward Thomas|
|Armitage, R.||Donelan, Captain A.||Jones, Rt. Hon. Sir D. Brynmor (Sw'nsea)|
|Arnold, Sydney||Doris, William||Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil)|
|Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry||Duffy, William J.||Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)|
|Baker, Harold T. (Accrington)||Duncan, C. (Barrow-In-Furness)||Jones, Leif Stratton (Notts, Rushcilffe)|
|Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)||Duncan, J. Hastings (Yorks, Otley)||Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)|
|Baring, Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple)||Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)||Jones, W. S. Glyn- (T. H'mts, Stepney)|
|Barlow, Sir John Emmott (Somerset)||Edwards, John Hugh (Glamorgan, Mid)||Jowett, Frederick William|
|Barnes, George N.||Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)||Joyce, Michael|
|Barran, Rowland Hurst (Leeds, N.)||Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)||Keating, Matthew|
|Barton, William||Essex, Sir Richard Walter||Kellaway, Frederick George|
|Beale, Sir William Phipson||Esslemont, George Birnle||Kelly, Edward|
|Beauchamp, Sir Edward||Falconer, James||Kennedy, Vincent Paul|
|Beck, Arthur Cecil||Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles||Lambert, Rt. Hon. G. (Devon, S. Molton)|
|Bean, W. W. (Tower Hamlets, S. Geo.)||Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson||Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)|
|Bentham, George Jackson.||Ffrench, Peter||Lardner, James C. R.|
|Bethell, Sir John Henry||Field, William||Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, West)|
|Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine||Flennes, Hon. Eustace Edward||Lawson, Sir W. (Cumb'rld, Cockerm'th)|
|Black, Arthur W.||Fitzgibbon, John||Leach, Charles|
|Boland, John Plus||Flavin, Michael Joseph||Levy, Sir Maurice|
|Booth, Frederick Handel||Furness, Sir Stephen Wilson||Lewis, John Herbert|
|Bowerman, C. W.||Gelder, Sir Wiliam Alfred||Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas|
|Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North)||Ginnell, L.||London, T.|
|Brady, P. J.||Gladstone, W. G. C.||Lyell, Charles Henry|
|Brocklehurst, William B.||Glanville, H. J.||Lynch, A. A.|
|Brunner, J. F. L.||Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford||Macdonald, J. Ramsay (Leicester)|
|Bryce, J. Annan||Goldstone, Frank||Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)|
|Burke, E. Haviland||Greenwood, Granville G. (Peterborough)||McGhee, Richard|
|Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas||Greenwood, Hamar (Sunderland)||Maclean, Donald|
|Buxton, Noel (Norfolk)||Greig, Colonel J. W.||Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J.|
|Buxton, Rt. Hon. Sydney C. (Poplar)||Griffith, Ellis Jones||MacNeill, J. G. Swift (Donegal, South)|
|Byles, Sir William Pollard||Guest, Major Hon, C. H. C. Pembroke)||Macpherson, James Ian|
|Carr-Gomm, H. W.||Guest, Hon. Frederick E. (Dorset, E.)||MacVeagh, Jeremiah|
|Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich)||Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)||M'Callum, Sir John M.|
|Cawley, H. T. (Heywood)||Hackett, J.||McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald|
|Chancellor, H. G.||Hancock, John George||M'Laren, Hon. H. D. (Leics.)|
|Chapple, Dr, William Allen||Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis (Rossendale)||M'Laren, Hon. F. W. S. (Lincs., Spalding)|
|Clancy, John Joseph||Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)||M'Micking, Major Gilbert|
|Clough, William||Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds)||Manfield, Harry|
|Clynes, John R.||Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, W.)||Martin, J.|
|Collins, Godfrey P. (Greenock)||Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N.E.)||Mason, David M. (Coventry)|
|Collins, Sir Stephen (Lambeth)||Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)||Masterman, Rt. Hon. C. F. G.|
|Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J||Havelock Allan, Sir Henry||Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)|
|Condon, Thomas Joseph||Hayden, John Patrick||Meehan, Patrick J. (Queen's Co., Leix)|
|Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.||Hayward, Evan||Menzles, Sir Walter|
|Cotton, William Francis||Hazleton, Richard||Middlebrook, William|
|Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)||Helme, Sir Norval Watson||Millar, James Duncan|
|Crooks, William||Henderson, Arthur (Durham)||Molloy, Michael|
|Crumley, Patrick||Henry, Sir Charles||Molteno, Percy Alpert|
|Cullinan, John||Herbert, General Sir Ivor (Mon., S.)||Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred|
|Davies, Ellis William (Elfton)||Higham, John Sharp||Money, L. G. Chlozza|
|Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)||Hinds, John||Montagu, Hon. E. S.|
|Davies, Sir W, Howell (Bristol, S.)||Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.||Mooney, John J.|
|Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardiganshire)||Hogge, James Myles||Morgan, George Hay|
|Morison, Hector||Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk, E.)||Sutton, John E.|
|Morton, Alpheus Cleophas||Priestley, Sir Arthur (Grantham)||Taylor, John W. (Durham)|
|Muldoon, John||Priestley, Sir W. E. B. (Bradford, E.)||Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)|
|Munro, R.||Pringle, William M. R.||Tennant, Harold John|
|Munro-Ferguson, Rt. Hon. R. C.||Radford, G. H.||Thomas, J. H.|
|Murphy, Martin J.||Raffan, Peter Wilson||Thorne, G R. (Wolverhampton)|
|Murray, Captain Hon. Arthur C.||Raphael, Sir Herbert H.||Thorne, William (West Ham)|
|Needham, Christopher Thomas||Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)||Toulmin, Sir George|
|Nicholson, Sir Charles N. (Doncaster)||Reddy, M.||Trevelyan, Charles Philips|
|Nolan, Joseph||Redmond, John E. (Waterford)||Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander|
|Norton, Captain Cecil W.||Redmond, William (Clare, E.)||Verney, Sir Harry|
|Nugent, Sir Waiter Richard||Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)||Walton, Sir Joseph|
|Nuttall, Harry||Rendall, Athelstan||Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)|
|O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)||Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)||Wardle, George J.|
|O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)||Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)||Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)|
|O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)||Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)||Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)|
|O'Doherty, Philip||Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)||Webb, H.|
|O'Donnell, Thomas||Robertson, John M. (Tyneside)||White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)|
|O'Dowd, John||Robinson, Sidney||White, Patrick (Meath, North)|
|O'Kelly, Edward P. (Wicklow, W.)||Roche, Augustine (Louth)||Whitehouse, John Howard|
|O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.)||Roe, Sir Thomas||Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.|
|O'Malley, William||Rowlands, James||Whyte, A. F. (Perth)|
|O'Neill, Dr. Charles (Armagh, S.)||Rowntree, Arnold||Williams, J. (Glamorgan)|
|O'Shaughnessy, P. J.||Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter||Williamson, Sir Archibald|
|O'Shee, James John||Russell, Rt. Hon. Thomas W,||Wilson, Hon. G. G. (Hull, W.)|
|O'Sullivan, Timothy||Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)||Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)|
|Outhwaite, R. L.||Schwann, Rt. Hon. Sir C. E.||Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. W. (Worcs., N.)|
|Palmer, Godfrey Mark||Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)||Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)|
|Parker, James (Halifax)||Seely, Col. Rt. Hon. J. E. B.||Winfrey, Richard|
|Parry, Thomas H.||Sheehy, David||Wing, Thomas Edward|
|Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)||Shortt, Edward||Wood, Rt. Hon. T. McKinnon (Glas.)|
|Pearce, William (Limehouse)||Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John Allsebrook||Young, Samuel (Cavan, East)|
|Pease, Rt. Hon. Joseph A. (Rotherham)||Smith, H. B. L. (Northampton)||Young, William (Perth, East)|
|Phillips, John (Longford, S.)||Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)||Yoxall, Sir James Henry|
|Pointer, Joseph||Snowden, Philip|
|Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.||Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)|
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr.Illingworth and Mr. Gulland.
|Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)||Sutherland, J. E.|
The next new Clause, standing in the name of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the Bassetlaw Division (Mr. Hume Williams)—(Provision as to Qualification in more than One Country of the United Kingdom)—is not in order, as it is quite inconsistent with what the Committee has already decided on Clause 1 of the Bill.
New Clause—(Copy Of Act To Be Exhibited In Polling Stations)
It shall be the duty of the returning officer to see that a copy of this Act is exhibited in a conspicuous part of every polling station, but failure to comply with this requirement shall not avoid an election?
New Clause brought up and read a first time.
I beg to move, "That this Clause be read a second time."This Clause does not, I think, interfere in any way with the principle of the Bill. I put it forward merely in order, as far as possible, to give to the electors notice of the change in the law. I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that in London, where there is no plural voting in connection, say, with the London County Council, it is astonishing what a number of voters do not know how the law has stood in relation to this matter for so long. If this change is made in. the law, at the next General Election there will be really a large number of persons who are absolutely unaware of the change. The right hon. Gentleman must bear in mind that the offence under the Bill is of asking for a voting paper. The mere fact of asking for a voting paper already constitutes a most serious criminal offence, and disqualifies a man from voting or sitting as a Member of Parliament for seven years. I do think it is fair to give notice to the electors in every way that you can. There are many Statutes in which there is an expressed provision that that Statute shall be put up in a conspicuous place to call the attention of those who are affected by it to it. For instance, I might name the Innkeepers Act and a whole number of other Acts. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will see his way to accept this Amendment, which I think is of a perfectly reasonable character and which in no way contravenes the Bill.
I view this Clause very differently from the last Clause brought forward by the hon.. and learned Gentleman. I see no objection to it in principle, and I agree that it is important that everyone should have a knowledge of the law, and that no one should have any excuse for not knowing the law. I think it is a suggested expedient which might, in the first elections at any rate, possibly be of real service to ignorant plural electors. Therefore I would suggest to the hon. and learned Member that he should put down this Clause on the Report stage, and, with that object, should withdraw it now. It was only put on the Paper this morning, and there are one or two points in connection with the wording of it which I am not satisfied with. If he will put the Clause down for the Report stage, I shall be prepared to consider it with my Friends with a view to possible amendment in the wording of the Clause. I feel there is nothing in principle against the Clause.
Do we understand that the right hon. Gentleman not only sees no objection in principle, but that he really means to insert some Clause on the Report stage which will actually carry out these proposals?
That is my intention.
It is most important to have some provision in the Bill requiring the returning officer to explain to every voter who goes to the poll that if he votes more than once at a General Election he will be committing an offence. A large number of people never read the Debates in this House, and the sole knowledge of many people of our proceedings is derived from one or two snippets in the "Daily Mirror," the "Daily Mail," or the "Daily News," and there are some who do not even know that much. One of the reasons why we should have this provision is that it will be to the advantage of Radical agents to encourage Tory voters to vote more than once if they can. It will also be the object of Tory agents to encourage Radical plural voters to vote more than once. Therefore I am quite certain that the agents of various parties will probably not take any steps to inform the plural voter that he is likely to commit a crime, and it is essential there should be some prominent notice displayed at the entrance to every polling booth rather than in the polling stations. [HON MEMBER "Agreed."] I am very glad to hear that the Members of the House are agreed.
The right hon. Gentleman has said that on the Report stage he would consider this Clause with his Friends. At the same time he used an expression which rather raised my suspicions. He said that it would be useful in the first election. Does that mean that he would limit it to the one time? If so, I think it is obvious there will be no sense in that.
I had no such idea. What I had in mind was that it would be more valuable at the first General Election than in the others.
There is another consideration which the Government have to bear in mind in framing the Clause if they are going to accept the spirit of the Clause. For instance, there is the case of the universities. This Clause takes no account of universities. Would it not be necessary to insert some corollary provision in the case of universities? In that case something would have to be printed upon the voting paper. All these are matters which I recognise may require "some consideration. I am only a little surprised that this valuable idea should not have occurred to the Government earlier.
I venture to ask the right hon. Gentleman who is in charge of the Bill whether he would not accept the Clause now? All the hon. Members on that side, as well as en this, are in favour of the new Clause. They have been calling out "Agreed." I will give some reasons why the right hon. Gentleman should accept it now. First of all, it would stop the discussion; secondly, we do not quite know how far we shall be able to get on the Report stage. It is quite true that new Clauses come first on the Report stage, and we may have it put down again on Report, but as we are only going to have one day we may not get very far on that stage. Why should not the right hon. Gentleman accept the Clause now? It will save time on the Report stage, when we may not have very much time to discuss other matters, and it will save time now, because the acceptance of the Clause finishes the discussion. It may require amendment, and if the right hon. Gentleman cannot amend it now he can surely amend it on the Report stage. That would take up less time and save us discussing the matter over again.
I am prepared to put a new Clause down myself in these or some similar words, but I cannot commit myself to any particular words until the Report stage.
The usual course is for the Government to accept the Clause and then to introduce the Amendment on the Report stage. I think that was what they did on the earlier part of the Bill. That is the course I ask the Government to adopt now.
I think the usual course is, that when the Government does not accept the words of any proposal, they undertake to carry out the object by introducing words of their own at a later stage. That is what I propose to do as we are not prepared at this moment to accept the new Clause in the words proposed by the hon. Member.
In view of what the right hon. Gentleman said, I ask leave to withdraw the Clause.
Proposed new Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
The proposed Schedules are covered by the Bill as it stands. There are two proposals to amend the Preamble. As there is no Preamble the Committee cannot amend it.
On a point of Order. If there is no Preamble, is it not possible to move to insert one?
No. That would be a new practice, and in any case it could not be done without an Order from the House. If the hon. Gentleman thinks of what it leads to he will understand why I cannot allow such a novel practice as that.
