§ This Act will not apply to Ireland.
§ Clause brought up, and read the first time.
§ Mr. GODFREY LOCKER-LAMPSON
I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a second time."
Probably my proposal looks a very modest one, but I suggest that it contains one or two rather important principles. I am very much surprised that the Government, which desires to give Ireland control of her own affairs, should try to pass this Bill in its present shape and take away from Ireland the opportunity of deciding the method in which she desires that the electorate should vote. So far as representation in the Imperial Parliament is concerned, the Government have very strictly tied Ireland up as regards, the United Kingdom Electoral Laws. In Clause 13, Sub-section (2) of the Home Rule Bill, it is provided—
"That the Election Laws and the Laws relating to the qualifications of Parliamentary electors shall not, so far as they relate to the election of Members returned by constituencies in Ireland to serve in the Parliament of the United Kingdom, be altered by the Irish Parliament."
That is more or less consistent with their attitude, although I do not agree even with that for reasons which I shall state. Their attitude as Home Rulers is not at all consistent so far as the Irish House of Commons is concerned, because in Clause 45, Sub-section (2) of the Home Rule Bill, it is provided—
"That all existing election laws relating to the Commons House of Parliament of the United Kingdom and the Members thereof shall, so far as applicable, and subject to the provisions of this Act, apply to the Irish House of Commons when the Home Rule Bill passes into law"
It is perfectly true that under the Home Rule Bill, Ireland may change the Electoral Laws of the United Kingdom in three years' time after the passing of this Plural Voting Bill, that is to say, so far as the Irish Parliament is concerned under Clause 9, Sub-section (4) of the Home Rule Bill. I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman what is really the good of going through the whole of this trouble to pass a new law for Ireland, which you are deliberately giving Ireland the power of 702 repealing in three years' time. Surely, it would be very much better, acting on the principles which are in favour by the Government, and more consistent to allow Ireland to decide for herself, and in what manner her electorate is to vote in the future for the Irish House of Commons. I suggest that the Members of the Nationalist party have absolutely no mandate for jerrymandering the future Irish constituencies. They may have a mandate for Home Rule, but so far as I know, in their election addresses, there is absolutely nothing whatever to say that they intend to alter the Electoral Laws, so far as future Irish constituencies are concerned. It is perfectly true that you restrict the power of the Irish Parliament from altering those laws for three years only, but after three years they will be able to alter them, and I do not see in the least why you should restrict this power to three years. I do not see that there is the slightest reason for doing it, and I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will really give us some reason why the Government have put down a period of three years in respect of this particular question. It is quite on other grounds that I am especially anxious to see my new Clause accepted by the Government. I really believe that it would be a most valuable addition in the Bill to save the Irish plural voters from extinction as such. Take, for a moment, the question of the illiterates in Ireland. I do not want to be in the least offensive to Ireland. Nobody admires Ireland or the Irish people more than I do, but everyone knows that the proportion of illiterates in Ireland is very large at the present time. I am sorry that there should not be a single Member of the Irish party here when this Clause affecting Ireland is being discussed in this House.
§ Mr. BARNES
I think that it is only fair to say that the Irish party have a function of some sort upstairs.
§ Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSON
If the Irish party have got an important engagement I will not pursue the point further. If you take the General Election of January, 1910, you will find that out of 220,529 voters in Ireland no less than 22,515 were illiterates, compared with only 703 17,151 English illiterates out of 5,770,000 odd voters; and, if you compare Ireland with Scotland—I believe that Scotland and Ireland have more or less the same population—as against 22,515 Irish illiterates, there were in Scotland only 2,344 out of an electorate voting of 660,442. If hon. Members below the Gangway were present, I know what their argument would be. They would say that those figures are not complete or reliable, because a good many seats in Ireland were uncontested at the last election and at various elections in the past.
§ Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSON
No, I do not suggest that at all, and, if the hon. Member will wait just a moment, I will show him why I mention the matter. I think really that it is an advantage to hon. Members below the Gangway from the point of view of the statistics that a good many of these seats were not contested, because, taking the character of those constituencies, especially from the very fact that Home Rule was uncontested, they would probably find that the proportion of the "illiterate" would be even greater than in the Divisions that were contested. Take, again, the illiterates over nine years of age in Ireland in 1911. After all, this shows the sort of proportion of illiterates, in Ireland. In the county of Donegal, in 1911, 20 per cent, of all persons over nine years of age could not read or write. This being the case, it is all the more important that the addition of the plural vote, that is the addition of the educated vote, should be left intact in Ireland in order to counterbalance this very large proportion of the uneducated and illiterate vote. That really is my answer to the hon. Member's interruption. It would, to my mind, have the effect of somewhat lessening the fear that property is to be specially aimed at in Ireland by the Nationalists when the present Home Rule Bill passes into law. If hon. Members below the Gangway really wish to show their bona fides in regard to the protection of the minority in Ireland, I do not think that they could better do it than by supporting this Clause. After all, the Government have already shown that they are not averse to the principle of the protection of the minority in spite of the famous and somewhat indiscreet statement of the Chief Secretary several years 704 ago. They have recognised this principle in their own Home Rule Bill. They have recognised it by introducing the principle of proportional representation for the protection of the minority in the Irish House of Commons, and the Clause which I propose aims at doing exactly the same thing, not only for the Irish Parliament, but also for the representation of Ireland in the Imperial Parliament.
I may say that the Government have also recognised the principle of plural voting in the Home Rule Bill, because they are giving Irishmen two votes, one for Westminster and one for the Irish Parliament, although—and this is an important point—there will be many overlapping questions which will be discussed in both places. The Government may argue that the provisions of a Franchise Bill brought into this House ought to be uniform for the whole of the United Kingdom, but, after all, the law at present is not uniform in England, Scotland, and Ireland. The franchise is not the same in Ireland as it is in Scotland and in England. There are a great many differences. I looked up these differences this morning, and they are put very concisely on page 423 of Whittaker's Almanac, and hon. Members will quite easily sec that there are a great many differences existing in these various countries. The scale of expenses at elections is also very different. In addition to this, hon. Members know quite well that, in the past, Reform and Franchise Bills that have been introduced into this House have not always been uniform for the whole of the United Kingdom. The great Reform Act of 1832 contains different provisions for Ireland and England, and, if you take the great Reform measures of 1867 and 1868, you will find that the 1867 Act was for England, and that it was not until the following year that Reform Acts were passed for Ireland and Scotland. But I need not go back to 1867. Let me remind the right hon. Gentleman of the Extension of the Polling Hours Bill—only the other day. In the course of that Bill, I myself put an Amendment down on the Paper cutting out Ireland and Scotland from that Bill. It was argued by the hon. Baronet for Ayr Burghs (Sir G. Younger), and the Government readily accepted it, practically without any controversy whatever. If they readily accepted the cutting out of Scotland and Ireland from the Bill which dealt with the electoral law, I cannot see for the life of me why they should not be equally ready to cut Scotland and Ireland out of 705 this Bill, which, after all, is only a very partial alteration of the electoral laws. I hope I have given sufficient reasons—I might give many more—for the favourable consideration of this new Clause by the Government, and I trust that they will accept it.
