CLAUSE 8.—(Place and manner of voting as elector.)

HC Deb 24 March 1948 vol 448 cc3207-79

Mr. Younger

I beg to move, in page 10, line 27, to leave out "in Scotland."

The purpose of this Amendment is to apply to England and Wales the provision under Clause 8 (1, b v), which enables a person to vote by post in a General Election on the grounds that he is the returning officer or acting returning officer for some constituency other than that in which he is an elector, As the Clause stands, it applies only to Scotland. The intention is to apply it to England and Wales as well.

Mr. Manningham-Buller

I think we ought to have an explanation from the Parliamentary Secretary of why, when this Bill was introduced, this distinction between Scotland and England and Wales was contained in this particular Subsection. Why has it had to be left to ten minutes past two o'clock in the morning for the Government to make this correction? I think that the Parliamentary Secretary cannot expect us to be content with that sort of explanation, and indeed the fact that the Government have now to come forward and make this correction shows how necessary it is for us to pay very great care indeed to the provisions and terms of this Measure.

Perhaps I may put a further question. I do not think it would be without interest to the hon. Member for Fermanagh and Tyrone (Mr. Mulvey) if he were here, or the hon. Gentleman for Platting (Mr. Delargy), or indeed the hon. Member who has so many Irish constituents, the hon. Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Bing). This is a serious question which requires an answer. Why is it that now this privilege of voting by post is being extended from Scotland to England and Wales? Why is it not also extended to Northern Ireland? Why is Northern Ireland excluded from this Clause? I am sorry the Members who have taken up so much time in discussing the impact of the Bill on Northern Ireland are not here to raise the point themselves, but it really is not right to draw distinctions between different parts of Great Britain unless there is a logical reason for doing so. I hope we shall get a satisfactory explanation from the Parliamentary Secretary and have his reasons for giving this preference to Scotland. It may be that in these circumstances the Secretary of State for Scotland has been able to exert undue influence upon the Home Secretary and that the Home Secretary has only recently got a correct perspective of this matter. Why did that not happen in the first place? Why did we limit it to England and Wales, and why was Northern Ireland so obviously excluded?

2.15 a.m.

Mr. McKie

I hope that the Home Secretary or the Secretary of State for Scotland will respond to the appeal which has been made by my hon. and learned Friend. As a Scottish Member, I do not grudge my colleagues on either side the benefits which were originally intended for Scotland alone in this Measure, and it may be that the Secretary of State for Scotland has impressed on his colleague the Home Secretary the importance of extending the benefits originally intended for Scotland alone. I shall await with interest what the right hon. Gentleman has to say on this point. I hope the Home Secretary will inform us why, the Government, having agreed, perhaps because of the persuasion of the Secretary of State for Scotland, to give the benefits to England and Wales as well, have seen fit to leave out Northern Ireland. If it is an oversight, I deplore it, and I regret that the hon. Member for Fermanagh and Tyrone (Mr. Mulvey) is not here, because he would have had something to say about this. The hon. Member for Fermanagh and Tyrone has made two valuable contributions to the discussion this evening, but he, and the senior Member for Fermanagh and Tyrone (Mr. Cunningham), have left the Chamber. This, among other things, shows the unwisdom of carrying on these discussions until this late hour—or early hour. There will be no proper Press publicity given to this particular point.

Mr. W. Wells (Walsall)

I do not see what relevance the question of Press publicity has to this particular Amendment.

Mr. McKie

The hon. Members for Fermanagh and Tyrone would like publicity on this point, and although I am a Scottish Member, I am opposite Northern Ireland in my constituency, and wish to make this point on behalf of those hon. Members who are now absent. I invite the Home Secretary to clear up the points which have been made.

Mr. Younger

I think it is just as well for the hon. Member for Galloway (Mr. McKie) that there will be no Press publicity for the speech he has just delivered because, if this Amendment is accepted, it will apply to Northern Ireland, so all his anxiety is relieved. I was asked by the hon. and learned Member for Daventry (Mr. Manningham-Buller) why this was intended originally to apply only to Scotland, and the answer is that the returning officer is in a different position in Scotland from that in which he is in other parts. In Scotland, he is a sheriff, and the sheriff is not normally resident, while in other parts of the Kingdom it is rarer for the returning officer not to be in the constituency of his residence. Since the Bill was drafted there have been representations in respect of England and Scotland—I am not sure that any have been made for Northern Ireland—so that it would be useful to apply the provision throughout the country.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Younger

I beg to move, in page 10, line 30, at the end, to insert: or the particular circumstances of that person's employment on the date of the poll by the returning officer for some other constituency for a purpose connected with the election in that constituency. This is really a similar point, but it relates not to the returning officer, but to presiding officers and polling clerks who are employed by the returning officer in some constituency other than their own. In other respects it deals with the same point as the previous Amendment.

Mr. J. S. C. Reid (Glasgow, Hillhead)

I wonder whether the Under-Secretary could explain the drafting of this Amendment? I think I am right in saying that the result of this Amendment will be to allow certain persons described in the Amendment to become absent voters. In order to become an absent voter, one has to start the procedure a good long time before the date of the poll—I am not quite clear how long, but it is a good long time. The Amendment proposes to add: or the particular circumstances of that person's employment on the date of the poll by the returning officer for some other constituency for a purpose connected with the election. No one can tell until the date of the poll that a man is going to be employed at the date of the poll. This Amendment makes an impossible situation. If one does not qualify to become an absent voter until one is actually employed on the date of the poll in this capacity, how can one apply a long time in advance to be made an absent voter? I should have thought it was quite clear that the draftsman here has slipped up. It may be that the Government are requiring their draftsmen to undertake work at half-past two in the morning. I would not be at all surprised, considering the way they are rushing legislation. It would be unfair to blame the draftsman for an error, but I hope the Under-Secretary will explain how one can determine long in advance of the poll, that a man is qualified, when the qualification consists in being employed on the date of the poll. It seems logically impossible, and the Amendment appears to be a bad one.

Mr. P. Roberts

I should like to support what the right hon. and learned Gentleman has said. This Amendment is grammatically incorrect; it has nothing to do with the explanation of the Under-Secretary, who is entirely wrong in saying that it has anything to do with returning officers in Scotland or England. It makes some people who happen to be employed by someone else became absent voters. It is necessary to draw the attention of members of the Committee to what this Amendment does, in point of fact. May I read Clause 8 (I, b, v), adding the words of the Amendment? It will be seen that it does not make sense: (v) in Scotland, at a general election, the fact that that person is returning officer, deputy returning officer or acting as returning officer for some other constituncy; or the particular circumstances of that person's employment on the date of the poll by the returning officer for some other constituency for a purpose connected with the election in that constituency. What does that mean? First, the Under-Secretary said it had something to do with the previous Amendment. He referred to returning officers and deputy returning officers. This Amendment does not do that at all. It refers to somebody employed by a returning officer for some other constituency—one of the returning officers not in his own constituency. Why must it be some other constituency? Will the Home Secretary explain that? From the explanation given, one would have thought that these persons have to be in the employment of the returning officer or the deputy returning officer, or someone acting as a returning officer in some other constituency; but no—it is only for someone acting in some other constituency. One can only assume that it applies to a chauffeur who has gone to some other constituency. That seems to be the only answer. Then the chauffeur would not be able to vote even in his own constituency. Is that the answer? It seems most illogical.

There is a second point I would like to put to the right hon. Gentleman. It has reference to Subsection (4) of the Clause. If he will look at it, he will see that an absent voter has to apply in writing. Let us take the worthy chauffeur to the acting returning officer who is told that morning that he has to take the car and go to some other constituency. How can he make application in writing to be an absent voter? I suggest that this Amendment has been badly thought out. Perhaps the Government thought that by bringing this up at 2.30 in the morning, they would get away with sloppy drafting. I think the Committee are entitled to have a better explanation than that which we had from the Under-Secretary, which was most misleading. If he will look in HANSARD at the explanation he gave at the beginning, I think he will see that there is no connection between what he said then and what I am sure he was aiming at saying, in a few moments.

Mr. John Foster (Northwich)

I may hazard an explanation as to what the hon. and gallant Member for Ecclesall (Major P. Roberts) finds so puzzling. I think a verb has been left out of the Amendment. The exception in Clause 8, Subsection (1, b, v) is the fact that -a person is a returning officer. Then, one can leave out the other words, and it goes on—"or particular circumstances." If one reads the other two lines, one finds that there is no verb. I defy anybody to make common sense out of it. I see the Front Bench opposite puzzling over it. I defy any hon. Member opposite who has a copy of the Bill—I see one of them has—to get up and explain how the words the particular circumstances of that person's employment on the date of the poll tie up with line 30. It goes as far as the word "constituency." "At a general election, the fact that that person is returning officer "—blah-blah— "or the particular circumstances"—how can that make sense? He cannot be either returning officer or particular circumstances. I will try again: …at a general election, the fact that that person is returning officer, deputy returning officer or acting as returning officer for some other constituency or the particular circumstances of that person's employment I see right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite are puzzled. If they are not puzzled, they must be having a very good gossip.

2.30 a.m.

There is a second misdrafting here. In the preceding paragraph the words "that person" appear. Therefore, it reads: …at a general election the fact that that person is a returning officer"— we can miss out the next words, and go on to say: or the particular circumstances of that person's employment… It is the same "that person," and, therefore "that person" equals "returning officer." Then it reads: …or the particular circumstances of the returning officer or the particular circumstances of that person's employment on the date of the poll by the returning officer. That does not make any sense either. That is something else for the Government Front Bench to puzzle over. I do not understand how it is possible to use "that person" in the unamended Clause to equal "the returning officer" and other people, and use the same "that person" in the Amendment referring back to "the returning officer," because we find that "that person" is employed by the returning officer. I would like some explanation of this drafting. Hon. Members opposite will find that it is difficult to read these words consecutively so as to make sense.

Mr. John Lewis (Bolton)

I hope the hon. Gentleman is not going to withhold his secret from the Committee. In his opening remarks he said a verb had been left out. Would he define the verb and tell the Committee what verb he would put in?

Mr. Foster

Yes. I mean no disrespect to the verb. It is known as a copulative verb. The copulation takes place between "constituency" and "for." I think it should read: or the particular circumstances"— the word "in" is missing, too—— of that person's employment on the date of the poll by the returning officer is for a purpose connected with the election in that constituency. That is what I think it means. I do not know if the right hon. Gentleman and the Under-Secretary agree.

Mr. H. Strauss

I think this drafting is quite hopeless. The only point on which I differ from my hon. Friend is that I do not think the Clause can be read in the way he suggests. My guess is that it is just possible to construe it—and even then it still makes nonsense—by connecting "the particular circumstances" with "The fact that that person" etc., in sub-paragraph (v) as it stands. The difficulty in having "that person" in two parts of the sentence is that they both have to be construed as the same person. It is quite impossible to leave the drafting as it stands. The Secretary of State for Scotland, who alone on the Front Bench gives the appearance of understanding this Amendment, and who has been trying to explain it to the Attorney-General, might try to explain it to the Committee.

If this thing is seriously tackled at all, it must be made a further exception. The Amendment to the fifth paragraph in Roman figures wants redrafting and made No. (vi), which possibly would put it right. The Attorney-General could easily do that. If any Member of the Government on the Treasury Bench thinks that this makes sense, I hope he will get up and explain it. If no one is capable of explaining then we know what this Committee is being asked to do, namely, to put on the Statute Book what is admitted by the silence of the Government Front Bench to be complete gibberish and nonsense. As we know by the opposition to the Motion which was recently before the House, that is what hon. Members opposite believe to be true democracy. We shall go on putting ludicrous things on the Statute Book; nothing shall be explained when difficulties are pointed out, and we shall proceed in this ludicrous manner——

Mr. Pickthorn

On a point of Order. Could the mutterings of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Dalton) be a little louder, so that we could all enjoy them, or a little less noisy so that we may hear something else.

The Temporary Chairman

I do not think that is a point of Order.

Mr. Pickthorn

Of course, it is.

Mr. Hogg

Further to that point of Order. What could be more a matter of Order than that the right hon. Gentleman was making so much noise in talking to his neighbour that no one could hear the speech which was being delivered to the Committee? I submit that is by definition a point of Order, and that the Committee is entitled to protection from these noisy interruptions of the right hon. Gentleman in his excursions into the Chamber from some other parts of the building.

The Temporary Chairman

If there was any noise, I had not heard it.

Mr. Strauss

I make no complaint against the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Dalton), because it is of some advantage to the Committee that the man in charge of the Committee should be present in the Committee; otherwise it would be more decent if he retired to make his noise. In support of what has been said by my hon. Friend, I have put serious points, and I hope somebody is going to rise from the Government Front Bench to prove that these words mean something and to answer the criticism that has been made. So far as I can see, the only Minister who is showing any signs of belief in his own comprehension is the Secretary of State for Scotland. His mind is sufficiently acute to grasp the subject and I hope he will now address the Committee.

Mr. Marlowe

I am rather puzzled over this obscurity, because it is extremely difficult to explain what these words mean. There is a reference in the Subsection to "that person." What we want to find out is who that person is. Various arguments have been advanced. One is that it is the returning officer, and another that it is the returning officer's chauffeur. I am in the dark about this, and I have looked at the heading of the Clause, and obviously the person referred to is a person who is not going to go to the polling booth on the day he votes. If one looks at another part of the Clause, one sees that it is neither the returning officer nor his chauffeur, but it is somebody who is going to be at sea on the day that polling takes place. But if it is not a person who is going to be at sea on that day, then by reference back to the particular Subsection it will be found that he is a constable. Now the possibilities are that the person is the returning officer or the returning officer's chauffeur or a constable or a person who is at sea. It would assist the Committee if the right hon. Gentleman could address his mind to the question of who is "that person" referred to in the Subsection under discussion, because until we get a definition of that, it is quite impossible to understand to whom the Amendment refers.

Mr. Younger

I must say I am rather surprised at the sudden obtuseness of so many eminent and usually subtle lawyers. The hon. Member for Ecclesall (Mr. Roberts) asked why this only related to a constituency other than his own. If he had looked at the Subsection, at line 20, he would have found that a person employed by the returning officer in his own constituency is already covered. That is why only employment in another constituency is covered by this Amendment. On the point raised by the right hon. and learned Member for Hillhead (Mr. J. S. C. Reid), it is true, of course, that when anybody seeks to register as an absent voter there must be a degree of forecasting. It is not necessary to register very long in advance of the date but registration must take place some little time before, and the time would be prescribed by regulation. It is necessary at the time of the application to forecast whether or not, on the date of the poll, it is likely that a person will qualify to be an absent voter. If the Committee look at Clause 9 (1) they will see that an application shall be allowed by the registration officer if he is satisfied that the applicant is, or will if registered be, entitled… This is obviously a matter of judgment on the part of the registration officer. I quite agree that it is probably not easy to forecast any considerable time ahead whether a person is likely to be so entitled. It is much more difficult than to forecast some other qualifications. Nevertheless, it is not impossible, provided that the latest date for application for registration prescribed by regulations is not fixed too long a time before the poll. With regard to the complex drafting referred to by several speakers, I am grateful to the hon. and learned Member for the Combined English Universities (Mr. H Strauss) for having scotched his hon. and learned colleagues's copulative verb. It is not necessary to have a verb at all in this instance, because as the Committee will note, paragraph (b), lines 14 and 15, says: for one of the following reasons, and then subparagraphs (i) to (v) list these reasons. When we come to sub-numeral (v) the reason is: the fact that that person is returning officer and so on, and leading on to the Amendment, we are describing the circumstances of that person's employment, and there is no need for any verb at all. I think there will possibly be a point in what the hon. and learned Gentleman said about this being more suitable in a separate subparagraph (vi) if it is to avoid any ambiguity as to "that person" referred to. It is a rather complicated matter of drafting and I think it is possible that some modification may be necessary. I undertake to have that looked at to make it easier, although I do not think it is really so difficult to understand as some hon. and learned Gentlemen make out.

2.45 a.m.

Mr. J. S. C. Reid

If the hon. Member will withdraw the Amendment and reintroduce a better Amendment on the Report stage, of course, we will have no more to say. But it really does not seem a very satisfactory state of affairs simply to say that the matter will be re-examined when, so far as we can see, undoubtedly some amendment will have to be made. When we come to the Report stage we might find, at some hour of the morning like this—and, of course, hon. Members for the Government might not put down an Amendment—that if we put down an Amendment it might not be accepted. Therefore, I am afraid that we must ask him to drop this Amendment and re-introduce a proper Amendment on the Report stage. May I point out one or two other difficulties which arise, for I was a little shocked to find the hon. Member saying that this depended upon forecasts? I had hoped that the election law of this country would not get mixed up with lotteries and betting, and would depend upon facts which were ascertainable and not on forecasts.

I can see a case for a forecast under Clause 8, (I) (b, III), for there the person forecasting is the person who is going to employ a particular applicant. It is easy enough although perhaps technically not very defensible, to have a forecast, but it is easy enough to forecast when the registration officer himself knows with regard to his own constituency who is going to be the polling clerk and who is not. But he does not know that of his own knowledge with regard to an adjoining constituency, for the polling clerk may come along with some kind of evidence which is perhaps not satisfactory; but that particular returning officer has nothing to go on. As the hon. Gentleman very properly said, this can be done over a short period before the election, and then they will get into a jam—because there will not be time to go back and get the right evidence. In addition to considering the draft, might not the right hon. Gentleman consider making a substantial alteration in relation to Clause 8 (I) (b, III), because the circumstances are very different. The point that would present itself for decision would be a different one. It is more difficult and I think he might take advantage of the time given by withdrawing the Amendment to reconsider it. We shall have to oppose the Amendment unless the hon. Gentleman withdraws it.

Mr. Pickthorn

I shall be very grateful if the Under-Secretary listens to me. I can be very short. I really think—if the Under-Secretary will not mind listening—that there is something amounting to a mistake, or at least to confusion, here and I think that most of those struggling with it do agree that that is so now. Might I suggest to the hon. Gentleman what appears to be the case, and perhaps he will correct me if I am wrong. What seems to me to be the case is that this Clause provides—and I shall use very few words, leaving out all the—[Interruption]. If hon. Gentlemen are going to do that sort of thing, I shall read them all, and I shall talk more. I do this with perfect fairness and I will read it as quickly as I can, but not if I am interrupted. [Interruption.] Certainly not! If this behaviour continues I will go on as long as I choose.

Mr. Hogg

On a point of Order, Mr. Wells. It is very important that I should be able to follow my hon. Friend. [Inter- ruption.] It is really increasingly difficult if he is constantly subjected to interruptions without being accorded any protection from the Chair. Will you not afford him some protection? [Interruption.] It is almost impossible either to make oneself heard or to hear anyone else.

The Temporary Chairman (Mr. William Wells)

I was able to hear the hon. Member perfectly myself, and I should have thought that he was capable of protecting himself.

Mr. Hogg

But surely it is not a question of hon. Members getting protection for themselves. We can all do that if we are outraged. It is a question of the Chair affording hon. Members the protection to which they are entitled. Are we now to understand from your Ruling that in future hon. Members must look to themselves for protection, and that they can no longer look to the Chair?