I rather gathered when I first put down the proposed Preamble without 'the words, "which cannot at once be brought into operation," that it was not in order, but I gathered that if I -was willing to include these eight words at the end you would allow it to be brought forward. I understood you to say it would be in order if I added those eight words, and, therefore, I put it down in that form.
The hon. Member came to me on Tuesday last week, before, I confess, my careful consideration of the Amendment had gone so far as the Preamble. I am sorry if I misled the hon. Member. It is not competent for the Committee to introduce a Preamble where it does not exist in the Bill as introduced.
Is it not a fact that the result would be that the Preamble would become the prerogative of the Government and it would be for them to decide whether their will would be expressed in that form in the Bill or not. It would be possible for the Government to absolutely debar private Members from moving a Preamble to a Bill.
If the hon. and learned Gentleman introduces a Bill he may insert a Preamble or not, but it is not competent for the Committee to insert one where one does not exist.
The title of the Bill states that it is "a Bill to impose a penalty on an elector who votes in more than one constituency at a General Election." My Amendment would make it read to impose a penalty on any elector who votes or asks for a ballot or voting paper in more than one constituency at a General Election. I think it will be obvious to right hon. Gentlemen opposite that this Amendment is certainly desirable and absolutely necessary, following on the discussion which we had in connection with this particular point on the Amendment of the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Sir William Bull). It is a question of the penalties to be imposed upon a person for asking for a ballot paper in more than one constituency. The point occurred to my mind immediately I had an opportunity of perusing the terms of the Bill, and, owing to the extremely unsatisfactory way in which the Bill was drafted, it was my intention to have moved to amend it. I had an opportunity of drawing the attention of the right hon. Gentleman to the matter in a speech which I made on the Second Reading of the Bill. My objection was taken to the whole Bill on the ground that it exceeded its title, and I think the subsequent Debate in Committee has completely justified that contention. I might have raised the point even before the Second Reading, but at that time two or three objections of a similar character were raised by two other Members, and Mr. Speaker's ruling on those objections was in effect that possibly there was something in the objections, but so long as the Bill was in general conformity with its title Amendments could subsequently be moved to the title, and that was the proper course to pursue, rather than uphold an objection to the whole Bill on the Second Reading. Having regard to, that decision by Mr. Speaker on the objections, which were raised before I had an opportunity of dealing with the particular point I had in my mind, I thought it was, on the whole, better to leave the matter then for the time and to put down an Amendment for discussion in the Committee stage, which would deal with that particular point. Unfortunately, Mr. Whitley, you decided that that Amendment was not one which could be dealt with, and I now desire, in order that the Bill may be brought into accord with the title, that the alteration I suggest in this Amendment should be submitted for the approval of the Committee. It will be within the recollection of the Committee that we had a rather long but, as it turned out, a rather unsatisfactory discussion upon this particular Amendment at an earlier stage in the Committee, and the result was in my view that, although the right hon. Gentleman was willing to accept an Amendment which was moved by the hon. Member for Shropshire, it did not in the opinion of a large number of hon. Members on these benches, including myself, in the least degree satisfy many of the objections which we very rightly took to the very loose way in which the Bill was drafted. It was pointed out in the course of that discussion that university voters would be placed—
All this is very wide of the question. The hon. Member must understand that any opportunity for debating or moving Amendments to the title must be confined to the very small point whether the alteration is necessary to bring it into conformity with the Bill. This is not a question of the merits of the title or of what happened in Committee.
I was trying to meet the possible objection that this point had already been dealt with in the Amendment moved by my hon. Friend. What I desire to emphasise for the purpose of bringing forward this Amendment is the fact that in the opinion of a great many of as, although we admit that the position is not so bad as it was in the original drafting, we are satisfied that cases of hardship and injustice can still arise, and that it is desirable, in the interests of everybody concerned, that they should know that they are liable to penalties, not merely for voting in more than one constituency at a General Election, but also they are equally liable to the same penalty if they ask for a ballot paper in more than one constituency at a General Parliamentary Election. The question of the university voter was dealt with—
The hon. Member is not entitled to go into the merits of the Bill, and he is taking much too wide a flight.
I am only anticipating difficulties—
The hon. Member must not anticipate arguments which I have ruled out of order.
To justify this alteration I have to show that there are two distinct offences, otherwise there is no point in snaking this alteration. If it was merely an attempt it would be included in the penalty with regard to actual voting, and there would be no necessity to change the title. To justify the alteration I have to show that there are two offences under the Bill, and not merely one. I will allude very briefly to the case of the university voter, because it was clearly shown by the hon. Member for Cambridge University that that difficulty was not met by the hon. Member's Amendment. Let us take another case which was not dealt with. I am trying to show that there are two separate offences under this Bill which are not indicated in the title unless the change I suggest is made. Take the case of the voter who goes into the polling booth with the intention of registering his vote in that constituency. Suppose that after asking for his voting paper he is taken ill and is unable to register his vote—
The hon. Member is not justifying his Amendment at all. As I have already pointed out, the opportunity given by our Rules for amending the title is a very small drafting point, simply whether it makes the title conform better to the Bill. Hon. Members will recollect that Mr. Speaker himself said that it is impossible to put the whole Bill into the title, and it is equally impossible to put the discussion on the whole Bill into a discussion on the title.
I think there are a large number of hardships and injustices—
I call upon Sir Frederick Banbury.
I beg to move, in the title of the Bill, after the word "votes"["a Bill to impose a penalty on an elector who votes "], to insert the words "or asks for a ballot or voting paper."I should like to know whether the right hon. Gentleman is going to accept this Amendment or not. It is clear that in order to make the Bill comply with the title it is necessary that those words should be put in. Without this Amend- ment the title would indicate that there was only one offence, and I think it is necessary to see that this Bill does not go beyond the scope of the title. In late years there has been many attempts to introduce into the body of a Bill Amendments or Clauses which go beyond the scope of the title. There was a case in point in the Coal Mines Regulation Bill upon which I raised this point, and the Attorney-General admitted that I was right, and at the last moment he altered the title. I appeal to the Solicitor-General to accept an Amendment which cannot possibly interfere with the working of the Bill. I think that the title ought to be made to correspond with the contents of the Bill.
I agree with the hon. Member that the label ought to be accurate and that it should describe as near as possible the precise contents contained within the four corners of the Bill. The point is whether this alteraton will make the label better or worse. It is not true that this Bill imposes a penalty on every elector who asks for a ballot or voting paper in more than one constituency, because it is necessary that the elector should do it for the purpose of so voting. That is effectively described by the present label which imposes the penalty on an elector who votes in more than one constituency, and the title is none the worse for being short.
I think the Solicitor-General has been disregarding the ruling of the Chair, because he has been arguing this point on the merits of the Bill. He has been arguing that the Bill does not, as a matter of fact, impose a penalty on persons who ask for a ballot paper in more than one constituency, and that was the point which my hon. Friend was arguing when he was called to order by the Chairman.