§ Mr. NEWMAN
I regret the absence of hon. Members from Ireland below the Gangway, but I readily fall in with the suggestion that the reason for their absence is known to everyone in this House. I am an Irishman myself, and I trust hon. Members will believe me when I say that in Ireland this Bill creates very little excitement. I do not suggest there is no plural voting, but I do say that the plural voter in Ireland is a rara avis. You have in England many other classes of voters of whom in Ireland we hear little if anything. Even if we have a plural voter, he is not very harmful. What makes the plural voter a danger is the restaurant car and the motor, but we have very few really good restaurant cars and not many motors in Ireland, and the plural voter, consequently, does not exercise his dual qualification to any great extent. There is, therefore, no particular outery against him, and this Bill does not interest Irish public opinion at all. What does excite Irish public opinion is the question whether or not we are going to have a new Irish Parliament, set up. I am convinced that the general feeling of those who are opposed to an Irish Parliament is that the one thing which is wanted is Redistribution—one vote one value. I admit that in the province of Ulster there is a majority of one Member in favour of Home Rule, but if we have one vote one value, things would be very different, because the Unionist Members represent more electors than the Nationalist Members. As to those who are in favour of Home Rule, what they want, they say, is to give the Irish Parliament as full powers as possible for the management of its own concerns.
The Government of Ireland Bill which has been introduced is an experiment, and it embodies, as far as Ireland is concerned, a novel experiment—that of proportional representation. It is not novel on the Continent or in other countries, but it is a great experiment for this Kingdom. I do not suggest that proportional representation does not involve the abolition of plural voting. It may or it may not. But that is a matter which should be settled 706 by those who are going to elect the new Parliament. We are going to have an Irish Senate elected on a system of proportional representation. It is open to question whether an elector qualified to vote in Munster and Leinster should not be allowed to vote in each province for the election of representatives to the Senate. I do not think that that would be considered a very great hardship by average Irish opinion. If we have a Parliament in Ireland at all, and if the Senate is to be elected by proportional representation, that point as to whether a man qualified in more than one province should be allowed to exercise his right to vote in each province, will certainly require to be considered. Although proportional representation is only in an experimental stage as far as the Irish House of Commons is concerned, it will assuredly develop, and we ask that those who have worked so hard to get it introduced shall be allowed to work out the experiment in their own way. What is going to happen in Ireland? No man can tell. After three years' time the Irish Parliament is to have power to alter the method of election, and surely Irishmen should be allowed to choose what they will or will not have.
It is conceivable that the Government of Ireland Bill may be withdrawn or modified. It is conceivable that to safeguard the interests of the minority something in the nature of plural voting may be introduced. I saw the other day a suggestion made by a well-known Nationalist Member in this House that the Irish minority might be given the cumulative vote. The hon. and learned Member for North-East Cork (Mr. T. M. Healy) said he was quite willing that the Irish Protestants should have half the representation one way or the other. I ask the House, therefore, not to tie our hands. I suppose the reason why Mr. Gladstone left plural voting in the Franchise Bill of 1885 was because he recognised that it was to a certain extent a safeguard for property, which, being in a minority, ought to have an extra safeguard. What he thought good for England it is conceivable that Irishmen may deem good for their country. They may think it necessary to have a safeguard for the minority, and, therefore, it would be well to leave this question open. As my hon. Friend has suggested, it is a very common practice for Bills dealt with in this House not to be applied to Ireland. There have 707 been several instances of that lately, and my hon. Friend cited the Extension of Polling Hours Bill.
§ Mr. NEWMAN
We have no mentally deficient in Ireland, and we do not want that Bill. I ask the House to exclude Ireland from this very small, irritating Bill, and I heartily second this new Clause.
§ The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. Harold Baker)
The two hon. Members who have commended this Clause to the House, although they have done so in very fair terms, can hardly expect that it will be accepted by the Government. They recognised that, in urging this point, the burden of proof was on them, and, if I understood the Mover aright, his main contention was that we should allow Ireland to manage her own affairs. There was an undercurrent of the same suggestion in the speech of the Seconder. We are attempting to give Ireland that power, and we should be glad if both hon. Gentlemen will co-operate with us on future occasions, when they have the opportunity, so that our Bill may pass more speedily and more effectively. I hope I shall show it is not possible by the Amendment of the hon. Gentleman to separate Ireland entirely from the United Kingdom in this Bill. The Bill has been framed to deal with the Parliament of the United Kingdom, and that is a factor which requires serious consideration. There are many objections to this proposed new Clause, but, if there were no other, there is the objection that, as moved, it is so full of ambiguity that it is, as I think, entirely unworkable. I see no one predominant rational construction that can possibly be put upon it. What do hon. Members mean by "Ireland"? The word "Ireland" naturally is a geographical expression and applies only to a particular area. If that is the meaning of the hon. Member, if he is using the word "Ireland" in a purely territorial sense, then I ask him, "Does he realise what the consequences of the Amendment will be?" The consequences will be that anybody who happens to be in Ireland at the General Election will be exempt from the provisions of the Bill, and anybody who is not in Ireland will not be exempt. He complained that there was an exces- 708 sive number of illiterate voters in Ireland. Let him remember this, that, if this Clause were passed, any Oxford graduates, who have the university vote, who happen to be resident in Ireland at the time of a General Election would be exempt from the provisions of this Bill. I think he has there brought in an element to counterbalance the illiterate element in Ireland. If the hon. Member does not mean that, and I am bound to think that is the only natural and reasonable interpretation of the words, "This Act shall not apply to Ireland"—if he does not mean that, and if he means Ireland, not as a geographical or territorial expression, but Irish constituencies, I ask him if even then he realises the entire consequences of this proposal?
§ Mr. BAKER
Does the hon. Member mean that if there is a plural voter in Ireland, who has two votes in Ireland, he shall have both votes? What about the case of the plural voter who has one vote in Ireland and one vote in England? Does he mean that he may vote first in England, and then will commit no offence by voting in Ireland; whereas, if he votes first in Ireland and then votes in England, he will be committing an offence under the Bill? What does he mean in the case of a voter who has two votes in Ireland and one in England? May he have all three on the one condition that he is lucky enough to be able to secure his first vote in England, and then go over to Ireland and give his two Irish votes? The fact is, although several possible meanings can be attached to this Clause, they are so many and so conflicting that it is not really intelligible as a part of this Bill. All the alternatives I have suggested to the hon. Member—and he apparently accepts all of them—are to us and the Government equally impracticable. Even if the Clause had been put in a reasonable and plausible form the Government would not have been able to accept it. The House in Committee decided, I do not say finally, but implicitly, that this Bill should apply to the whole of the United Kingdom. The principle which condemns plural voting, and we do condemn it, is a principle which is not conditioned by local circumstances and local considerations at all. Plural voting is a principle which is objectionable, quite apart from the particular circumstances of time and 709 place with which we are likely to be immediately concerned. The principle of the Bill is of general application, it is believed in by the Government and by hon. Members who support it, and for that reason, even if the hon. Member's Clause had been differently framed, it would have been impossible for the Government to accept it.
§ Sir WILLIAM ANSON
I cannot regard the speech to which we have just listened as either convincing or, in fact, applicable in any way to this new Clause. The hon. Member put to us various impossible conditions, and asked whether they were what we accepted. He said that if a man happens to be a resident in Ireland, under this Clause, supposing it to become part of the Bill, if he has two votes in England, will he come, over to England, having voted under the electoral law of Ireland, and expose himself to the penalties of registering a vote in the United Kingdom? I suppose such an absurd proposition never occurred to anybody in the House.
§ Sir W. ANSON
I certainly understood the hon. Member to suggest that if a man is resident in Ireland and has two votes for English constituencies he could, under this Clause, come over here and register them both.
