§ The Declaration to be made, subscribed, and audibly repeated by the Sovereign under Section one of the Bill of Rights and Section two of the Act of Settlement shall be that set out in the Schedule to this Act instead of that referred to in the said Sections.2376
§ Mr. WILLIAM MOORE moved to leave out the word "the" ["the Sovereign under Section one"] and to insert instead thereof the word "any."
§ I do not know whether the Government will accept this Amendment or not. It seems to me that it would not affect the object of the Bill by a jot or tittle. Of course, if it is accepted I shall then 2377 proceed to develop my argument upon the Amendment standing in my name further down on the Paper to insert the words "who shall accede to the Crown after the passing of this Act." If my first Amendment is not accepted I must ask leave of the Committee to take them both together.
That is the ordinary course, and the Division on this Amendment will dispose of the Second Amendment as well.
§ The PRIME MINISTER
Do I understand you, Mr. Chairman, to rule that if the present Amendment is negatived then the subsequent Amendment, the effect of which is to make it obligatory in the case of the new Sovereign, would be negatived also?
Certainly, that is what I mean, if the hon. Member argues in favour of both Amendments, the whole thing is settled.
§ Mr. MOORE
I am sorry that on this occasion I shall have to trouble the Committee with a repetition of certain arguments which I used yesterday with regard to this point. I rejoice that the occasion has arisen, because the Committee can now come to a definite understanding upon a definite question. I was unfortunate yesterday in having to speak after the Prime Minister, because I am sure he would have dealt with this point, and he would have given some explanation, at any rate. The Minister who replied for the Government made a fireworks speech and ignored this important constitutional question. For that reason I make less apology for bringing it again to the attention of the Committee. The matter stands in this way: If my view is correct, it is impossible, by any Bill the Government bring in, now that we are dealing with this or any other topic, for such a Bill to become validly law until the Sovereign has qualified himself as Sovereign under the provisions of the Act which has been circulated for the convenience of Members on the White Paper. Such written Constitution as we have lays it down in express terms that before the Monarch can give assent to any legislation he must have first qualified by making the Statutory Declaration imposed by the Act. It provides that "on the first day every King or Queen of this realm who at any time hereafter shall come to or succeed to the Imperial Crown of this 2378 kingdom shall on the first day of the meeting of the first Parliament next after his or her coming to the Throne sitting on his or her Throne in the House of Peers, and in the presence of Lords and Commons assembled, subscribe and repeat the Declaration."
That is the Declaration which the Government are now abolishing, but the time and the occasion is limited here to the first meeting of the first Parliament after the King has come to the Throne. I wish the Committee particularly to remember this. In those days Parliament went out on the death of the Sovereign, and it was impossible for any new Parliament to legislate until of course it had been summoned, and that is the meeting of the first Parliament. At that moment this obligation came upon the Sovereign, and, before any legislation could be passed by the new Parliament, he had to publicly make this Declaration in the House of Lords. I do not say there has been any legal authority expressed on it, but a great jurist (Lord Salisbury), in the Debate on this question, when it arose in 1901, said:—When I say the Sovereign was forced to make it. I mean the whole political machine would have come to a deadlock if he had not done so. The Statute compelled him to make the Declaration before he met Ids Parliament, and until he met his Parliament it was impossible that any new legislation could take place. The only method which could enable you to take a different course—that of obtaining the assent of Parliament to a repealing Act—was, in the very nature of the precaution taken by the statesmen of Charles II., excluded from political possibility.Therefore, as the law stood, it was absolutely impossible for the King to give his assent to a Bill until he had made the Declaration. The reason for that is this: Our Protestant forefathers, as was admitted on both sides of the House last night, wanted to secure the Protestant Succession. Supposing Parliament had had a temporary Roman Catholic majority, they could have brought in a Bill to enable a Roman Catholic to sit on the Throne. A Roman Catholic would be confronted at once with this Declaration. He could not take it. I am sure the Prime Minister would recognise that any alteration of this Declaration, whether it is a mild and moderate one, or an extreme one, such as enabling a Roman Catholic to succeed to the Crown, is equally objectionable from the constitutional point of view. I do not think the question will be affected at all by the power to continue Parliament under the Representation of the People Act, 2379 1867. That Act simply provided that Parliament might sit after the death of the Sovereign. The question I want the Committee to consider, with the best opinion the Government can give is this: Is this present Parliament the first Parliament of the present Sovereign or is it not? This very Bill is entitled, "The First of George V."; it is described as "a Bill to alter the Declaration on the Accession," and it is called "the Accession Bill." We have all, as I said, taken the oath of allegiance to his present Majesty. Is this or is it not a meeting of the first Parliament since his present Majesty came to the Throne, because that is what the Bill of Rights says:—The meeting of the first Parliament after his next coming to the Throne.
§ Mr. MOORE
Certainly; but admittedly the Coronation has not taken place. I want the Government to explain if this present House now passing legislation is entitled to pass legislation in the present Sovereign's name as that "of a meeting of the first Parliament after his next coming to the Throne," because, if it is, I submit, as a constitutional point, and I am sure the Prime Minister will meet it fairly, that the first occasion on which this Parliament met after the Succession of the present Sovereign to the Throne was the occasion on which the Declaration should have been made, and that until that Declaration has been made there is no constitutional power in the Sovereign to give his assent to any legislation, whether this or any other.
§ The PRIME MINISTER
I want to appreciate the point of the hon. and learned Member. Does he contend that, inasmuch as the Sovereign has admittedly not taken the Declaration, the Royal Assent given to about sixty-eight Acts of Parliament is invalid?
