HC Deb 18 April 1928 vol 216 cc287-302
The LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. William Watson)

I beg to move, in page 4, line 31, after the word "end," to insert the words in Scotland on the fifteenth day of December and elsewhere. In Scotland our terms of removal are somewhat different from those in England, and that has been recognised in previous Acts of Parliament. Undoubtedly certain removals take place, or are apt to take place, during the first weeks of December, and therefore 1st December is not a very happy date for terminating the qualifying period, because immediately after it certain removals make take place, and the address in respect of which the person qualified is registered may be the old and not the new address. Therefore, we thought it would be more convenient and more practicable to make the date 15th December, and we propose that in the case of Scotland that should be the date of the termination of the qualifying period.


I should just like in a word to express on behalf of the Scottish Members on this side of the House their complete agreement with the Amendment which has been moved by the Lord Advocate. Had the Bill passed as it stood the situation would have been this. At what we call fee time, the 28th November, there are always large numbers of farm servants and others taking service for the ensuing six months. It would have been impossible for the registration officers to have put these men and women on the role between the period of the 28th November and the 1st December, which is the date at present standing in the Bill. The alteration which the Lord Advocate has moved to extend the qualifying period to the 15th December, as far as we can see, meets the difficulty.

Amendment agreed to.


I beg to move, in page 4, line 42, after the word "force," to insert the words: in the case of Northern Ireland, until the fifteenth day of December, nineteen hundred and thirty, and in any other case. These are really words which should have been inserted in the Bill as it was originally drafted, but which,, owing to an oversight, were left out. The register in Northern Ireland always comes into force on the 15th day of December, and therefore it is necessary as far as the register is concerned that these words should be inserted.


Perhaps the hon. and gallant Gentleman will explain to us why the date of this register in Northern Ireland is extended so far beyond the date that the register is to obtain in this country. I cannot quite follow this, because it says to 1930.


I explained to the right hon. Gentleman. He is reading the wrong Amendment. The Amendment particularly refers to the period.


The Amendment which I understand to be before the Committee at the moment is the Amendment to line 42. If this is not the Amendment the hon. and gallant Gentleman has moved, perhaps he had better put the matter right.


It is proposed to be the 15th December, 1930, in the case of Northern Ireland and the 15th October, 1930, in any other case. There is only a disparity of two months.


May I ask how this is going to affect the subsequent Amendment—in page 4,, line 44, to leave out the word "thirty," and to insert instead thereof the words "twenty-nine"—in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Westhoughton (Mr. Rhys Davies)? If this Amendment is permitted to be embodied in the Bill, there seems to be very little possibility of any consideration being given to the sub sequent Amendment. I think that we ought to have some explanation from the hon. and gallant Gentleman as to what action is likely to be taken on the following Amendment.


It, would be out of order for me to make any such statement. I do not think really that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Burnley (Mr. A. Henderson) need have any concern about this matter. It has always been the custom for the register in Northern Ireland to come into operation on the 15th December just as it does in this country in October. The qualifying period in this country is such that the new register is to remain in force until October, 1930, and it is necessary for it to remain in force until December, 1930, in Northern Ireland.


The hon. and gallant Gentleman has missed the whole point. We are by an Amendment later on challenging the date of 1930, and propose to insert 1929. The point my hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams) raises is that if the hon. and gallant Gentleman's Amendment is carried now and our Amendment is carried later on the whole thing may appear ridiculous. We want to be assured that if the hon. and gallant Gentleman's Amendment is carried now, it will be proper for us to move our Amendment later on, and that the Bill will read sense if the two Amendments are carried.


There is nothing as a matter of order to prevent the hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. Rhys Davies) from moving his Amendment, even if this Amendment be carried. It might produce some anomaly if both were carried, but it could be adjusted no doubt on Report. But, as a matter of order, there is really nothing in this Amendment which prejudices the next one.

Amendment agreed to.


I beg to move, in page 4, line 44, to leave out the word "thirty," and to insert instead thereof the words "twenty-nine."