§ Sir W. ANSON
I thought this was a matter for the Irish Parliament to settle under the Home Rule Bill. The distinction has already been drawn, sharply and clearly, in the Home Rule Bill, because whereas the Irish Parliament is allowed to alter its electoral conditions after a lapse of time, it is not to alter the conditions under which Members are to be sent here to serve in what remains of the English Parliament. The Home Rule Bill contemplates a difference between the electoral conditions of Ireland and the electoral conditions of England. Ireland is provided under that Bill with two sets of electoral conditions. There is the method of election for the Irish Parliament, which is alterable after three years at the pleasure of the Irish Parliament and the Irish electorate, and there is the method of election of those 710 Irish Members who are sent here to serve in the English Parliament, which is not alterable by the Irish Parliament, and is to be subject always to the conditions imposed by the Parliament of the United Kingdom. Therefore we already have, admittedly by the action of the Government, two different sets of electoral law. Having made that distinction, would it not be much more reasonable to say that our electoral law in this particular matter is not to apply to Ireland. This is a new law. As has been constantly urged, it does not alter the law of registration or of the franchise, but only imposes heavy and severe penalties upon persons who act in a particular way at elections. Is it desirable that we should impose that on Ireland when we are in other respects leaving Ireland free to legislate for itself? I would ask the hon. Member and the President of the Board of Education whether they have considered the effect of the Bill upon Ireland? Under the Home Rule Bill, Ireland is required for the next three years to conform in all matters appertaining to elections with the English electoral law and English electoral conditions. After the expiration of the three years the Irish Parliament is set free to legislate, under Clause 9, Sub-section (4) upon certain electoral conditions—qualification and registration of the electors, the law relating to elections, the constituencies, the distribution of Members, and so forth. Does that give the Irish Parliament the power to repeal this Bill if it so pleases? I doubt it very much.
We are setting free the Irish Parliament to deal with its electoral law in a great many ways, but we are not, when we pass this Bill, setting it free to alter this, because this does not relate to qualification or the registration of electors. It does not, I think, relate to the law concerning elections, but only imposes penalties upon persons who act in a particular way at elections. If not certain, at any rate, it is arguable that this Bill is an Act of the Imperial Parliament, and under Clause 1, Subsection (2) of the Home Rule Bill could not be altered by any Act of the Irish Parliament. I do not anticipate that Home Rule will ever become law. I hope it may not. But are we not in any dealings with electoral law at the present time bound to consider the conditions which we have ourselves created in the Home Rule Bill and imposed upon Ireland? Are we justified, when for so many purposes we are 711 setting Ireland free to legislate for herself, and when under Clause 9, Sub-section (4) of the Home Rule Bill we ostensibly set Ireland free in three years to deal with its electoral law as it likes, in imposing upon Ireland these penalties against plural voting or the attempt to exercise a qualification which you possess in two different constituencies, in such a way that they are not alterable by any Acts of the Irish legislature? There is, no doubt, an inconvenience in having two different electoral laws in Ireland, but that has been contemplated by the Government. It has been provided in the Home Rule Bill that the Members who are to represent Ireland in the Parliament of Great Britain are to be elected under the conditions of English electoral law and that no Irish Act can alter that. But the members who are elected to serve in the Irish Parliament are to be elected under such law as after three years it pleases the Irish Parliament to make. Under these circumstances ought we not to leave the Irish Parliament perfectly free to legislate as it pleases for its own electoral conditions? The Irish Parliament cannot alter the electoral law as regards the Irish Members who are sent to the House in the Imperial Parliament. The Acts of the Imperial Parliament prevail in Ireland in so far as the Irish Parliament is not competent to alter them, and I doubt very much if, under the Clause which gives Ireland power generally to alter its electoral conditions, it will be given power to repeal or amend or modify the Bill now before us. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Pease) may be able to convince me that this Bill, or an Amendment of this Bill, is within the Subjection to which I have referred, but until cogent reasons are advanced I doubt it very much.
Then the Irish Parliament may have a reason for wishing, if not to repeal, at any rate to amend in certain respects the Bill with which we are now dealing. University representation is said not to be popular in England. I believe it is more popular than is represented, but at any rate the settled opinion on that side of the House is against it. But it is said to be in favour in Ireland, and, as I heard the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Birrell) say, Ireland is the one place where university representation is undoubtedly possible. It is very difficult to combine university representation with a Bill of this sort, which imposes very heavy penalties on the 712 plural voter, because university representation and plural voting go hand in hand. It is no discredit to universities. Plural voting has been imposed upon universities, whether they would or no, by the Act of a Liberal Government and the Imperial Parliament, and I have nothing to say against it. But Ireland may very likely wish that an exception to this Bill should be made in the case of university representation and it will be powerless to do so. Again, the penalties are admittedly extraordinarily severe. A person who asks for a voting paper, with the presumed intention of voting twice, is not merely subject to pecuniary penalties but is disqualified, beyond the possibility of modification of the penalty, from voting for a number of years. The Irish Parliament might think, as I hope this Parliament may think before it is done, that these penalties are unduly severe and may wish to modify the law in that respect. As the Bill now stands, and as the Home Rule Bill stands, it will be impossible to modify it.
Again, the hon. Member who moved the Clause called attention to the great number of illiterate voters in Ireland. I do not believe in the illiteracy of the Irish people as represented by the illiterate vote. If you do not wish to have it clearly known what your voting strength is it is not inconvenient to be an illiterate voter, and I have always had my suspicions as to whether the number of illiterate voters in Ireland represented any very substantial lowering of the standard of education in Ireland below the rest of the United Kingdom. But assume that they are illiterate. They come rather helpless to the poll and though they may not really understand the conditions under which they are voting, they will clearly understand the person for whom they want to vote. The Irish Parliament might consider that the penalties, having regard to the prevalence of illiteracy, were extraordinarily severe and might very much wish to modify them in that respect. I should be glad to hear from the right hon. Gentleman that he thinks the Irish Parliament can modify them, but I have very great doubt whether they can. It is very important, in dealing with these measures which concern England, Ireland, and Scotland, to take care that the Bill carries out precisely what you mean. Do you mean to make this Bill unalterable by the Irish Parliament? If you do, you are doing an injustice to the Irish Parliament.
§ Sir W. ANSON
If you are going to give Home Rule, give it honestly. If you are giving powers to the Irish Parliament, take care that the powers mean what they profess to mean, and, having given the powers with one hand, do not take them away with another by passing legislation with which the Irish Parliament cannot deal, when you have already passed a Bill giving it ostensible power to alter the whole electoral law. If you call that ultra-Homo Rule, I do not. I call it honest legislation. I should like the right hon. Gentleman to make this clear. If Ireland is to have the power of altering this legislation it will be very much better to keep Ireland outside the Bill altogether. Great inconveniences arise and have arisen in the past from doubt whether election law concerns the whole of the three Kingdoms when it was plainly intended to be applicable to the whole of the three Kingdoms. I do not know whether it is within the recollection of hon. Members that the 1867 Representation of the People Act for England provided that the demise of the Crown shall not affect the duration of Parliament. There were two successive Representation of the People Acts passed for Ireland and Scotland and in neither of which was that provision repeated. The English Act was specially confined to England, and on the demise of Queen Victoria a serious question arose as to how far the Scotch and Irish Members were affected by the English Act. Happily, the Law Officers were at one, and the matter was settled in accordance with the dictates of common sense. But I draw attention to that because it shows the importance of taking care when legislating for the three parts of the United Kingdom, and particularly when you are creating new rights for the new Irish Parliament, that what you give with one hand you do not take away with the other. You should make the electoral law perfectly clear for the United Kingdom, and you should look into the matter and see that in imposing these new penalties, and as some think, too severe penalties, you do not shut out the power of the Irish Parliament to alter a law which they may think it desirable in their own interests to change.