The Temporary Chairman

I have already stated that I was able to hear the hon. Member, and I certainly did not think the interruptions had reached such a stage that they called for my intervention.

Mr. Pickthorn

I want to put a rather difficult point. I think that I have argued, so far this evening, quite fairly. I will read as few words as are necessary: All persons voting…shall do so in person…except in so far as this section makes exceptions for—— And then, in my submission, what the Amendment intended to do was to make the particular circumstances, near the top of page 1813 of the Amendment Paper, alternative to the "fact" of line 36. Does the Under-Secretary agree that that was the intention? What I suggest is, that the draftsman's intention was defeated, partly by the fact that sub-paragraph (v) is so much longer than the other similar subparagraphs; and partly by the fact that the draftsman has here inserted the word "or," as he has between the other 1.1brnatives listed. The intrusive "Or" is the more unfortunate and misleading, since there is already in line 29 the word "or." It makes it very difficult when you say A or B or C, to know when C is being an alternative to B or to A. For the less easily amused hon. Members it is not a very difficult piece of logic, and it has not been satisfactorily explained to the Committee. In my submission it would be disgraceful if this Committee passed a Bill of this sort without having clearly grasped a point of that kind.

I am not what the. Under-Secretary called a "usually subtle lawyer," though I would not dare to describe myself as an unusually subtle non-lawyer. I hope I have made this clear, though I may, of course, be mistaken. If it is clear, but I am mistaken, I hope that someone on the Treasury Bench will correct me. If the point as I have put it, is clear and is well taken, then I do suggest to the Treasury Bench that this Amendment is not acceptable; that it ought not to have been nut on the Order Paper in this form, and that is was a necessary and proper part of the duty of the Committee to make plain that this Amendment will not do. I suggest that it ought to be withdrawn.

Mr. Maude (Exeter)

There is the possibility of a most hideous mistake in this Clause. I have been in consultation with my hon. Friend the Member for Northwich (Mr. J. Foster), who is absolutely right about the copulative verb; and if I may say so, the senior Burgess for Cambridge University (Mr. Pickthorn), with-his great fluency, is clearly right also about the "fact" in 8 (i) (b, v). It would be appalling if this was not put right. I hope that the Attorney-General will notice that it is wrong to put the copulative verb in the singular. Hon. Members will see in the Amendment, which is well-intentioned, that the words "the particular circumstances" are in the plural. Therefore, we must read it in this way: All persons voting…except in so far as this Section makes exceptions for— (b) those unable… for one of the following reasons— or the particular circumstances of that person's employment on the date of the poll by the returning officer for some other constituency… Then we must have the word "are"— .…for a purpose connected with the election in that constituency.…

Mr. P. Roberts

I wish to take up the point made by the Under-Secretary when he referred to the returning officer for some other constituency. He said that the returning officer for his own constituency was covered by paragraph (b, v). Surely, that refers to a General Election. Am I right in thinking that the returning officer in a by-election, or the person employed by him, if he goes out to some other constituency, will not have the protection of paragraph (b, v)? That seems to be a logical argument. Why do the words, "at a General Election" appear in line 27 when they do not appear in lines 20, 21 or 22? Apparently a constable is covered by paragraph (b, iii). Why does the word "constable" not appear in the Amendment? That seems quite illogical. My argument is that if this Clause is approved as drafted it will be impossible to hold a by-election under paragraph (b, v) on the same basis as an ordinary election under paragraph (b, iii).

3.0 a.m.

Mr. J. Foster

The Under-Secretary was quite right to explain the purpose of this Amendment. The only point on which he was wrong is that the Amendment is not grammatical because it is governed by the words "……the fact that." Taken with the Amendment, paragraph (b, v) would read: .…the fact that.… if we leave out the word "or"— .…the particular circumstances of that person's employment. I suggest that the first three words demand the use of a verb. "Particular circumstances" cannot follow grammatically on "the fact that." They could follow the word "reasons" in (b). The hon. and learned Member for the English Universities (Mr. H. Strauss) and the hon. Gentleman the senior Burgess for Cambridge University (Mr. Pickthorn) were quite right in saying it should be a separate paragraph. It must be, as long as a verb is missing in the sub-paragraph.

It seems very strange, and I would be interested to know what the Government Front Bench, in the cold light of morning, will think when they read that sentence with the Amendment in it. The Amendment must be governed by the words "the fact that." I think the Parliamentary Secretary was a little bit agreeable because he said there was something to be said for putting it in a separate paragraph. The significance is that it does not make grammatical sense in this subparagraph. It is obvious that if you have five reasons about people you do not tack the sixth reason on to the five.

Mr. Rankin (Glasgow, Tradeston)

On a point of Order. I would like to ask in all serious less if there is no protection for the Committee in the face of this continued irrelevant futility?

The Temporary Chairman

I do not think that is a point of Order. I think the hon. Gentleman's speech is quite relevant.

Mr. Hogg

On a point of Order. Was it not an impertinent reflection on the Chair for the hon. Gentleman to suggest that the Chair was not discharging its proper function of restraining irrelevancy.

The Temporary Chairman

I am afraid that if the Chairman had to restrain all irrelevant futility the debate would not proceed at a very rapid pace.

Mr. Hogg

Surely, it is the normal function of the Chair to restrain irrelevant futility? Are we to understand from your Ruling, Sir, that in future hon. Members will be free to pursue irrelevant futility without intervention from the Chair? If so, I shall be the first to avail myself of the opportunity.

The Temporary Chairman

It depends on how far it is taken.

Mr. Foster

It is very sad indeed that a speech which was trying to be relevant and trying to point out difficulties of grammar should be so interrupted. It is difficult to make a drafting point in public if lots of hon. Members do not follow you. It is also difficult to make a drafting point when people are not taking the matter seriously. It is also difficult to make a drafting point when hon. Members interrupt. It is also difficult to make a drafting point when the Front Bench will not understand what one is trying to explain. I see the Under-Secretary very kindly smiling at me. I do not think he dealt with the point. The words "the particular circumstances" are governed by the words "the fact that." The word "by" must have an alternative to some-thing. It could be the alternative to "constituency," but it is not. It could be the alternative to "returning officer," which it is not. It could be the alternative to "that person," which it is not. It must be the alternative to "the fact that." There is nothing else to which it can be an alternative.

Mr. Willis (Edinburgh, North)

On a point of Order, Mr. Beaumont, is it correct for hon. Members to indulge in tedious repetition such as we have had for three-quarters of an hour?

The Deputy-Chairman

In view of the fact that I have only just returned to the Chair, I do not know what the hon. Member has been saying.

Mr. Piratin

Further to that point of Order, is it necessary for you, Mr. Beaumont, in following Mr. Wells, to go through three-quarters of an hour's tediousness before you make a Ruling?

The Deputy-Chairman

I will exercise my powers if there is undue tediousness.

Mr. Foster

I have the impression that the hon. Member for Mile End (Mr. Piratin) will be corrected because tediousness has never been a ground for you to give your Ruling, Mr. Beaumont. It has to be tedious repetition.

The Deputy-Chairman

The hon. Gentleman is about to get out of Order himself because he is not dealing with the Amendment.

Mr. Foster

I was getting to an important part of the argument, but owing to these interruptions I have to start again.

Division No. 111.]	AYES.	[3.10 a.m.
Adams, Richard (Balham)	Davies, Haydn (St. Pancras, S.W.)	Holman, P.
Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V.	de Freitas, Geoffrey	House, G.
Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)	Delargy, H. J.	Hoy, J.
Alpass, J. H.	Diamond, J	Hudson, J. H. (Ealing, W.)
Attewell, H. C.	Dodds, N. N	Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Austin, H. Lewis	Driberg, T. E. N.	Hughes, H. D, (W'lverh'pton, W)
Ayrton Gould, Mrs. B.	Dugdale, J. (W. Bromwich)	Hynd, H. (Hackney, C.)
Bacon, Miss A.	Dumpleton, C. W.	Irving, W. J. (Tottenham, N.)
Barton, C.	Durbin, E. F. M.	Janner, B.
Bechervaise, A. E.	Dye, S.	Jeger, G. (Winchester)
Berry, H.	Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.	Johnston, D. H.
Beswick, F.	Edelman, M.	Jones, D. T, (Hartlepool)
Bing, G. H. C.	Edwards, N. (Caerphilly)	Jones, Elwyn (Plaistow)
Binns, J.	Edwards, W. J. (Whitechapel)	Jones, P. Asterley (Hitchin)
Blackburn, A. R.	Evans, Albert (Islington, W.)	Keenan, W.
Blenkinsop, A.	Evans, John (Ogmore)	Kenyon, C.
Bottomley, A. G.	Evans, S. N. (Wednesbury)	Lee, Miss J. (Cannock)
Bowies, F. G. (Nuneaton)	Fairhurst, F.	Levy, B. W.
Braddock, Mrs. E. M. (L'pl, Exch'ge)	Farthing, W. J.	Lewis, A, W. J. (Upton)
Braddock, T. (Mitcham)	Fernyhough, E.	Lewis, J. (Bolton)
Bramall, E. A.	Field, Capt. W. J.	Lindgren, G. S.
Brook, D. (Halifax)	Fletcher, E. G. M. (Islington, E.)	Lipton, Lt.-Col. M
Brown, George (Belper)	Foot, M. M.	Longden, F.
Brown, T. J. (Ince)	Forman, J. C.	Lyne, A. W.
Bruce, Maj. D. W. T.	Ganley, Mrs. C. S.	McGhee, H. G.
Butler, H. W. (Hackney, S.)	Gibson, C. W.	Mack, J. D.
Castle, Mrs. B. A.	Gilzean, A	Maclean, N. (Govan)
Champion, A. J.	Gordon-Walker, P. C.	McLeavy, F.
Chetwynd, G. R.	Greenwood, A. W. J. (Heywood)	Manning, Mrs. L. (Epping)
Cobb, F. A.	Griffiths, D. (Rother Valley)	Mathers, Rt. Hon. George
Collindridge, F.	Gunter, R. J.	Mayhew, C. P.
Collins, V. J.	Guy, W. H.	Mellish, R. J.
Corbet, Mrs. F. K. (Camb'well, N.W.)	Haire, John E. (Wycombe)	Middleton, Mrs. L.
Crawley, A.	Hale, Leslie	Mikardo, Ian
Crossman, R. H. S.	Hamilton, Lieut.-Col. R.	Millington, Wing-Comdr. E. R
Daggar, G.	Hannan, W. (Maryhill)	Mitchison, G. R.
Daines, P.	Hardman, D. R.	Monslow, W.
Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.	Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick)	Moody, A. S.
Davies, Edward (Burslem)	Herbison, Miss M.	Morley, R.
Davies, Harold (Leek)	Hewitson, Capt. M.	Morgan, Dr. H. B.

The Deputy-Chairman

It is not necessary for the hon. Gentleman to give his speech again, and it is not for him to decide what is "tedious repetition."

Mr. Foster

I had hoped, Sir, that you would be interested in the alternative. We are told that this is adding a sixth reason but it is not. The sixth reason must be put in a separate paragraph and I think it is a pity, as has been pointed out, that we have not had the benefit of a lawyer. It is easy for a layman on the Front Bench to say something—[An HON. MEMBER: "Under-Secretary"]—Yes, I think that is right, but it is a pity to read a Clause which makes no sense. It is easy to see what it is aiming at and there is no difficulty in understanding its aim at all. But the difficulty is in putting into the Subsection a sentence which ends in the air.

Mr. Whiteley rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."

Question put, "That the Question be now put."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 199: Noes, 63.

Morris, P. (Swansea, W.)	Ross, William (Kilmarnock)	Warbey, W N
Moyle, A.	Segal, Dr. S.	Watkins, T E
Mulvey, A	Shackleton, E. A. A.	Weitzman, D.
Nally, W.	Sharp, Granville	Wells, P. L. (Faversham)
Neal, H. (Claycross)	Shawcross, C. N. (Widnes)	Wells, W. T. (Walsall)
Nichol, Mrs. M. E. (Bradford, N.)	Shawcross, Rt. Hn. Sir H. (St. Helens)	West, D. G.
Nicholls, H. R. (Stratford)	Silverman, J. (Erdington)	Wheatley, John (Edinburgh, E.)
Noel-Baker, Capt. F. E. (Brentford)	Simmons, C. J.	Whiteley, Rt. Hon W
Orbach, M.	Smith, C (Colchester)	Wilkes, L.
Palmer, A. M. F.	Solley, L. J.	Wilkins, W. A.
Pargiter, G. A.	Sorensen, R. W.	Willey, F T (Sunderland)
Parkin, B. T.	Soskice, Sir Frank	Willey, O. G. (Cleveland)
Paton, Mrs. F. (Rushcliffe)	Sparks, J. A.	Williams, D. J. (Neath)
Paton, J. (Norwich)	Steele, T.	Williams, J. L. (Kelvingrove).
Pearson, A.	Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)	Williams, R. W. (Wigan)
Peart, T. F.	Sylvester, G. O.	Williams, W. R. (Heston)
Perrins, W.	Symonds, A. L.	Willis, E.
Piratin, P.	Taylor, H. B. (Mansfield)	Wills, Mrs. E. A.
Platts-Mills, J. F. F.	Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)	Wilmot, Rt. Hon. J.
Poole, Cecil (Lichfield)	Thomas, D. E. (Aberdare)	Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A
Porter, G. (Leeds)	Thomas, I. O. (Wrekin)	Wyatt, W
Pritt, D. N.	Thomas, George (Cardiff)	Yates, V. F.
Randall, H. E.	Thurtle, Ernest	Younger, Hon. Kenneth
Ranger, J.	Tiffany, S.	Zilliacus, K
Rankin, J.	Tolley, L.
Reeves, J.	Ungoed-Thomas, L.	TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
Reid, T. (Swindon)	Vernon, Maj. W. F.	Mr. Snow and Mr. George Wallace.
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)	Walker, G. H.

NOES:
Agnew, Cmdr. P. G.	Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D.	Mullan, Lt. C. H.
Amory, D Heathcoat	George, Lady M. Lloyd (Anglesey)	Noble, Comdr. A. H. P.
Astor, Hon. M.	Gomme-Duncan, Col. A.	Odey, G. W.
Beamish, Maj. T. V. H.	Grimston, R. V.	Peake, Rt. Hon. O.
Boles, Lt.-Col. D. C. (Wells)	Harris, F. W. (Croydon, N.)	Peto, Brig. C. H. M.
Bossom, A. C.	Hogg, Hon. Q.	Pickthorn, K
Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col W.	Hutchison, Col. J. R. (Glasgow, C.)	Prescott, Stanley
Butcher, H. W.	Keeling, E. H.	Reid, Rt. Hon. J. S C. (Hillhead)
Byers, Frank	Kendall, W. D.	Roberts, P. G. (Ecclesall)
Challen, C.	Lancaster, Col. C. G.	Robinson, Roland
Channon, H.	Linstead, H. N.	Spence, H. R.
Clifton-Browne, Lt.-Col. G.	Lloyd, Selwyn (Wirral)	Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.
Corbett, Lieut.-Col. U. (Ludlow)	Lucas-Tooth, Sir H.	Strauss, H. G. (English Universities)
Cuthbert, W. N.	McKie, J. H. (Galloway)	Studholme, H. G.
Davidson, Viscountess	Maclean, F. H. R.	Thomas, J. P. L. (Hereford)
Drayson, G B.	Macpherson, N. (Dumfries)	Touche, G. C.
Drewe, C.	Maitland, Comdr. J. W	Wadsworth, G.
Duthie, W. S.	Manningham-Buller, R. E.	Wheatley, Colonel M. J. (Dorset, E.)
Foster, J. G. (Northwich)	Marlowe, A. A. H.	Willoughby de Eresby, Lord
Fox, Sir G.	Maude, J. C.	TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
Fraser, Sir I. (Lonsdale)	Medlicott, Brigadier F	Major Conant and
Gage, C.	Mellor, Sir J.	Major Ramsay.

Question put accordingly: those words be there inserted."

Division No. 112.]	AYES.	[3.19 a.m.
Adams, Richard (Balham)	Bruce, Maj. D. W. T.	Dumpleton, C. W.
Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V.	Butler, H. W. (Hackney, S.)	Durbin, E. F. M
Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)	Byers, Frank	Dye, S.
Alpass, J. H.	Castle, Mrs. B. A.	Ede, Rt. Hon J. C.
Attewell, H. C.	Champion, A. J.	Edelman, M.
Austin, H. Lewis	Chetwynd, G. R.	Edwards, N. (Caerphilly)
Ayrlon Gould, Mrs. B.	Cobb, F. A.	Edwards, W. J. (Whitechapel)
Bacon, Miss A.	Collindridge, F.	Evans, Albert (Islington, W.)
Barton, C	Collins, V. J.	Evans, John (Ogmore)
Bechervaise, A. E.	Corbet, Mrs. F. K. (Camb'well, N. W.)	Evans, S. N. (Wednesbury)
Berry, H.	Crawley, A.	Fairhurst, F
Beswick, F	Crossman, R. H. S.	Farthing, W. J.
Bing, G. H. C.	Daggar, G.	Fernyhough, E.
Binns, J	Daines, P.	Field, Capt. W. J.
Blackburn, A. R.	Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.	Fletcher, E. G. M. (Islington, E)
Blenkinsop, A.	Davies, Edward (Burslem)	Fool M M
Bottomley, A. G.	Davies, Harold (Leek)	Forman, J. C.
Bowles, F. G. (Nuneaton)	Davies, Haydn (St. Pancras, S. W.)	Ganley, Mrs. C. S.
Braddock, Mrs. E. M. (L'pl, Exch'ge)	de Freitas, Geoffrey	George, Lady M Lloyd (Anglesey)
Braddock, T. (Mitcham)	Delargy, H. J.	Gibson, C. W.
Bramall, E. A.	Diamond, J.	Gilzean, A
Brook, D. (Halifax)	Dodds, N. N.	Gordon-Walker, P. C.
Brown, George (Belper)	Driberg, T. E. N.	Greenwood, A. W. J. (Heywood)
Brown, T J (Ince)	Dugdale, J. (W, Bromwich)	Griffiths, D (Rother Valley)

That The Committee divided: Ayes, 204; Noes, 59.