I am sorry if I was negligent enough to allow that argument to pass. Had I observed it I should certainly have stopped the Solicitor-General.
If that is the Solicitor-General's defence of the title as it stands, then it is an unsound one. We have not now to consider whether the Bill does or does not impose a penalty on everyone who asks for a voting paper. It is enough that it is general and happens in a certain number of cases. Why is the title not to be made to correspond with the Bill? The Solicitor-General says it must be a short title. A short title is already provided and the long title is intended to describe the Bill with accuracy. This Bill is supposed to be scrutinised in this House and the other House, and the title is intended to indicate generally the contents of the Bill. I do not think the defence which has been offered is at all an adequate one, and it would only be adequate if the Solicitor-General was entitled to enter into an elaborate examination of the Bill in order to show that the words of the Bill did not have their apparent significance. The Bill as drafted does contain a second offence, and unless you can examine the merits of the Clause the case cannot be made out. I hope my hon. Friend will divide the Committee upon this Amendment.
I agree with the Solicitor-General that you ought to have the title accurate and short. No one suggests that you should put on the label a full and detailed description of the Bill, but you should, at any rate, indicate what the Bill contained. Anything more misleading than the title of this Bill it is impossible to conceive. The title is "A Bill to impose a penalty on an elector who votes in more than one constituency at a General Parliamentary Election," but the Bill contains nothing of the kind. This is a Bill which creates an offence, and the imposition of a penalty is merely ancillary to the creation of the offence. If you look at the label, it is quite consistent with the offence already existing. In an Act of Parliament you should define what is going to happen to you if you break the law. This Act creates the offence and imposes the penalty. If the title has to stand in that short form, instead of calling it an Act to deal with the offence of voting in more than one constituency, for goodness sake let us be accurate and state exactly what you are doing. It is not only for voting in more than one constituency, but there is the entirely separate offence of asking for a voting or ballot paper for the purpose of voting, and to anyone hunting for this Bill there is nothing in the title to guide him as to its contents. Surely you should, at any rate, state that the penalty is to be imposed for two offences which the Bill creates for the first time. As the title stands, it is only for one offence, although the Bill imposes it for two. Surely this is an Amendment which the Government ought to accept!
The Solicitor-General is so anxious for brevity that he is willing to sacrifice the truth. The title of this Bill at present consists of eighteen words, and, with this addition to bring it into conformity with truth, it would still be a great deal shorter than the title of the Parliament Act.
The Solicitor-General, I am sure, desires to be accurate, but the Government are creating two totally new offences. It has always been considered to be a laudable object to endeavour to cast your vote wherever you have the qualification, and one has asked for a ballot paper for that purpose, but under this Bill you turn that into an offence. The very least you can do is to make it perfectly clear on the face of the Bill what you are doing, and, in the interests of all. I do ask the Solicitor-General to accept this Amendment.
May I appeal once more to the Solicitor-General? I understand him to say that my Amendment is not correct because the penalty is not imposed for asking for a ballot paper, but only for asking for a ballot paper for the purpose of voting. That, of course, is quite correct. The Amendment no doubt was put down in the interests of brevity, and it is perfectly clear and intelligible, but, in order to shorten the discussion, I am prepared to add to my Amendment the words "for the purpose of so voting." That will make it fourteen words instead of eight. Will the right hon. Gentleman, for the sake of keeping out fourteen words, allow the title to be misleading, and continue the discussion of what, after all, is suite a minor point. I would almost say
Division No. 185.]
|Agg-Gardner, James Tynte||Boyle, William (Norfolk, Mid)||Crichton-Stuart, Lord Ninian|
|Amery, L. C. M. S.||Boyton, James||Cripps, Sir C. A.|
|Anson, Rt. Hon. Sir William R.||Bridgeman, W. Clive||Dalrymple, Viscount|
|Anstruther-Gray, Major William||Bull, Sir William James||Dalziel, Davison (Brixton)|
|Ashley, W. W.||Burn, Colonel C. R.||Denison-Pender, J. C.|
|Astor, Waldorf||Butcher, John George||Doughty, Sir George|
|Baird, J. L.||Campbell, Captain Duncan F. (Ayr, N.)||Duncannon, Viscount|
|Baker, Sir R. L. (Dorset, N.)||Campion, W. R.||Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M.|
|Baldwin, Stanley||Carllie, Sir Edward Hildred||Falle, B. G.|
|Baring, Maj. Hon. Guy V. (Winchester)||Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)||Fell, Arthur|
|Barlow, Montague (Salford, South)||Cecil, Lord Hugh (Oxford University)||Fitzroy, Hon. Edward A.|
|Barnston, H.||Chaloner, Col. R. G. W.||Fletcher, John Samuel|
|Bathurst, Hon. A. E. B. (Glouc.,)||Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. A. (Worc'r.)||Forster, Henry William|
|Bathurst, C. (Wilts, Wilton)||Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry||Gardner, Ernest|
|Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks||Clay, Captain H. H. Spender||Gastrell, Major W. Houghton|
|Beckett, Hon. Gervase||Clive, Captain Percy Archer||Gibbs, G. A.|
|Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)||Clyde, J. Avon||Glazebrook, Capt. Philip K.|
|Benn, Ion Hamilton (Greenwich)||Coates, Major Sir Edward Feetham||Goldsmith, Frank|
|Bennett-Goldney, Francis||Cooper, Richard Ashmole||Gordon, Hon. John Edward (Brighton)|
|Bigland, Alfred||Courthope, George Loyd||Goulding, Edward Alfred|
|Blair, Reginald||Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.)||Grant, J. A.|
|Boles, Lieut.-Col. Dennis Fortescue||Craig, Ernest (Cheshire, Crewe)||Greene, W. R.|
|Boscawen, Sir Arthur S. T. Griffith-||Craik, Sir Henry||Haddock, George Bahr|
that I would myself pay the expense of printing the extra words, but the Government are not quite so economical as that. Seriously—I am sure the right hon. Gentleman knows that I am quite sincere —it is really advisable that the title should as far as possible correspond with the contents. That is my argument, and I really do hope that the right hon. Gentleman will consent to the insertion of these words.
The hon. Baronet puts it so pleasantly that one might easily consent without thinking what it would mean. I am afraid I cannot agree to the hon. Baronet's suggestion, because the next thing that would happen would be that he would point out that unfortunately his new title did not correspond with the contents of the Bill, because it forgot to mention that it authorises a new question to be asked of voters.
No, I agree not to raise any further point.
If the Government do not accept the words "for the purpose of so voting," I must say that I prefer the present title, because the penalty is not for asking for a ballot or voting paper, but for asking for a ballot or voting paper with the intention of voting. Therefore, unless the Government accept the whole words, I think the present title is more in accordance with the Bill than the words suggested by my hon. and gallant Friend.
Question put, "That those words be there inserted."