§ Mr. BOOTH
I acknowledge the delight with which we listen to the right hon. Baronet (Sir W. Anson), who puts his points temperately and with a charm 714 which, I am sure, is always acceptable to the House. It is very curious that the reason he gives for supporting the Clause is the exact opposite of that given by the Mover and the Seconder. The Mover of the new Clause rather laboured the point, and drove it home to the dullest of us, that he was concerned about the great power of the illiterate voter in Ireland, and that he wished to counterbalance that by allowing the property owner, who is better educated, to roam about from province to province neutralising the illiterate voter. The right hon. Baronet supports the Clause from an entirely different standpoint. He says that the illiterate voter will very soon be the plural voter.
§ Mr. BOOTH
And, therefore, because there are more illiterate voters in proportion to the electorate, so there will be more illiterate plural voters, and he wishes those who cannot read or write to rush about in motors or in trains in the different provinces of Ireland in order to dominate the position. That is one of the most curious arguments I have ever heard addressed to the House. As a matter of fact, the hon. Member who moved this new Clause clearly saw the difficulty he was in, and I am not surprised that he could not get a single Irish Member to be responsible for his proposal. Since the discussion commenced I notice that one of the better known Members of the Irish party has favoured the House with his presence, and I would like to know why the hon. Member has entirely overlooked this Amendment and declined to attach his name to it.
There are attached to the Amendment the names of the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Sir William Bull), the hon. Member for Salisbury (Mr. Godfrey Locker-Lampson), and the hon. Member for the Enfield Division of Middlesex (Mr. Newman). Why is the hon. Member for Enfield not representing his native land? I am not challenging the good taste of the electors of Enfield. I challenge hon. Members who are responsible for bringing forward this Amendment to say whether any Irish Member representing a democratic constituency is in favour of this Clause. We are entitled to know. I undertake to say that the Unionist Members of the House will not go down to their constituencies and make speeches on this Clause.
§ Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSON
May I ask how the hon. Member knows that the Irish party are not in favour of the Clause when they absent themselves from the discussion?
§ Mr. BOOTH
I am speaking of the Irish Unionists. There cannot be any doubt as to the views of the Irish Nationalists. When did they identify themselves with vested interests, particularly in voting? I am asking about the Irish Unionists, the cream of the Unionist party, who go perambulating in processions. I ask where those new leaders of the party stand upon this proposal that the Bill shall not apply to Ireland.
§ Sir F. BANBURY
I understood the hon. Member to say that no Member on this side of the House would go into his constituency and say that he advocated this Clause. I say I would go into my Constituency and state that I was in favour of it.
§ Mr. BOOTH
The hon. Baronet must do me the justice of listening to me with more attention, as I always listen to him. I said that no Irish Unionist representing an industrial constituency would go down and make a speech to his own electors about this Clause. Of course, the hon. Baronet is the great champion of plural voters in this House, and it would not make him any the less acceptable in the city to say that he is in favour of the Clause. He is not only one of the representatives of the city, but he is a clever manœuvrer in the constituency itself. I ask why hon. Members opposite get up and make Home Rule speeches. We have had three distinctly Home Rule speeches. The whole meaning of it is that they wish to give special treatment to Ireland. Why! The Unionist case has always been that Ireland does not need special treatment, but now they come here and say that there is such a difference between the electorates in Ireland and England that they must vote under a different law. You cannot justify this except by maintaining that the aims and objects of the Irish electorate are entirely different from those of the electorate in England. If you grant that, you grant the case for Home Rule. That has been the case for Home Rule for the last hundred years. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Oxford University did insist that the Irish Parliament had power to make its own electoral laws, and the whole of his argument was devoted to the support of the Bill as it stands, and not of this Amend- 716 ment. This Bill will apply to the whole electorate of the United Kingdom and will govern the election of Members to this House. That being so, surely, the right hon. Gentleman cannot say that Members for England, Wales, and Scotland should be elected on a single vote system, while in Ireland plural votes should operate in elections to the same Chamber. If the Irish Parliament like to experiment with regard to the electoral conditions appertaining to the election of their own Parliament they have got the power.
§ Sir W. ANSON
My whole point was that this Bill would govern elections to the Irish Parliament as well as to the the Imperial Parliament.
§ Mr. BOOTH
That is what I am granting. The right hon. Gentleman said that they would have different laws, and now he is saying that they will start with the same law. Surely, if we set up an Irish Parliament we should say that at the next General Election, both in England and Ireland, there should be no plural voting. What can be simpler? If afterwards the Irish Parliament like to alter their own conditions, well and good, but they never can alter the basis of election to this House. That is what we are arguing for. The right hon. Gentleman has stultified his own speech. The hon. Gentleman who spoke on behalf of the Government made it evident to the House that the Mover himself did not understand it. I appeal to hon. Members, as I think they have some sensible, Clauses lower down, to spend the time of the House more profitably, and to abandon this Clause.
I was somewhat surprised that the right hon. and learned Member for the University of Oxford had any doubt as to the provisions and meaning of the Home Rule Bill, but having regard to his reputation as a constitutional lawyer I sent for a copy of the Bill with which for greater accuracy I have now obtained, and I will read the passages to the House in regard to the question he put to me. In Sub-section (4) of Clause 9, these words occur:—
"After three years from the day of the first meeting of the Irish Parliament, the Irish Parliament may alter, as respects the Irish House of Commons, the qualification and registration of electors, the law relating to elections therefor."
So that until the Irish House of Commons has been in existence for three years, the 717 Plural Voting Bill, assuming its passage into law before the Home Rule Bill, will operate in regard to elections to the Irish House of Commons. Then if we turn to Clause 13, and look at the commencing words of the second Sub-section, we see:—
''Unless and until the Parliament of the United Kingdom otherwise determine the election laws."
Which, of course, includes the laws relating to plural voting—
"shall not, so far as they relate to elections of members returned by constituencies in Ireland to serve in the Parliament of the United Kingdom, be altered by the Irish. Parliament."
Those words are perfectly plain, and if this House abolishes plural voting, plural voting would not apply to the Parliamentary elections of Irish representatives to serve in the Imperial House of Commons, and I may add I think if this Bill passes into law after the Home Rule Bill, this Bill would not affect the elections to the Irish Parliament.
§ Mr. J. HOPE
The right hon. Gentleman has made a very interesting and pertinent reply to the point which my right hon. Friend has urged, but I do not think he has quite covered the ground. In the first place, I am not at all sure that those words in Sub-section (4) relating to elections would cover this point. I very much doubt that the Court would hold that they did, but, even if that be so, supposing this Bill becomes law after the Government of Ireland Bill, does he say that the provisions of the Plural Voting Bill would not override the provisions of the Government of Ireland Bill? I am referring to Clause 41 of the Government of Ireland Bill, which says that the Irish Parliament shall not have power to repeal or alter any provisions of this Act, or any Act passed by the Parliament of the United Kingdom after the passing of this Act, and extending to Ireland, although that provision deals with matters with respect to which the Irish Parliament has power to make laws. If the Government of Ireland Bill becomes law next year and this Bill becomes law in 1915, I submit that this Bill would override the provision in Clause 9, allowing the Irish Parliament to alter its franchise itself. This Bill would dominate, and the power of concurrent legislation would lapse. Therefore, you are by this Act imposing a law for all time, as far as the Irish Parliament is con- 718 cerned, upon that Parliament. It is very possible that the Irish Parliament might want to change the law as regards Ireland. It would be in the spirit of certain declarations which we have heard as to special concessions to the minority similar to those that were put forward at the time of the Local Government Act, but, whatever the future may be, I ask the right hon. Gentleman to direct himself to this point: Supposing that both the Government of Ireland Bill and this Bill are resisted in another place and become law after three years under the Parliament Act, will not the provisions of this Bill, read in conjunction with Clause 41 of the Government of Ireland Bill, override the power of the Irish Parliament to alter the franchise, nullifying the effect of Sub-section (4) of Clause 9?