Gunter, R. J.	Millington, Wing-Comdr. E. R	Sorensen, R. W.
Guy, W. H.	Mitchison, G. R.	Soskice, Sir Frank
Haire, John E. (Wycombe)	Monslow, W.	Sparks, J A
Hale, Leslie	Moody, A. S.	Steele, T.
Hamilton, Lieut.-Col. R	Morley, R.	Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)
Hannan, W. (Maryhill)	Morgan, Dr. H. B.	Sylvester, G. O.
Hardman, D. R.	Morris, P. (Swansea, W.)	Symonds, A. L.
Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick)	Moyle, A.	Taylor, H. B. (Mansfield)
Herbison, Miss M.	Mulvey, A	Taylor, R J. (Morpeth)
Hewitson, Capt. M.	Nally, W.	Thomas, D. E. (Aberdare)
Holman, P	Neal, H. (Claycross)	Thomas, I. O. (Wrekin)
House, G.	Nichol, Mrs. M. E. (Bradford, N.)	Thomas, George (Cardiff)
Hoy, J.	Nicholls, H. R. (Stratford)	Thurtle, Ernest
Hudson, J. H. (Ealing, W.)	Noel-Baker, Capt. F. E. (Brentford)	Tiffany, S.
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)	Orbach, M	Tolley, L.
Hughes, H. D. (W'lverh'pton, W.)	Palmer, A. M. F.	Ungoed-Thomas, L.
Hynd, H. (Hackney, C.)	Pargiter, G. A.	Vernon, Maj. W. F.
Irving, W. J. (Tottenham, N.)	Parkin, B. T.	Wadsworth, G.
Janner, B.	Paton, Mrs. F. (Rushcliffe)	Warbey, W. N.
Jeger, G. (Winchester)	Paton, J. (Norwich)	Watkins, T. E.
Johnston, D. H.	Pearson, A.	Weitzman, D.
Jones, D. T. (Hartlepool)	Peart, T F	Wells, P. L. (Faversham)
Jones, Elwyn (Plaistow)	Perrins, W.	Wells, W. T. (Walsall)
Jones, P. Asterley (Hitchin)	Piratin, P.	West, D. G.
Keenan, W.	Platts-Mills, J. F. F.	Wheatley, John (Edinburgh, E.)
Kendall, W. D.	Poole, Cecil (Lichfield)	Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W
Kenyon, C.	Porter, G. (Leeds)	Wilkes, L.
Lee, Miss J. (Cannock)	Pritt, D. N.	Wilkins, W. A.
Levy, B. W.	Randall, H. E.	Willey, F. T. (Sunderland)
Lewis, A. W. J. (Upton)	Ranger, J.	Willey, O. G. (Cleveland)
Lewis, J. (Bolton)	Rankin, J.	Williams, D. J. (Neath)
Lindgren, G. S.	Reeves, J.	Williams, J. L. (Kelvingrove)
Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.	Reid, T. (Swindon)	Williams, R. W. (Wigan)
Longden, F.	Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)	Williams, W. R. (Heston)
Lyne, A. W.	Ross, William (Kilmarnock)	Willis, E.
McGhee, H. G.	Royle, C.	Wills, Mrs. E. A.
Mack, J. D.	Segal, Dr. S.	Wilmot, Rt. Hon. J.
Maclean, N. (Govan)	Shackleton, E. A. A.	Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.
McLeavy, F.	Sharp, Granville	Wyatt, W.
Manning, Mrs. L. (Epping)	Shawcross, C. N. (Widnes)	Yates, V. F.
Mathers, Rt. Hon. George	Shawcross, Rt. Hn. Sir H. (St. Helens)	Younger, Hon. Kenneth
Mayhem, C. P.	Silverman, J. (Erdington)	Zilliacus, k
Mellish, R. J.	Simmons, C. J.
Middleton, Mrs. L.	Smith, C. (Colchester)	TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
Mikardo, Ian	Solley, L. J.	Mr. snow and Mr. Wallace.

NOES.
Agnew, Cmdr. P. G.	Galbraith, Cmdr. T D.	Mullan, Lt. C. H.
Amory, D. Heathcoat	Gomme-Duncan, Col. A.	Noble, Comdr. A. H. P.
Astor, Hon. M.	Grimston, R. V.	Odey, G. W.
Beamish, Maj. T. V. H.	Harris, F. W. (Croydon, N.)	Peake, Rt. Hon. O.
Boles, Lt.-Col. D. C. (Wells)	Hogg, Hon. Q.	Peto, Brig. C. H. M
Bossom, A. C.	Hutchison, Col. J. R. (Glasgow, C.)	Pickthorn, K.
Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W	Keeling, E. H.	Prescott, Stanley
Butcher, H. W.	Lancaster, Col. C. G	Reid, Rt. Hon. J. S. C. (Hillhead)
Channon, H.	Linstead, H. N.	Roberts, P. G. (Ecclesall)
Clifton-Browne, Lt.-Col. G.	Lloyd, Selwyn (Wirral)	Robinson, Roland
Corbett, Lieut.-Col. U. (Ludlow)	Lucas-Tooth, Sir H.	Spence, H. R.
Cuthbert, W. N.	McKie, J. H. (Galloway)	Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.
Davidson, Viscountess	Maclean, F. H. R.	Strauss, H. G. (English Universities)
Drayson, G. B.	Macpherson, N. (Dumfries)	Studholme, H. G.
Drews, C.	Maitland, Comdr. J. W.	Thomas, J. P. L. (Hereford)
Duthie, W. S	Manningham-Buller, R. E	Touche, G. C.
Foster, J. G. (Northwich)	Marlowe, A. A. H.	Wheatley, Colonel M. J. (Dorset, E.)
Fox, Sir G.	Maude, J. C.	Willoughby de Eresby, Lord
Fraser, Sir I. (Lonsdale)	Medlicott, Brigadier F.
Gage, C.	Mellor, Sir J.	TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
		Major Conant and Major Ramsay

Mr. Younger

I beg to move, in page 10, line 41, after "entitled," to insert: in pursuance of an application made. This is merely a drafting Amendment to make it clear that "entitled" means only those who have made actual application to exercise that entitlement.

Mr. J. S. C. Reid

The Under-Secretary is quite right when he says that this is a drafting Amendment. Unfortunately the drafting appears to me not to be good. Let us examine it for a moment. The Subsection as it stands reads: A person registered as a Service voter may vote by proxy unless either he is entitled under Subsection (4) of this Section to vote by post or … and there is another alternative. Although strictly speaking what the Under-Secretary said may be right, I do not think that anyone could possibly mistake the meaning of the Clause as it now stands. I do not see that the Clause needs amending at all. The Amendment makes it very much worse. Let us look at the Amendment. This is what it says: is entitled in pursuance of an application made under nothing is said about the application being granted. That does seem to be odd drafting, even at this time of the night. If the Under-Secretary had said: entitled in pursuance of an application granted under Subsection (4) that would have been meticulous and unnecessary, but it would have been accurate and would have done no harm. Even at this time of night we cannot allow this slipshod drafting to pass. It suggests, if it does not direct, that when an application is made that is all there is to it, and nobody need bother whether for this purpose it is granted or not. I suggest that although it may be clear enough what is meant by the Amendment, the meaning was clear enough before the Amendment was proposed, and that the Committee would be ill-advised to substitute for a fairly good piece of drafting a piece which is considerably worse.

The Home Secretary should do what he said on the last Amendment he was going to do, and that is to reconsider this Amendment. If he had withdrawn his Amendment, if only to put it in better form, he could have saved nearly an hour of the Committee's time. He admitted that there was room for redrafting in that Amendment, but for some reason it was not consistent with his dignity to withdraw the Amendment. Therefore, we had to spend an hour trying to convince him what the trouble was. If the right hon. Gentleman withdrawn this Amendment, no one will complain. Otherwise, as the discussion proceeds, even more difficulties may be found in the wording. At least, the difficulty, I have expressed is a real one, and I suggest that we should not put into an Act of Parliament of this importance any drafting which is not plain and has more than one meaning.

3.30 a.m.

Mr. Pritt

Surely, the right hon. and learned Gentleman is wholly and absolutely wrong. Subsection (4) provides exactly what the right hon. and learned Gentleman means. One makes an appli- cation and thereby gets entitlement. This Amendment is just a little ridiculous. If we are to have an Amendment, the Amendment moved by the Government is the only possible one, because all that the Subsection does is to make an application.

Mr. Reid

Surely, the hon. and learned Member does not suggest that merely to make an application, no matter how irrelevant, entitles one to get on the absent-voter roll, That cannot be so. Indeed, Clause 9 (1) deals with what happens after the application is made. One must comp13, with the terms of Clause 9 (1), and must get the application granted under that Subsection before becoming an absent voter. Therefore merely to refer to the making of an application under Clause 8 (4) gets us nowhere at all.

Mr. Pritt

What the right hon. and learned Gentleman says demonstrates how well it will work as amended, and how wrong he is. If the right hon. and learned Gentleman will take the trouble to read Clause 8 (4) he will find that, if we cannot do what is necessary under Clause 9 (2), the only method is by an application made under that Subsection (4).

Mr. H. Strauss

The hon. and learned Member is not right. If he will look at the proviso to Subsection (4) he will see that the application may fail. Therefore I support what was said by my right hon. and learned Friend on the Front Bench. I would go further in one respect. Apart from the difficulty he has pointed out, I think the words "in pursuance of" are wrong. The entitlement is not in pursuance of Subsection (4). What the Government wish to do, I think, is to say that the voter shall not come under Subsection (2) unless he satisfies what is laid down in Subsection (4). To say that he is "entitled in pursuance of Subsection (4)" is wholly inaccurate.

Mr. P. Roberts

When I refer to Subsection (4), I find that two things must happen.

Mr. Rankin

The hon. Member is seeing double all right.

Mr. Roberts

It says that the application must be made, and secondly, that an address must be furnished. This refers to "in pursuance of an application made" but does not mention anything about the furnishing of an address. It seems to me that some difficulty may arise if merely an application is made and the address is not furnished. If this Amendment is to be put in, we should have reference not only to an application but also to the furnishing of an address.

Mr. Hogg

The question whether the Government are prepared to reconsider this Amendment is really the acid test of their sincerity. Subsection (2, a) seems to be quite free from any criticism which has been levelled at the Amendment. What is wrong with that Subsection? So far as I can see there is nothing wrong

Division No. 113.]	AYES.	[3.38 a.m.
Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V	Evans, S. N. (Wednesbury)	Mack, J. D.
Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)	Fairhurst, F.	Maclean, N. (Govan)
Alpass, J. H	Farthing, W. J	McLeavy, F.
Attewell, H. C.	Fernyhough, E	Manning, Mrs. L. (Epping)
Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.	Field, Capt. W. J.	Marshall, S. H. (Sutton)
Austin, H. Lewis	Fletcher, E. G M (Islington, E.)	Mathers Rt Hon George
Ayrton Gould, Mrs. B.	Foot, M. M.	Mellish, R. J.
Bacon, Miss A.	Forman, J C.	Middleton, Mrs. L
Barton, C.	Ganley, Mrs. C. S.	Mikardo, Ian
Bechervaise, A. E	George, Lady M Lloyd (Anglesey)	Millington, Wing-Comdr. E. R
Berry, H.	Gibson, C. W.	Mitchison, G. R.
Beswick, F.	Gilzean, A.	Monslow, W
Bing, G. H. C.	Goodrich, H. E.	Moody, A. S
Binns, J.	Gordon-Walker, P. C.	Morley, R
Blackburn, A. R.	Granville, E. (Eye)	Morgan, Dr. H. B.
Blenkinsop, A.	Greenwood, A. W. J. (Heywood)	Morris, P. (Swansea, W.)
Boardman, H.	Griffiths, D. (Rother Valley)	Moyle, A.
Bowles, F. G. (Nuneaton)	Gunter, R. J.	Nally, W.
Braddock, Mrs. E M. (L'pl, Exch'ge)	Guy, W. H.	Neal, H. (Claycross)
Braddock, T (Mitcham)	Haire, John E. (Wycombe)	Nichol, Mrs. M E. (Bradford, N.)
Bramall, E A	Hale, Leslie	Nicholls, H. R. (Stratford)
Brook D (Halifax)	Hamilton, Lieut.-Col R	Noel-Baker, Capt. F. E. (Brentford)
Brown, George (Belper)	Hannan, W (Maryhill)	Orbach, M.
Brown, T. J. (Ince)	Hardman, D R	Palmer, A M F
Bruce, Maj. D. W. T.	Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick)	Pargiter, G. A.
Butler, H. W (Hackney, S.)	Herbison, Miss M	Parkin, B. T
Byers, Frank	Hewitson, Capt. M	Paton, Mrs. F (Rushcliffe)
Castle, Mrs. B. A	Holman, P	Paton, J. (Norwich)
Champion, A J	House, G.	Peart, T F
Chetwynd, G. R.	Hoy, J	Perrins, W
Cobb, F A	Hudson, J. H (Ealing, W.)	Piratin, P
Collindridge, F.	Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayr)	Platts-Mills, J. F. F
Collins, V. J.	Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)	Poole, Cecil (Lichfield)
Corbet, Mrs. F. K. (Camb'well, N. W.)	Hughes, H. D. (W'lverh'pton, W.)	Porter, G. (Leeds)
Crawley, A	Hynd, H. (Hackney, C.)	Pritt, D. N.
Crossman, R. H. S.	Irving, W. J. (Tottenham, N.)	Randall, H. E
Daggar, G	Janner, B.	Ranger, J.
Daines, P	Jeger, G. (Winchester)	Rankin, J.
Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.	Johnston, D H	Reeves, J.
Davies, Edward (Burslem)	Jones, D. T. (Hartlepool)	Reid, T. (Swindon)
Davies, Haydn (St. Pancras, S. W.)	Jones, Elwyn (Plaistow)	Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)
de Freitas, Geoffrey	Jones, P. Asterley (Hitchin)	Ross, William (Kilmarnock)
Delargy, H. J.	Keenan, W	Royle, C
Dodds, N. N	Kendall, W D	Segal, Dr. S
Driberg, T E. N	Kenyon, C.	Shackleton, E. A. A.
Dumpleton, C. W.	Lee, Miss J. (Cannock)	Sharp, Granville
Durbin, E. F. M.	Levy, B. W.	Shawcross, Rt. Hn Sir H. (St. Helens)
Dye, S.	Lewis, A. W. J. (Upton)	Silverman, J. (Erdington)
Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.	Lewis, J. (Bolton)	Simmons, C. J.
Edelman, M.	Lindgren, G. S.	Smith, C. (Colchester)
Edwards, N. (Caerphilly)	Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.	Snow, J. W.
Edwards, W. J. (Whitechapel)	Longden, F.	Solley, L. J.
Evans, Albert (Islington, W.)	McGhee, H. G.	Sorensen, R. W.
Evans, John (Ogmore)	Lyne, A. W.	Soskice, Sir Frank

with it. The Under-Secretary has suggested nothing wrong with it, and I have heard no one on any side of the Committee suggest that there is anything wrong with it. Not content with that, the Under-Secretary now seeks to insert words to which there is an objection which seems to be of a really cogent kind. I cannot for the life of me see, if the Under-Secretary is sincere in this matter—which I am sure he is—why he does not immediately withdraw this Amendment which is open to objection and revert to the earlier matter which is free from any objection.

Question put, "That those words be there inserted."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 198; Noes, 58.

Sparks, J. A.	Vernon, Maj. W. F.	Willey, O. G. (Cleveland)
Steele, T.	Wadsworth, G.	Williams, D. J. (Neath)
Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)	Wallace, G. D. (Chisleburst)	Williams, J. L. (Kelvingrove)
Sylvester, G. O	Warbey, W N.	Williams, R. W. (Wigan)
Symonds, A. L.	Watkins, T. E.	Williams, W. R. (Heston)
Taylor, H. B. (Mansfield)	Weitzman, D.	Wills, Mrs. E. A.
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)	Wells, P. L (Faversham)	Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.
Thomas, D. E. (Aberdare)	Wells, W. T. (Walsall)	Wyatt, W.
Thomas, I. O. (Wrekin)	West, D G	Yates, V. F.
Thomas, George (Cardiff)	Wheatley, John (Edinburgh, E.)	Younger, Hon. Kenneth
Thurtle, Ernest	Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W	Zilliacus, K
Tiffany, S.	Wilkes, L.	TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
Tolley, L.	Wilkins, W. A.	Mr. Pearson and
Ungoed-Thomas, L	Willey, F. T. (Sunderland)	Mr. Richard Adams.

NOES
Amory, D. Heathcoat	Galbraith, Cmdr. T D	Mullan, Lt. C. H
Astor, Hon. M.	Gomme-Duncan, Col. A	Noble, Comdr. A. H. P
Beamish, Maj. T. V. H.	Grimston, R. V.	Odey, G. W.
Boles, Lt.-Col D. C. (Wells)	Harris, F W (Croydon, N.)	Peake, Rt. Hon. O.
Bossom, A C.	Hogg, Hon. Q.	Peto, Brig. C. H. M
Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W	Hutchison, Col. J. R. (Glasgow, C.)	Pickthorn, K.
Butcher, H W	Keeling, E H.	Prescott, Stanley
Challen, C.	Lancaster, Col. C. G.	Ramsay, Maj. S.
Channon, H	Linstead, H. N.	Reid, Rt. Hon. J. S. C. (Hillhead)
Clifton-Browne, Lt.-Col. G.	Lloyd, Selwyn (Wirral)	Roberts, P. G. (Ecclesall)
Corbett, Lieut.-Col. U. (Ludlow)	Lucas-Tooth, Sir H.	Robinson, Roland
Cuthbert, W. N.	McKie, J. H. (Galloway)	Spence, H. R.
Davidson, Viscountess	Maclean, F H. R.	Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.
Drayson, G B	Macpherson, N. (Dumfries)	Strauss, H. G. (English Universities)
Drewe, C.	Maitland, Comdr. J. W	Studholme, H. G.
Duthie, W. S.	Manningham-Buller, R. E.	Touche, G. C.
Foster, J. G. (Northwich)	Marlowe, A. A H.	Wheatley, Colonel M J. (Dorset, E.)
Fox, Sir G.	Maude, J. C	Willoughby de Eresby, Lord
Fraser, Sir. I. (Lonsdale)	Medlicott, Brigadier F	TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
Gage, C	Mellor, Sir. J	Commander Agnew and
		Major Conant.

Mr. Piratin

I beg to move, in page 11, line 7, at the end, to insert: or (c) of blindness or any other physical incapacity.

The Temporary Chairman (Mr. Diamond)

I suggest that it would be for the convenience of the Committee if we considered at the same time the next Amendment, in line 9, after "and," to insert: if within paragraphs (a) or (b) of this subsection

Mr. Piratin

The second Amendment is consequential upon the first. The purpose is to include in Subsection (3) the blind and disabled as persons entitled to vote by proxy. It is true that under Subsection (4) they are permitted to vote by post. I suggest that it would be most helpful if they were allowed to vote by proxy. In the case of the blind, they can neither write out nor send off the letter themselves. They need some other person to do that for them, and the question of corruption might easily arise. If the Minister would be good enough to accept the principle of this Amendment, no doubt he could introduce more appropriate terminology. In the case of a limbless person, once again he could not send off the letter. Someone would have to do that for him. I suggest that voting by proxy in cases of this nature is far better that voting by post.

Mr. Ede

A blind person already has the option of voting by post or of going to the polling station where he can vote in person with the assistance of the presiding officer or of a companion or some other person of his choice. I had the misfortune to have a mother who was blind for the last eight years of her life. She was particularly keen on going to the poll to record her vote at Parliamentary and municipal elections. I accompanied her and I acted in the position of a person named in the last of the alternatives I have mentioned. Hitherto, proxy voting by civilians has been allowed only in the case of persons likely to be at sea or out of the United Kingdom on the day of the poll. I should have thought that it was desirable to restrict proxy voting as much as possible, and that it would be sufficient that people now will have the alternative either of going to the poll, and having special facilities made for them to enable them to vote, or of voting by post. A person who is going to vote for them by proxy, may just as well post the vote for them as attend at the polling station. I suggest to the hon. Gentleman that it is not desirable to extend facilities for proxy voting beyond those absolutely necessary to ensure that votes shall be recorded.