The Committee divided: Ayes, 164; Noes, 299.
|Hall, Frederick (Dulwich)||MacCaw, Wm. J. MacGeagh||Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staffordshire)|
|Hall, Marshall (L'pool, E. Toxteth)||Mackinder, Halford J.||Stewart, Gershom|
|Hamersley, Alfred St. George||M'Mordle, Robert James||Strauss, Arthur (Paddington, North)|
|Hamilton, C. G. C. (Ches., Altrincham)||M'Neill, Ronald (Kent, St. Augustine's)||Sykes, Alan John (Ches., Knutsford)|
|Harris, Henry Percy||Malcolm, Ian||Sykes, Sir Mark (Hull, Central)|
|Harrison-Broadley, H. B.||Middlemore, John Throgmorton||Talbot, Lord E.|
|Helmsley, Viscount||Mills, Hon. Charles Thomas||Terrell, G. (Wilts, N.W.)|
|Henderson, Major H. (Berks, Abingdon)||Morrison-Bell, Capt. E. F. (Ashburton)||Terrell, H. (Gloucester)|
|Herbert, Hon. A. (Somerset, S.)||Mount, William Arthur||Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Down, K)|
|Hewins, William Albert Samuel||Newman, John R. P.||Thynne, Lord Alexander|
|Hickman, Colonel Thomas E.||O'Neill, Hon. A. E. B. (Antrim, Mid)||Touche, George Alexander|
|Hills, John Waller||Orde-Powlett, Hon. W. G. A.||Tryon, Captain George Clement|
|Hill-Wood, Samuel||Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William||Tullibardine, Marquess of|
|Hoare, S. J. G.||Paget, Almeric Hugh||Valentia, Viscount|
|Hohler, G. F.||Parkes, Ebenezer||Walker, Col. William Hall|
|Hope, Harry (Bute)||Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)||Warde, Col. C. E. (Kent, Mid)|
|Hope, James Fitzaian (Sheffield)||Peel, Lieut.-Colonel R. F.||Weigall, Capt. A. G.|
|Hope, Major J. A. (Midlothian)||Perkins, Walter Frank||Wheler, Granville C. H.|
|Horner, Andrew Long||Peto, Basil Edward||Williams, Col. R. (Dorset, W.)|
|Houston, Robert Paterson||Pryce-Jones, Col. E. (Mt'gomy B'ghs)||Willoughby, Major Hon. Claud|
|Hume-Williams, William Ellis||Randles, Sir John S.||Wills, Sir Gilbert|
|Hunt, Rowland||Rawson, Colonel Richard H.||Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E.R.)|
|Ingleby, Holcombe||Remnant, James Farquharson||Wolmer, Viscount|
|Kerry, Earl of||Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)||Wood, John (Stalybridge)|
|Keswick, Henry||Ronaldshay, Earl of||Worthington-Evans, L.|
|Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement||Rothschild, Lionel de||Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart-|
|Lane-Fox, G. R.||Samuel, Sir Harry (Norwood)||Wright, Henry Fitzherbert|
|Law, Rt. Hon. A. Bonar (Bootle)||Sanders, Robert A.||Yate, Col. Charles Edward|
|Lewisham, Viscount||Sandys, G. J. (Somerset, Wells)||Younger, Sir George|
|Lloyd, George Ambrose (Stafford, W.)||Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)|
|Lloyd, George Butler (Shrewsbury)||Spear, Sir John Ward|
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Sir F. Banbury and Major M'Calmont.
|Locker-Lampson. G. (Salisbury)||Stanler, Beville|
|Lockwood, Rt. Hon. Lt.-Col. A. R.||Starkey, John R.|
|Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour)||Collins, Godfrey P. (Greenock)||Greenwood, Hamar (Sunderland)|
|Abraham, Rt. Hon. William (Rhondda)||Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J.||Greig, Colonel J. W.|
|Adamson, William||Condon, Thomas Joseph||Griffith, Ellis Jones|
|Agnew, Sir George William||Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.||Guest, Major Hon. C. H. C. (Pembroke)|
|Ainsworth, John Stirling||Cotton, William Francis||Guest, Hon. Frederick E. (Dorset, E.)|
|Alden, Percy||Cowan, W. H.||Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)|
|Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbarton)||Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)||Hackett, J.|
|Allen, Rt. Hon. Charles P. (Stroud)||Crooks, William||Hancock, John George|
|Armltage, R.||Crumley, Patrick||Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis (Rossendale)|
|Arnold, Sydney||Cullinan, John||Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)|
|Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry||Dalzlel, Rt. Hon. Sir J. H. Kirkcaldy)||Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds)|
|Baker, Harold T. (Accrington)||Davies, Ellis William (Eiffon)||Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, W.)|
|Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.)||Davies, Timothy (Lines., Louth)||Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N.E.)|
|Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)||Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.)||Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)|
|Baring, Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple)||Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardiganshire)||Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry|
|Barlow, Sir John Emmott (Somerset)||Dawes, J. A.||Hayden, John Patrick|
|Barnes, George N.||Delany, William||Hayward, Evan|
|Bar ran, Sir John N. (Hawick)||Denman, Hon. R. D.||Hazleton, Richard|
|Barran, Rowland Hurst (Leeds, N.)||Devlin, Joseph||Helme, Sir Norval Watson|
|Barton, W.||Dewar, Sir J. A.||Henderson, Arthur (Durham)|
|Beale, Sir William Phlpson||Dickinson, W. H.||Henry, Sir Charles|
|Beauchamp, Sir Edward||Dillon, John||Herbert, General Sir Ivor (Mon., S.)|
|Beck, Arthur Cecil||Donelan, Captain A.||Higham, John Sharp|
|Benn, W. W. (Tower Hamlets, S. Geo.)||Doris, William||Hinds, John|
|Bentham, George Jackson||Duffy, William J.||Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.|
|Bethell, Sir John Henry||Duncan, C. (Barrow-In-Furness)||Hodge, John|
|Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine||Duncan, J. Hastings (Yorks., Otley)||Hogge, James Myles|
|Black, Arthur W.||Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)||Holmes, Daniel Turner|
|Boland, John Plus||Edwards, John Hugh (Glamorgan, Mid)||Holt, Richard Durning|
|Booth, Frederick Handel||Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)||Horne, C. Silvester (Ipswich)|
|Bowerman, C. W.||Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)||Howard, Hon. Geoffrey|
|Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North)||Esslemont, George Birnle||Hudson, Walter|
|Brady, P. J.||Falconer, James||Jardine, Sir J. (Roxburgh)|
|Brocklehurst, William B.||Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles||John, Edward Thomas|
|Brunner, J. F. L.||Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson||Jones, Rt. Hon. Sir D. Brynmor (Sw' nsea)|
|Bryce, J. Annan||Ffrench, Peter||Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil)|
|Burke, E. Haviland-||Field, William||Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)|
|Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas||Fiennes, Hon. Eustace Edward||Jones, Leif Stratten (Notts, Rushcliffe)|
|Buxton, Rt. Hon. Sydney C. (Poplar)||Fitzgibbon, John||Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)|
|Byles, Sir William Pollard||Flavin, Michael Joseph||Jones, W. S. Glyn- (T. H'mts, Stepney)|
|Carr-Gomm, H. W.||Furness, Sir Stephen Wilson||Jowett, Frederick William|
|Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich)||Gelder, Sir William Alfred||Joyce, Michael|
|Cawley, H. T. (Heywood)||George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd||Keating, Matthew|
|Chancellor, H. G.||Ginnell, L.||Kellaway, Frederick George|