§ Sir F. BANBURY
I think that every word which the right hon. Gentleman has said is absolutely correct. There can be no doubt that the Irish Parliament cannot alter the law relating to the qualification of electors as regards the Imperial Parliament, but it can alter the law in reference to elections as regards the local Parliament which will then be set up. But I really do not see what that has got to do with the subject before the House at the present moment. The reason why I shall vote for the Amendment is because we are establishing in Ireland new conditions which may be right or wrong, and while we are doing so, we should not alter the basis on which Members have been returned for eighty years to this House. I believe that it is a good thing to give a person who has a stake in the country a larger power in returning Members to this House than is given to the man who has not a stake in the country. We do not know what is going to happen now, and until we hear a little more I submit that Ireland should be exempted from this Bill. I prefer that the propertied class in Ireland should still have greater power than the class which has not got any property. Hon. Members below the Gangway do not agree with me in that.
§ Sir F. BANBURY
Then I think hon. Members above the Gangway are a little more foolish than Members below the Gangway. [HON. MEMBEKS: "Oh, oh!" "Withdraw."] Or shall I say that both are equally foolish. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh, oh!"] Then I withdraw. It is to the advantage of the country that persons who 719 have a stake in it should have rather more power than those who have no stake in it whatever. Let us see how the proposition will apply to Ireland. It is evident that if Ireland comes under this Bill greater power will be given to those people who have got no property. We do not know how the Government of Ireland will work. There are two hon. Friends of mine from Ireland who are qualified to-give an opinion, and I gather from them that they think the Home Rule Bill will never come into operation, and therefore we need not worry about it. I hope they are right, but we have to be prepared for eventualities. In the event of the Home Rule Bill coming into operation, I want to preserve to the people who own property in Ireland the right to exercise in that country a little more influence in electing a candidate to represent them in this House than they would have if this Bill became law. A right hon. Gentleman last week told me that a man who had property in England should not have any vote, because he can use his money and influence in such a way that he can do better or as well as if he had no vote. I am not sure that that was not a direct incitement to bribery and corruption. I am quite certain that the right hon. Gentleman did not mean it, but it might be taken to mean that, and I do not want it to occur in Ireland. For the reasons I have given I think it would be advisable to accept this new Clause. I cannot quite see what harm it would do. Ireland is coming under a new law, and it is to be a wonderful place. Let us hope that they will be very careful at the start to preserve the old state of things until it is seen how the new state of things will work. Under these circumstances, I shall certainly vote for the exemption of Ireland. It may be asked why do I vote to put Ireland in a different position from that of England. My answer is that I would like to exempt England also from this Bill, but I am afraid we could not very well do that, and, therefore, desiring to do to others as I would they should do unto me, I vote for the exemption of Ireland, and if I could, I should also vote for the exemption of England.
§ Mr. RAFFAN
We have learnt once again that the Conservative party in this House and the country resembles the Bourbons in that they learn nothing and forget nothing. In the growth of democratic government in this country we have 720 found that the Conservative party, when there has been extensions of popular rights and privileges, have never ventured to propose their withdrawal. They have accepted accomplished facts, they have allowed the legislation to stand upon the Statute Book; indeed, they have gone further—there have been great and popular movements, which were so strong that they could no longer be resisted. They have assented to great extensions of the franchise, but they have always made those concessions grudgingly, and half heartedly. They have always nullified the effect of their concessions to a democracy by retaining some vestige of privilege or of vested right. And in this instance, where it is proposed that every voter in every constituency shall stand in a position of perfect equality, they now propose to exclude Ireland, they propose to exclude Scotland, they propose to exclude Wales, they propose to exclude the Isle of Wight, they propose to exclude the City of London, they propose to exclude the universities, and they propose all these things in order to nullify in detail the effect of legislation which they are bound to accept. It appears to me that a better case could be made for the exemption of Scotland, Wales, or the Isle of Wight, than could be made for Ireland. We are told that legislation for Great Britain and Ireland is fundamentally different with regard to a great number of questions; and, that being so, there ought to be a difference with regard to this matter.
I can only make passing reference to the fact that the history of Great Britain and Ireland might have been very different but for the circumstance that rights conceded to the democracy in Great Britain time after time have been withheld from the people of Ireland, with the result that there has been discontent and that a sense of injustice which has had such an important bearing in our modern history. The Act of Union has never secured equal laws and equal rights between the two people. It seems to me most remarkable that when it is proposed to make a great democratic advance for the whole of the United Kingdom hon. Members opposite should propose to exclude the democracy of Ireland from the benefit of that provision. Upon what ground, apart from the admitted fact that legislation has been different in the two countries, is this Clause proposed? We are told that there are other anomalies in 721 the case of Ireland, and it is pointed out that Ireland is over-represented in this House. But under the Home Rule Bill, of which so much has been said, Ireland in future will send to this House a body of Members, not in excess of the proportion to which she is entitled but a body of forty-two Members, a smaller number than the number to which she would be justly entitled under any system which accurately reflects the number of the population in Ireland and Great Britain. Therefore it appears to me that the argument of hon. Gentlemen opposite absolutely goes by the board. We have been told that what is wanted is to protect the Protestants of Ireland, but it appears to me that what hon. Gentlemen opposite desire to do is to give every Protestant two or more votes, and every Roman Catholic only one vote. If the object is to give the Protestants of Ireland representation in excess of what they are justly and fairly entitled, that would appear to be the logical method. I venture to say that this proposal is one which has no parallel in any country in the world where you have either a federal system or self-government for various units in the State. Does anybody suppose that anything so preposterous would be proposed in the United States of America for election to the House of Representatives or to the Senate as that a voter in Maine should have two votes, while every voter in New York should have only one. Does anybody suppose that in Australia in elections for the Commonwealth Parliament it would be proposed that a voter in New South Wales should have—
§ Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr. Maclean)
I understood the hon. Member to be using that by way of illustration.
§ Mr. RAFFAN
I can quite understand why hon. Members opposite are restless. They were very keen about parallels with Australia and Canada when the Home Rule Bill was under discussion, and now they are proposing something for which there is no parallel in the civilised world.