Mr. P. Roberts

I have listened to the hon. Gentleman for Mile End (Mr. Piratin) and the Home Secretary and I would like a further explanation from the mover of the Amendment as to its intention. It seems to me the point he was making is this. In the case of a blind person, he might write out a letter which he could not see and then some person to whom he handed it, might alter the mark, or alternatively tear the letter up or not post it, and so the intention of the blind person would not be recorded. I thought that was his main object. He says rather than do that, lest there be a chance of, I think the word he used was, corruption, there should be a proxy who could vote for him in the booth. Suppose I am given the proxy to vote. If I tore up the letter, I could also vote in the opposite way to what the blind person wanted. I do not see how the mover thinks that by substituting a proxy for a letter, he is going to get over that suggestion of corruption.

My second point is this. I appreciate that where someone is ill or cannot write a letter it might be possible for that person to give proxy by word of mouth so the vote could be recorded. I would be more sympathetic to that suggestion if the mover could define the words "any other physical incapacity." That is much too wide. It might be physical incapacity to make writing impossible. Then I could follow his argument, but by making it so wide he does make it very difficult for one to support his Amendment. I should like if possible to have a further explanation on the point of corruption. I would like to know whether the mover would be prepared to make an Amendment on the Report stage to define the words "any other physical incapacity."

Mr. J. Foster

I do not quite understand why the mover of the Amendment pays attention to whether people have had physical disabilities. I understand that one of the conditions before a man can vote by proxy is that he is likely to be at sea or out of the United Kingdom. The Clause says that a person, in order to be entitled to vote by proxy has to be likely to be at sea or out of the United Kingdom, and then fulfil other conditions. I do not quite see why a person who is disabled from going to the poll, should require a proxy.

Mr. Piratin

I spoke briefly partly because we have had a large number of lengthy speeches and partly because I did not think it necessary to explain the matter at greater length. If the hon. Gentleman will look at Clause 8 subparagraph (1) (c) he will see that the paragraph deals with the blind or those suffering from any other physical incapacity. Also on page 11, subsection (4), that such persons may vote by post. I am asking in my Amendment not that all the categories from (a) to (e) but those in the particular category (c) should have the opportunity to vote by proxy. That is the purpose of my Amendment. Is that quite clear?

Mr. Foster

I am rather inclined to agree with the hon. Member's statement, but I do not understand his Amendment. In Subsection (4) the persons mentioned are those in categories (a) to (e). I thought he was seeking to make an Amendment in Subsection (3). Persons blind, or physically incapacitated are allowed to vote by post, and he is suggesting that they should vote by proxy. But as the restriction on people in Subsection (3) is limited to those at sea or out of the United Kingdom, it is difficult to follow why he wants somebody who is likely to be at sea, or out of the United Kingdom——

Mr. Piratin

If I may interrupt the hon. Gentleman, I would remind him that the Chairman pointed out that both of the Amendments should be taken together. Will he look at the second Amendment?

Mr. Foster

The second Amendment is to insert: if within paragraphs (a) or (b) of this subsection. That is after "and" so the voter applies to be treated as an absent voter who is likely to be at sea or out of the United Kingdom. I am sorry, but it still applies. I sympathise with the hon. Member's Amendment and I am really trying to be helpful, but it does read like that. What he wants, r think, is that a blind person, or a person physically incapacitated, should be allowed to vote by proxy if he cannot get to the polling station, but the second seems to be limited in its scope. I do not know if he agrees with me now. With regard to blind persons, there is a danger that if they vote by post, their vote may be falsified, or something put on their paper which the blind person cannot see. If the person who is blind is likely to be at sea, or out of the United Kingdom, it is reasonable he should vote by proxy or by post. But why should the person who is physically incapacitated vote by post? The reason he can vote by post is that the danger attaching to the blind person's vote, does not attach to him. The hon. Member should have put "or is likely to be at sea."

Mr. P. Roberts

That is where we all seem to have been.

4.0 a.m.

Mr. Piratin

In view of the Minister's statement earlier that this matter will be looked into, I beg to ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

The Temporary Chairman (Mr. Diamond)

Before I call the Amendment to page 11, line 24, in the name of the right hon. Member for Leeds, North (Mr. Peake), and his hon. Friends, I suggest it might be convenient for the Committee to discuss with it, the Amendment to page 11 line 37, also in the name of the right hon. Gentleman, and the one in the name of the hon. Lady the Member for North-West Camberwell (Mrs. Corbet).

Mr. Grimston

I am not sure whether it is appropriate to discuss the last one.

The Temporary Chairman

I suggested this procedure for the convenience of the Committee. If it is not desired to discuss the three together, the first two can be taken together.

Mr. Grimston

It would be convenient to discuss the two together, but not the third.

The Temporary Chairman

Then I suggest the two be discussed together.

Mr. Grimston

I beg to move, in page 11, line 24, leave out "area," and insert "polling district."

It will be seen that one of the provisions which this Clause makes is that under Subsection (1, e), those no longer residing at their qualifying address can apply to vote by post. Under Subsection (4) certain provisions under which this can be done are set out, and Subsection (4, b) says: a person shall not be entitled to vote by post on the ground that he no longer resides at his qualifying address if at the time of his application he resides at an address in the same area The object of this Amendment is to take out the word "area" and substitute "polling district" to ensure that voters shall not have to go an undue distance from their homes to exercise their votes. That is a very proper provision if only for the reason—and here I think I should be expressing a view held on all sides of the Committee—that we want to do everything we can to encourage people to exercise their votes. One often hears that said by people at elections, when they exhort people to exercise their right, irrespective of party. One of the things which would deter people would be if they had to go an extremely inconvenient distance to the polling stations.

This area is itself set out at present in Subsection (4) and defined in Subsection (7), and we are here particularly concerned with paragraph (a) which lays it down that two addresses shall be deemed to be in the same area if they are both in the area of the same borough. That is where the second Amendment in my name, in conjunction with this one, arises. It may be said that if you make a compressed area into a polling district, people may move a very short distance from one house to another and may then be entitled to exercise their right to vote by post and that there will be a great many frivolous applications. I think we can rule that out because it may, indeed, be much more trouble to make a frivolous application to vote by post than actually to go to the poll area on the day, but if the present definition is left in, people in some areas may, in certain instances, move from one house to another, up to as far as 15 miles and still be in the same borough. That is the case in Birmingham.

I think it would certainly be held that if anybody has to go 15 miles in order to exercise his vote, he should be allowed to make application to vote by post. As the Clause now stands, people in the borough, for example, of Birmingham may move as much as 15 miles from one house to another and would be precluded from making any application to vote by post. It seems to me that that nullifies what we want to do; which is to make it reasonably easy for people to exercise their vote in person, and not to have to go too far from their homes. Having pointed that out, and made it clear, as we think, that there is very little risk of abuse of the privilege of voting by post, we suggest it would, in all the circumstances, be very much better to substitute the words "polling district" for the word "area." In a case of that sort, if we put in the word "polling district" it would cover the cases of the very large boroughs where people may move quite a distance and, as the Clause is drafted, they would be unable to make any application to vote by post. I shall be interested to hear what the Home Secretary has to say upon this point but for the reasons I have given, I think it would be entirely reasonable to accept this Amendment.

Mr. Ede

When the Elections and Jurors Bill was before the House in 1945, a similar Amendment was moved by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for North Leeds (Mr. Peake) and was supported by the hon. and learned Member for Daventry (Mr. Manningham-Buller). At that time, this whole subject was under the consideration of the committee which was presided over by my hon. Friend the Member for Ilkeston (Mr. Oliver). That committee has since reported. The hon. Member for Twickenham (Mr. Keeling) whose name is attached to this Amendment, was a member of that committee. They considered the points and made no recommendation for a change in the law.

If we take this word "polling district," there are some very small polling districts in the country. In some of the industrial boroughs there are polling districts of about 100 acres. I have one in my own constituency which is about 120 acres. I think it would be going a great deal too far to enable persons who move out of that polling district into an adjoining polling district to be able, for that reason, to claim to exercise a postal vote. The same applies to the effort to remove the word "borough," which I understand is in some ways an alternative proposal to the first. There again, boroughs vary considerably in size. We have had no indication that any hardship has been caused by the existing law. We have had no complaints at all about the way it works, and I would suggest that the best way for a person to vote is by attendance at the polling booth wherever that is possible, so that his vote can be recorded in the ordinary way.

If a very wide extension of the postal voting facilities took place, this would undoubtedly add very considerably to the heavy work that the returning officers and their staffs have to perform at the time of an election. We are adding considerably to their work by the requirement that in future there shall be issued an official poll card which will take up a good deal of the time of the clerical staff that will be available for returning officers. Seriously to add to the number of persons voting by post, whose papers will have to be prepared and sent to them at about the same time as the polling cards are being prepared and the ordinary work of the election is going on, would place an undoubted strain on the staffs that are likely to be available to carry out this work.

The proposals we are making in this regard are a genuine effort to meet the cases of people who would be disfranchised if the postal voting facilities were not available. I suggest that the areas which are prescribed in this Bill, and which carry on from the Elections and Jurors Act, about which we have had no complaint, in the light of experience appear to be appropriate.

Mr. Manningham-Buller

I confess I am not satisfied with the right hon. Gentleman's reply. I was not satisfied on the last occasion when we raised this issue on the Elections and Jurors Bill. I do not think the right hon. Gentleman has applied his mind to the effect of the rejection of this Amendment. I hope the Committee will follow this, because this is a point of substance. Subsection (1, c) refers to persons unable or likely to be unable, by reason either of blindness or any other physical incapacity, to go in person to the polling station or, if able to go, to vote unaided. I ask the Committee to bear in mind those categories and to see what are the extra facilities those people are given for voting.

They can vote by post if they are still living at their qualifying address, but they must not vote by post if they have moved from their qualifying address and are still resident in an area as defined by Subsection (7). I think the right hon. Gentleman will agree that that means that a person who is unable through physical infirmity to go to the polling station cannot take advantage of the facility of voting by post, although his or her home may now be 15 miles from the qualifying address. It is all very well for the right hon. Gentleman to talk about small parishes and small boroughs. There are big boroughs, too.

I think it is clear from this Measure—at least, I hope it is clear to me, in view of the hour in the morning at which we are discussing this matter—that although the Home Secretary talks about the great extension of facilities for exercising the rights of voting, it applies only in the few cases where there has not been a change of residence within the same area as defined by Subsection (7). Ought not this Committee to go further than that, and make it easier for people, who come within categories (a) to (e), and who suffer from physical incapacity which prevents them from going in person to the polling station, to exercise the right to vote. The right hon. Gentleman has not met that case at all. He has talked a great deal about the additional burden cast upon the returning officers if they had this duty to fulfil. Are the numbers likely to be so very large? I should not have thought that the number of people who had moved from their qualifying addresses and were still within the same borough, and who came within Subsection (1) was likely to be very large. Whether they be large or small, is it not right to provide these facilities for those suffering from physical incapacity? Is any harm done by making the polling districts inside an area as described by Subsection (7)?

4.15 a.m.

In connection with this matter I am glad that we have with us once again the junior Member for Fermanagh and Tyrone (Mr. Mulvey). We have had some interesting observations from him about polling districts, and I should like to draw his attention to last two lines on page 11. He has told us about difficulties of getting to polling stations in his part of the world, but these people to whom I have been referring, will not be able to vote by post if their present residence is still within the same rural district in Northern Ireland as the one they occupied when the register was compiled. I should be interested to know how he says that will operate. It seems to me if the rural districts in Northern Ireland are extensive in character, it may indeed seriously penalise the people to whom he refers.

Before we pass from this, I should like to say a word on the electoral divisions in Scotland. Perhaps I am not qualified to express any opinion about this, but one knows it is not easy to travel about on sea and land with the present facilities of our nationalised transport system. There may be cases in which someone has moved 6o miles from his former qualifying residence, but to get to the polling booth he would have to cross the sea and climb hills, using any transport that could be procured. If such persons are physically incapable nothing in paragraph (c) is going to help them to get to the polling booths. The Home Secretary adheres to this Clause. Unless the right hon. Gentleman is prepared to show some indication that he will meet us on this point, which is one of considerable substance, I fear we can only do what we did before on the Elections and jurors Bill—though I am not sure whether we divided then.

Mr. Ede

No, the Opposition withdrew the Amendment.

Mr. Manningham-Buller

We withdrew the Amendment no doubt in the hope that the right hon. Gentleman would have due regard for the views we expressed. As I said just now, at that time one was considered by the Committee over which the Parliamentary Secretary presided. I am sorry that the right hon. Gentleman, who did not hesitate to set on one side the decision of an impartial and independent body, should have shown himself reluctant to throw to one side the report of the Committee presided over by his Parliamentary Secretary when it was incorrect, in my view, in this particular.

Mr. McKie

I hope we shall have further light on this subject. The further we go in our investigation, the greater the latent dangers are shown to be and the greater the inequalities between the various parts of the country. In paragraph (c) of Subsection (7) there is laid down a definition of the area regarding change of address: Within the area of the same parish in England or Wales, or of the same electoral division in Scotland, or of the same rural district in Northern Ireland. In other words, the people living in the electoral divisions of Scotland and in the rural districts of Northern Ireland are to be penalised as compared with their more fortunate brethren who live in the parishes of England and Wales. The right hon. Gentleman will agree with me that the parishes of England and Wales are the smallest possible units—certainly in England; parishes are large in Wales. Hon. Members may have something more to say about that. The parish is the smallest unit so far as electoral purposes are concerned. That is the unit laid down, in their wisdom or unwisdom, by the Government's advisers as the proper definition for an address for postal voting. Surely anyone can see, when we come to discuss the entities prescribed for in Scotland and Northern Ireland, how vastly difficult the situation becomes and the greater inequalities which at once reveal themselves. The hon. and learned Member for Daventry (Mr. Manningham-Buller) spoke about the great number of hardships which would rest on the citizens of Northern Ireland in this respect because the unit laid down is the rural district.

My hon. and learned Friend expressed the hope we might hear something about that from the hon. Gentleman the Member for Fermanagh and Tyrone (Mr. Mulvey) who has lashed himself into a white heat of fury on two occasions this evening. I should have thought the hon. Gentleman was going to speak about the size of the rural districts in Northern Ireland as being the "prohibited areas," if I may put it that way, regarding change of address. I have very strong sympathy with the people of Northern Ireland in many respects, especially in so far as the proper exercise of the franchise is concerned, because I know how dearly they have always valued the franchise. But while I admire the great heart of the people of that loyal part of the British Empire, I am more concerned with the dangers that confront my own fellow-countrymen in Scotland.

I do not know how the word "electoral" will be interpreted. Perhaps the Lord Advocate will say it only relates to the voters' roll. But hon. Friends and I share some apprehension on that. If I am right in thinking that my hon. Friend is right, surely it will be at once apparent to many people that the form of words suggested here is not acceptable. Many people may be prevented, owing to a change of address, from exercising their votes in a Parliamentary election. There is the case of my own division. It happens to be the second largest in Britain and I think I have some right to express my protest. It covers something like 1,600 to 1,700 square miles. It is very difficult in regard to geography and configuration. Many people will have to pass over mountains and hills in the way my hon. and learned Friend suggested, if no other provision is made for them to exercise their votes, if they change their residence and if the word "area" is not more closely defined. For those reasons I see some force in the hon. Gentleman's remarks as regards the parishes, and perhaps that applies in Wales. I cannot be a party to accepting the Home Secretary's assurance so far as the electorate in Scotland—the rural district areas in Northern Ireland are concerned—so I hope that the learned Law Officer will be able to reassure us and spare a crumb of comfort to the hon. Member for Fermanagh and Tyrone (Mr. Mulvey).

Mrs. Corbet (Camberwell, North-West)

I wish to refer to the Amendment standing in my name—— Mr. Manningham-Buller: On a point of Order. It was agreed that the Amendment in the name of the hon. Lady should not be taken with our two Amendments. My hon. Friend drew attention to it at the time and I understood, Mr. Diamond, that you said that you would take these two Amendments first.

The Temporary Chairman (Mr. Diamond)

I was under the impression that the hon. Lady desired to speak on the two Amendments before the Committee. I am sorry that I did not make it sufficiently clear to the hon. Lady that the Amendment in her name has not yet been called.

Mr. Keeling (Twickenham)

The Home Secretary has pointed out that although the Committee on Electoral Registration, of which I was a member, made no recommendation on this point, I put my name to this Amendment. There is a simple explanation. The Electoral Registration Committee reported about 15 months ago, and since then I have had forceful and persuasive representations from my constituency. It has been pointed out with regard to Birmingham that if a person moves from one side of the city to another he might have to go 15 miles in order to vote. It is perfectly true that Twickenham though incomparably more beautiful than Birmingham, is not so large. But it is large. It has a 12-mile frontage to the Thames, and as the Minister of Defence, who used to know that area very well, is aware, communications between one part of the borough and another are bad, though they might be better were it not for the monopoly of the London Transport. It is quite wrong, I think, that in a place like that, or like Birmingham, when a man who moves from one part of the borough to another part, which is inaccessible by ordinary means of transport, there should be no provision for him to vote by post.

I suggest for consideration a compromise. I quite see that where you have one polling station within, perhaps, two or three hundred yards of another, it is a little unreasonable to say that a man who moves from one district into another should not find his own way to the polling station in his old district. I suggest that, instead of the words "polling district," we should substitute the word "ward." That is to say, if anyone moves from one ward to another, either of a borough or an urban district, he would have the right to apply to vote by post. Some of these wards are extremely large. This, I suggest, would be a reasonable thing to consider. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will give it consideration before we reach the next stage of the Bill.

4.30 a.m.

Mr. Spence

May I say a few words on the Scottish aspect of this Amendment. I hope that when the Home Secretary replies, he will explain on what grounds the definition of "area" is laid down in Subsection (7, c) as being a parish in England, or an electoral division in Scotland. There seems to be no comparison between these areas. My hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Mr. Keeling) referred to the large area which he happens to represent in this House, and I can substantiate all that he has said. I can also give instances where a move of 60. miles can be made, without leaving a constituency. Under the new Boundary Commission recommendations, the areas are to be enlarged in my part of the world. The distance one will be able to move while remaining in the same constituency, is going to be even greater. Anyone who lives in the area which I may possibly represent in the future will be able to move a distance of something like 85 miles from one extreme point to the other. I do suggest that in view of the difficulties of communication something should be done. After all, this Bill is supposed to give the people adequate representation, and this is an Amendment to make it operative in the fairest and fullest sense. I suggest that, particularly where the area which is defined in Scotland, is to be a whole constituency, that in resisting the Amendment, the Secretary of State is not helping this Bill to secure adequate representation of the people.