|Chapple, Dr. William Allen||Gladstone, W. G. C.||Kelly, Edward|
|Clancy, John Joseph||Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford||Kennedy, Vincent Paul|
|Clough, William||Goldstone, Frank||Lambert, Rt. Hon. G. (Devon,S. Molton)|
|Clynes, John R.||Greenwood, Granville G. (Peterborough)||Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)|
|Lardner, James C. R.||Nugent, Sir Walter Richard||Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)|
|Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, West)||Nuttall, Harry||Scanlan, Thomas|
|Lawson, Sir W. (Cumb'rld, Cockerm'th)||O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)||Schwann, Rt. Hon. Sir C. E.|
|Leach, Charles||O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)||Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)|
|Levy, Sir Maurice||O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)||Seely, Col. Rt. Hon. J. E. B.|
|Lewis, Rt. Hon. John Herbert||O'Doherty, Philip||Sheehy, David|
|Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas||O'Donnell, Thomas||Shortt, Edward|
|Low, Sir F. (Norwich)||O'Dowd, John||Simon, Rt. Hon. sir John Allsebrook|
|Lundon, T.||O'Kelly, Edward P. (Wicklow, W.)||Smith, H. B. L. (Northampton)|
|Lyell, Charles Henry||O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.)||Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)|
|Lynch, A. A.||O'Malley, William||Snowden, Philip|
|Macdonald, J. Ramsay (Leicester)||O'Neill, Dr. Charles (Armagh, S.)||Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)|
|Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)||O'Shaughnessy, P. J.||Sutherland, J. E.|
|McGhee, Richard||O'Shee, James John||Sutton, John E.|
|Maclean, Donald||O'Sullivan, Timothy||Taylor, John W. (Durham)|
|Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J.||Outhwaite, R. L.||Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcilffe)|
|MacNeill, J. G. Swift (Donegal, South)||Palmer, Godfrey Mark||Tennant, Harold John|
|Macpherson, James Ian||Parker, James (Halifax)||Thomas, J. H.|
|MacVeagh, Jeremiah||Parry, Thomas H.||Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)|
|M'Callum, Sir John M.||Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)||Thorne, William (West Ham)|
|M'Curdy, C. A.||Pearce, William (Limehouse)||Toulmin, Sir George|
|McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald||Pease, Rt. Hon. Joseph A. (Rotherham)||Trevelyan, Charles Philips|
|M'Laren, Hon. H. D. (Leics.)||Philipps, Col. Ivor (Southampton)||Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander|
|M'Laren, Hon. F. W. S. (Lincs., Spalding)||Phillips, John (Longford, S.)||Verney, Sir Harry|
|M'Micking, Major Gilbert||Pointer, Joseph||Walters, Sir John Tudor|
|Manfield, Harry||Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.||Walton, Sir Joseph|
|Martin, J.||Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)||Ward, John (Stoke-on-Trent)|
|Mason, David M. (Coventry)||Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk, E.)||Wardle, George J.|
|Masterman, Rt. Hon. C. F. G.||Priestley, Sir W. E. B. (Bradford, E.)||Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)|
|Meagher, Michael||Primrose, Hon. Neil James||Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)|
|Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)||Pringle, William M. R.||Webb, H.|
|Meehan, Patrick J. (Queen's Co., Leix)||Radford, G. H.||White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)|
|Menzies, Sir Walter||Raffan, Peter Wilson||White, Patrick (Meath, North)|
|Middlebrook, William||Raphael, Sir Herbert H.||Whitehouse, John Howard|
|Millar, James Duncan||Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)||Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.|
|Molloy, Michael||Reddy, M.||Whyte, A. F. (Perth)|
|Molteno, Percy Alport||Redmond, John E. (Waterford)||Wiles, Thomas|
|Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred||Redmond, William (Clare, E.)||Williams, J. (Glamorgan)|
|Money, L. G. Chiozza||Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)||Williamson, Sir Archibald|
|Montagu, Hon. E. S.||Rendall, Atheistan||Wilson, Hon. G. G. (Hull, W.)|
|Mooney, John J.||Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)||Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)|
|Morgan, George Hay||Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)||Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. W. (Worcs., N.)|
|Morrison-Bell, Major A. C. (Honiton)||Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)||Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)|
|Morison, Hector||Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)||Winfrey, Richard|
|Morton, Alpheus Cleophas||Robertson, John M. (Tyneside)||Wing, Thomas Edward|
|Muldoon, John||Robinson, Sidney||Wood, Rt. Hon. T. McKinnon (Glas.)|
|Munro, R.||Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)||Young, Samuel (Cavan, East)|
|Munro-Ferguson, Rt. Hon. R. C.||Roche, Augustine (Louth)||Young, William (Perth, East)|
|Murphy, Martin J.||Roe, Sir Thomas||Yoxall, Sir James Henry|
|Murray, Captain Hon. Arthur C.||Rowlands, James|
|Needham, Christopher Thomas||Rowntree, Arnold|
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. Illingworth and Mr. Gulland.
|Nolan, Joseph||Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter|
|Norton, Captain Cecil W.||Russell, Rt. Hon, Thomas W.|
Question put, "That the Chairman report the Bill, as amended, to the House."
On a point of Order. The Question, "That the title stand part of the Bill," has not been put.
The Noble Lord is under a misapprehension. There is no
Division No. 186.]
|Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour)||Baring, Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple)||Boland, John Pius|
|Abraham, Rt. Hon. William (Rhondda)||Barlow, Sir John Emmott (Somerset)||Booth, Frederick Handel|
|Adamson, William||Barnes, George N.||Bowerman, Charles W.|
|Agnew, Sir George William||Barran, Sir John N. (Hawick B.)||Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North)|
|Ainsworth, John Stirling||Barran, Rowland Hurst (Leeds, N.)||Brady, Patrick Joseph|
|Alden, Percy||Barton, William||Brocklehurst, W. B.|
|Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbartonshire)||Beale, Sir William Phipson||Brunner, John F. L.|
|Allen, Rt. Hon. Charles P. (Stroud)||Beauchamp, Sir Edward||Bryce, John Annan|
|Armitage, Robert||Beck, Arthur Cecil||Burke, E. Havlland|
|Arnold, Sydney||Benn, W. W. (T. Hamlets, St. George)||Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas|
|Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry||Bentham, George Jackson||Buxton, Rt. Hon. S. C. (Poplar)|
|Baker, Harold T. (Accrington)||Bethell, Sir John Henry||Byles, Sir William Pollard|
|Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)||Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine||Carr-Gomm, H. W.|
|Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)||Black, Arthur W.||Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich)|
similar question regarding the title as; "That this Clause stand part of the Bill." Simply an opportunity is given to propose. an Amendment to the title to bring it into conformity with the Bill.