The Committee will pardon me if I refer, first of all, to the provisions of the Act of 1918. The Act of 1918 provided that there should be two registers, each of which should operate for six months. By the provisions of the Miscellaneous Provisions (Economy) Act, which was passed not very long ago, since two registers in one year were abolished, and we have been given one annual register. That has been done merely to secure economy in printing and avoid the trouble of surveying the electorate. In this Bill, however, the period is still further extended, and we are not quite satisfied that the. Government are doing the right thing in regard to the electorate in producing a register and keeping it operative for such a long period. Let us see what it means. The Clause with which we are dealing at the moment provides that: The qualifying period for the purpose of the register of electors to be made in the year nineteen hundred and twenty-nine shall end on the first day of December, nineteen hundred and twenty-eight. It states further: The said register shall come into force on the first day of May, nineteen hundred and twenty-nine. Later on it proceeds to say, and shall, notwithstanding anything in this Section, continue in force until the fifteenth day of October, nineteen hundred and thirty. That means that from the 1st May, 1929, until the 15th October, 1930, there will be only one register operative. That may be all right from the Government's point of view, but let us see what the electorate may think of this. You have a period, as I have said, from May in one year to October in the next year. That is a very long time indeed. Let us see what the consequences may be. This Bill is going to enfranchise, if I remember rightly, about 5,000,000 young women. What about the hundreds of thousands of young people who will become 21 within that long period I have referred to? They will be eligible so far as age is concerned, and their residential qualifications and their business qualifications will be all right, and in harmony with the provisions of the Act, but, because the register is extended from May in one year to October in the next, they may not be able to vote at the general election at all. Really, the hon. and gallant Gentleman must give us an explanation as to why the Government has decided to extend the period in this way. Let me repeat this in order to get the matter in proper perspective. We had, first of all, two registers in the year. Then we come to one register in a year. Now, lo and behold, we come to one register almost for two years. That is extending the period unduly. I feel sure that I can carry the Committee, at any rate, to this point, that we ought to have an explanation from the Government as to why it is intended to do this.

I am a little suspicious as to why this course is being proposed. I do not know what the hon. and gallant Gentleman may have to say about the next general election. What have the Government in mind? It will be worth while knowing what the Government really intend, because there must be a design behind these words from the Government's point of view; otherwise, they would not be inserted. The Amendment which I am proposing is that instead of the register being made operative from May in one year to October in the next, we shall have two registers next year, one for May and one for October, in order to give, Its I have said, an opportunity to the very large number of persons who will arrive at the age of 21 of taking part in the general election whenever it may come. As I have said, the Amendment which I propose is a very reasonable one, and I trust, at any rate, that the hon. and gallant Gentleman will give us some explanation as to why this great disparity between May in one year and October in the next is being brought about in respect of the first register under this Measure, which is designed, so we are told, to give the electors of Great Britain a better chance to take part in Parliamentary elections than they have ever had in their lives. I want to know why the Government, having made such a statement, should now come forward with a proposal which will deprive hundreds of thousands of young people of the opportunity of getting on to the register at all.


I think the Committee will realise that the first reason which has actuated the Government in making such a register was that it was quite impossible—anybody who has had experience of politics will realise it—for the registration officers to get the new electors on to the new register which comes into force on the 15th October this year. Because of the qualifying period which is necessary, we could not get this Bill into law in time to give the registration officers the necessary power to take into account the qualifying period for the register on the 13th October. That being the case, it was necessary to have a new register, and we have fixed the 1st May of next year as the earliest convenient date at which the new register can be prepared, without overlapping with the work of preparing the other register. Therefore, it surely seems reasonable if we are to have an election next year, as we must. have by Statute, that we should try for the purpose of economy to save the expense of having another register next year, in addition to the May register, which is not likely to be required for the purpose of the election.

It is quite true, as the hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. Rhys Davies) has said, that we shall, technically speaking, theoretically speaking, be depriving a certain number of people of the opportunity of obtaining a vote as soon as they otherwise would do under normal circumstances, but it must be remembered that we are by the process of bringing in a new register on the 1st of May giving an equally large number of people the privilege of having a vote 5½ months sooner than they would otherwise do. Therefore, it is as broad as it is long. It is true that those particular people who would normally have come on to the register on the 15th October next year will not, if this Clause passes as it stands, come on until October of the following year, but the chances of a General Election occurring between those two dates is extremely remote, and the Government do not think that we should be justified, in these circumstances, in incurring an ex- penditure of some 1600,000 simply and solely for the purpose of providing for an eventuality which is not likely to arise. Therefore, we cannot accept the Amendment.


I think the Under-Secretary must have forgotten the experience of 1922–23 and 1924.


No, and I am not likely to forget it.