Mr. P. Roberts

I support what my hon. Friends have said, and I want particularly to draw the attention of the Home Secretary to the map which appears in the Boundary Commission's Report with regard to the borough of Sheffield. The area of the city of Sheffield, from one end to other, which I have worked out by means of the scale given at the foot of the map, is more than 10 miles. The point which my hon. Friend has put is that if someone living, say, in Shard Green were to move to the other end of the city—we shall say to the village of Dawe—he would lose his right to vote by post. He may be infirm, or ill, but he would have to catch the bus to the Wicker, and then get a tram to the centre of the town. He would have to take another bus along the road, and then walk up into the village. I suggest that is most inconvenient.

Of course, it could be done the other way round. If someone was living in the Hillsborough Division of the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Defence, and wanted to go up to Woodhouse, he would have a much more difficult journey. He would have to go right into the middle of the city, through many congested areas, and then take a tram and bus for another three or four miles. I do not want to over-emphasise this point. There is the instance of somebody travelling from the Hallam Division across to the other side of Sheffield in the opposite direction. In the case of someone living near the boundary with Rotherham, if they were to move over the road a matter of two or three yards, they would have the right to vote by post because they would have gone out of one area into another. If the Home Secretary will not accept the argument about the polling division being too small, he might well consider the suggestion in regard to the wards. In that way, one might avoid a great deal of the difficulty of travelling in the already overcrowded transport of the city of Sheffield. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will reconsider the matter.

Colonel Gomme-Duncan

I wish to support my hon. and right hon. Friends in this matter. To relate an area of a parish in England with an electoral division in Scotland is purely fantastic. I do not want to go into detail except to say that distances in my constituency are tremendous. If one were to go from one end to the other, one would find that 'Sheffield was left far behind.

Mr. P. Roberts

I must point out that in no case would the City of Sheffield be left far behind my hon. and gallant Friend's Scottish constituency.

Colonel Gomme-Duncan

That is perhaps outwith the Amendment. The fact of the matter is that it is inequitable to relate a parish area in England to an electoral division in Scotland. I hope that. the Under-Secretary will reply to this discussion because, being a Scot and thereby helping the Home Secretary immensely—although his divergence from family tradition politically has landed him in Grimsby as opposed to a good Scottish seat—he may at least know the circumstances and back up what we are saying.

Commander Galbraith (Glasgow, Pollok)

I support the pleas put forward by my hon. Friends who represent constituencies in Scotland. I would remind the Committee that in the city of Glasgow we have an area very nearly as great as the city of Birmingham. Kipling wrote: Oh roads we used to tread, Fra' Maryhill to Pollokshaws—fra' Govan to Parkhead. That may have represented the size of the city of Glasgow in those days, but the Lord Advocate will know that the city has extended considerably since then. While it was a long tread from Maryhill to Pollokshaws, it is very much further now from one side of the city to the other. I would like to direct the Lord Advocates' attention to the fact, and ask whether he considers it is really reasonable to expect people to move these long distances. What surprised me is that the right hon. and learned Gentleman has not intervened, because here is a matter of great importance to Scotland. He must be aware of what the electoral division is in size, so that we might compare it with the parish in England or the rural district in Northern Ireland. It is only right and courteous for him to intervene and tell us his interpretation or give us some explanation as to why this seemingly most unjust provision has been inserted. I know he is aware of the facts and he must be able to explain them from his very great knowledge of these matters. I rise not only for the purpose of drawing the attention of the Committee to the very large areas involved in Scotland, but also to draw attention to the fact that the Lord Advocate has been asked to interpret this Clause and I hope he will be good enough to do so.

Mr. McKie

I hope the Lord Advocate will respond to the invitation which has been made. It is very clear how strong feeling is, regarding the unfair way the Clause would operate. Here we are at twenty minutes to five in the morning having made four very strong pleas to him to say something and clear away these doubts. I would like the people to know that the Lord Advocate merely remains sitting on the Treasury bench and makes no effort to clear away the reasonable doubts which exist in our minds. Although the hour is very late and although I do not suppose that these debates can be given much publicity through the Press, I hope that so far as such opportunities exist, the fullest publicity will be given to this in Scotland. I must emphasise to members for English constituencies and those in Ulster that I share their apprehensions, but in Scotland it is important that the widest publicity should be given. I hope it will be noted in Scotland that the Lord Advocate made no effort to let the people there know where they stand on this matter, when he is on the Front Bench and is responsible for piloting a Bill which is supposed to provide better representation of the people. What a farce.

Mr. Whiteley rose in his place and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."

Question put, "That the Question be now put."

Division No. 114.]	AYES.	[4.45 a.m.
Adams, Richard (Balham)	Haire, John E. (Wycombe)	Platts-Mills, J. F. F.
Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V.	Hale, Leslie	Poole, Cecil (Lichfield)
Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)	Hamilton, Lieut.-Col. R.	Porter, G. (Leeds)
Alpass, J. H.	Hardman, D. R.	Pritt, D. N.
Attewell, H. C.	Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick)	Randall, H. E.
Austin, H. Lewis	Herbison, Miss M.	Ranger, J.
Ayrton Gould, Mrs. B.	Hewitson, Capt. M.	Rankin, J.
Bacon, Miss A.	Holman, P.	Reeves, J.
Barton, C.	House, G.	Reid, T, (Swindon)
Bechervaise, A. E.	Hoy, J.	Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)
Berry, H.	Hudson, J. H. (Ealing, W.)	Ross, William (Kilmarnock)
Beswick, F.	Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)	Royle, C.
Bing, G. H C.	Hughes, H. D. (W'lverh'pton, W.)	Segal, Dr. S.
Binns, J.	Hynd, H. (Hackney, C.)	Shackleton, E. A. A.
Blackburn, A. R.	Irving, W. J. (Tottenham, N.)	Sharp, Granville
Boardman, H.	Janner, B.	Shawcross, Rt. Hn. Sir H. (St. Helens)
Bowles, F. G. (Nuneaton)	Jeger, G. (Winchester)	Silverman, J. (Erdington)
Braddock, Mrs. E. M, (L'pl, Exch'ge)	Johnston, D. H.	Simmons, C. J.
Braddock, T. (Mitcham)	Jones, D. T. (Hartlepool)	Smith, C. (Colchester)
Brook, D. (Halifax)	Jones, Elwyn (Plaistow)	Snow, J. W.
Brown, George (Belper)	Jones, P. Asterley (Hitchin)	Solley, L. J.
Brown, T. J. (Ince)	Keenan, W.	Sorensen, R. W.
Bruce, Maj. D. W. T.	Kenyon, C.	Soskice, Sir Frank
Butler, H. W. (Hackney, S.)	Lee, Miss J. (Cannock)	Sparks, J. A.
Castle, Mrs. B. A.	Levy, B. W.	Steele, T.
Champion, A. J.	Lewis, A. W. J. (Upton)	Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)
Chetwynd, G. R.	Lindgren, G. S.	Sylvester, G. O.
Cobb, F. A.	Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.	Symonds, A. L.
Collindridge, F.	Longden, F.	Taylor, H. B. (Mansfield)
Collins, V. J.	Lyne, A. W.	Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)
Corbet, Mrs. F. K. (Camb'well, N. W.)	McGhee, H. G.	Thomas, D. E. (Aberdare)
Crawley, A.	Mack, J. D.	Thomas, I. O. (Wrekin)
Crossman, R. H. S.	Maclean, N. (Govan)	Thomas, George (Cardiff)
Daggar, G.	McLeavy, F.	Thurtle, Ernest
Daines, P.	Manning, Mrs. L. (Epping)	Tiffany, S.
Davies, Edward (Burslem)	Mathers, Rt. Hon. George	Tolley, L.
Davies, Haydn (St. Pancras, S. W.)	Mellish, R. J.	Ungoed-Thomas, L.
de Freitas, Geoffrey	Middleton, Mrs. L.	Vernon, Maj. W. F.
Delargy, H. J.	Mikardo, Ian	Warbey, W. N.
Diamond, J.	Millington, Wing-Comdr. E. R.	Watkins, T. E.
Dodds, N. N.	Mitchison, G. R.	Weitzman, D.
Driberg, T. E. N.	Monslow, W.	Wells, P. L. (Faversham)
Dumpleton, C. W.	Moody, A. S.	Wells, W. T. (Walsall)
Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.	Morley, R.	West, D. G.
Edelman, M.	Morgan, Dr. H. B.	Wheatley, John (Edinburgh, E.)
Edwards, N. (Caerphilly)	Morris, P. (Swansea, W.)	Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.
Edwards, W. J. (Whitechapel)	Moyle, A.	Wilkes, L.
Evans, John (Ogmore)	Mulvey, A.	Willey, F. T. (Sunderland)
Evans, S. N. (Wednesbury)	Nally, W.	Willey, O. G. (Cleveland)
Fairhurst, F.	Neal, H. (Claycross)	Williams, D. J. (Neath)
Farthing, W. J.	Nichol, Mrs. M. E. (Bradford, N.)	Williams, J. L. (Kelvingrove)
Fernyhough, E.	Nicholls, H. R. (Stratford)	Williams, R. W. (Wigan)
Field, Capt. W. J.	Noel-Baker, Capt. F. E. (Brentford)	Williams, W. R. (Heston)
Foot, M. M.	Orbach, M.	Willis, E.
Forman, J. C.	Palmer, A. M. F.	Wills, Mrs. E. A.
Ganley, Mrs. C. S.	Pargiter, G. A.	Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.
Gibson, C. W.	Parkin, B. T.	Wyatt, W.
Gilzean, A.	Paton, Mrs. F. (Rushcliffe)	Yates, V. F.
Gordon-Walker, P. C.	Paton, J. (Norwich)	Younger, Hon. Kenneth
Greenwood, A. W. J. (Heywood)	Pearson, A.	Zilliacus, K.
Griffiths, D. (Rother Valley)	Peart, T. F.
Gunter, R. J.	Perrins, W.	TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
Guy, W. H.	Piratin, P.	Mr. Hannan and Mr. Wilkins

NOES.
Amory, D. Heathcoat	Conant, Maj. R. J. E.	George, Lady M. Lloyd (Anglesey)
Astor, Hon. M.	Corbett, Lieut.-Col. U. (Ludlow)	Gomme-Duncan, Col. A.
Beamish, Maj. T. V. H.	Cuthbert, W. N.	Grimston, R. V.
Boles, Lt.-Col. D. C. (Wells)	Davidson, Viscountess	Harris, F. W. (Croydon, N.)
Bossom, A. C.	Drayson, G. B.	Hogg, Hon. Q.
Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W.	Drewe, C.	Hutchison, Col. J. R. (Glasgow, C.)
Butcher, H. W.	Duthie, W. S.	Keeling, E. H.
Byers, Frank	Foster, J. G. (Northwich)	Kendall, W. D.
Challen, C.	Fox, Sir G.	Linstead, H. N.
Channon, H.	Gage, C.	Lloyd, Selwym (Wirral)
Clifton-Browne, Lt.-Col. G.	Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D.	Lucas-Tooth, Sir H.

The Committee divided: Ayes, 186; Noes, 59.

McKie, J. H. (Galloway)	Peake, Rt. Hon. O.	Strauss, H G (English Universities)
Macpherson, N. (Dumfries)	Peto, Brig C. H. M	Thomas, J. P. L. (Hereford)
Manningham-Buller, R. E.	Pickthorn, K.	Touche, G. C.
Marlowe, A A H	Prescott, Stanley	Wadsworth, G.
Maude, J. C.	Ramsay, Maj. S.	Wheatley, Colonel M. J. (Dorset, E.)
Medlicott, Brigadier F.	Reid, Rt. Hon J. S. C. (HillHead)	Willoughby de Eresby, Lord
Mellor, Sir. J.	Roberts, P. G (Ecclesall)
Mullan, Lt. C. H	Robinson, Roland	TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
Noble, Comdr A. H. P.	Spence, H R	Commander Agnew and
Odey, G W	Stoddart-Scott, Col. M	Mr Studholme

Question put accordingly, 'area' stand part of the Clause"

Division No. 115.]	AYES.	[4.53 a.m.
Adams, Richard (Balham)	Guy, W H	Piratin, P.
Alexander, Rt. Hon. A V	Haire, John E. (Wycombe)	Platts-Mills, J. F. F.
Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)	Hale, Leslie	Poole, Cecil (Lichfield)
Alpass, J. H.	Hamilton, Lieut.-Col R	Porter, G. (Leeds)
Attewell, H. C.	Hardman, D R	Pritt, D. N
Austin, H. Lewis	Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick)	Randall, H. E.
Ayrton Gould, Mrs. B.	Herbison, Miss M.	Ranger, J.
Bacon, Miss A	Hewitson, Capt. M.	Rankin, J.
Barton, C	Holman, P	Reeves, J.
Bechervaise, A. E.	House, G	Reid, T (Swindon)
Berry, H	Hoy, J	Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)
Beswick, F	Hudson, J. H. (Ealing, W.)	Ross, William (Kilmarnock)
Bing, G. H C	Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)	Royle, C.
Binns, J.	Hughes, H. D (W'lverh'pton, W.)	Segal, Dr. S.
Blackburn, A. R	Hynd, H. (Hackney, C.)	Shackleton, E. A A
Boardman, H.	Irving, W J (Tottenham, N.)	Sharp, Granville
Bowles, F G. (Nuneaton)	Janner, B.	Shawcross, Rt. Hn Sir H (St. Helens)
Braddock, Mrs. E M (L'pl, Exch'ge)	Jeger, G. (Winchester)	Silverman, J. (Erdington)
Braddock, T. (Mitcham)	Johnston, D. H.	Simmons, C. J.
Brook, D. (Halifax)	Jones, D. T (Hartlepool)	Smith, C. (Colchester)
Brown, George (Belper)	Jones, Elwyn (Plaistow)	Snow, J W
Brown, T J (Ince)	Jones, P. Asterley (Hitchin)	Solley L J
Bruce, Maj. D. W T.	Keenan, W	Sorensen, R. W
Butler, H W (Hackney, S.)	Kendall, W D.	Soskice, Sir. Frank
Castle, Mrs. B A.	Kenyon, C.	Sparks, J A
Champion, A J	Lee, Miss J. (Cannock)	Steele, T
Chetwynd, G. R.	Levy, B. W.	Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)
Cobb, F A	Lewis, A W. J (Upton)	Sylvester, G O
Collindridge, F.	Lindgren, G. S	Symonds, A. L
Collins, V. J	Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.	Taylor, H B (Mansfield)
Corbet, Mrs. F. K. (Camb'well, N. W.)	Longden, F	Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)
Crawley, A.	Lyne, A. W	Thomas, D. E. (Aberdare)
Crossman, R. H. S.	McGhee, H. G.	Thomas, I. O. (Wrekin)
Daggar, G	Mack, J. D.	Thomas, George (Cardiff)
Daines, P	Maclean, N. (Govan)	Thurtle, Ernest
Dalton, Rt Hon. H.	McLeavy, F.	Tiffany, S
Davies, Edward (Burslem)	Manning, Mrs. L. (Epping)	Tolley, L.
Davies, Haydn (St. Pancras, S. W.)	Mathers, Rt Hon. George	Ungoed-Thomas, L
de Freitas, Geoffrey	Mellish, R. J.	Vernon, Maj W F
Delargy, H. J.	Middleton, Mrs L.	Warbey, W N
Diamond, J.	Mikardo, Ian	Watkins, T E
Dodds, N. N	Millington, Wing-Comdr. E. R	Weitzman, D
Driberg, T E. N	Mitchison, G. R.	Wells, P. L. (Faversham)
Dumpleton, C W.	Monslow, W.	Wells, W T (Walsall)
Ede, Rt. Hon. J C	Moody, A. S.	West, D G.
Edelman, M	Morley, R.	Wheatley, John (Edinburgh, E.)
Edwards, N. (Caerphilly)	Morgan, Dr. H. B.	Whiteley, Rt. Hon W
Edwards, W. J. (Whitechapel)	Morris, P. (Swansea, W.)	Wilkes, L.
Evans, John (Ogmore)	Moyle, A.	Willey, F T (Sunderland)
Evans, S N (Wednesbury)	Mulvey, A	Willey, O G. (Cleveland)
Fairhurst, F.	Nally, W	Williams, D. J. (Neath)
Farthing, W. J	Neal, H. (Claycross)	Williams, J. L. (Kelvingrove)
Fernyhough, E.	Nichol, Mrs. M. E. (Bradford, N.)	Williams, R. W. (Wigan)
Field, Capt. W J	Nicholls, H R. (Stratford)	Williams, W. R. (Heston)
Foot, M M.	Noel-Baker, Capt F. E. (Brentford)	Willis, E
Forman, J. C.	Orbach, M.	Wills, Mrs E. A.
Ganley, Mrs. C. S	Palmer, A. M. F	Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A
Gibson, C W.	Pargiter, G A.	Wyatt, W.
Gilzean, A.	Parkin, B. T	Yates, V. F
Gordon-Walker, P C.	Paton, J (Norwich)	Younger, Hon. Kenneth
Greenwood, A W. J (Heywood)	Pearson, A.	Zilliacus, K
Griffiths, D. (Rother Valley)	Peart, T F
Gunter, R. J.	Perrins, W.	TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
		Mr. Hannan and Mr. Wilkins.

That The Committee divided: Ayes, 188; Noes, 57.

NOES
Amory, D. Heathcoat	Gage, C.	Odey, G. W.
Astor, Hon. M.	Galbraith, Cmdr. T D	Peake, Rt. Hon. O.
Beamish, Maj. T. V. H	George, Lady M Lloyd (Anglesey)	Peto, Brig. C. H M
Boles, Lt.-Col. D. C. (Wells)	Gomme-Duncan, Col. A	Pickthorn, K.
Bossom, A. C.	Grimsten, R V	Prescott, Stanley
Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W	Harris, F W (Croydon, N.)	Ramsay, Maj S.
Butcher, H. W	Hogg, Hon. Q.	Reid, Rt. Hon J S. C. (Hillhead)
Byers, Frank	Hutchison, Col. J R. (Glasgow, C.)	Roberts, P. G. (Ecclesall)
Challen, C.	Keeling, E. H.	Robinson, Roland
Channon, H.	Linstead, H. N.	Spence, H. R
Clifton-Browne, Lt.-Col. G.	Lloyd, Selwyn (Wirral)	Stoddart-Scott, Col M
Conant, Maj. R. J. E.	Lucas-Tootn, Sir H.	Strauss, H. G (English Universities)
Corbett, Lieut.-Col. U. (Ludlow)	McKie, J H. (Galloway)	Thomas, J. P L. (Hereford)
Cuthbert, W. N.	Macpherson, N. (Dumfries)	Touche, G C.
Davidson, Viscountess	Manningham-Buller, R. E.	Wadsworth, G.
Drayson, G B.	Marlowe, A A. H	Wheatley, Colonel M. J. (Dorset, E.)
Drewe, C.	Medlicott, Brigadier F	Willoughby de Eresby, Lord
Duthie, W. S.	Mellor, Sir J.
Foster, J. G. (Northwich)	Mullan, Lt C H.	TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
Fox, Sir G.	Noble, Comdr. A. H. P.	Commander Agnew and
		Mr. Studholme.