§ Mr. MOORE
I am driven to that, and, if it is so, it is owing to the action of the Government in not advising the Sovereign to take the Declaration. I am not responsible for the consequences; it is the Government who are responsible. That view has been very well set out by a leading Liberal paper in the North of England, an out-and-out supporter of the Government—the "Manchester Guardian":—The question arises: Is the King constitutionally Sovereign till he has made the Declaration? No certain answer can be given. Logically, on the strict 2380 wording of the Act, King George is presented with a dilemma. An Act changing the Declaration requires his assent; hut, if he has not made the Declaration already, is he legally entitled to give his assent to any Act whatever?I am not expressing any opinion other than as a Member of this House, but the question is one of great constitutional importance. It is a question which ought not to have been passed over and ignored by the Chief Secretary unless he found himself genuinely incompetent to deal with it, as perhaps he was. I would ask the Prime Minister how this question is being considered? I quite agree it would be a very serious deadlock if the legislation which has taken place is not valid legislation. No one will deny that the subject whose rights are affected by a Bill is entitled to have the Assent of King, Lords, and Commons to it. The importance of this will be recognised when one sees how difficult it would be to raise this matter. In most matters he can go to the King's courts and say: "My rights affected under this Bill are not really limited, because the Bill was not properly passed," but, when dealing with an Act of Parliament which bears the imprint of the King's printer, the subject is debarred from raising a large constitutional question like this in the courts of law. Surely, therefore, it is a case to which either Committee in either House should pay careful heed. It seems to me the only way out of the difficulty is for His present Majesty to conform to the Bill of Rights and take the Declaration in its present form, and for a Bill to be then passed validating all legislation which the Government have got through this Session. The Amendment I propose will enable that course to be taken. I submit it is the correct and constitutional course. If the Government are fortunate enough to obtain the Royal Assent, once the Declaration has been made, they will then have a Bill on the Statute Book which will apply to the successors of the monarchy in the words the Prime Minister recommends. I think the matter is too important from a constitutional point of view to be ignored, as the Chief Secretary ignored it last night, and I hope the Government will consider it.
§ The PRIME MINISTER
The hon. and learned Gentleman has raised a very interesting point, but I think I shall be able to show it is not one which has any legal or constitutional substance in it. His contention is that the effect of the requirement in the Bill of Rights is that the new 2381 Sovereign shall on the first day of the meeting of the new Parliament next after his coming to the Throne, or at his Coronation, make and repeat this Declaration. I understand his contention is that, until he has made that Declaration in the manner prescribed by the Statute, the Parliament sitting at the time of the demise cannot lawfully pass or obtain the Royal Assent to any Act which may be passed by that Parliament. That is his contention, but, in order to establish his contention, he has got to take a good many fences. He has got to say that the Statute Book either by expressed terms or by necessary implication has attached to the non-taking of the Declaration by the Sovereign the consequence that all Sovereign acts done by him are invalid. Where does he find that? There is not a word of it. I pointed out yesterday, and it has often been pointed out, that the peculiarity of the requirement to make this Declration is that no penalty attaches to a non-compliance with it. If the Sovereign violates the first provision of the Bill of Rights and becomes a Roman Catholic, the Statute Book goes on carefully to provide a penalty, and his subjects are thereupon and thereby absolved from allegiance. Of course, penal Acts of Parliament are all very strictly construed, and to say that without any words of any sort or kind attaching any consequences of any sort or kind to his failure to comply with the requirements to make the Declaration, we are to jump to the extreme and monstrous conclusion that every Act of Parliament to which the Sovereign has given assent is invalid is a proposition which I do not think the hon. Gentleman, with all his ability, could maintain in a court of law. That is the first difficulty he has got to get over; there is no such provision in the Act of Parliament. The next question is, What is the meaning of the words:—The first day of the meeting of the first Parliament.What does that mean? The hon. Gentleman says that, inasmuch as at the time when this Act was passed, and for a long time afterwards, Parliament was automatically dissolved on the demise of the Crown, the event here contemplated must have happened before any legislative action can be taken in the reign of the new Sovereign. That is not, historically, strictly correct, because 7 and 8 William III., chap. 15, provided, and for a very good reason, that Parliament should not 2382 automatically be dissolved by the demise of the Crown, but should continue for six months afterwards.
§ The PRIME MINISTER
No; it was exactly to prevent that sort of paralysis which might be brought about by the automatic dissolution of Parliament contemporaneously with the demise of the Crown. The Act of William III. provided that Parliament should last six months afterwards, and, under Section 51 of the Representation of the People Act, 1867, as the hon. Gentleman well knows, Parliament now is not in any way affected by the demise of the Crown. That disposes of that.
§ The PRIME MINISTER
I agree it was a temporary Act, but it was subsequently confirmed and made part of the Statute law of the country, and has remained so. Let us look at the actual practice pursued. May I observe, in passing, that the point which has now been taken would, with all deference to the hon. and learned Gentleman, if there was anything in it, in all probability have been discovered before the year 1910. I will take the precedents. I will take the last four reigns, those of George III., George IV., William IV., and Victoria. In every case the precedent is against the hon. Member. George III. died on 29th January, 1820. On 28th February Parliament was sitting. A number of Bills were passed, and Royal Assent was given by Royal Commission. Parliament was then prorogued and dissolved, and the King did not make the Declaration until the 27th April, in the new Parliament. The Bills passed by Parliament at the time the late King died were assented to by Royal Commission without the new King having taken the Declaration, and that is exactly what has happened in the present Session. The next case was in 1830. George IV. died on 26th June, and on 23rd July a number of Bills, the new King being present in person—and this makes the case still stronger—a number of Bills received the Royal Assent without the King having taken the Declaration at all. Parliament was then prorogued and dissolved. King William IV. did not take the Declaration till 2nd December, and constitutional 2383 lawyers at that time admitted, as regarded the Parliament in existence at the time when the King died, that the Royal Assent could be given without the Declaration being made at all. I will take the next ease, and here again the evidence is perfectly overwhelming. William IV. died on 20th June, 1837, and on 30th June the Royal Assent was given by Commission to a number of Bills. Parliament was then prorogued and dissolved. A new Parliament was opened by Commission on 15th November, and it was not until 20th November that Queen Victoria made the Declaration. Thus, in three successive cases—in the cases of George IV., William 1V., and Queen Victoria—the Royal Assent was given to Bills without the new Sovereign taking the new Declaration as an initial proceeding to the new Monarch giving the Royal Assent. Parliament always had to be dissolved within six months of the demise of the Crown in those days, and any Session of the then existing Parliament was prorogued. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Donegal shakes his head, and I confess I speak with some trepidation on this subject in his presence. But I am prepared to concede to the hon. Member that a new Session of the present Parliament—a new Session created by a prorogation of the Session existing at the time of the death of the King might probably, in the words of the Statute, be the occasion taken of the King's first coming to the Throne. You could not get an earlier time. It must be either a new Parliament elected after the demise of the Crown, or at the very least a new Session of the Parliament which was then existing. I am reminded that the words of the Statute are:—The first meeting of the first Parliament next after his or her coming to the Throne.I am not sure the hon. and learned Member for Donegal, therefore, is not right when he shakes his head and exhibits other signs of mental anxiety, especially if I understand him to imply by that that there must be a new Parliament.