If he has not forgotten that experience he must be a political optimist if he is looking forward to long periods of political stability after the General Election of 1929. Assuming that his optimism can be fully justified, there still remains some justification for submitting this Amendment. There are movements afoot at this moment for the purpose of migrating unemployed workers from one part of the country to another, and by extending the length of time between the various registers you will always render a very large number of people liable to lose their chance of voting at an election. My own Parliamentary Division is, perhaps, one of the best examples in the whole country. There you have six or eight new collieries, which are developing almost every week, and there is a constant movement of workers from one colliery to another, from one district to another. In the period of two years it may very well he that half these people would be disfranchised from voting in the district where they happened to reside when the election ultimately took place. Therefore the. Under-Secretary must see that the wider in length of time we make the compiling of the register the more people will be disfranchised from voting in the district where they reside at the time of the election.

We know from past experience that where miners are moving from one district to another, in the short space of 12 months very large numbers of people have been disfranchised unless they were able and willing to travel from six up to 10 miles from the place where they resided to the place where they happened to be on the register at the last Election.

If we concede the point that the Government are looking at the question from the point of view of economy in a Bill of this description, which is conferring voting power upon large numbers of people because it is felt necessary in order to do the right and just thing, we ought not in the same Bill do anything which is calculated to deprive a large number of people of the opportunity and privilege of voting when an election takes place. The question of economy compared with the question of disfranchising large numbers of people cannot very well, or ought not to guide the Government in their final decision The work of the Migration Board and the acknowledged fact that there are a quarter of a million people who must be sent from one part of the country to another, represent a problem worthy of further consideration, and I hope that if the Under-Secretary is unable to accept the Amendment now, he will assure us that he will give it further consideration before the Bill becomes an Act of Parliament which would disfranchise thousands of people who, through no fault of their own, are obliged to move from one district to another in search of work and a livelihood.


I join in the hope that the Minister will give further consideration to this Amendment. There is special reason for urging the acceptance of this Amendment in view of the fact that the register will begin, one in May of next year, and that there will not be another register for a period of 18 months. By this Bill you are enfranchising a new class of person; women of 21 years will be enfranchised for the first time, but the woman who is barely 21, say, 20 years and 11 months at the time of the making of the register next May, will not be entitled to exercise her vote for a further period of 18 months until she is nearly 23 years of age. You are enfranchising a new class at 21 and taking away the vote from another class. I cannot understand the argument put forward by the Under-Secretary that the Government are not producing a register at the proper time in October next year, because of economy. The Government are selecting the period of May for the production of the register and are selecting that period obviously for their own convenience, in view of the Dissolution next year. There can be no special merit in selecting the date of May next year. Why not make the registration period terminate in October of this year and also in October of next year? This register affects not only the Parliamentary election but the municipal elections. If a person is unable to get on the register by May of next year there is no further opportunity to do so for 18 months. There can be no justification for this, and I hope the Government will reconsider the position and accept the Amend went.


There is just one point that I desire to bring to the attention of the Committee, and that is that whenever you have a new register, bringing in new classes of voters, you necessarily have a large number of mistakes. This is inevitable. You have mistakes in the people who ought to be on and are left off, and you have numbers of people who do not claim the vote because they do not realise the new position. This always takes place. It was notoriously so in 1918, when a very large number of people were put on the register for the first time who were not entitled to the vote. I was one, whilst others were left off who ought to have been put on. I think it is a pity that a period of 18 months is to elapse before you can correct the mistakes of the new register. I should like to know whether it is not possible to have some arrangement by which a supplementary register might be prepared in order to provide for those people who ought to have been on the register and were left off. The point is that they would not be able to get a local government election vote, which election takes place during the period during which the Under-Secretary imagines no General Election is likely to take place. If this is possible it would mitigate one of the hardships. Our experience, shows that when you have a Parliament with a narrow majority General Elections come at short notice. That was notoriously the case in 1922 and 1924. I hope the country will realise what it has had to put up with from the present Government and will have the good sense to give a large majority to the party sitting on these benches, which will make recurring General Elections unnecessary. That. however, does not meet the point I have raised with regard to mistakes in the new register, and I should like to know whether some arrangement can be made in order to deal with that point.