The Deputy-Chairman

Mr. Younger.

Mr. Grimston

On a point of Order. It was arranged for the convenience of the Committee on the last Amendment that we should also discuss the Amendment to page line 37. I presume, Mr. Beaumont, that you will be putting that Amendment later on?

The Deputy-Chairman

Yes.

Mr. Younger

I beg to move, in page 11, line 24, at the end, to insert: and (c) a person registered as a service voter shall not be entitled to vote by post on any ground other than his being so registered. This Amendment is designed to prevent a possible confusion and to ensure that a person who is registered as a Service voter shall not be entitled to vote by post on any ground other than his being so registered. The point here is that a Service voter might be entitled to vote by post under two other headings, either because of the general nature of his service, or because he no longer resides at his qualifying address. As those various qualifications for voting by post may, under Clause 9, be of rather differing duration, it is obviously better that the Service voter should be entitled to vote by post only by virtue of one of those qualifications. This Amendment does not deprive the Service voter of any rights. He would possess the right to vote by post so long as he remained in the Service—that is to say, for quite an indefinite period so long as he was a Service voter. This Amendment merely ensures that the Service voter shall not have a dual registration, on more than one ground.

Mr. J. Foster

Are there not other people who might have two qualifications? Why is the Service voter singled out? For instance, it would he possible for a returning officer to have a wife as a candidate in another constituency. It is understandable that the Under-Secretary does not wish a Service voter to be in a position to apply under two qualifications, but I do not understand why he allows other people to have two qualifications under which they might apply. Why does not the Amendment state that nobody shall apply under two different qualifications? That would seem to me to be simpler than singling out the Service voter. It can be seen quite clearly that paragraphs (a) to (e) would not cover a person who was employed by a returning officer and whose wife was a candidate in another constituency. He is entitled to apply for voting by post on two grounds, that he is himself employed by the returning officer and that his wife is a candidate. I suggest that the Clause could be made a good deal simpler by saying that no persons shall be entitled to vote by post on more than one ground.

Mr. Younger

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for the remarks he has made. We will look at this to make sure whether any other persons are covered beside the Service voters in respect of whom we have made a similar provision. There is perhaps one distinction I could make. I am not sure it is necessarily the only one, but where the duration of the validity of the application is set out under Clause 9 the Service vote is not set out.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Younger

I beg to move, in page 11, line 25, to leave out "An absent voter," and to insert: At an election for which a person's application to be treated as an absent voter is allowed, he. This again is a drafting Amendment to avoid a small confusion which might have arisen about the definition of an absent voter. By an absent voter under Subsection (5), line 25 of page 11, is meant somebody who is being treated for the purposes of this Bill as an absent voter. It does not simply mean, as it might in ordinary conversation, someone who is not present, because if that were so he could not vote in person.

Mr. Hogg

I should like to ask the Under-Secretary one question. Some time ago he objected to altering the words in pursuance of an application under Subsection (4), because he argued that all that had to done in order to get oneself on the lists was to apply, whereas one of my hon. Friends was arguing that the correct form of words to insert would be the phrase to the effect that the application was allowed. The Under-Secretary at that time resisted the argument. I notice he is now inserting words of exactly the same kind as my hon. and learned Friend then suggested. I want to know why he has adopted one form of words before and now uses the same form as he resisted before.

Mr. Younger

The answer to that surely is because it is a different Clause dealing with a different matter.

Mr. Astor

There is surely a drafting error here. I have consulted my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Wirral (Mr. Selwyn Lloyd), and he says the phrase reads as follows: At an election for which a person's application to be treated as an absent voter is allowed, he.

Division No. 116.]	AYES.	[5.14 a.m.
Adams, Richard (Balham)	Bing, G. H. C.	Byers, Frank
Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V	Binns, J.	Castle, Mrs. B. A
Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)	Blackburn, A. R.	Champion, A. J.
Alpass, J. H.	Boardman, H.	Chetwynd, G. R
Attewell, H. C.	Bowles, F. G. (Nuneaton)	Cobb, F. A.
Austin, H. Lewis	Braddock, Mrs. E. M. (L'pl, Exch'ge)	Collindridge, F.
Ayrton Gould, Mrs. B.	Braddock, T. (Mitcham)	Collins, V. J.
Bacon, Miss A.	Brook, D. (Halifax)	Corbet, Mrs. F. K. (Camb'well, N W)
Barton, C.	Brown, George (Belper)	Crawley, A.
Bechervaise, A. E	Brown, T. J. (Ince)	Crossman, R. H. S.
Berry, H.	Bruce, Maj. D. W. T.	Daggar, G.
Beswick, F.	Butler, H. W. (Hackney, S.)	Daines, P.

That seems to me to be Chinese. Does "he" full stop mean anything? Would the Under-Secretary give us an answer on that. It may be it should be "he" comma, or "he" semi-colon, but "he" full stop cannot be right. I ask him to look at that again and let the Committee know about it.

Mr. J. Foster

I am against this Amendment. The words as they are now are sufficiently quaint to fit into the rest of the quaint wording we have had in other parts of the Bill. It is in the best drafting tradition to have technical terms inserted in the Bill and not to have the technical terms explained every time they occur. An absent voter, to the trained lawyer, does not always mean a voter who is absent. It means a voter whose application to be treated as an absent voter has been allowed—a very different matter. I do not think it is right that we should condescend to make this Subsection intelligible to the meanest intellect. The drafting is very much on the same lines as that a well 100 feet deep shall be deemed to be a building 100 feet high. It is a very useful piece of drafting. It reminds me of the other one I am very fond of—half the penalty goes to the informer and half to the King—and the penalty Clause says, "Seven years' imprisonment." I think it was about a Clause like this that Lord Esher said, "If I understood the arguments of counsel I would not have agreed with them." I quote Box's Law Cases which says that a man with six children shall be deemed to be an unmarried man without children.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Grimston

I beg to move, in page 11, line 37, to leave out "borough or."

Question put, "That the words 'borough or' stand part of the Clause."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 190; Noes, 53.

Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.	Kenyon, C.	Royle, C.
Davies, Edward (Burslem)	Lee, Miss J. (Cannock)	Segal, Dr. S.
Davies, Haydn (St. Pancras, S. W.)	Levy, B. W.	Shackleton, E. A. A.
de Freitas, Geoffrey	Lewis, A. W. J. (Upton)	Sharp, Granville
Delargy, H. J.	Lindgren, G. S.	Shawcross, Rt. Hn. Sir H. (St. Helens)
Dodds, N. N.	Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.	Silverman, J. (Erdington)
Driberg, T. E. N.	Longden, F.	Simmons, C. J.
Dumpleton, C. W.	Lyne, A. W.	Smith, C. (Colchester)
Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.	McGhee, H. G.	Snow, J. W.
Edelman, M.	Mack, J. D.	Sorensen, R. W.
Edwards, N. (Caerphilly)	Maclean, N. (Govan)	Soskice, Sir Frank
Evans, Albert (Islington, W.)	McLeavy, F.	Sparks, J. A.
Evans, John (Ogmore)	Manning, Mrs. L. (Epping)	Steele, T.
Evans, S. N. (Wednesbury)	Mathers, Rt. Hon. George	Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)
Fairhurst, F.	Mellish, R. J.	Sylvester, G. O.
Farthing, W. J.	Middleton, Mrs. L	Symonds, A. L.
Fernyhough, E.	Mikardo, Ian	Taylor, H. B. (Mansfield)
Field, Capt. W. J.	Millington, Wing-Comdr. E. R	Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)
Foot, M. M.	Mitchison, G. R.	Thomas, D. E. (Aberdare)
Forman, J. C.	Monslow, W	Thomas, I. O. (Wrekin)
Ganley, Mrs. C. S.	Moody, A. S.	Thomas, George (Cardiff)
George, Lady M. Lloyd (Anglesey)	Morley, R.	Thurtle, Ernest
Gibson, C. W.	Morgan, Dr. H. B.	Tiffany, S.
Gilzean, A	Morris, P. (Swansea, W.)	Tolley, L.
Gordon-Walker, P. C.	Moyle, A.	Ungoed-Thomas, L.
Greenwood, A. W. J. (Heywood)	Mulvey, A	Vernon, Maj. W. F.
Griffiths, D. (Rother Valley)	Nally, W.	Wadsworth, G.
Gunter, R. J.	Neal, H. (Claycross)	Wallace, G. D. (Chislehurst)
Guy, W. H.	Nichol, Mrs. M. E. (Bradford, N.)	Warbey, W. N.
Haire, John E (Wycombe)	Nicholls, H. R. (Stratford)	Watkins, T. E.
Hale, Leslie	Noel-Baker, Capt. F. E. (Brentford)	Weitzman, D.
Hamilton, Lieut.-Col. R	Orbach, M.	Wells, P. L. (Faversham)
Hardman, D R.	Palmer, A. M. F.	Wells, W. T. (Walsall)
Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick)	Pargiter, G. A.	West, D. G.
Herbison, Miss M.	Parkin, B. T.	Wheatley, John (Edinburgh, E.)
Hewitson, Capt. M.	Paton, Mrs. F. (Rushcliffe)	Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W
Holman, P.	Paton, J. (Norwich)	Wilkes, L.
House, G.	Pearson, A.	Willey, F. T. (Sunderland)
Hoy, J.	Peart, T. F.	Willey, O. G. (Cleveland)
Hudson, J. H. (Ealing, W.)	Perrins, W.	Williams, D. J. (Neath)
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)	Piratin, P.	Williams, J. L (Kelvingrove)
Hughes, H. D. (W'lverh'pton, W.)	Platts-Mills, J. F. F.	Williams, R. W. (Wigan)
Hynd, H. (Hackney, C.)	Poole, Cecil (Lichfield)	Williams, W. R. (Heston)
Irving, W. J. (Tottenham, N.)	Porter, G. (Leeds)	Willis, E.
Janner, B.	Pritt, D. N.	Wills, Mrs. E. A.
Jeger, G. (Winchester)	Randall, H E	Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.
Johnston, D. H.	Ranger, J.	Wyatt, W.
Jones, D. T (Hartlepool)	Rankin, J.	Yates, V. F.
Jones, Elwyn (Plaistow)	Reeves, J.	Younger, Hon. Kenneth
Jones, P. Asterley (Hitchin)	Reid, T. (Swindon)	Zilliacus, K.
Keenan, W.	Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)
Kendall, W. D.	Ross, William (Kilmarnock)	TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
		Mr. Hannan and Mr. Wilkins.

NOES.
Agnew, Cmdr. P. G.	Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D.	Peake, Rt. Hon. O.
Amory, D. Heathcoat	Gomme-Duncan, Col. A.	Peto, Brig. C. H. M.
Astor, Hon. M.	Grimston, R. V.	Pickthorn, K
Beamish, Maj. T. V. H.	Harris, F. W. (Croydon, N.)	Prescott, Stanley
Boles, Lt.-Col. D. C. (Wells)	Hogg, Hon. Q.	Ramsay, Maj. S.
Bossom, A. C.	Hutchison, Col. J. R. (Glasgow, C.)	Reid, Rt. Hon. J. S. C. (Hillhead)
Bromley-Davenport, Lt. Col. W.	Keeling, E. H.	Roberts, P. G. (Ecclesall)
Butcher, H. W.	Linstead, H. N.	Robinson, Roland
Challen, C.	Logan, D. G.	Spence, H. R.
Channon, H.	Lucas-Tooth, Sir H.	Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.
Clifton-Browne, Lt.-Col. G.	McKie, J. H. (Galloway)	Strauss, H. G. (English Universities)
Corbett, Lieut.-Col. U. (Ludlow)	Macpherson, N. (Dumfries)	Thomas, J. P. L. (Hereford)
Cuthbert, W. N.	Manningham-Buller, R. E.	Touche, G. C.
Drayson, G. B.	Marlowe, A. A. H.	Wheatley, Colonel M. J. (Dorset, E.)
Drewe, C.	Medlicott, Brigadier F.	Willoughby de Eresby, Lord
Duthie, W. S.	Mellor, Sir J.
Foster, J. G. (Northwich)	Mullan, Lt. C. H.	TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
Fox, Sir G.	Noble, Comdr. A. H. P.	Mr. Studholme and
Gage, C.	Odey, G. W.	Major Conant.

Mr. Peake

I beg to move, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."

It is now three hours since I moved a similar Motion, but on an earlier inquiry, some six hours ago, the Home Secretary suggested that we might sit a little longer and see how we got on. Well, we sat a little longer, a matter of three hours, in which time we disposed of, I think, three Clauses which were mainly debated by hon. Members opposite. That was at about 2.15 a.m. Since then, there have been certain signs of fatigue on the part of supporters of His Majesty's Government, who have taken very little part in our debates since that time. On the other hand, my hon. Friends on this side of the Committee have shown a zealous interest and considerable application to the detailed parts of the important Clauses which have been before the Committee.

We are about to embark upon an important Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for North-West Camberwell (Mrs. Corbet) dealing with the Metropolitan boroughs. I am sure that this is an Amendment upon which a good deal will have to be said from all quarters of the Committee. The Home Secretary suggested, at an earlier stage, that we might reasonably reach the end of Clause 30 during the present sitting. I wonder if that is still his objective, or whether, in fact, he hopes to reach the end of Clause 8—the Clause under discussion—in time to permit the House to resume at 11 o'clock. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will give us an indication whether his target remains the same as it was when I inquired about it at 2.15 a.m.

Mr. Ede

I am sure that the Committee will not expect me to say that I am satisfied with the progress which has been made. It really is astonishing. When last the right hon. Gentleman spoke on a similar Motion, he complained that my hon. Friends had been taking too much part in the discussion. It is clear that he does not intend to be satisfied with anything that they do. Therefore, why should I be satisfied with anything that he proposes to do? I suggest that we might still continue the detailed study of the Bill. I regret that the ranks on the opposite side of the Committee have been rather thin in the last two or three Divisions. I do not see why I should be used to cover up their retreat.

Mr. Butcher

I hope that after reflection the Home Secretary will be able to agree that the Chairman should now report Progress. I rise as one who, during the whole of the Debate has been in fairly constant attendance. So far, I have endeavoured to facilitate the work of the right hon. Gentleman by taking no part at all in the Debate. In fact, I almost felt that I belonged to His Majesty's Opposition in the last few hours because I was so silent, indeed that I was sitting on the Treasury Bench, because they have been as silent as I have been. The right hon. Gentleman ought to feel satisfied that many of us, under some provocation from him and the Patronage Secretary, have remained silent. Unless more progress is made, some of us who have been silent will feel inclined to voice the thoughts which have been running through our minds.

Mr. H. Strauss

When it was suggested by my right hon. Friend that the Government might still wish to attain Clause 30, there was considerable applause from the Government Benches. That is very interesting. It shows that the real object of continuing now is to kill the sitting later today and to save the Prime Minister the embarrassment of having to reply on the subject of Communist infiltration. It is most interesting when the real motives of the Government and their supporters are revealed in this way. I have no doubt that there are sincere hon. Members opposite to whom this parody of democratic procedure, involved in the attempt to attain Clause 30 of this Measure at this all-night sitting, is quite disgusting. But there are many more who think that it is a grand thing if they can thereby kill the sitting later today and avoid a Debate which they know will be highly injurious to their party interests. It is very good that those things should be revealed and made clear.—[Interruption.] I am sorry if I had missed a few of the observations which come from the lunatic fringe, but I will endeavour to deal with such of them as I hear. I still think that it would be in the interests of this Committee that the Motion should be accepted. I do not think it would delay in the least the progress that will be made with this Measure. I think the calculation that, by indulging in the sort of procedure that has been forced on the House, the Government will get their Measure more quickly is erroneous. I therefore strongly support the Motion.

5.30 a.m.

Mr. Marlowe

I support the Motion because I cannot feel that this early hour is the proper time for dealing with this important Measure. There is one aspect of the Motion to which I want particularly to draw the attention of the Home Secretary. It will be recalled that the original arrangement was that there should be two days of this week given to this Bill. One day was lost on account of the Palestine Bill. Did the Home Secretary, when he set his target to reach Clause 30 by the end of this Sitting, have in mind that he would have had two Sittings by that time? Having lost one is he endeavouring to telescope two into one? If so, that is a very unfair burden to cast on the Committee because the day lost was not our fault. A large part of the time was taken up by a section of

Division No. 117.]	AYES.	[5.33 a.m.
Allen, A C. (Bosworth)	Gilzean, A.	Nichol, Mrs. M. E. (Bradford, N.)
Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)	Gordon-Walker, P. C.	Nicholls, H. R. (Stratford)
Alpass, J. H.	Greenwood, A. W. J. (Heywood)	Noel-Baker, Capt. F. E. (Brentford)
Attewell, H. C.	Griffiths, D. (Rother Valley)	Orbach, M.
Austin, H. Lewis	Gunter, R. J.	Palmer, A. M. F.
Ayrton Gould, Mrs. B.	Guy, W. H.	Pargiter, G. A.
Bacon, Miss A.	Haire, John E. (Wycombe)	Parkin, B. T.
Barton, C.	Hale, Leslie	Paton, Mrs. F. (Rushcliffe)
Bechervaise, A. E.	Hamilton, Lieut.-Col. R.	Paton, J. (Norwich)
Berry, H.	Hannan, W. (Maryhill)	Pearson, A.
Beswick, F	Hardman, D R	Pearl, T. F.
Bing, G. H. C	Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick)	Perrins, W.
Binns, J	Herbison, Miss M.	Piratin, P.
Blackburn, A. R.	Hewitson, Capt. M.	Platts-Mills, J. F F.
Boardman, H.	Holman, P.	Poole, Cecil (Lichfield)
Bowles, F G. (Nuneaton)	House, G.	Porter, G. (Leeds)
Braddock, Mrs. E. M. (L'pl, Exch'ge)	Hoy, J.	Pritt, D N.
Braddock, T. (Mitcham)	Hudson, J. H. (Ealing, W.)	Randall, H. E.
Brook, D. (Halifax)	Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)	Ranger, J.
Brown, George (Belper)	Hughes, H. D. (W'lverh'pton, W.)	Rankin, J.
Brown, T. J. (Ince)	Hynd, H. (Hackney, C.)	Reeves, J.
Bruce, Maj. D. W. T.	Irving, W. J. (Tottenham, N.)	Reid, Rt. Hon. J. S. C (Hillhead)
Butler, H. W (Hackney, S.)	Janner, B.	Reid, T. (Swindon)
Byers, Frank	Jeger, G. (Winchester)	Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)
Castle, Mrs. B. A.	Johnston, D H.	Ross, William (Kilmarnock)
Champion, A. J.	Jones, D. T (Hartlepool)	Royle, C.
Chetwynd, G. R.	Jones, Elwyn (Plaistow)	Segal, Dr. S.
Cobb, F A	Jones, P. Asterley (Hitchin)	Shackleton, E. A A
Collins, V. J.	Keenan, W	Sharp, Granville
Corbet, Mrs. F K. (Camb'well, N. W.)	Kendall, W D.	Shawcross, Rt. Hn. Sir H. (St. Helens)
Crawley, A.	Kenyon, C.	Silverman, J. (Erdington)
Crossman, R. H. S.	Lee, Miss J. (Cannock)	Simmons, C. J.
Daggar, G.	Levy, B. W.	Smith, C. (Colchester)
Daines, P.	Lewis, A. W. J. (Upton)	Snow, J. W
Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.	Lindgren, G. S	Sorensen, R. W
Davies, Edward (Burslem)	Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.	Soskice, Sir Frank
Davies, Haydn (St. Pancras, S. W.)	Longden, F	Sparks, J. A.
de Freitas, Geoffrey	Lyne, A. W.	Steele, T
Delargy, H. J.	McGhee, H. G.	Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)
Dodds, N. N.	Mack, J. D.	Sylvester, G. O
Driberg, T E. N.	Maclean, N. (Govan)	Symonds, A. L.
Dumpleton, C W.	McLeavy, F.	Taylor, H. B. (Mansfield)
Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.	Manning, Mrs. L. (Epping)	Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)
Edelman, M.	Mathers, Rt. Hon. George	Thomas, D. E. (Aberdare)
Edwards, N. (Caerphilly)	Mellish, R. J.	Thomas, I. O. (Wrekin)
Evans, Albert (Islington W.)	Middleton, Mrs. L.	Thomas, George (Cardiff)
Evans, John (Ogmore)	Mikardo, Ian	Thurtle, Ernest
Evans, S. N. (Wednesbury)	Millington, Wing-Comdr. E. R.	Tiffany, S.
Fairhurst, F.	Mitchison, G. R.	Tolley, L.
Farthing, W. J.	Monslow, W.	Ungoed-Thomas, L.
Fernyhough, E.	Moody, A. S.	Vernon, Maj. W. F.
Field, Capt. W. J.	Morley, R.	Wadsworth, G.
Foot, M. M	Morgan, Dr. H. B.	Wallace, G. D. (Chislehurst)
Forman, J. C.	Morris, P. (Swansea, W.)	Warbey, W. N.
Ganley, Mrs. C. S.	Moyle, A.	Watkins, T E.
George, Lady M. Lloyd (Anglesey)	Mulvey, A.	Weitzman, D.
Gibson, C. W.	Nally, W.	Wells, P. L. (Faversham)

his own party. If in fact he had that target originally and hoped to do in two days what we are now trying to do in one, that is an unfair burden and he should reconsider it and bring his target lower.