§ Mr. RAFFAN
The hon. Member will have his opportunity of citing parallels. 722 The last point I have to make is one which perhaps will appeal more directly to the hon. Member, and perhaps he will not venture to deny it. What, after all, is the real reason why the Motion is proposed. Does anybody suppose that the three southern provinces, Munster, Leinster, and Connaught, that the fact of continuing the plural voter would send a single Conservative representative to this House. Hon. Members know well that the unanimity of opinion in the South of Ireland is so great that even if you gave every Unionist voter six votes or seven votes, you would not be able to send any contingent from the South of Ireland representing Conservatives and Unionists. The people there have lived so long in a state of oppression that they know the value of democratic government, and will only send democratic members. This is proposed for Ulster. Why are hon. Members so extremely anxious that the voice of Ireland should not be the true voice of the people of Ireland, and that when elections take place there you should have the benefit of this plural vote. The hon. Member who moved or the hon. Member who seconded, or probably both, referred to the fact that at the present time in Ulster there is a majority only of one in favour of Home Rule. For many years the representation of Londonderry in this House was not the true representation of the people of Londonderry. It was a representation secured by bringing plural voters from all parts of Ireland and from Great Britain to vote down the people who lived there. Everybody knows that if you abolished the plural vote in Ulster there could be no semblance of justification for the statement made so often in this House and in the country, that Ulster is opposed to Home Rule. If you secure a system of government under which the vote of every man in Ulster in every constituency will be equal to the vote of every other man, there can be no doubt you will then have a majority in Ulster declaring in favour of Home Rule. Why hon. Members are so anxious to make an exemption in the case of Ireland is because the whole of the blatant campaign they are carrying on in a campaign based on the most hollow hypocrisy. That is the reason why they are making this proposal.
§ Question put, "That the Clause be read a second time."
§ The House divided: Ayes, 95; Noes, 243.699
|Division No. 192.]||AYES.||[8.3 p.m.|
|Agg-Gardner, James Tynte||Gardner, Ernest||Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)|
|Anson, Rt. Hon. Sir William R.||Gastrell, Major W. Houghton||Peel, Lieut.Colonel R. F.|
|Anstruther-Gray, Major William||Gibbs, George Abraham||Peto, Basil Edward|
|Ashley, Wilfrid W.||Goldsmith, Frank||Pollock, Ernest Murray|
|Astor, Waldorf||Gordon, Hon. John Edward (Brighton)||Pryce-Jones, Colonel E.|
|Baird, John Lawrence||Hall, D. B. (Isle of Wight)||Ratcliff, R. F.|
|Baker, Sir Randolf L. (Dorset, N.)||Hall, Frederick (Dulwich)||Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel|
|Baldwin, Stanley||Hardy, Rt. Hon. Laurence||Remnant, James Farquharson|
|Barlow, Montague (Salford, South)||Harrison-Broadley, H. B.||Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)|
|Barnston, Harry||Henderson, Major H. (Berks, Abingdon)||Rothschild, Lionel de|
|Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)||Hewins, William Albert Samuel||Rutherford, Watson (L'pool, W. Derby)|
|Bennett-Goldney, Francis||Hickman, Col. Thomas E.||Samuel, Sir Harry (Norwood)|
|Blair, Reginald||Hill-Wood, Samuel||Samuel, Samuel (Wandsworth)|
|Boles, Lieut-Colonel Dennis Fortescue||Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)||Sanders, Roberts, Arthur|
|Boyton, James||Hope, Major J. A. (Midlothian)||Sanderson, Lancelot|
|Brassey, H. Leonard Campbell||Horne, E. (Surrey, Guildford)||Sandys, G. J.|
|Bridgeman, William Clive||Horner, Andrew Long||Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)|
|Butcher, John George||Houston, Robert Paterson||Snowden, Philip|
|Cassel, Felix||Hume-Williams, William Ellis||Spear, Sir John Ward|
|Cautley, Henry Strother||Ingleby, Holcombe||Starkey, John Ralph,|
|Cave, George||Kerry, Earl of||Staveley-Hill, Henry|
|Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)||Lloyd, George Butler (Shrewsbury)||Steel-Maitland, A. D.|
|Chamberlain, Rt. Hot. J. A. (Worc'r.)||Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)||Strauss, Arthur (Paddington, North)|
|Clay, Captain H. H. Spender||Lyttelton, Hon. J. C. (Droitwich)||Swift, Rigby|
|Clyde, J. Avon||Mackinder, Halford J.||Talbot, Lord Edmund|
|Cooper, Richard Ashmole||Macmaster, Donald||Terrell, George (Wilts, N.W.)|
|Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet)||M'Calmont, Major Robert C. A.||Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Down, N.)|
|Dairymple, Viscount||Magnus, Sir Philip||Touche, George Alexander|
|Denniss, E. R. B.||Malcolm, Ian||Walker, Colonel William Hall|
|Duke, Henry Edward||Mills, Hon. Charles Thomas||Willoughby, Major Hon. Claud|
|Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M||Morrison-Bell, Capt. E. F. (Ashburton)||Wood, John (Stalybridge)|
|Falle, Bertram Godfray||Morrison-Bell, Major A. C. (Honiton)||Worthington-Evans, L.|
|Fell, Arthur||Mount, William Arthur||Wright, Henry Fitzherbert|
|Flnlay, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert||Newdegate, F. A.||Yate, Colonel C. E.|
|Fisher, Rt. Hon. W. Hayes||Newman, John R. P.|
|Fitzroy, Hon. Edward A.||Norton-Griffiths, J.||TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Hicks Beach and Mr. Lane-Fox.|
|Fletcher, John Samuel||Paget, Almeric Hugh|
|Forster, Henry William||Parkes, Ebenezer|
|Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour)||Hackett, John||O'Doherty, Philip|
|Addison, Dr. Christopher||Hall, Frederick (Yorks, Normanton)||O'Donnell, Thomas|
|Adkins, Sir W. Ryland D.||Hancock, J. G.||O'Dowd, John|
|Agnew, Sir George William||Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis (Rossendale)||O'Malley, William|
|Alden, Percy||Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)||O'Neill, Dr. Charles (Armagh, S.)|
|Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbartonshire)||Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N.E.)||O'Shaughnessy, P. J.|
|Allen, Rt. Hon. Charles P. (Stroud)||Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry||O'Shee, James John|
|Arnold, Sydney||Hayden, John Patrick||O'Sullivan, Timothy|
|Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry||Hazleton, Richard||Outhwaite, R. L.|
|Baker, Harold T. (Accrington)||Helme, Sir Norval Watson||Palmer, Godfrey Mark|
|Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.)||Henderson, Arthur (Durham)||Parker, James (Halifax)|
|Barlow, Sir John Emmott (Somerset)||Herbert, General Sir Ivor (Mon., S.)||Parry, Thomas H.|
|Barnes, George N.||Higham, John Sharp||Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)|
|Barran, Rowland Hurst (Leeds, N.)||Hinds, John||Pearce, William (Limehouse)|
|Barton, William||Hodge, John||Pease, Rt. Hon. Joseph A. (Rotherham)|
|Beale, Sir William Phipson||Hogge, J. M.||Phillips, John (Longford, S.)|
|Beauchamp, Sir Edward||Holmes, Daniel Turner||Pointer, Joseph|
|Bentham, G. J.||Horne, Charles Silvester (Ipswich)||Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.|
|Bethell, Sir J. H.||Howard, Hon. Geoffrey||Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)|
|Boland, John Plus||Hughes, Spencer Leigh||Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk, E.)|
|Booth, Frederick Handel||Illingworth, Percy H.||Priestley, Sir W. E. B. (Bradford, E.)|
|Bowerman, Charles W.||Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus||Pringle, William M. R.|
|Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North)||Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)||Radford, G. H.|
|Brace, William||Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)||Raffan, Peter Wilson|
|Brady, Patrick Joseph||Jones, Leif Stratten (Notts, Rushcliffe)||Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)|
|Brocklehurst, W. B.||Jones, William S. Glyn- (Stepney)||Reddy, Michael|
|Bryce, J. Annan||Jowett, Frederick William||Redmond, John E (Waterford)|