§ The PRIME MINISTER
The question is if, in spite of it, in spite of his not making the Declaration, the Acts to which the Royal Assent is given are invalid. The hon. Member knows that in law, as in 2384 science, one negative is worth more than two affirmatives. We have three successive cases. In every one of these, if the hon. Gentleman's contention is correct, we violated the Constitution and therefore the Acts of Parliament which were assented to under these circumstances should not have become the Statute law of the land. This is, no doubt, a very interesting point, more fit for argument, perhaps, in a court of law than in this House. But I think I have put forward absolutely conclusive objection to the contention of the hon. and learned Member. In the first place, he is importing into the Statute words which are not to be found in it and which there is no reason to believe the framers had any intention to put into it. Secondly, he is putting a wholly unnatural construction on the words; and, thirdly, there is an overwhelming continuity of precedents entirely against him. Therefore, I submit that his contention has not really been sustained.
§ Mr. MOORE
I think the Prime Minister will admit that no lawyer in any court of law would rely on precedents unless the conditions were similar. He has quoted three precedents, but I think it will be remembered that they were all departed from in the most recent case—that of Edward VII. I am not aware, too, that in any of them there was any contentious legislation whatsoever involved. If it is merely a matter of giving assent to Bills at the end of a Session I can quite understand they would go through without question. It is only if you have Bills of the sort now before the House, which go to the root of the Constitution, and which arouse protests in every part of the country, that lawyers or others would be astute enough to make a point such as this. Unless the conditions are similar I do not think the precedents can be relied on.
§ Mr. CHARLES CRAIG
I understand from the statement of the Prime Minister that he holds it is not necessary for the King to make this Declaration in the course of the present Session, and that it is not even necessary that the King should make it on the meeting of Parliament in January or February next.
§ The PRIME MINISTER
On the contrary, I rather intimated I thought that that was the proper occasion, but I submitted the point with some diffidence in view of the attitude of the hon. Member for Donegal.
§ Mr. CHARLES CRAIG
At any rate, I take it that the Prime Minister is not clear in his mind that the King will have to make the Declaration at the meeting of the present Parliament in January or February. Suppose he is not legally bound to make that Declaration. Suppose also, for the sake of the argument, that, for some reason or other, the Coronation does not take place next year, or the year after, or possibly two years later, then we are in this position, that Acts passed by this House and Royal acts of all kinds can be assented to by the Sovereign even for five or six years if need be before he takes this Declaration or in any way fulfils the legal obligations imposed upon him by the Bill of Rights and the other measures which have been referred to. I ask the Prime Minister to say if it is his view that that result is possible under the circumstances?
§ Mr. SCOTT DICKSON
I notice the Prime Minister yesterday, in answer to a question by an hon. Member below the Gangway, said that the Accession Declaration was made by King Edward VII. "at the correct time and in the correct manner according to law," and later on the right hon. Gentleman, in moving the Second Reading of the Bill, stated that the Oath was always taken by the Sovereign immediately on Accession, and that it was taken by the present King on the very day he succeeded to the Throne. That statement is not quite accurate, for I find that Queen Victoria died on the 22nd January, that there were three days following during which Parliament sat, and that the House was then adjourned until the 14th February, on which date the King took the Declaration. If it was the correct time at which he took it, why was it not the correct time for the present Sovereign to take it before this House came to business?
§ Sir A. CRIPPS
I think the Constitutional question is very important. There is one point on which I should like to put a question. Suppose there is no penal clause to give sanction to the taking of the Declaration. Does the right hon. Gentleman think the obligation on the Sovereign to take it is in any way lessened? It appears to me that the obligation rests as much on the Sovereign whether it has any penal sanction to it or not. I take it that I have the Prime Minister's sanction to that. The other point is as to the time at which the Oath should be taken. Of course, one time is the Coronation, but we 2386 may put that out of the question at the present moment. The other time is the first meeting of the first Parliament next after his or her coming to the Throne. It is quite true, of course, that conditions have changed. The whole constitutional situation has changed to a certain extent since the Bill of Rights was passed. Our ancestors, in framing the Bill of Rights, made it quite clear that no legislation should be passed until the Oath had been taken. They never contemplated that where there is an obligation to take the Declaration before that Declaration is taken, the law itself may be altered. If you can alter the law under these conditions all the safeguards provided in the Bill of Rights are really of no use at all. The aim which our ancestors had in view no doubt was that no Act of a legislative character of any kind should be sanctioned by the Sovereign until he had made the Declaration which is contained in the Bill of Rights. The first alteration made since that date was undoubtedly that instead of the House of Commons being dissolved at the demise of the Crown, it was kept alive. Originally that was only a temporary measure, but eventually the provision was made permanent. Then we have the Representation of the People Act, 1867. I do not think that the Prime Minister will venture to state to this House that it was intended by this Act that the Oath, whatever it might be the Sovereign ought to take, should, in any sense, be indefinitely postponed.
As a matter of fact, I have looked through all the discussions as regards the Representation of the People Act of 1867, and this particular question was never discussed at all. It never came to the front, and it was never considered, because, as I understand it, the earliest possible day—I put it in that way, and I agree with the hon. Member there—when a Parliament meets is, in that sense of the word, the day of the delivery of any King's or Queen's Speech. The Oath was always made before the first meeting of a Parliament of that kind. Lord Salisbury's view of the matter, however, cannot be disregarded, and he pointed out, in the House of Lords in 1901, that in the case of King Edward VII. the Declaration could not have been altered, because he was bound to make the Declaration at a time when no legislation could have taken place. That is perfectly correct from the constitutional point of view, but then, of course, one is not going to take what I may call a pettifogging legal aspect as to 2387 the particular sanction or steps to be followed. I do not go the length of saying, as my hon. Friend has said, that Acts to which the Royal Assent has been given are not proper Acts. That is not the constitutional position, but the constitutional position is important, quite apart from what is, after all, a mere legal discussion of that kind. The constitutional position is that before ordinary legislation is carried out, and at the first meeting of the King with his new Parliament, the Declaration should be taken. There is one other paint, perhaps, I may call the attention of the Prime Minister to—not entirely controverting what he said, but it is very important that this matter should be made perfectly clear. On the constitutional ground his argument, as I understand it, was that if you had an adjournment it was not necessary, and if you had a prorogation it was necessary. That is rather an important matter. It is quite true that adjournments only provide for a short time, and a short prorogation is a different thing; but I want to call his attention to this: Does he hold the view expressed by Lord Salisbury that as far as Edward VII. was concerned the Declaration was taken at a time rendered obligatory by the old Bill of Rights? In my view it was. Edward VII., when he took the Declaration, took it at the right time, having regard to the obligations then existing. I will not assume—we cannot assume—that a Sovereign of this realm, who was under a solemn obligation to make a Declaration, would refuse to do it. That is quite unthinkable, and therefore we need not deal with that technical point. I agree with a great deal of what the Prime Minister said, but I hope he will go further, and assent that Edward VII. having made the Declaration, that Declaration can in no sense be questioned.