Mr. Hogg rose——

Mr. Whiteley rose in his place and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."

Question put, "That the Question be now put."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 188; Noes, 53.

Wells, W. T. (Walsall)	Williams, D. J. (Neath)	Yates, V. F.
West, D. G.	Williams, J. L. (Kelvingrove)	Younger, Hon. Kenneth
Whealley, John (Edinburgh, E.)	Williams, R. W. (Wigan)	Zilliacus, K.
Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W	Williams, W. R. (Heston)
Wilkes, L.	Willis, E.	TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
Wilkins, W. A.	Wills, Mrs. E. A.	Mr. Collindridge and
Willey, F. T. (Sunderland)	Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.	Mr. Richard Adams.
Willey, O. G. (Cleveland)	Wyatt, W.

NOES.
Agnew, Cmdr. P. G	Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D.	Peake, Rt. Hon. O.
Amory, D. Heathcoal	Gomme-Duncan, Col. A.	Peto, Brig. C. H. M
Astor, Hon. M.	Grimston, R. V.	Pickthorn, K.
Beamish, Maj. T. V. H.	Harris, F. W. (Croydon, N.)	Prescott, Stanley
Boles, Lt.-Col. D. C. (Wells)	Hogg, Hon. Q.	Reid, Rt. Hon. J. S. C. (Hillhead)
Bossom, A. C.	Hutchison, Col. J. R. (Glasgow, C.)	Roberts, P. G. (Ecclesall)
Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W	Keeling, E. H.	Robinson, Roland
Butcher, H. W	Linstead, H. N.	Spence, H. R.
Challen, C.	Lloyd, Selwyn (Wirral)	Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.
Channon, H.	Lucas-Tooth, Sir H.	Strauss, H. G. (English Universities)
Clifton-Blowne, Lt.-Col. G.	McKie, J. H. (Galloway)	Studholme, H. G.
Corbett, Lieut.-Col. U. (Ludlow)	Macpherson, N. (Dumfries)	Thomas, J. P. L. (Hereford)
Cuthbert, W. N.	Manningham-Buller, R. E.	Touche, G. C.
Drayson, G. B.	Marlowe, A. A. H.	Wheatley, Colonel M. J. (Dorset, E.)
Drewe, C.	Medlicott, Brigadier F.	Willoughby de Eresby, Lord
Duthie, W. S.	Mellor, Sir J.
Foster, J. G. (Northwich)	Mullan, Lt. C. H.	TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
Fox, Sir G.	Noble, Comdr. A. H. P.	Major Conaot and Major Ramsay
Gage, C	Odey, G. W.

Question put accordingly, Chairman do report Progress and ask leave to sit again."

Division No. 118.]	AYES.	[5.40 a.m.
Agnew, Cmdr. P. G.	Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D	Peake, Rt. Hon. O.
Amory, D. Heathcoat	George, Lady M. Lloyd (Anglesey)	Peto, Brig. C. H. M.
Astor, Hon. M.	Gomme-Duncan, Col. A.	Pickthorn, K.
Beamish, Maj. T. V. H.	Grimston, R. V.	Prescott, Stanley
Boles, Lt.-Col. D. C. (Wells)	Harris, F. W. (Croydon, N.)	Reid, Rt. Hon. J. S. C. (Hillhead)
Bossom, A. C.	Hogg, Hon. Q.	Roberts, Peter (Ecclesall)
Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W.	Hutchison, Col. J. R. (Glasgow, C.)	Robinson, Roland
Butcher, H. W	Keeling, E. H.	Spence, H. R.
Byers, Frank	Linstead, H. N.	Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.
Challen, C.	Lloyd, Selwyn (Wirral)	Strauss, H. G (English Universities)
Channon, H.	Lucas-Tooth, Sir H.	Studholme, H. G.
Clifton-Brown, Lt.-Col. G.	McKie, J. H. (Galloway)	Thomas, J. P. L. (Hereford)
Corbett, Lieut.-Col. U (Ludlow)	Macpherson, N. (Dumfries)	Touche, G. C.
Cuthbert, W N.	Manningham-Buller, R. E.	Wadsworth, G.
Drayson, G. B.	Marlowe, A. A. H.	Wheatley, Col. M. J. (Dorset, E.)
Drewe, C.	Medlicott, Brigadier F.	Willoughby de Eresby, Lord
Duthie, W. S.	Mellor, Sir J.
Foster, J. G. (Northwich)	Mullan, Lt. C. H.	TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
Fox, Sir G.	Noble, Comdr A. H P.	Major Conant and
Gage, C.	Odey, G. W.	Major Ramsay.

NOES.
Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)	Bruce, Major D. W. T.	Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
Alpass, J. H.	Butler, H. W (Hackney, S.)	Edelman, M.
Attewell, H. C.	Castle, Mrs. B A	Edwards, N. (Caerphilly)
Austin, H. Lewis	Champion, A J.	Evans, A. (Islington, W.)
Ayrton Gould, Mrs. B.	Chetwynd, G. R.	Evans, John (Ogmore)
Bacon, Miss A.	Cobb, F. A.	Evans, S. N. (Wednesbury)
Barton, C.	Collins, V. J.	Fairhurst, F.
Bechervaise, A. E	Corbet, Mrs. F. K (Camb'well, N. W.)	Farthing, W. J.
Berry, H.	Crawley, A.	Fernyhough, E.
Beswick, F.	Crossman, R. H. S.	Field, Captain W. J.
Bing, G. H. C.	Daggar, G.	Foot, M. M.
Binns, J.	Daines, P.	Forman, J. C.
Blackburn, A. R.	Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.	Ganley, Mrs. C. S.
Boardman, H.	Davies, Edward (Burslem)	Gibson, C. W.
Bowles, F. G. (Nuneaton)	Davies, Haydn (St. Pancras, S. W.)	Gilzean, A.
Braddock, Mrs. E. M. (L'pl, Exch'ge)	de Freitas, Geoffrey	Gordon-Walker, P. C.
Braddock, T. (Mitcham)	Delargy, H. J.	Greenwood, A. W. J. (Heywood)
Brook, D. (Halifax)	Dodds, N. N.	Griffiths, D. (Rother Valley)
Brown, George (Belper)	Driberg, T. E. N.	Gunter, R. J.
Brown, T J (Ince)	Dumpleton, C. W	Guy. W. H

That the Committee divided: Ayes, 56; Noes, 184.

Haire, John E. (Wycombe)	Monslow, W.	Sparks, J. A.
Hale, Leslie	Moody, A. S.	Steele, T.
Hamilton, Lt.-Col. R.	Morley, R.	Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)
Hannan, W. (Maryhill)	Morgan, Dr. H. B.	Sylvester, G. O.
Hardman, D. R.	Morris, P. (Swansea, W.)	Symonds, A. L.
Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick)	Moyle, A.	Taylor, H. B. (Mansfield)
Harbison, Miss M.	Mulvey, A.	Thomas, D. E. (Aberdare)
Hewitson, Captain M.	Nally, W.	Thomas, I. O. (Wrekin)
Holman, P.	Nichol, Mrs. M. E. (Bradford, N.)	Thomas, George (Cardiff)
House, G.	Nicholls, H R (Stratford)	Thurtle, Ernest
Hoy, J.	Noel-Baker, Capt. F. E. (Brentford)	Tiffany, S.
Hudson, J. H. (Ealing, W.)	Orbach, M.	Tolley, L.
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)	Palmer, A. M. F.	Ungoed-Thomas, L.
Hughes, H. D. (Wolverhampton, W.)	Pargiter, G. A.	Vernon, Major W. F.
Hynd, H. (Hackney, C.)	Parkin, B. T.	Wallace, G. D. (Chislehurst)
Irving, W. J. (Tottenham, N.)	Paton, Mrs F. (Rushcliffe)	Warbey, W. N.
Janner, B.	Paton, J. (Norwich)	Watkins, T. E.
Jeger, G. (Winchester)	Pearson, A.	Weitzman, D.
Johnston, D. H.	Peart, Thomas F.	Wells, P. L. (Faversham)
Jones, D. T. (Hartlepools)	Perrins, W.	Wells, W. T (Walsall)
Jones, Elwyn (Plaistow)	Piratin, P.	West, D. G.
Jones, P. Asterley (Hitchin)	Platts-Mills, J. F. F.	Wheatley, Rt. Hn. J. T. (Edinb'gh, E.)
Keenan, W.	Poole, Cecil (Lichfield)	Wigg, George
Kendall, W. D.	Porter, G. (Leeds)	Wilkes, L.
Kenyon, C.	Pritt, D. N.	Wilkins, W A.
Lee, Miss J. (Cannock)	Randall, H. E.	Willey, F. T. (Sunderland)
Levy, B. W.	Ranger, J	Willey, O. G. (Cleveland)
Lewis, A. W. J. (Upton)	Rankin, J.	Williams, D J. (Neath)
Lindgren, G. S.	Reeves, J.	Williams, J. L. (Kelvingrove)
Lipton, Lt.-Col. M	Reid, T. (Swindon)	Williams, R. W. (Wigan)
Longden, F.	Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)	Williams, W. R. (Heston)
Lyne, A. W.	Ross, William (Kilmarnock)	Willis, E.
McGhee, H. G	Royle, C.	Wills, Mrs. E. A.
Mack, J. D.	Segal, Dr. S.	Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.
Maclean, N. (Govan)	Shackleton, E. A. A.	Wyatt, W.
McLeavy, F.	Sharp, Granville	Yates, V. F.
Manning, Mrs. L. (Epping)	Shawcross, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (St. Helens)	Younger, Hon. Kenneth
Mathers, Rt. Hon. G.	Silverman, J. (Erdington)	Zilliacus, K.
Mellish, R. J.	Simmons, C. J.
Middleton, Mrs. L.	Smith, C. (Colehester)	TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
Mikardo, Ian	Snow, J. W.	Mr. Collindridge and
Millington, Wing-Comdr. E. R.	Sorensen, R W.	Mr. Richard Adams.
Mitchison, G. R.	Soskice, Sir Frank

Mrs. Corbet

I beg to move, in page II, to leave out lines 39 to 41.

I think that with a few words I may be able to commend this attempt to secure for London exactly the same conditions as those which exist in the rest of the country. I feel that if people are obliged to have regard to two contiguous boroughs it will be difficult for them to know their rights. We have in London Metropolitan boroughs varying in size but, nevertheless, units well known to the people, because it is through those units that they pay their rates. For instance, they know well enough when they leave the borough of Camberwell and go into the borough of Lambeth, because they know they pay their rates to the other authority. If my right hon. Friend could accept this Amendment it would effect a great improvement to this Clause.

Mr. Butcher

We are indebted to the hon. Lady for having moved this Amendment. Had I noticed it earlier I should have been happy to have added my name to it. I am sure the Home Secretary, as the Minister in charge of the Metropolitan police, will appreciate that the difficulties in London transport are very great, and the distances are also large. As far as I understand the Amendment, its purpose is to treat the Metropolitan boroughs as separate areas.

One only has to consider this matter geographically to realise how very right the hon. Lady is to bring this matter before the Committee. Take, for example, somebody living in the Metropolitan borough of Wandsworth which goes almost down to Tooting Junction and Amen Corner. A contiguous borough to that is the borough of Hammersmith, the two boroughs joining somewhere near Putney Bridge. The borough of Hammersmith stretches out to Shepherd's Bush. On the other hand, if the absent voter were to move from Wandsworth to the point of Amen Corner, which is about a rid, tram ride, or along to Mitcham Common, of course he would be entitled to be registered as an absent voter. Yet, because the two Metropolitan boroughs are contiguo5s, the voters lose their opportunity of being so registered, and have to move from the extreme end of Wandsworth over the River Thames to the far side of the borough of Hammer- smith. I am sure that is not what the Home Secretary would wish. This Amendment will satisfy the whole of the Committee, and if the right hon. Gentleman accepts it he will be bestowing considerable benefits on the electors of London.

Mr. Ede

My hon. Friend has moved this Amendment with commendable brevity, and we have had the advantage of having it supported from the other side of the Committee by an hon. Member who had previously reminded us that he had not spent very much time in speaking to us during the course of this Sitting. I am sure the Committee feel that such good behaviour should be rewarded, and I have much pleasure in accepting the Amendment.

Mr. J. Foster

I would like to ask a question. One reason for deleting these paragraphs might be that the word "contiguous" is ambiguous. Is the right hon. Gentleman of opinion that the boroughs which are separated by the Thames are "contiguous" or not? I believe the boroughs do not extend to the middle of the river, and, therefore, they would not be touching. Would that not be the reason for leaving this paragraph out?

Mr. Ede

The metropolitan boroughs extend to the middle of the bed of the river Thames, with the exception of Woolwich.

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd (Wirral)

On a point of Order. As the right hon. Gentleman has already stated that he is leaving out these three lines, is he entitled to give an explanation?

Mr. Ede

As I was saying, except the borough of Woolwich, part of which is to be found on the north bank of the Thames. I am advised by my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General that it would not matter if the boroughs did not extend to the middle of the Thames, for if they are separated only by the river, they would still be contiguous.

Mr. Butcher

Hon. Gentlemen opposite, in view of the charming words which the Home Secretary addressed to me, would think I was guilty of grave discourtesy, if I did not take the opportunity to thank him for his kindness. Tile fact that the right hon, Gentleman has accepted my first intervention in the Debate encourages me to make more frequent interventions. I am hoping that he, the hon. Lady for North-west Camberwell (Mrs. Corbet) and I, if we continue to move together, will accomplish something more. If we continue to sit here for a few more hours this trio will be able to co-operate most happily.

Mr. Manningham-Buller

I should like, too, to congratulate the hon. Lady for North-West Camberwell (Mrs. Corbet) on this Amendment, and also the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary on an apparent change of attitude from that adopted so far. I hope he will regard this as a precedent to be followed in the future. Before we pass from this Amendment, bearing in mind the importance of this Measure, the Committee should have some idea why these words were originally included in this Bill. Why have we to spend time in Committee taking out what the Government put in? Obviously, it would be wrong to treat contiguous metropolitan boroughs differently from boroughs or urban districts in other parts of the country. The right hon. Gentleman has been allowed to get away with it far too easily, and he should tell us how this curious discrimination against the metropolitan boroughs got into the Bill, and why it is that he has only now discovered the error made.

Amendment agreed to.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

6.0 a.m.

Sir Hugh Lucas-Tooth (Hendon, South)

Before we part from this Clause, there is one question I should like to put to the Home Secretary. It arises out of the last Subsection with which we have been dealing. It will be seen that the Subsection defines the areas in question by reference to addresses, but that reference is not satisfactory in the context. There is a block of flats probably known to most hon. Members of this Committee, which stands at the corner of the Finchley Road and Hendon Way. The block of flats was built on the boundary of the constituency and accordingly the boundary passes right through the middle of the block. I am not certain whether the boundary actually falls on the corner walls or whether it passes through the buildings, because the address is the same in each case. But it may well be that a person residing in Flat I moves to Flat 4, and in doing so passes out of the borough of Hendon into the metropolitan borough of Hampstead. Thus they have brought themselves within the meaning of this Subsection. But it seems to me entirely unfair that they should be accorded the advantage of the Clause by the technical fact that they have changed their addresses.

There are cases where the address might be altogether the wrong test. Hon. Members will be well aware that there are places in this country where the address is given, as the local postal town, which might be Io or 20 miles away from the actual place of residence. The address would be the address of the postal town, and therefore there would be cases in which removals up to 20 miles would have to be disregarded. I have put the extreme cases—removal from one room to another would be a change of address; in the other case, a removal of many miles might constitute no change at all. I think that these words need examination. I hope we shall get an assurance from the Government that they will look at the wording to see whether some amendment might not be necessary to give effect to their genuine intention.

Mr. Manningham-Buller

There is one point on which I think we ought to have a little explanation from the right hon. Gentleman. It may be covered, but I am not quite sure that it is. This is a very complicated Clause and I hope the right hon. Gentleman will be able to put my doubts at rest. Although the Bill makes provision for people to vote by post and by proxy if they come within the categories set out in Clause 8 (I), is this particular case covered by those categories? Suppose someone after an operation is sent away to some other part of the country on doctor's orders to convalesce, would the individual suffering or recovering from illness, be entitled to vote, either by proxy or post. It would not appear from the state of their health that they had been unable to go in person to a polling station and vote unaided. On the other hand, they might be under doctor's orders. This affects every section of the community, as people nowadays are sent say, from the Midlands to Bognor to recuperate. [Laughter.] It is a serious point, although there appears to be some laughter on the benches below the Gangway opposite. It is a point requiring careful consideration. I do not know whether the hon. Member opposite is having a talk of his own or not.

Hon. Members

Order.