|Buckmaster, Stanley O.||Joyce, Michael||Redmond, William (Clare, E.)|
|Burke, E. Haviland-||Keating, Matthew||Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)|
|Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas||Kellaway, Frederick George||Richardson, Albion (Peckham)|
|Byles, Sir William Pollard||Kelly, Edward||Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)|
|Carr-Gomm, H. W.||Kennedy, Vincent Paul||Roberts, George H. (Norwich)|
|Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich)||Kilbride, Denis||Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)|
|Cawley, Harold T. (Lancs., Heywood)||King, Joseph||Robinson, Sidney|
|Chancellor, Henry George||Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)||Roche, Augustine (Louth)|
|Chapple, Dr. William Allen||Lardner, James C. R.||Roe, Sir Thomas|
|Clancy, John Joseph||Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.)||Rowlands, James|
|Clough, William||Lawson, Sir W. (Cumb'rld, Cockerm'th)||Rowntree, Arnold|
|Condon, Thomas Joseph||Leach, Charles||Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland)|
|Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.||Levy, Sir Maurice||Scanlan, Thomas|
|Cotton, William Francis||Lewis, Rt. Hon. John Herbert||Schwann, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles E. H.|
|Cowan, W. H.||Low, Sir Frederick (Norwich)||Seely, Rt. Hon. Colonel J. E. B.|
|Craig, Herbert James (Tynemouth)||Lundon, Thomas||Sheehy, David|
|Crooks, William||Lynch, A. A.||Sherwell, Arthur James|
|Crumley, Patrick||Macdonald, J. Ramsay (Leicester)||Shortt, Edward|
|Cullinan, John||Macdonald. J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)||Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John Allsebrook|
|Dalziel, Rt. Hon. Sir J. H. (Kirkcaldy)||McGhee, Richard||Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)|
|Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)||Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J.||Smith, H. B. Lees (Northampton)|
|Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)||MacNeill. J. G. Swift (Donegal, South)||Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)|
|Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.)||MacVeagh, Jeremiah||Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N.W.)|
|Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardigan)||M'Curdy, C. A.||Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)|
|Dawes, James Arthur||McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald||Sutherland, John E.|
|De Forest, Baron||M'Laren, Hon. H. D. (Leics.)||Sutton, John E.|
|Delany, William||M'Micking, Major Gilbert||Taylor, John W. (Durham)|
|Devlin, Joseph||Marshall, Arthur Harold||Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)|
|Dillon, John||Meagher, Michael||Tennant, Harold John|
|Donelan, Captain A.||Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)||Thomas, J. H.|
|Doris, William||Meehan, Patrick J. (Queen's Co., Leix)||Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)|
|Duffy, William J.||Millar, James Duncan||Thorne, William (West Ham)|
|Duncan, C. (Barrow-In-Furness)||Molloy, Michael||Trevelyan, Charles Philips|
|Edwards, Clement (Glamorgan, E.)||Molteno, Percy Alport||Verney, Sir Harry|
|Elverston, Sir Harold||Money, L. G. Chiozza||Wadsworth, John|
|Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)||Montagu, Hon. E. S.||Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay|
|Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)||Mooney, John J.||Webb, H.|
|Essex, Sir Richard Walter||Morgan, George Hay||White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)|
|Esslemont, George Birnie||Morrell, Philip||White, Patrick (Meath, North)|
|Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles||Morison, Hector||Whitehouse, John Howard|
|Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson||Morton, Alpheus Cleophas||Whyte, A. F. (Perth)|
|Ffrench, Peter||Muldoon, John||Wiles, Thomas|
|Field, William||Munro, Robert||Williams, John (Glamorgan)|
|Fitzgibbon, John||Murphy, Martin J.||Williams, P. (Middlesbrough)|
|Flavin, Michael Joseph||Murray, Captain Hon. A. C.||Wilson, Hon. G. G. (Hull, W.)|
|Ginnell, Lawrence||Needham, Christopher T,||Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)|
|Gladstone, W. G. C.||Nicholson, Sir Charles N. (Doncaster)||Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. W. (Worcs., N.)|
|Glanville, H. J.||Nolan, Joseph||Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)|
|Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford||Norton, Captain Cecil W.||Wing, Thomas Edward|
|Goldstone, Frank||Nugent, Sir Walter Richard||Wood, Rt. Hon. T. McKinnon (Glasgow)|
|Griffith, Ellis Jones||Nuttall, Harry||Yoxall, Sir James Henry|
|Guest, Hon. Frederick E. (Dorset, E.)||O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)|
|Gulland, John William||O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)||TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. W. Benn and Mr. W. Jones.|
|Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)||O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)|
|Division No. 193.]||AYES.||[9.31 p.m.|
|Agg-Gardner, James Tynte||Falle, Bertram Godfray||Mills, Hon. Charles Thomas|
|Anson, Rt. Hon. Sir William R.||Fell, Arthur||Mount, William Arthur|
|Anstruther-Gray, Major William||Finlay, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert||Newdegate, F. A.|
|Astor, Waldorf||Fisher, Rt. Hon. W. Hayes||Newman, John R. P.|
|Baird, John Lawrence||Fleming, Valentine||Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend)|
|Baker, Sir Randolf L. (Dorset, N.)||Fletcher, John Samuel||Parkes, Ebenezer|
|Baldwin, Stanley||Gardner, Ernest||Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)|
|Banbury, Sir Frederick Georoe||Gastrell, Major W. Houghton||Peel, Lieut.-Colonel R. F.|
|Barlow, Montague (Salford, South)||Gibbs, G. A.||Pollock, Ernest Murray|
|Barnston, Harry||Glazebrook, Captain Philip K.||Pryce-Jones, Colonel E.|
|Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks||Gordon, Hon. John Edward (Brighton)||Remnant, James Farquharson|
|Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)||Grant, J. A.||Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)|
|Bennett-Goldney, Francis||Greene, W. R.||Rutherford, Watson (L'pool, W. Derby)|
|Boles, Lieut.-Colonel Denis Fortescue||Hall, D. B. (Isle of Wight)||Samuel, Sir Harry (Norwood)|
|Boyle, William (Norfolk, Mid)||Hall, Frederick (Dulwich)||Samuel, Samuel (Wandsworth)|
|Boyton, James||Hamilton, C. G. C. (Ches., Altrincham)||Sanders, Robert Arthur|
|Bridgeman, William Clive||Hardy, Rt. Hon. Laurence||Sanderson, Lancelot|
|Butcher, John George||Helmsley, Viscount||Spear, Sir John Ward|
|Cassel, Felix||Henderson, Major H. (Berks, Abingdon)||Staveley-Hill, Henry|
|Cautley, H. S.||Hewins, William Albert Samuel||Strauss, Arthur (Paddington, North)|
|Chaloner, Colonel R. G. W.||Hickman, Colonel Thomas E.||Swift, Rigby|
|Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. A. (Worc'r.,E.)||Hohler, G. F.||Talbot, Lord E.|
|Clay, Captain H. H. Spender||Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)||Terrell, George (Wilts, N.W.)|
|Clive, Captain Percy Archer||Horner, Andew Long||Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Down, N.)|
|Clyde, J. Avon||Houston, Robert Paterson||Touche, George Alexander|
|Cooper, Richard Ashmole||Hume-Williams, William Ellis||Walker, Colonel William Hall|
|Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet)||Ingleby, Holcombe||Willoughby, Major Hon. Claud|
|Dairymple, Viscount||Lane-Fox, G. R.||Wood, John (Stalybridge)|
|Denison-Pender, J. C.||Lloyd, George Butler (Shrewsbury)||Yate, Colonel Charles Edward|
|Denniss, E. R. B.||Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)|
|Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott||Mackinder, Halford J.||TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Rawlinson and Captain Morrison-Bell.|
|Duke, Henry Edward||Macmaster, Donald|
|Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M.||Magnus, Sir Philip|
|Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour)||Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)||Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry|
|Addison, Dr. Christopher||Crooks, William||Hayden, John Patrick|
|Adkins, Sir W. Ryland D.||Crumley, Patrick||Hazleton, Richard|
|Agar-Robartes, Hon. T. C. R.||Cullinan, John||Helme, Sir Norval Watson|
|Agnew, Sir George William||Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)||Henderson, Arthur (Durham)|
|Alden, Percy||Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)||Herbert, General Sir Ivor (Mon., S.)|
|Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbartonshire)||Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.)||Higham, John Sharp|
|Armitage, R.||Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardiganshire)||Hinds, John|
|Arnold, Sydney||Dawes, James Arthur||Hodge, John|
|Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry||De Forest, Baron||Hogge, James Myles|
|Baker, Harold T. (Accrington)||Delany, William||Holmes, Daniel Turner|
|Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.)||Devlin, Joseph||Horne, Charles Silvester (Ipswich)|
|Barlow, Sir John Emmott (Somerset)||Dillon, John||Howard, Hon. Geoffrey|
|Barnes, George N.||Donelan, Captain A.||Hughes, Spencer Leigh|
|Barran, Sir John U. (Hawick Burghs)||Doris, William||Illingworth, Percy H.|
|Barran, Rowland Hurst (Leeds, N.)||Duffy, William J.||Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus|
|Barton, William||Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)||Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)|
|Beale, Sir William Phipson||Elverston, Sir Harold||Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)|
|Beauchamp, Sir Edward||Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)||Jones, Leif Stratten (Notts, Rushcliffe)|
|Beck, Arthur Cecil||Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)||Jowett, Frederick William|
|Bentham, George Jackson||Essex, Sir Richard Walter||Joyce, Michael|
|Boland, John Pius||Esslemont, George Birnie||Keating, Matthew|
|Booth, Frederick Handel||Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles||Kellaway, Frederick George|
|Bowerman, Charles W.||Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson||Kelly, Edward|
|Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North)||Ffrench, Peter||Kennedy, Vincent Paul|
|Brace, William||Field, William||Kilbride, Denis|
|Brady, Patrick Joseph||Fitzgibbon, John||King, Joseph|
|Brocklehurst, William B.||Flavin, Michael Joseph||Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)|
|Buckmaster, Stanley O.||Ginnell, Laurence||Lardner, James C. R.|
|Burke, E. Haviland-||Gladstone, W. G. C.||Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, West)|
|Burns, Rt. Hon. John||Glanville, H. J.||Lawson, Sir W. (Cumb'rld, Cockerm'th)|
|Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas||Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford||Leach, Charles|
|Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, North)||Goldstone, Frank||Levy, Sir Maurice|
|Byles, Sir William Pollard||Greig, Colonel J. W.||Lewis, Rt. Hon. John Herbert|
|Carr-Gomm. H. W.||Griffith, Ellis Jones||Low, Sir Frederick (Norwich)|
|Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich)||Guest, Hon. Grederick E. (Dorset, E.)||Lundon, Thomas|
|Cawley, Harold T. (Lancs., Heywood)||Gulland, John William||Lynch, A. A.|
|Chancellor, Henry George||Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)||Macdonald, J. Ramsay (Leicester)|
|Chapple, Dr. William Allen||Hackett, John||McGhee, Richard|
|Clancy, John Joseph||Hall, Frederick (Yorks, Normanton)||Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J.|
|Clough, William||Hancock, John George||MacNeill, J. G. Swift (Donegal, South)|
|Condon, Thomas Joseph||Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis (Rossendale)||MacVeagh, Jeremiah|
|Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.||Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)||M'Curdy, C. A.|
|Cotton, William Francis||Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)||M'Laren, Hon. H. D. (Leics.)|
|Cowan, W. H.||Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N.E.)||M'Laren, Hon. F.W.S. (Lincs, Spalding)|
|M'Micking, Major Gilbert||Parker, James (Halifax)||Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John Allsebrook|
|Marshall, Arthur Harold||Parry, Thomas H.||Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)|
|Mason, David M. (Coventry)||Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)||Smith, H. B. L. (Northampton)|
|Meagher, Michael||Pearce, William (Limehouse)||Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)|
|Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)||Pease, Rt. Hon. Joseph A. (Rotherham)||Snowden, Philip|
|Meehan, Patrick J. (Queen's Co., Leix)||Phillips, John (Longford, S.)||Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N.W.)|
|Millar, James Duncan||Pointer, Joseph||Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)|
|Molloy, Michael||Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.||Sutherland, John E.|
|Molteno, Percy Alport||Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)||Sutton, John E.|
|Money, L. G. Chiozza||Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk, E.)||Taylor, John W. (Durham)|
|Montagu, Hon. E. S.||Priestley, Sir W. E. B. (Bradford, E.)||Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)|
|Mooney, John J.||Pringle, William M. R.||Tennant, Harold John|
|Morgan, George Hay||Radford, G. H.||Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)|
|Morrell, Philip||Raffan, Peter Wilson||Thorne, William (West Ham)|
|Morison, Hector||Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)||Trevelyan, Charles Philips|
|Morton, Alpheus Cleophas||Reddy, Michael||Verney, Sir Harry|
|Muldoon, John||Redmond, John E. (Waterford)||Wadsworth, John|
|Munro, Robert||Redmond, William (Clare, E.)||Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay|
|Murphy, Martin J.||Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)||Webb, H.|
|Needham, Christopher Thomas||Richardson, Albion (Peckham)||White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)|
|Nolan, Joseph||Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)||White, Patrick (Meath, North)|
|Norton, Captain Cecil W.||Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)||Whitehouse, John Howard|
|Nugent, Sir Walter Richard||Roberts, George H. (Norwich)||Whyte, Alexander F.|
|Nuttall, Harry||Robertson, John M. (Tyneside)||Wiles, Thomas|
|O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)||Robinson, Sidney||Williams, J. (Glamorgan)|
|O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)||Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)||Williams, Penry (Middlesbrough)|
|O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)||Roche, Augustine (Louth)||Wilson, Hon. G. G. (Hull, W.)|
|O'Doherty, Philip||Roe, Sir Thomas||Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)|
|O'Donnell, Thomas||Rowlands, James||Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. W. (Worcs., N.)|
|O'Dowd, John||Rowntree, Arnold||Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)|
|O'Malley, William||Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland)||Winfrey, Richard|
|O'Neill, Dr. Charles (Armagh, S.)||Scanlan, Thomas||Wing, Thomas Edward|
|O'Shaughnessy, P. J.||Schwann, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles E.||Wood, Rt Hon. T. McKinnon (Glasgow)|
|O'Shee, James John||Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)||Yoxall, Sir James Henry|
|O'Sullivan, Timothy||Sheehy, David|
|Outhwalte, R. L.||Sherwell, Arthur James||TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. W. Benn and Mr. W. Jones.|
|Palmer, Godfrey Mark||Shortt, Edward|
§ Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER
The Amendment standing in the name of the hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington; (Mr. Pollock) and others ["Saving"] is not in order. The Amendment standing in the name of the hon. Member for North Down (Mr. Mitchell-Thomson) ["Modification of Penalty under 46 and 47 Vic, c. 51"] should come as an Amendment. I think the hon. Member has it already on the Paper.