§ The PRIME MINISTER
I quite agree that the mere fact that a penalty is in no sense attached by the State to the Sovereign for not making the Declaration in no way absolves the Sovereign from making the Declaration at a proper time and in a proper way. It is a monstrous proposition that the mere fact that he does not expose himself to penalties by neglecting to take the Declaration in any way lessens the sacredness of the obligation. I am directing myself to the contention of the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite that the failure of the Sovereign to make the Declaration at the proper 2388 time would invalidate the Royal acts that have been done subsequently, and, amongst other things, the giving of the Royal Assent to Bills which have been passed through both Houses of Parliament. At the time that the Bill of Bights was passed this question could not have arisen, because the demise of the Crown involved automatically the instantaneous dissolution and disappearance of the Parliament that existed, and no doubt the framers of that Act did not contemplate any other state of things. But as a matter of fact the law has changed, first in the reign of William III., temporarily, and then in the reign of Queen Anne, permanently, and it became a part of the Constitution of this country that the Parliament, instead of automatically disappearing at the death of the Sovereign, should survive, or could survive his or her death unless it was dissolved within a period of six months. The Bill of Rights had to be construed and was construed for 150 years in view of that altered state of the law, and I have shown that on three successions, George IV., William IV., and Victoria, our forefathers considered the state of things brought into existence by that subsequent legislation. That is to say they did advise the Sovereign that he had power to go down to the existing Parliament and give his Royal Assent to Bills passed by that Parliament without taking the Declaration. They construed the beginning of the Bill of Rights in regard to the new situation as created by these later Acts as amounting to this: That he must take the Declaration, of course, but he need not take it till he first went, and delivered what we should call a King's Speech and opened the Session of the Parliament then existing, or it might be a new Parliament. And I still think that that is the right moment that he ought to take the Declaration, and I cannot think that Lord Salisbury, when he made the observations which he did in the year 1901 that King Edward VII. had to make the Declaration at once in the then existing Session and then existing Parliament, had in his view the precedents of George IV., William IV., and Queen Victoria. not one of whom made the Declaration at that time although they gave Assents. Therefore, all modern precedents and authority are in favour of the construction I have been suggesting to the Committee. When I am called upon for the advice which I shall give my Sovereign, if it becomes my duty to do so, the advice I shall give to the Sovereign will undoubtedly be that when 2389 he first meets his Paliament, at the conclusion of the present Session, and comes down here to Westminster, either personally or through a Royal Commission, or when he first opens the new Session of this Parliament, he shall then make the Declaration, and I think that is the moment at which he ought to do it, and that is the moment at which he will be advised to do it, if I am in the position I am in at present. I cannot see in the Bill of Rights or other enactments, or the precedents, anything which imposes upon him any obligation to make it at an earlier date.
§ Mr. MacNEILL
My attention was called to this point by a very distinguished friend, who showed it to me in the "Manchester Guardian," and I have considered it in the best way in my power. I wrote to the "Manchester Guardian" in order to allay, as far as I could, the fears of that journal in regard to this great constitutional question raised by the hon. Member for Armagh (Mr. Moore). I have come to a conclusion in which I think the Prime Minister and the Solicitor-General will agree with me. I have not raised this question before, but I am prepared to argue it from memory. It was not raised by me yesterday, but in April, 1901, I, in the House of Commons, stated, as strongly as I could, that the late King never made that Declaration according to law, or according to the precise terms of the Statute, and I was about to accuse the Government of giving the late King wrong advice by making him make an offensive Declaration at a time when it was unnecessary to do it. I say that so far as the legal contents of the Statute were concerned, he did not do it at all. If I am right, and I believe I am, this will be a strong argument in reference to this new Declaration, that the late King, who undoubtedly made the Declaration unwillingly, made it at time when it should not have been made; also, that it has had no legal validity, this being a penal Statute, as he made the Declaration at a time when he was compelled by his Ministers to make it, but at a time when it was not necessary to do so. May I with great respect state to the Prime Minister how I respectfully differ from him in reference to the construction of the powers under the Bill of Rights? It is the first sitting of the first Parliament that is referred to. And the first Parliament in that way we all admit is the first Parliament of the King that he convenes. Originally it was provided that when the King expired Parliament ought also to expire, 2390 and the first change was of a very tentative character, and was made in the reign of William III. to prolong Parliament for six months. That was an artificial prolongation. Then came the Statute of Anne, and made permanent this six months' arrangement, and thus it became an impossibility under the present conditions for Parliament to meet, and the King to make this Declaration on the first day of his Parliament because there is this extraordinary provision—which is an evidence of panic—that the House of Commons without writ or summons at all should meet automatically. That was the first day of their meeting, and the condition was ostentatiously made that the moment the King died the House of Commons, although adjourned or prorogued, should automatically meet. But the new King would not be there to meet them then to make the Declaration which is to be made on the first meeting of the Parliament. That is the first meeting of Parliament, and strong evidences of this is provided by the Statute of George III., which was brought forward when this country was passing through a revolutionary condition. It is provided by the Statute of George III. that if Parliament had not been prorogued, but dissolved, the Members of a dissolved House of Commons were to meet. Under these circumstances, construing the Bill of Rights in regard to the words, "first day of the first meeting of Parliament," it is clear that these artificial meetings were not of a character to include the first day of the first meeting of his Parliament.