The Committee divided: Ayes, 295; Noes, 164.
|Cawley, Harold T. (Lancs., Hey wood)||Howard, Hon. Geoffrey||Parker, James (Halifax)|
|Chancellor, Henry George||Hudson, Walter||Parry, Thomas H.|
|Chapple, Dr. William Allen||Jardine, Sir J. (Roxburgh)||Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)|
|Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.||John, Edward Thomas||Pearce, William (Limehouse)|
|Clancy, John Joseph||Jones, Rt. Hon. Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea)||Pease, Rt. Hon. Joseph A. (Rotherham)|
|Clough, William||Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil)||Phillpps, Colonel Ivor (Southampton)|
|Clynes, John R.||Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)||Phillips, John (Longford, S.)|
|Collins, Godfrey P. (Greenock)||Jones, Leif Stratten (Notts, Rushcliffe)||Pointer, Joseph|
|Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J.||Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)||Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.|
|Condon, Thomas Joseph||Jones, William S. Glyn- (Stepney)||Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)|
|Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.||Joyce, Michael||Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk, E.)|
|Cotton, William Francis||Keating, Matthew||Priestley, Sir W. E. B. (Bradford, E.)|
|Cowan, W. H.||Kellaway, Frederick George||Primrose, Hon. Nell James|
|Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)||Kelly, Edward||Pringle, William M. R.|
|Crooks, William||Kennedy, Vincent Paul||Radford, George Heynes|
|Crumley, Patrick||Lambert, Rt. Hon. G. (Devon, S. Molton)||Raffan, Peter Wilson|
|Cullinan, John||Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)||Raphael, Sir Herbert Henry|
|Dalziel, Rt. Hon. Sir J. H. (Kirkcaldy)||Lardner, James C. R.||Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)|
|Davies, Ellis William (Eiffon)||Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, West)||Reddy, Michael|
|Davies, Timothy (Lines., Louth)||Lawson, Sir W. (Cumb'rld, Cockerm'th)||Redmond, John E. (Waterford)|
|Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.)||Leach, Charles||Redmond, William (Clare, E.)|
|Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardigan)||Levy, Sir Maurice||Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)|
|Dawes, James Arthur||Lewis, Rt. Hon. John Herbert||Rendall, Atheistan|
|Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas||Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas||Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)|
|Devlin, Joseph||Low, Sir Frederick (Norwich)||Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)|
|Dewar, Sir J. A.||Lundon, Thomas||Roberts, George H. (Norwich)|
|Dickinson, W. H.||Lyell, Charles Henry||Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)|
|Dillon, John||Lynch, Arthur Alfred||Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)|
|Donelan, Captain A.||Macdonald, J. Ramsay (Leicester)||Robinson, Sidney|
|Doris, William||Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)||Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)|
|Duffy, William J.||McGhee, Richard||Roche, Augustine (Louth)|
|Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)||Maclean, Donald||Roe, Sir Thomas|
|Duncan, J. Hastings (Yorks, Otley)||Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J.||Rowlands, James|
|Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)||MacNeill, J. G. Swift (Donegal, South)||Rowntree, Arnold|
|Edwards, John Hugh (Glamorgan, Mid)||Macpherson, James Ian||Runclman, Rt. Hon. Walter|
|Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)||MacVeagh, Jeremiah||Russell, Rt. Hon. Thomas W.|
|Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)||M'Callum, Sir John M.||Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)|
|Esslemont, George Birnie||M'Curdy, Charles Albert||Scanlan, Thomas|
|Falconer, James||McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald||Schwann, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles E.|
|Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles||M'Laren, Hon. H. D. (Leics.)||Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)|
|Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson||M'Laren, Hon. F.W.S. (Lines., Spalding)||Seely, Rt. Hon. Colonel J. E. B.|
|Ffrench, Peter||M'Micking, Major Gilbert||Sheehy, David|
|Field, William||Martin, Joseph||Shortt, Edward|
|Fiennes, Hon. Eustace Edward||Mason, David M. (Coventry)||Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John Allsebrook|
|Fitzgibbon, John||Masterman, Rt. Hon. C. F. G.||Smith, H. B. Lees (Northampton)|
|Flavin, Michael Joseph||Meagher, Michael||Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)|
|Furness, Sir Stephen Wilson||Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)||Soames, Arthur Wellesley|
|Gelder, Sir William Alfred||Meehan, Patrick J. (Queen's Co., Leix)||Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)|
|George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd||Menzles, Sir Walter||Sutherland, John E.|
|Ginnell, Laurence||Middlebrook, William||Sutton, John E.|
|Gladstone, W. G. C.||Millar, James Duncan||Taylor, John W. (Durham)|
|Glanville, H. J.||Molloy, Michael||Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)|
|Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford||Molteno, Percy Alport||Tennant, Harold John|
|Goldstone, Frank||Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred||Thomas, J.|
|Greenwood, Granville G. (Peterborough)||Money, L. G. Chiozza||Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)|
|Greenwood, Hamar (Sunderland)||Montagu, Hon. E. S.||Thorne, William (West Ham)|
|Greig, Colonel James William||Mooney, John G.||Toulmin, Sir George|
|Griffith, Ellis Jones||Morgan, George Hay||Trevelyan, Charles Philips|
|Guest, Major Hon. C. H. C. (Pembroke)||Morison, Hector||Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander|
|Guest, Hon. Frederick E. (Dorset, E.)||Morton, Alpheus Cleophas||Verney, Sir Harry|
|Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)||Muldoon, John||Walters, Sir John Tudor|
|Hackett, John||Munro, Robert||Walton, Sir Joseph|
|Hancock, John George||Munro-Ferguson, Rt. Hon. R. C.||Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)|
|Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)||Murphy, Martin J.||Wardle, George J.|
|Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)||Murray, Captain Hon. Arthur C.||Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)|
|Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds.)||Needham, Christopher T.||Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)|
|Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)||Nolan, Joseph||Webb, H.|
|Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N.E.)||Norton, Captain Cecil W.||White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)|
|Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)||Nugent, Sir Walter Richard||White, Patrick (Meath, North)|
|Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry||Nuttall, Harry||Whitehouse, John Howard|
|Hayden, John Patrick||O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)||Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.|
|Hayward, Evan||O'Connor, John (Kildare)||Whyte, Alexander F.|
|Hazleton, Richard||O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)||Wiles, Thomas|
|Helme, Sir Norval Watson||O'Doherty, Philip||Williams, J. (Glamorgan)|
|Henderson, Arthur (Durham)||O'Donnell, Thomas||Williamson, Sir Archibald|
|Henry, Sir Charles||O'Dowd, John||Wilson, Hon. G. G. (Hull, W.)|
|Herbert, General Sir Ivor (Mon., S.)||O'Kelly, Edward P. (Wicklow, W.)||Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)|
|Higham, John Sharp||O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.)||Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. W. (Worcs., N.)|
|Hinds, John||O'Malley, William||Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)|
|Hobhouse. Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.||O'Neill, Dr. Charles (Armagh, S.)||Wing, Thomas Edward|
|Hodge, John||O'Shaughnessy, P. J.||Wood, Rt. Hon. T. McKinnon (Glasgow)|
|Hogge, James Myles||O'Shee, James John||Young, William (Perth, East)|
|Holmes, Daniel Turner||O'Sullivan, Timothy||Yoxall, Sir James Henry|
|Holt, Richard Durning||Outhwaite, R. L.|
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Illingworth and Mr. Gulland.