The Under-Secretary of State has stated that they were giving a six months' register in place of a 12 months' register, and he puts it forward as a virtue. The fact that the register has to be made in May next year is the Government's own fault. If they had brought in the Bill earlier it would not have been necessary, and the fact that they are making it six months earlier does not compensate those many people who will have to wait for 18 months afterwards before they can be put on the register.—I think there should be another register in October, 1929, rather than in October, 1930. In the case of an election new machinery will have to be devised. It will be a new experience; there will be a certain amount of confusion due to the fact that it is an entirely new register, and as there will be such a huge addition to the electorate, it may be that the. First register will not satisfactory. Many people will be left off who ought to have been on, and if you have another register in six months' time it will give you an early opportunity of rectifying any mistakes that have been made. Let me put another point. The old register was made every six months, and I imagine that the six-monthly period was discussed thoroughly before it was agreed to. Then we altered it, under the Economy Act to a 1.g months' register, but I do not believe that, anybody even on the Government Benches suggested that a 12 months' register was better than a six months' register. Everybody agreed that a six months register worked best. It was done purely for economy's sake. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had to save money, and he saved it at the expense of the electors.

I represent a constituency which will be very hard hit by this proposal. Owing to the shifting population in the mining areas it is said that hardly one out of three has a vote at the present moment, and this shifting population will continue for years before it becomes settled. In districts like my own an 18 months' register will he a very serious thing from the point of view of the injustice which will be done, to many hundreds of people who will not be able to get on to the register. The question of economy ought not to weigh to any great extent. It only means one register extra in 1929. It will not happen every year, and, therefore, the question of expense ought not to weigh against the possibility of hundreds of thousands of voters being off the register. I hope it is pot too late for the' Government to accept the Amendment.


I desire to put only one or two points in order to emphasise the desirability of accepting the Amendment. It is admitted that there will be a period of 18 months during which there will be no revision of the register, although the hon. and gallant Member in charge of the Bill at the moment does not think there is any likelihood of an election occurring between June, 1928, and October, 1929. At the same time we have the experience of 1922 and 1924 to guide us, and also the striking experience of 1910, when two elections took place in one year, the first in January and the second in. December. Therefore, it is obvious that a second election before October, 1929, is not a remote contingency. It does not seem fair or equitable to subject thousands of people who will mature in qualification between May, 1929, and October, 1930, to the danger of deprivation of the vote. The second point is that the objection to the Amendment has been put very largely on the ground of the possible expense of £600,000.


Not the possibility but the certainty.


What are the facts? The Government will have the expense of preparing this first enlarged register. That expense has to be incurred. The Register is to come into force in May of 1929. If there were a second register compiled in October, 1929, there would be a period of only six months intervening, and in that time there would be nothing like the changes to be dealt with that would be inevitable if there were an intervening period of 18 months. Therefore the argument that the expense would be anything like that which has been stated is not borne out by the facts.


There seems to be some doubt on the part of the Minister. We have all heard of the enormous number of houses that the Government promise to build. What is going to happen to the people who occupy those houses between May, 1929, and October, 1930? They may be people who have reached 21 by May of 1929. They may marry and go into these new houses, which are supposed to be among the blessings of the Government. What is going to happen to them with an 18 months' register? They will be disfranchised. A cost of £600,000 would be a trifle in comparison with the blessings that the Conservative party profess to bestow on the people.


Will not the Under-Secretary make some reply to the questions which have been put, particularly with regard to developing areas and migratory populations?


I realise, of course, that there is a certain amount of migration from one district to another, but that is already covered to some extent under the existing election law, by what is known as the law of succession. While it may riot be wholly covered, I do not think that the hardship is as great as hon. Members have suggested. It may be necessary to traverse some miles of country, but from my knowledge of four elections I cannot say that I have heard of inability to vote because of lack of means of getting to the polling station. The point raised by the hon. Member for East Middlesbrough (Miss Wilkinson) and the hon. Member for Doncaster (Mr. Paling) I realise is a point of substance. While I can give no pledge, I will look into the matter from the point of view of the omissions and mistakes that may occur from a large number of people being put on the register at one time. I could not agree to the bringing in of a new register but would have to proceed by rectifying definite errors. I do not know whether that is possible or not, but I will look into the question between now and the Report stage.


Has any consideration been given to the subject of local elections? So far we have been discussing Parliamentary elections only. They may be very important, but under the existing circumstances and the dates allotted for making up the register, there will be a hardship upon a large number of local electors. Local elections will arise during the interim, and large numbers of persons who would otherwise be qualified to vote will find, owing to the date stated here, that they will be disqualified to vote for any local elections or by-elections that take place. We are entitled to ask that the Under-Secretary shall satisfy the House that some provision is to be made so that local elections are not to suffer because of the desire to economise. The performance stand part of the of a citizen's function of voting ought to weigh more heavily with us than so called economy.

Question put, "That the Word 'thirty' stand part of the Clause."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 206; Noes, 130.