It simply puts the Parliament that is in existence on the demise of the King in the position of a Parliament whose life has been artificially prolonged till the time when it would have expired under the Septennial Act if not otherwise dissolved. The Parliament in which we are now sitting is not the Parliament of George V. but the last Parliament of King Edward VII. It would have expired on his death but is artificially prolonged by the Act of 1867, just as Parliaments were formerly prolonged for six months.
How does this bear on the Declaration question? The Prime Minister knows that this is, if anything ever was, a penal Statute. He has also recognised the great distinction that there is between this and the conditions which follow on the King's marrying a Catholic, that the people are relieved from their allegiance. I state 2391 solemnly that King Edward VII. never made that Declaration according to law. So far as he was concerned quite unwittingly he did not fulfil the law. He made the offensive Declaration on the advice of Ministers at a time when they had no right whatever to give him that advice. If King Edward made it at all, he should have made it, not as he did on 14th February, 1901, but at the first day of the meeting of the first Parliament, which is the Parliament of 1906. This is a strong proof of the great attention which should be given to this Declaration. I would ask the right hon. Gentleman to give me his opinion on a matter of law as to what is the first Parliament. Is this the first Parliament of the present Sovereign? So far as I might have any little knowledge I would stake it on this fact, that it is not the first Parliament of this Sovereign, because any Parliament which is his Parliament must be convened by him alone.
§ Mr. LAURENCE HARDY
I think the hon. Gentleman himself reads into the Act words which do not exist in it. He says it must be the King's Parliament. There is nothing stating that it is to be the King's Parliament in any way. I ask him to tell us whether these Acts which received the assent after the demise of the Crown were the Acts, say, of George I., who had died, or of George II., who was a living King? We find these Acts are George V.'s, and therefore we presume they are the Acts of the first Parliament of his reign, therefore it seems to me that the more natural rendering is that the first Parliament is the one which he has to meet in the sense that he meets it every time he sends a Commission to give the Royal Assent to Acts. That is the commonsense view of the question. It is one which was acted on in the only precedent we have since the alteration in the law in 1867. Parliament was prorogued. It was on the first meeting of the first Parliament after Edward VII. came to the Crown that he made the Declaration. It was on the advice of his Ministers, and the advice was approved by the Prime Minister; and yet when King George met his Parliament by giving assent to the Act he did not carry out that advice to the logical issue. After all, we have to remember, when the Prime Minister puts forward that question of no sanction, that there is an unwritten sanction behind this Act which has not been alluded to by the Prime Minister. At the 2392 time the Bill of Rights was passed the Crown had been established on a Parliamentary title at a very recent date, and the result was that when the King had to come down, and as his first act, make this Declaration, it is quite clear that a King who owed his Crown to a Parliamentary title was not likely to refuse to Members of Parliament this particular Oath or Declaration. Therefore there was a very great safeguard in the fact that the Bill of Rights demanded that he should come down to Parliament and make this declaration at the very first moment. After all, the whole point is that, if this matter is of any importance, it is to be taken in the very first instance before legislation comes. That was the intention of the promoters of the Bill of Rights, though it may have been to some extent ignored in subsequent legislation. But the object which was aimed at then still exists, and there is very considerable weight in the constitutional point which has been put forward, and it still requires a little more consideration than the Government seem to have given to it in the past; and it is certainly desirable, now that this Bill is passing in the shape of an amended Declaration, that we should see that in future at all events the Declaration is made at the earliest possible moment by the Sovereign, and there shall not be the delays which are now suggested in connection with making the Declaration.
§ Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORD
There are two little words in the original Act which throw considerable light on the subject, they are "next after"—the first Parliament "next after" his coming to the Crown. That is clearly not the Parliament which is sitting at the time. It is also clear that these words would be given effect to in one way at the time they are embodied in the Statute, and if they are taken exactly as they stand they will be given effect to another way altogether. I think it is clear that in the words as they now stand in the Act, the true construction would be that this Declaration would not require to be taken at any point in the Parliament which happened to be sitting at the demise of the Crown. Under these circumstances, the Prime Minister has told us that, in his view, the first Parliament next after the coming to the Crown would be either a new Parliament or a prolongation of the existing Parliament. It seems to me that it is scarcely useful to discuss whether Acts of Parliament to which the Royal Assent has been given are or are not 2393 valid, because no one would dream of suggesting, from the practical point of view, that any of these Statutes were not valid. Yet at the same time the discussion and the arguments on both sides are exceedingly useful, and it has been made clear that the intention was when the Bill of Rights was passed that at the very first moment, before any legislation could be passed whatever, this Declaration should be made. But as Acts have been passed extending the life of the existing Parliament, and this point has not been in any way dealt with, we must assume that they intended that it was not necessary during the continuance of the existing Parliament that the Sovereign should make the Declaration, but that the Declaration should be made on the first day of the meeting of the first Parliament next after.
§ Mr. T. M. HEALY
I wish to say a few words on the question of Ireland, which has been omitted from consideration in the White Paper. It is an instance of the fact of how completely the position of Ireland as a separate country, with separate rights and separate Sovereignty, is ignored in this matter. I acknowledge the manner in which the Government, and especially the Prime Minister, has acted in regard to this Bill, and I owe a debt of obligation to him and to his Administration, for the straightforward and honourable manner in which they have brought this measure forward, and also because of the advice, which I think was strictly legal advice, which he tendered to the Crown in regard to the definition of this word Parliament; nor can I think it is a question on which lawyers alone can really confidently offer opinion, and I think it will require, in view of the storm which has been directed at the heads of the Government, some little element of common sense as well as of courage, to have tendered the advice which the right hon. Gentleman gave as to the meaning of the word "Parliament." I think the manner in which the House as a whole on both sides—because I have watched the action of Conservative Members with just as much keenness as the action of the Government—has done it credit, and it has sent a real message of peace not merely to Ireland, but everywhere where the Catholic religion is maintained and practised. It is impossible to say what the effect of this will be on the allegiance of your Catholic soldiers and sailors. I should like to have seen this Oath read out to Catholic soldiers as they were going into action in South Africa, and ask them if they were going to imperil 2394 their lives for a King who declared that their religion was idolatrous and hateful.
