§ The following Question appeared on the Paper:—
§ MR. WOODS (Walthamstow)I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War if he is aware that on the occasion of the late election in East Herts the workmen employed at the Small Arms 171 Factory at Enfield Lock were promised time off to record their votes, and that notice to this effect was posted up in the factory, but on the morning of the election this notice was cancelled by the officials; that on the men complaining they were again informed that they would be allowed time off, and the order was cancelled again later in the day; and will he explain what was the reason for these instructions being changed?
§ MR. ARNOLD-FORSTERI wish to ask the Under Secretary of State for War if his attention has been called to the Question on the Paper standing in the name of the honourable Member for Walthamstow, and whether it is the fact that on the occasion of the late election in East Herts——
§ MR. SPEAKEROrder, order! The honourable Member is committing a breach of the rules of the House. He is now reading a Question printed on the Paper.
§ MR. ARNOLD-FORSTERPerhaps I would be in order in asking the right honourable Gentleman whether there is any foundation for the suggestion that any breach of faith was committed by the War Office with regard to the Enfield workmen who recorded their votes in the recent election in East Herts?
MR. POWELL WILLIAMSThe statements made in the Question on the Paper are entirely inaccurate. The fact is that such of the men employed in the Royal Small Arms Factory at Enfield Lock as are voters in East Herts were allowed two hours' leave with pay to enable them to vote on the occasion of the late election, and 166 availed themselves of the privilege. The original notice on this subject posted in the factory was not rescinded, nor was it removed until after the election.