Division No. 82.] AYES. [8.54 p.m.
Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel Gadie, Lieut.-Col. Anthony Oman, Sir Charles William C.
Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T. Galbraith, J. F. W. Pennefather, Sir John
Ainsworth, Lieut.-Col. Charles Gates, Percy Penny, Frederick George
Alexander, E. E. (Leyton) Gault, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton Perring, Sir William George
Alexander, Sir Wm. (Glasgow, Cent'l) Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)
Applin, Colonel R. v. K. Goff, Sir Park Pilcher, G.
Astor, Maj. Hn. John J.(Kent, Dover) Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.) Pilditch, Sir Philip
Atkinson, C. Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter Preston, William
Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley Greene, W. P. Crawford Price, Major C. W. M.
Balniel, Lord Grotrian, H. Brent Radford, E. A.
Barclay-Harvey, C. M. Gunston, Captain D. W. Raine, Sir Walter
Barnett, Major Sir Richard Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich) Ramsden, E.
Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake) Hamilton, Sir George Rawton, Sir Cooper
Bennett, A. J. Hammersley, S. S. Reid, D. D. (County Down)
Bethel, A. Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent) Remnant, Sir James
Betterton, Henry B. Harrison, G. J. C. Rentoul, G. S.
Birchall, Major J. Dearman Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington) Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.
Bourne, Captain Robert Croft Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes) Rice, Sir Frederick.
Braithwaite, Major A. N Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley) Richardson. Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)
Briggs, J. Harold Henderson, Lieut.-Col. Sir Vivian Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint)
Brittain, Sir Harry Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P. Ropner, Major L.
Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. 1. Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J. Ruggles-Brise, Lieut.-Colonel E. A.
Broun-Lindsay, Major H. Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford) Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham) Hills, Major John Walter Salmon, Major I.
Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y) Hilton, Cecil Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)
Buckingham, Sir H. Hopkinson, Sir A. (Eng. Universities) Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)
Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K. Sandeman, N. Stewart
Burgoyne, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Alan Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.) Sanders, Sir Robert A.
Burman, J. B. Hudson, R. S. (Cumberl'nd, Whiteh'n) Savery, S. S.
Butler, Sir Geoffrey Hume, Sir G. H. Shaw, Lt.-Col. A. D. Mcl.(Renfrew, W.)
Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward Huntingfield, Lord Shepperson, E. W.
Campbell, E. T. Hurst, Gerald B. Simms, Dr. John M. (Co. Down)
Cassels, J. D. Iliffe, Sir Edward M. Skelton, A. N.
Cautley, Sir Henry S. Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H. Smith-Carington, Neville W.
Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood) James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert Smithers, Waldron
Chapman, Sir S. Jephcott, A. R. Spender-Clay, Colonel H.
Charteris, Brigadier-General J. Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton) Stanley, Lieut.-Colonel Rt. Hon. G. F.
Christie, J. A. Joynson-Hicks, Rt. Hon. Sir William Stanley, Lord (Fylde)
Churchman, Sir Arthur C. Kennedy, A. R. (Preston). Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland)
Clarry, Reginald George Lamb, J. Q. Steel, Major Samuel String
Clayton, G. C. Lister, Cunliffe-, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip Storry-Deans, R.
Cobb, Sir Cyril Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley) Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser
Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D. Loder, J. de V. Sugden, Sir Wilfrid
Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips Long, Major Eric Thorn, Lt.-Col. J. G. (Dumbarton)
Cooper, A. Dud Looker, Herbert William Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)
Cope, Major William Lougher, Lewis Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen. South'
Couper, J. B. Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere Tinne, J. A.
Cowan, Sir Wm. Henry (Islingtn. N.) Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harman Titchfield, Major the Marquess of
Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend) Lumley, L. R. Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement
Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro) MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.
Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West) Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart) Waddingtan, R.
Curzon, Captain Viscount Macintyre, Ian Ward, Lt.-Col. A. L.(Kingston. on-Hull)
Dalkeith, Earl of McLean, Major A. Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.
Davies, Maj. Geo. F.(Somerset, Yeovil) Macmillan, Captain H. Warrender, Sir Victor
Davies, Dr. Vernon Macquisten, F. A. Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)
Dixey, A. C. MacRobert, Alexander M. Wells, S. R.
Drewe, C. Maitland, A. (Kent, Faversham) White, Lieut.-Col. Sir G. Dairymple-
Eden, Captain Anthony Malone, Major P. B. Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)
Edmondson. Major A. J. Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn Wilson, Sir C. H. (Leeds, Central)