|Home, Charles Silvester (Ipswich)||Palmer, Godfrey Mark|
|Agg-Gardner, James Tynte||Fell, Arthur||Morrison-Bell, Capt. E. F. (Ashburton)|
|Amery, L. C. M. S.||Fitzroy, Hon. Edward A.||Morrison-Bell, Major A. C. (Honiton)|
|Anson, Rt. Hon. Sir William R.||Fletcher, John Samuel||Mount, William Arthur|
|Anstruther-Gray, Major William||Forster, Henry William||O'Neill, Hon. A. E. B. (Antrim, Mid)|
|Ashley, Wilfrid W.||Gardner, Ernest||Orde-Powlett, Hon. W. G. A.|
|Astor, Waldorf||Gastrell, Major W. Houghton||Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William|
|Baird, John Lawrence||Gibbs, George Abraham||Paget, Almeric Hugh|
|Baker, Sir Randolf L. (Dorset, N.)||Glazebrook, Captain Philip K.||Parkes, Ebenezer|
|Baldwin, Stanley||Goldsmith, Frank||Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)|
|Banbury, Sir Frederick George||Gordon, Hon. John Edward (Brighton)||Peel, Lieut.-Colonel R. F.|
|Baring, Major Hon. Guy V. (Winchester)||Goulding, Edward Alfred||Perkins, Walter Frank|
|Barlow, Montague (Salford, South)||Grant, James Augustus||Peto, Basil Edward|
|Barnston, Harry||Greene, Walter Raymond||Pryce-Jones, Colonel E.|
|Bathurst, Hon. Allen B. (Glouc, E.)||Haddock, George Bahr||Randies, Sir John S.|
|Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton)||Hall, Frederick (Dulwich)||Rawson, Colonel Richard H.|
|Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks||Hall, Marshall (E. Toxteth)||Remnant, James Farquharson|
|Beckett, Hon. Gervase||Hamersley, Alfred St. George||Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)|
|Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)||Hamilton, C. G. C. (Ches., Altrincham)||Ronaldshay, Earl of|
|Benn, Ion Hamilton (Greenwich)||Harris, Henry Percy||Rothschild, Lionel de|
|Bennett-Goldney, Francis||Harrison-Broadley, H. B.||Sanders, Robert Arthur|
|Bigland, Alfred||Helmsley, Viscount||Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)|
|Blair, Reginald||Henderson, Major H. (Berks, Abingdon)||Spear, Sir John Ward|
|Bales, Lieut.-Col. Dennis Fortescue||Herbert, Hon. A. (Somerset, S.)||Stanier, Seville|
|Boscawen, Sir Arthur S. T. Griffith-||Hewins, William Albert Samuel||Starkey, John Ralph|
|Boyle, William (Norfolk, Mid)||Hickman, Colonel Thomas E.||Stewart, Gershom|
|Boyton, James||Hills, John Waller||Strauss, Arthur (Paddington, North)|
|Bridgeman, William Clive||Hill-Wood, Samuel||Sykes, Allan John (Ches., Knutsford)|
|Bull, Sir William James||Hoare, Samuel John Gurney||Sykes, Sir Mark (Hull, Central)|
|Burn, Colonel C. R.||Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy||Talbot, Lord Edmund|
|Butcher, John George||Hope, Harry (Bute)||Terrell, George (Wilts, N.W.)|
|Campbell, Capt. Duncan F. (Ayr, N.)||Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)||Terrell, Henry (Gloucester)|
|Campion, W. R.||Hope, Major J. A. (Midlothian)||Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Down, N.)|
|Carllie, Sir Edward Mildred||Horner, Andrew Long||Thynne, Lord Alexander|
|Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)||Houston, Robert Paterson||Touche, George Alexander|
|Cecil, Lord Hugh (Oxford University)||Hume-Williams, Wm. Ellis||Tryon, Captain George Clement|
|Chaloner, Colonel R. G. W.||Hunt, Rowland||Tuilibardine, Marquess of|
|Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. A. (Worc'r.,E.)||Ingleby, Holcombe||Valentia, Viscount|
|Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry||Kerry, Earl of||Walker, Colonel William Hall|
|Clay, Captain H. H. Spender||Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement||Warde, Colonel C. E. (Kent, Mid)|
|Clive, Captain Percy Archer||Lane-Fox, G. R.||Weigall, Captain A. G.|
|Clyde, James Avon||Law, Rt. Hon. A. Bonar (Bootle)||Wheler, Granville C. H.|
|Coates, Major Sir Edward Feetham||Lewisham, Viscount||Williams, Col. R. (Dorset, W.)|
|Cooper, Richard Ashmole||Lloyd, George Ambrose (Stafford, W.)||Willoughby, Major Hon. Claud|
|Courthope, George Loyd||Lloyd, George Butler (Shrewsbury)||Wills, Sir Gilbert|
|Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.)||Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)||Wilson, A. Stanley (Yorks, E.R.)|
|Craig, Ernest (Cheshire, Crewe)||Locker-Lampson, 0. (Ramsey)||Wolmer, Viscount|
|Craik, Sir Henry||Lockwood, Rt. Hon. Lieut.-Colonel A. R.||Wood, John (Stalybridge)|
|Crichton-Stuart, Lord Ninian||Lowe, Sir F. W. (Birm., Edgbaston)||Worthington-Evans, L.|
|Cripps, Sir Charles Alfred||MacCaw, Wm. J, MacGeagh||Wortley, Rt. Hon. c. B. Stuart- '|
|Dairymple, Viscount||Mackinder, Halford J.||Wright, Henry Fitzherbert|
|Dalziel, Davison (Brixton)||M'Calmont, Major Robert C. A.||Yate, Colonel C. E.|
|Denison-Pender, J. C.||M'Mordie, Robert||Younger, Sir George|
|Doughty, Sir George||McNeill, Ronald (Kent, St. Augustine's)|
|Duncannon, Viscount||Malcolm, Ian|
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Sir H. Samuel and Mr. Newman.
|Eyres-Monsell. Bolton M.||Middlemore, John Throgmorton|
|Falle, Bertram Godfray||Mills, Hon. Charles Thomas|
Bill reported; as amended to be considered To-morrow (Thursday), and to be printed. [Bill 240.]