It is nowhere recognised in this White Paper, though the Government has stated that, in their opinion, if the King became a Roman Catholic his subjects were dissolved from their allegiance. I believe that to be true as regards England, and possibly as regards Scotland. I certainly say it is not true as regards Ireland, and no constitutional lawyer would maintain anything of the kind. The one doubt I have in regard to this measure is that it is a measure applicable to the three countries. Of course, I do not take any objection to it, but I wish distinctly to repudiate the proposition, as a lawyer, that if the King became a Catholic it would dissolve, so far as the Crown of Ireland is concerned, the Irish people from their allegiance. It is not to be found or supported in any Statute. The Statutes upon which it depends in Ireland are the Statute of Henry VIII., which gave the King the title of King of Ireland, followed by the Statute of William III. In the Act of Henry VIII. nowhere is there any condition whatsoever attached to the taking on of the Crown of Ireland. The Act of William III. dealt with England alone, and did not apply to Scotland. There may be Scottish Acts no doubt which confirm the English Acts. I do not pretend to have any acquaintance with the laws of Scotland. It is probably so. At any rate, the Bill of Rights did not apply to Ireland. The Act of Settlement in one sense can be supposed by construction to apply to Ireland, but to my mind it is a wrong assertion to say that a change of religion on the part of the Crown would have any such effect in regard to Ireland as the right hon. Gentleman says. The Act of 1542 simply says: The King, his heirs and successors, Kings of England, being Kings of Ireland as united and knit to the Crown of England. I respectfully maintain that all through the discussions on the question of the validity of the Statutes to which the King's sign - manual is attach[...]d there might arise the question as to whether they are English or Irish Acts. I only rose for the purpose of preventing it being said again that in any Parliament in which there are over a hundred Irish Members we are in any way bound to assent to the doctrine which has been laid down above the Gangway, even if that doctrine had not been so powerfully supported by the argument of the Prime Minister from which I respectfully dissent.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORD
had given notice of an Amendment to leave out the words "the Sovereign" ["and audibly repeated by "the Sovereign"] and to insert instead thereof the words "every King and Queen of this Realm who at any time hereafter shall come to and succeed in the Imperial Crown of this Kingdom."
The hon. Member can move this Amendment, but I would point out that the words he proposes would really make no difference.
§ Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORD
I desire to move this Amendment and to say a few words upon it. I submit respectfully that the Amendment is in Order.
The CHAIR MAN
I have explained to the hon. Member that he will be in Order in moving it, but the question I wish to ask is what difference it will make?
§ Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORD
I desire to point out that the words in the first section of the Bill are "The Declaration to be made, subscribed, and audibly repeated by the Sovereign under Section one of the Bill of Rights, and Section two of the Act of Settlement shall be that set out in the Schedule of this Act instead of that referred to in the said Sections." If you refer to Sections 1 and 2 of the Acts you will find no reference whatever to "the Sovereign," but you will find the Declaration is to be made by "every King and Queen of this Realm who at any time hereafter shall come to and succeed in the Imperial Crown of this Kingdom"—exactly the words which are contained in Section 3 of the Act. My point is this. I believe, after a careful examination of these Statutes, that the word "Sovereign" is an adjective. You will find it used for lord or lady. Here we are dealing with exact words, and I submit that when dealing with such Statutes as the Bill of Rights, the Act of Union, and the Act of Settlement, it is absolutely essential that you should use correct language.
In referring to the Declaration to be made by the Crown, I submit, in the first place, that as a matter of good draftsmanship the words of the Amendment are 2396 better than the words now in the Clause; and, in the second place, the language is more precise. I cannot find in the Statutes referred to that the word "Sovereign" is anywhere used as a substantive. If the Government do not choose to amend the Bill in this way in order to make it accurate, I shall not press the Amendment. I beg to move.
§ The PRIME MINISTER
The hon. Member opposite has stated that the object of the Amendment is to preserve the purity of our Statutes. It does not involve a question of substance. It is purely a matter of expression. I like as much as anyone to get rid of prolixity and verbiage. In these more businesslike and less picturesque days we have got into the habit of using abbreviated expressions, and I cannot think that the words "the Sovereign" would give rise to any ambiguity in any quarter. That form of expression is shorter than the form suggested by the hon. Member, and it has exactly the same meaning.
§ Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORD
As I have no desire to waste the time of the Committee, I ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The next Amendment stands in the name of the hon. Member to leave out from the word "be" ["Act of Settlement shall be"] and to insert instead thereof the words, "altered by omitting the words 'superstitious and idolatrous,' and inserting the words in lieu thereof 'contrary to the Protestant religion with which I am joined in communion.'" This Amendment deals with the Schedule, and the question will coma up when we reach the Schedule.
§ Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORD
A large number of us say that the whole question could be decided now if you would allow the Amendment to be put in this way. Many of us are willing that the words "superstitious and idolatrous" should be left out, and the words indicated in the Amendment inserted at another place. We thought that would meet the susceptibilities of a large number of people who have written to us, and at the same time do substantial justice and save trouble in dealing with the Declaration altogether. Of course, it would be our desire to assist you, Mr. Chairman, in any ruling you lay down for the convenience of the Committee, and 2397 with the desire of seeing that every substantial point has an opportunity of being discussed. That is all we want. There are a number of Amendments standing in various names on the Notice Paper, and if every substantial point gets an opportunity of being discussed on the Schedule we would heartily concur in your ruling that all these Amendments should be taken on the Schedule. I submit that the whole question could be disposed of now under this Amendment, and that the Schedule could be entirely omitted. I respectfully submit that you might allow this Amendment to be moved.
§ Mr. CHARLES CRAIG
Having passed the Second Reading of the Bill, we have got to the point that some alteration is to be made in the Declaration. It is desirable that the form of Declaration should not be too long. The Amendment standing in my name would meet that point, and it would remove the words which the Roman Catholics consider the objectionable part of the Declaration. Therefore I submit that this is the proper place to alter the terms of the Declaration.
I have not said, in regard to these Amendments that they are in themselves out of order even at this stage, but what I do say—and I always act on this principle when there are a large number of Amendments to be moved in reference to any part of a Bill—is that they must be moved either on the Clause or on the Schedule. That could be done
§ in this case if there was a general agreement that there was to be a discussion of a particular Amendment, and then the question would be finished, but the absence of any such general agreement as that obviously leaves this and other Amendments on the Schedule, and it would be better to have the discussion of all on the Schedule and not here.
§ Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORD
In submitting to your ruling, am I to understand that all these Amendments can be dealt with on the Schedule?