Elliot, Major Walter E. Margesson, Captain D. Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)
Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-e.-M.; Mason, Colonel Glyn K. Winby, Colonel L. P.
Erskine, James Malcolm Manteith Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark) Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George
Everard, W. Lindsay Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M Withers, John James
Fairfax, Captain J. G. Moore, Sir Newton J. Womersley, W. J.
Fanshawe, Captain G. D. Murchison, Sir Kenneth Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley
Ford, Sir p. J. Neville, Sir Reginald J. Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.
Foster, Sir Harry S. Nicholson, O. (Westminster)
Fraser, Captain Ian Nuttall, Ellis TELLERS FOR THE AYES.
Frece, Sir Walter de Oakley, T. Captain Bowyer and Captain Wallace.
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E- O'Connor, T. J. (Bedford, Luton)
Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West) Grundy, T. W. Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Adamson, w. M. (Staff., Cannock) Hall, F. (York, W.R., Normanton) Riley, Ben
Amman, Charles George Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil) Ritson, J.
Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bliston) Hardie, George D. Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O.(W. Bromwich)
Baker, Walter Harris, Percy A. Saklatvala, Shapurji
Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery) Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon Scrymgeour, E.
Barnes, A. Hayday, Arthur Scurr, John
Barr, J. Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley) Sexton, James
Batey, Joseph Henderson, T. (Glasgow) Shiels, Dr. Drummond
Bondfleid, Margaret Hirst, G. H. Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)
Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W. Hore-Belisha, Leslie Smillie, Robert
Briant, Frank Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield) Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)
Broad, F. A. Hutchison, sir Robert (Montrose) Smith, H. B. Lees (Keighley)
Bromley, J. Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath) Smith, Rennie (Penistone)
Brown, James (Ayr and Bute) John, William (Rhondda, West) Snell, Harry
Buchanan, G. Johnston, Thomas (Dundee) Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip
Cape, Thomas Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth) Stephen, Campbell
Charleton, H. C. Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd) Stewart, J (St. Rollox)
Cluse, W. S. Kelly, W. T. Sullivan, J.
Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R. Kennedy, T. Sutton, J. E.
Compton, Joseph Kirkwood, D. Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)
Connolly, M. Lansbury, George Thurtle, Ernest
Cove, W. G. Lawson, John James Tinker, John Joseph
Crawfurd, H. E. Lee, F. Tomlinson, R. P.
Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton) Lindley, F. W. Varley, Frank B.
Dennison, R. Livingstone, A. M. Viant, S. P.
Dunnico, H. Lowth, T. Wallhead, Richard C.
Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty) Lunn, William Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)
Edwards, J. Hugh (Accrington) MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J, R.(Aberavon) Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)
England, Colonel A. Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan) Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney
Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.) Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton) Wellock, Wilfred
Fenby, T. D. March, S. Welsh, J. C.
Forrest, W. Maxton, James Westwood, J.
Gardner, J. P. Montague, Frederick Wiggins, William Martin
Garro-Jones, Captain G. M, Morris, R. H. Wilkinson, Ellen C.
Gibbins, Joseph Morrison. R. C. (Tottenham, N.) Williams, David (Swansea, East)
Gillett, George M. Murnin, H. Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)
Gosling, Harry Naylor, T. E. Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)
Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton) Owen, Major G. Wright, W.
Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.) Palin, John Henry Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)
Greenall, T. Paling, W.
Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne) Ponsonby, Arthur TELLERS FOR THE NOES.
Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan) Potts, John S. Mr. Allen Parkinson and Mr.
Griffith, F. Kingsley Pureed, A. A. Whiteley.
Groves, T. Flees, Sir Beddoe

Question put, and agreed to.

The following Amendments stood upon the Order Paper in the name of Sir W. JOYNBON-HICKS:

In page 5, line 10, at the beginning, to insert the words "In England and Wales and Scotland."

In line 11, to leave out the words "(or, in Northern Ireland, on the fifteenth day of December)."

In line 15, at the end, to add the words (4) In Northern Ireland the register of electors which came into force on the fifteenth day of December, nineteen hundred and twenty-seven, shall continue in force until the first day of May nineteen hundred and twenty-nine, and a register of electors shall not be made in the year nineteen hundred and twenty-eight,


I understand that the Home Secretary does not propose to move the series of Amendments concerning Northern Ireland.


That is the case. This series of Amendments relates to Northern Ireland, and, as there are some points for consideration in connection with them, I propose not to move them until a later stage.