Mr. Manningham-Buller

I am trying to put a point of some importance which I think the right hon. Gentleman will endeavour—[Interruption]—the interruptions below the Gangway do not facilitate my task and I am afraid make it more difficult for me to put the point as clearly and as concisely as I would wish.

Would those people to whom I refer come within category (c)—persons in convalescent homes? I should doubt myself whether they would. They would not come obviously within category (b) because it could not be said in many cases, that they would have to make a journey by air or sea. They might have to make a journey, however, of many miles by rail to get to their polling station and that might be very injurious to their health and retard their recovery. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman does intend to make provision for such cases. I am sure that he would not intend that those persons in convalescent homes should be deprived of the right to vote by post. But I am not sure that will not be the result, and perhaps my right hon. and learned Friend might give us his opinion on this. He might give us an assurance either that the case is covered or, if it is not covered, that he will make provision for it, at a later stage of the bill.

Colonel Gomme-Duncan

Before we leave this Clause may I say that whatever the value of the matter which it contains, I think everyone will agree that in its construction it is a deplorably bad Clause. It was bad enough before the addition was made in Subsection (8). With the addition of that new piece, the Clause becomes positively ridiculous. The point I wish to make about the construction of this Clause is that we have here division and sub-division on a perfectly fantastic scale. When I was trained as a staff officer I was told by my instructor —a very distinguished general—that if you had more than one sub-division to a clause in any order you were writing, it was a rank bad order. [Interruption.] Many Members on the other side of the Committee know nothing about military matters but they might learn something if they would listen for a moment. I would like to point out that in this Clause we have eight sections, fourteen subsections and five sub-subsections. If that is not a clear example of bad construction, and does not lead inevitably to confusion, then I do not know what bad construction is. If the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Mack) would like some instruction on these matters, I should be glad to give them. I fancy his knowledge of military matters is rather less than that of most Members. Why should we have a Clause like this, which will affect people many of whom are without expert legal knowledge and can lead to nothing but confusion? I ask the Home Secretary and the Lord Advocate to see if it cannot be simplified before we come to the Report stage. Someone has to operate this and in the matter of the proxy and absent voter, it is I think testing them far too high. A little clarity and simplicity in these matters would help, because, whatever the merits or demerits of the matter contained in the Clause, the way in which it is set out will lead to an enormous reduction of any value it might otherwise have.

Mr. H. Strauss

May I put one question to the Home Secretary? I wonder whether he is quite satisfied that, as a result of the Amendment which, with the consent of the whole Committee, he has accepted, some consequential Amendment may not be necessary. As a result of deleting the Subsection (7, b) all allusion to the City of London has gone. I wonder if the right hon. Gentleman is satisfied that the area of the City of London is sufficiently provided for without any further amendment of the Clause.

Colonel J. R. H. Hutchison (Glasgow, Central)

If interventions by the hon. and gallant Member for Perth and Kinross (Colonel Gomme-Duncan) have been rare in this Debate, it is because there has been no evidence of considerable political bias against Scotland. But I am in doubt about that here. In Subsection (7, c) we find a definition of an absent voter. The Clause is concerned with showing to the Committee, and to the country, how absent a voter has to be, before he is recognised as an absent voter. We find that the definition of an absent voter in England varies considerably from that of an absent voter in Scotland. I should like to be assured that an absent voter has not to be more absent in Scotland than is the case in England if he is to qualify. We find that in England he can be in the same village, and yet technically can be an absent voter, whereas in Scotland he has to be right out of the electoral division. I do not know whether the electoral division has been defined as the Parliamentary, or the local government, electoral division. Both these types of electoral division may extend over a very wide area in Scotland. Perhaps the Home Secretary will be able to enlighten me on this point.

Mr. P. Roberts

I rise full of optimism, because we had a long discussion earlier about whether the borough was too large an area for persons to travel over to record their votes. We have had the same principle discussed with regard to the Metropolitan boroughs. The argument there was again that the areas and the distances became so wide and complicated that voting in person should be waived. Now the Home Secretary has accepted that with regard to the Metropolitan boroughs. I want to refer to the map which shows the Metropolitan boroughs. The scale is shown at the foot of the map, and I have managed to work out the distances and to compare those in the boroughs of London with the distances which I mentioned in regard to Sheffield. Although I do not want to repeat myself. I do wish to refer to Leeds at a later stage. The argument I have to put to the Home Secretary is that if he is going to accept the pleas with regard to distances and the difficulty of transport in London, then he should concede the same arguments in other great cities, particularly in the Midlands and the North of England.

6.15 a.m.

I wish to take as my first example the Metropolitan borough of Wandsworth and the question of travelling from there to the Metropolitan borough of Lambeth. The Home Secretary was quite right when he agreed that this was a very long way if one were to travel from Putney all the way round to Vauxhall.—[AN. HON. MEMBER: "Which way?"]—I did not intend to go into detail but, as I have been asked, I will do so. He would go through Dunishill, and Upper Tooting, from there to Tooting Bec and Streatham, then to Norwood and Lambeth and so up to the Vauxhall Bridge. That is a distance of over ten miles.

Mr. Butcher

Surely the man would be travelling the wrong way. Would he not take a District Line train from Putney Bridge Station to Westminster and then cross over the Bridge on a tram?

Mr. Roberts

If he did not follow the route I have mentioned, he would not go from one contiguous borough to another contiguous borough, because he would go through Battersea, Chelsea and Westminster, and they are not relevant to this argument.

I now wish to refer to the great City of Leeds. The Home Secretary says that whereas it was wrong to compel a person to travel from Putney to Vauxhall, as it was too far for an injured or blind person, it is right that someone should go from Upper Moor Side all the way into the centre of Leeds and out on the other side towards Red Hut. That is a distance of something less than ten miles. I ask the right hon. Gentleman to reconsider his previous decision. He said that it was considered convenient for the incapacitated and blind to travel these distances in the towns and cities of the North, but that that was not to be expected in regard to the. Metropolitan boroughs. If the Home Secretary would accept the principle of my argument I would sit down at once, but apparently he is not satisfied that there is a valid argument. I do not know whether he is prepared to intervene to say that he will consider the matter again between now and the Report stage.

There was a suggestion earlier that the word "ward" should be substituted for the words "boroughs" and "urban districts." That was a reasonable suggestion. I consider the only reason why it was not accepted was that it was put at too great a length. The right hon. Gentleman appears more inclined to accept principles when they are put with brevity than when they are explained at length. I hope that is not the case. It would be a great negation of the principles of justice if the way in which an Amendment was proposed, was a criterion of whether or not it should be accepted. I wish to bring his attention to that aspect. If he is not satisfied with the argument I would, with great pleasure, take other instances and show how exactly the same thing would apply in London and Northern cities.

Mr. Ede

I will try to deal with the various questions which have been put to me. The hon. Member for South Hendon (Sir H. Lucas-Tooth) asked what would happen if a person moved from Flat z in his constituency into Flat 4 which, although in the same block of buildings, would be in the adjoining Metropolitan borough of Hampstead. There is no doubt in that case a person would qualify for his address as Flat whatever the name of the mansions were. I cannot think there is any difficulty about that. The hon. and learned Member for the Combined Universities (Mr. H. Strauss) asked whether, as a result of accepting the Amendment moved by my hon. Friend the Member for North-West Camberwell (Mrs. Corbet), I should not have to put down an Amendment on the Report stage to deal with the position of the City. That is so, and it will be necessary as the City does not rank as a borough and has to be specially described in any Measure of this kind.

The hon. and learned Member for Daventry (Mr. Manningham-Buller) asked about the case of a person staying in a convalescent home owing to ill-health. I am advised that if a doctor could certify that it would be injurious to the health of such a person to go home for the purpose of recording the vote, that would be sufficient to ensure he would be allowed to vote by post. The hon. Member for Ecclesall (Mr. Roberts) asked about certain circumstances arising out of the acceptance of the Amendment. I accepted the Amendment because I saw no reason why London should be treated differently from other parts of the country. A Metropolitan borough, it seems to me, ought to be treated in the same way as any other borough. It seems absurd to insist that in London a movement from one contiguous borough would not qualify, whereas in any other part of the country to have crossed the boundary between two boroughs would enable someone to get the benefit of the Clause.

Colonel J. R. H. Hutchison

Would the Home Secretary answer the question about Scotland?

Mr. Ede

No. The next thing would be that someone would complain I am meddling in Scottish matters. I do not intend to reply to Scottish points. Far be it for me to deal with the intricacies of Scottish local government. I hope that, as regards questions addressed to me as Secretary of State for affairs South of the Tweed, it will be thought I have given reasonable answers.

Mr. Pickthorn

I wonder if I might refer to a remark made by the Under-Secretary a good many hours ago and ask him a general question. He then said, and I think I am quoting him correctly, that it will not be necessary for an individual to register a long time in advance. I hope and believe he is right. The question, I want to ask is this. The general upshot of this Clause is not easy to follow and it has not been made easier by all that has happened in the night because one or two Amendments have been accepted and the two sides of the Committee disagree about the meaning of them. Would it not save our time on Clause 9 and one or two of the later Clauses if we could be told, quite shortly, the general upshot of this Clause One obvious method which occurs to me is in what respect this will be different from what we are accustomed to; what it was at the last General Election, and whether we can be given some forecast as to the general regulations which may be expected, to whom it need apply, and by what date. This, I presume, will all be answered by regulations. It may be that the Clause which we are now engaged in passing, or the contemplated regulations under the Clause, contemplate some material change in these matters. If so, it seems that our discussions on Clause 9 and later Clauses will be rather meaningless unless we are informed on the points I have put now. I hope I have made myself clear.

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Woodburn)

If I may answer the hon. and gallant Member for Central Glasgow (Colonel J. R. H. Hutchison), I would point out that it is difficult to make a distinction between burghs and counties so far as Parliamentary and municipal divisions are concerned, but as the hon. and gallant Member for Pollok (Commander Galbraith)—I think it was he—suggested earlier in the Debate, it does make a difference in great con- stituencies like Ross-shire where a person may be a long distance from a residence. I shall look into this matter to see if anything can be done to make this more uniform or more just.

Mr. Spence

I am grateful for what the right hon. Gentleman has said. I hope that no one in the Committee feels that this is time-wasting, because it is a most important Clause; it is the most important in the whole Bill. This Clause arranges the place and manner of voting for the electorate, and there can be nothing much more important than that, and in raising these points we are trying to make the Bill as good as we can. There is a point on which I should like some information. It is where paragraph (I) lays down, at the very beginning, the terms under which the ordinary elector votes. It says: All persons voting as electors at a Parliamentary election shall do so in person at the polling station allotted to them under the Ballot Act, 1872. If we turn one page we find that we have been arranging where the polling stations shall be in this new Bill, which is to become the Act of 1948. How do the electors know under an Act of 1872 where polling stations are to be which are arranged under an Act of 1948? If the Ballot Act appears to give direction as to where they are to vote surely something should be put in the Clause to make that clear. Here is a fundamental right of the electorate to go to the poll and cast their votes, and it is an important matter and should be made quite clear.

6.30 a.m.

Mr. Whiteley rose in his place and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."

Major Beamish

On a point of Order. I had wanted to have an opportunity on this Clause of raising an extremely important matter referring to the Ballot Act of 1872.

The Deputy-Chairman

That is not a point of Order.

Mr. Pickthorn

I hope this is a point of Order, and I would not endeavour to make a false one. Is it out of Order to ask you, Mr. Beaumont, who have not been very long in the Chair, whether it is present to your mind that there has been no general explanation of the general meaning of this Clause at all? There have been several substantial questions, a general explanation has been asked for in a polite and reasonable manner, and it is a little surprising, there having been no general explanation, that the Question should now be put.

The Deputy-Chairman

What the hon. Member is saying is not a point of Order. It may be that I have just returned to the Chair, but I have been an appreciable time in the Chair when this Clause and Amendments to it have been fully discussed. I hope I have answered the questions courteously if, may be, not satisfactorily.

Division No. 119.]	AYES.	[6.33 a.m.
Adams, Richard (Balham)	Guy, W. H.	Pritt, D. N.
Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)	Hale, Leslie	Randall, H. E.
Alpass, J. H.	Hamilton, Lt.-Col. R.	Ranger, J.
Attewell, H. C.	Hardman, D. R.	Reeves, J.
Austin, H. Lewis	Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick)	Reid, T. (Swindon)
Ayrton Gould, Mrs. B.	Herbison, Miss M.	Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)
Bacon, Miss A.	Hewitson, Captain M.	Ross, William (Kilmarnock)
Barton, C.	Holman, P.	Royle, C.
Bechervaise, A. E.	House, G.	Segal, Dr. S.
Berry, H.	Hoy, J.	Shackleton, E. A. A.
Beswick, F.	Hudson, J. H. (Ealing, W.)	Sharp, Granville
Bing, G. H. C.	Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)	Shawcross, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (St. Helens)
Binns, J.	Hughes, H. D. (Wolverhampton, W.)	Silverman, J. (Erdington)
Blackburn, A. R.	Hynd, H. (Hackney, C.)	Simmons, C. J.
Boardman, H.	Irving, W. J. (Tottenham, N.)	Snow, J. W.
Bowles, F. G. (Nuneaton)	Janner, B.	Sorensen, R. W.
Braddoek, Mrs. E. M. (L'pl, Exch'ge)	Jeger, G. (Winchester)	Soskice, Sir Frank
Braddock, T. (Mitcham)	Johnston, D. H.	Sparks, J. A.
Brook, D. (Halifax)	Jones, D. T. (Hartlepools)	Steele, T.
Brown, George (Belper)	Jones, P. Asterley (Hitchin)	Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)
Brown, T J. (Ince)	Keenan, W.	Sylvester, G. O.
Bruce, Major D. W. T.	Kenyon, C.	Symonds, A. L.
Butler, H. W. (Hackney, S.)	Lee, Miss J. (Cannock)	Taylor, H. B. (Mansfield)
Byers, Frank	Levy, B. W.	Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)
Champion, A. J.	Lewis, A W. J. (Upton)	Thomas, D. E. (Aberdare)
Chetwynd, G. R.	Lindgren, G. S.	Thomas, I. O (Wrekin)
Collins, V. J.	Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.	Thomas, George (Cardiff)
Corbet, Mrs. F. K. (Camb'well, N.W.)	Longden, F.	Thurtle, Ernest
Crawley, A.	Lyne, A. W.	Tiffany, S.
Crossman, R. H. S.	McGhee, H. G.	Tolley, L.
Daggar, G.	Mack, J. D.	Ungoed-Thomas, L
Daines, P.	Maclean, N. (Govan)	Vernon, Major W. F.
Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.	McLeavy, F.	Wadsworth, G.
Davies, Edward (Burslem)	Manning, Mrs. L. (Epping)	Wallace, G. D. (Chislehurst)
Davies, Harold (Leek)	Mathers, Rt. Hon. G.	Walkins, T. E.
Davies, Haydn (St. Pancras, S.W.)	Mellish, R. J.	Weitzman, D.
de Freitas, Geoffrey	Middleton, Mrs. L	Wells, P. L. (Faversham)
Delargy, H. J.	Mikardo, Ian	Wells, W. T. (Walsall)
Dodds, N. N.	Monslow, W.	West, D. G
Driberg, T. E. N.	Morley, R.	Wheatley, Rt. Hn. J. T. (Edinb'gh, E.)
Dumpleton, C. W.	Morgan, Dr. H. B.	Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.
Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.	Morris, P. (Swansea, W.)	Wilkes, L.
Edelman, M.	Moyle, A.	Willey, F. T. (Sunderland)
Evans, A. (Islington, W.)	Nally, W.	Willey, O. G. (Cleveland)
Evans, John (Ogmore)	Neal, H. (Claycross)	Williams, D J. (Neath)
Evans, S. N. (Wednesbury)	Nichol, Mrs. M. E. (Bradford, N.)	Williams, J. L. (Kelvingrove)
Fairhurst, F.	Nicholls, H. R (Stratford)	Williams, R. W. (Wigan)
Farthing, W. J.	Noel-Baker, Capt. F. E. (Brentford)	Williams, W. R. (Heston)
Fernyhough, E.	Orbach, M.	Willis, E.
Field, Captain W. J.	Palmer, A. M. F	Wills, Mrs. E. A.
Foot, M. M.	Pargiter, G. A.	Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.
Forman, J. C.	Paton, Mrs. F. (Rushcliffe)	Wyatt, W.
Ganley, Mrs. C. S.	Paton, J. (Norwich)	Yates, V. F.
George, Lady M. Lloyd (Anglesey)	Pearson, A.	Younger, Hon. Kenneth
Gibson, C. W.	Peart, Thomas F.	Zilliacus, K.
Gilzean, A.	Perrins, W.
Gordon-Walker, P. C.	Piratin, P.	TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
Greenwood, A. W. J. (Heywood)	Platts-Mills, J. F. F.	Mr. Hannan and
Griffiths, D. (Rother Valley)	Poole, Ceoil (Lichfield)	Mr. Collindridge.
Gunter, R. J.	Porter, G. (Leeds)

Mr. Pickthorn

You were in the Chair, Sir, when the Amendments were discussed, but not for the time when the Clause was under discussion.

Mr. Marlowe rose——

The Deputy-Chairman

I cannot continuously have points of Order. There have been two already.

Question put. "That the Question be now put."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 175; Noes, 52.

NOES.
Agnew, Cmdr. P. G.	Galbraith, Cmdr T. D	Odey, G. W.
Amory, D. Heathcoat	Gomme-Duncan, Col. A.	Peake, Rt. Hon. O.
Astor, Hon. M.	Grimston, R. V.	Peto, Brig. C. H. M.
Beamish, Maj. T. V. H.	Harris, F. W. (Croydon, N.)	Pickthorn, K.
Bossom, A. C.	Hogg, Hon. Q.	Prescott, Stanley
Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W.	Hutchison, Col. J. R. (Glasgow, C.)	Reid, Rt. Hon. J. S. C. (Hillhead)
Butcher, H. W.	Keeling, E. H.	Roberts, Peter (Ecclesall)
Challen, C.	Kendall, W. D.	Robinson, Roland
Channon, H.	Linstead, H. N.	Spence, H. R.
Clifton-Brown, Lt.-Col. G.	Lloyd, Selwyn (Wirral)	Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.
Conant, Maj. R. J. E.	Lucas-Tooth, Sir H.	Strauss, H. G. (English Universities)
Corbett, Lieut.-Col. U. (Ludlow)	McKie, J. H. (Galloway)	Touche, G. C.
Cuthbert, W. N.	Macpherson, N. (Dumfries)	Wheatley, Col. M. J. (Dorset, E.)
Drayson, G. B.	Manningham-Buller, R. E.	Willoughby de Eresby, Lord
Drewe, C.	Marlowe, A. A. H.
Duthie, W. S.	Medlicott, Brigadier F.	TELLERS FOR THE NOES
Foster, J. G. (Northwich)	Mellor, Sir J	Mr. Studholme and
Fox, Sir G.	Mullan, Lt. C. H.	Major Ramsay.
Gage, C.	Noble, Comdr. A. H. P.

Question, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill," put accordingly, and agreed to.