I do not know what the hon. Member means by that question. Any Amendment which would have the same effect as this Amendment which he seeks to move on this Clause can be moved on the Schedule. The Amendment of the hon. Member for East Down (Mr. Mitchell-Thomson) appears to be out of order, as it retains the old form of Declaration which negatives the principle adopted by the Second Reading. The Amendment of the hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Laurence Hardy) is, I think, outside the scope of the Bill. The Bill only deals in, its title and in its drafting with altering the form and not with the time or the manner in which the Declaration should be made.
§ Question put, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 340; Noes, 60.2401
|Division No. 145.]||AYES.||[6.30 p.m.|
|Abraham, William (Dublin Harbour)||Boyton, J.||Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.|
|Adkins, W. Ryland D.||Brady, P. J.||Cowan, W. H.|
|Agnew, George William||Brigg, Sir John||Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)|
|Allen, Charles P.||Brocklehurst, W. B.||Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet)|
|Arbuthnot, G. A.||Bryce, J. Annan||Crean, Eugene|
|Armitage, R.||Bull, Sir William James||Crosfield, A. H.|
|Ashley, W. W.||Burden-Coutts, W.||Cullinan, J.|
|Ashton, Thomas Gair||Burke, E. Haviland-||Dalziel, D. (Brixton)|
|Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry||Burns, Rt. Hon. John||Dawes, J. A.|
|Baird, J. L.||Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas||Delany, William|
|Baker, H. T. (Accrington)||Butcher, J. G. (York)||Devlin, Joseph|
|Balcarres, Lord||Buxton, C. R. (Devon, Mid)||Dickinson, W. H. (St. Pancras, N.).|
|Balfour, Robert (Lanark)||Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, N.)||Dillon, John|
|Banbury, Sir Frederick George||Buxton, Rt. Hon. Sydney C. (Poplar)||Donelan, Captain A.|
|Barclay, Sir T.||Byles, William Pollard||Doris, W.|
|Baring, Captain Hon. G.||Carr-Gomm, H. W.||Duffy, William J.|
|Barlow, Sir John E.||Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich)||Duke, H. E.|
|Barnes, G. N.||Cawley, Harold T. (Heywood)||Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)|
|Barran, Sir J. (Hawick)||Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)||Dunn, Sir W. H. (Southwark, W.)|
|Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.)||Cecil, Lord Hugh (Oxford University)||Edwards, Enoch|
|Bathurst, Charles (Wilton)||Chancellor, H. G.||Elibank, Master of|
|Beale, W. P.||Chapple, Dr. W. A.||Ellis, Rt. Hon. John Edward|
|Benn, Ion H. (Greenwich)||Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.||Elverston, H.|
|Bentham, G. J.||Clancy, John Joseph||Esmonde, Sir Thomas|
|Bentinck, Lord H. Cavendish-||Clough, William||Falconer, J.|
|Bethell, Sir John Henry||Collins, G. P. (Greenock)||Farrell, James Patrick|
|Bird, A.||Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)||Fell, Arthur|
|Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine||Compton-Rickett,||Sir J. Fenwick, Charles|
|Bowerman, C. W.||Condon, Thomas Joseph||Ferens, T. R.|
|Boyle, D. (Mayo, N.)||Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)||Ffrench, Peter|
|Field, William||Lardner, James Carrige Rushe||Raphael, Herbert H.|
|Fisher, W. Hayes||Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.)||Rawlinson, John Frederick Poel|
|Flavin, Michael Joseph||Lawson, Hon. Harry||Reddy, M.|
|Foster, J. K. (Coventry)||Leach, Charles||Redmond, John E. (Waterford)|
|France, G. A.||Lehmann, R. C.||Redmond, William (Clare)|
|Furness, Stephen||Levy, Sir Maurice||Rendall, Athelstan|
|Gardner, Ernest||Lewis, John Herbert||Ridley, Samuel Forde|
|Gelder, Sir W. A.||Llewelyn, Venables||Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)|
|George, Rt. Hon. David Lloyd||Lloyd, G. A.||Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)|
|Gibbs, G. A.||Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas||Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)|
|Gibson, Sir James P.||Low, Sir F. (Norwich)||Robinson, S.|
|Gilhooly, James||Lowe, Sir F. W. (Birm., Edgbaston)||Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)|
|Gill, A. H.||Lundon, T.||Roche, Augustine (Cork)|
|Glanville, H. J.||Luttrell, Hugh Fownes||Roe, Sir Thomas|
|Glover, Thomas||Lyell, Charles Henry||Ronaldshay, Earl of|
|Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford||Lynch, A. A.||Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter|
|Goldman, C. S.||Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. A. (Hanover Sq.)||Sanders, Robert A.|
|Gooch, Henry Cubitt||Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)||Scanlan, Thomas|
|Goulding, Edward Alfred||Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.||Schwann, Sir C. E.|
|Greenwood, G. G.||MacNeill, John Gordon Swift||Scott, A. H. (Ashton-under-Lyne)|
|Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward||MacVeagh, Jeremiah||Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)|
|Griffith, Ellis J. (Anglesey)||M'Callum, John M.||Seely, Col., Rt. Hon. J. E. B.|
|Guest, Major||M'Kean, John||Sheehan, Daniel Daniel|
|Gulland, John William||McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald||Sheehy, David|
|Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)||Mallet, Charles E.||Sherwell, Arthur James|
|Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne)||Marks, G. Croydon||Shortt, E.|
|Hackett, J.||Masterman, C. F. G.||Smith, H. B. (Northampton)|
|Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.||Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)||Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)|
|Hall, Frederick (Normanton)||Meehan, Patrick A. (Queen's Co.)||Snowden, P.|
|Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis (Rossondale)||Middlebrook, William||Soames, Arthur Wellesley|
|Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)||Mildmay, Francis Bingham||Soares, Ernest Joseph|
|Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)||Millar, J. D.||Spicer, Sir Albert|
|Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)||Molloy, M.||Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)|
|Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, W.||Montagu, Hon. E. S.||Steel-Maitland, A. D.|
|Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N.E.)||Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)||Strauss, Arthur|
|Harwood, George||Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)||Sutherland, J. E.|
|Haslam, James (Derbyshire)||Morpeth, Viscount||Sutton, John E.|
|Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)||Morrison-Bell, Major A. C.||Sykes, Alan John|
|Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry||Mount, William Arthur||Talbot, Lord E.|
|Haworth, Arthur A.||Muldoon, John||Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)|
|Hayden, John Patrick||Murray, Capt. Hon. A. C.||Tennant, Harold John|
|Hayward, Evan||Muspratt, M.||Terrell, G. (Wilts, N.W.)|
|Hazleton, Richard||Nannettl, Joseph P.||Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)|
|Healy, Maurice (Cork, N.E.)||Neilson, Francis||Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)|
|Healy, Timothy Michael (Louth, N.)||Newdegate, F. A.||Thynne, Lord A.|
|Helme, Norval Watson||Newman, John R. P.||Tobin, Alfred Aspinall|
|Henderson, Arthur (Durham)||Newton, Harry Kottingham||Toulmin, George|
|Henderson, J. M. (Aberdeen, W.)||Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncaster)||Trevelyan, Charles Philips|
|Henry, Charles S.||Nolan, Joseph||Twist, Henry|
|Herbert, Col. Sir Ivor||Norton, Capt. Cecil W.||Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander|
|Higham, John Sharp||Nugent, Sir Walter Richard||Verney, F. W.|
|Hillier, Dr. A. P.||Nussey, S[...] Willans||Verrall, George Henry|
|Hindle, F. G.||Nuttall, Harry||Vivian, Henry|
|Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.||O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)||Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)|
|Hodge, John||O'Brien, William (Cork, N.E.)||Walton, Sir Joseph|
|Hogan, Michael||O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)||Ward, Arnold (Hert[...], Watford)|
|Holt, Richard Durning||O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)||Wardle, George J.|
|Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)||O'Doherty, Philip||Waring, Walter|
|Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)||O'Grady, James||Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)|
|Horne, C. Silvester (Ipswich)||O'Kelly, Edward P. (Wicklow, W.)||Waterlow, D. S.|
|Horne, W. E. (Surrey, Guildford)||O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.)||White, Major G. D. (Lancs., Southport)|
|Howard, Hon. Geoffrey||O'Malley, William||White, Sir George (Norfolk)|
|Hughes, S. L.||O'Neill, Dr. Charles (Armagh, S.)||White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire)|
|Home-Williams, W. E.||Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William||White, Sir Luke (York, E.R.)|
|Hunter, Sir C. R. (Bath)||O'Shaughneesy, P. J.||White, Patrick (Meath, North)|
|Illingworth, Percy H.||O'Shee, James John||Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.|
|Isaacs, Sir Rufus||Daniel Palmer, Godfrey Mark||Whyte, A. F. (Perth)|
|Jessel, Captain H. M.||Parker, James (Halifax)||Wilkie, Alexander|
|Johnson, W.||Pearce, William||Williams, J. (Glamorgan)|
|Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea)||Pease, Rt. Hon. Joseph A.||Williams, P. (Middlesbrough)|
|Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil)||Peel, Hon. W. R. W. (Taunton)||Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthen)|
|Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)||Peto, Basil Edward||Williamson, Sir A.|
|Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)||Philipps, Sir Owen C. (Pembroke)||Wilson, Hon. G. G.(Hull, W.)|
|Jowett, F. W.||Phillips, John (Longford, S.)||Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)|
|Joyce, Michael||Pickersgill, Edward Hare||Wilson, J. W. (Worcestorshire, N.)|
|Keating, M.||Pointer, Joseph||Wilson, T. F. (Lanark, N.E.)|
|Kelly, Edward||Pollard, Sir George H.||Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)|
|Kennedy, Vincent Paul||Pollock, Ernest Murray||Wood, Hon. E. F. L. (Ripon)|
|Kilbride, Denis||Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.||Wood, T. M'Kinnon (Glasgow)|
|King, Sir Henry Seymour (Hull)||Power, Patrick Joseph||Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George|
|King, J. (Somerset, N.)||Priestley, Sir W. E. B. (Bradford, E.)|
|Kinlock-Cooke, Sir Clement||Pringle, William M. R.||TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Dudley Ward and Mr. Wedgwood Benn.|
|Kirkwood, J. H. M.||Radford, G. H.|
|Lambert, George||Raffan, Peter Wilson|
|Lane-Fox, G. R.||Rainy, A. Rolland|
|Agar-Robartes, Hon. T. C. R.||Gilmour, Captain J.||Molteno, Percy Alport|
|Banner, John S. Harmood-||Gordon, John||Morton, Alpheus Cleophas|
|Barnston, H.||Grant, J. A.||Munro, R.|
|Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry, N.)||Hall, E. Marshall (L'pool, E. Toxteth)||Nield, Herbert|
|Boyle, W. L. (Norfolk, Mid)||Hamilton, Marquess of (Londonderry)||Primrose, Hon. Neil James|
|Brunskill, G. F.||Harmsworth, R. L.||Quilter, William Eley C.|
|Carlile, E. Hildred||Henderson, Major H. (Berks, Abingdon)||Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall[...]|
|Castlereagh, Viscount||Hickman, Col. T.||Rutherford, Watson|
|Chaloner, Col. R. G. W.||Hohler, G. F.||Smith, F. E. (Liverpool, Walton)|
|Chambers, James||Horner, A. L.||Stewart, Gershom (Ches., Wirral)|
|Clyde, J. Avon||Houston, Robert Pat[...]rson||Stewart, Sir M'T. (Kirkcudbrightsh.)|
|Cory, Sir Clifford John||Kerr-Smiley, Peter||Thompson, Robert (Belfast, North)|
|Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.)||Kyffin-Taylor, G.||Thomson, W. Mitchell (Down, North)|
|Dairymple, Viscount`||Law, Andrew [...]onar (Dulwich)||Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire)|
|Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott||Locker-Lampoon, O. (Ramsay)||Warde, Col. C. E. (Kent, Mid)|
|Duncannon, Viscount||Lockwood, Rt. Hon. Lt.-Col. A. R.||Willoughby de Eresby, Lord|
|Falle, B. G.||Lonsdale, John Brownlee||Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart-|
|Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey||MacCaw, William J. MacGeagh|
|Fletcher, J. S.||Mackinder, H. J.||TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Captain|
|Foster, H. S. (Suffolk, N.)||M'Calmont, Colonel James||Craig and Mr. W. Moore.|
|Foster, P. S. (Warwick, S.W.)||Meysey-Thompson, E. C.|
§ Clause 2 added to the Bill.