Lords Sitting of 17 March 1926

Preamble
The House met at a quarter before four of the clock, The LORD CHAXCELLOR on the Woolsack.

BERWICK-UPON-TWEED CORPORATION (FREEMEN) BILL. [H.L.]
NEWCASTLE-UPON-TYNE CORPORATION BILL. [H.L.]
WORCESTER CORPORATION BILL. [H.L.]
READING UNIVERSITY BILL. [H.L.]
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my mime on the Paper. There are public reasons which justify my making this proposal.
Moved, That Standing Order No. 91 be considered in order to its being dispensed with in respect of the said Bills, and that the Bills be now read 2a.—(The Earl of Donoughmore)
On Question, Motion agreed to, and Bills read 2a accordingly.

KIDDERMINSTER AND STOURP0RT TRAMWAYS BILL. [H.L.]
Read 2a.

ST. HELENS ELECTRICITY (EXTEN SION) SPECIAL ORDER, 1926.
THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (VISCOUNT PEEL): My Lords, I beg to move that the Draft Orders standing on the Paper in my name be approved.
Moved, That the Special Orders which were presented on the 16th day of February last be approved.—(Viscount Peel.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

ISLE OF WIGHT RURAL ELECTRICITY SPECIAL ORDER, 1926
VISCOUNT PEEL:My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the Special Order which was presented on the 24th day of February last be approved.—(Viscount Peel.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

THE DOMINIONS AND THE LOCARNO TREATY.
LORD PARMOOR LORD PARMOOR rose to call attention to Article 9 of the Locarno Treaty, and to ask His Majesty's Government whether any correspondence has taken place in reference thereto with the Dominions of Canada and South Africa; and to move for Papers. The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I rise to move the Resolution which stands in my name on the. Paper, to call attention to Article 9 of the Locarno Treaty and to ask His Majesty's Government whether any correspondence has taken place in reference thereto with the Dominions of Canada and South Africa. I cannot help knowing, as the noble Earl knows, that correspondence has taken place, and the question is how far or to what extent it can be made public. I believe that with proper excerpts and the omissions which I suppose have to be made from correspondence of this kind there should be no difficulty, but I propose to develop that thesis in what I am going to say to your Lordships. Perhaps I might make it clear at the outset that this Question has nothing to do with the matters which have taken up our attention in the Geneva discussion during the last week. That is a separate matter altogether and does not in any way affect the Question which I am asking and the Resolution which I am proposing.
It may be well—perhaps you may not have it in your minds—to quote the terms of Article 9 of the Locarno Treaty to which I call attention. I quoted it on a previous occasion when addressing your Lordships and then the noble Earl told us that communications had passed between His Majesty's Government and Canada—I think he went so far as to say between the Dominions and ourselves—with reference to the matters involved. Article 9 is in these words:—
"The present Treaty shall impose no obligation upon any of the British

591
Dominions, or upon India, unless the Government of such Dominion, or of India, signifies its acceptance thereof."
My present Question is limited to the Dominions of Canada and South Africa. Of course, the same principles apply to all the Dominions, but these two are selected as being the two Dominions in which there has been a great deal of internal discussion and suggestion. I should like in a few words to point out again what I pointed out before—namely, that it is quite impossible that the Treaty of Locarno, if and when it is ratified, should impose no obligation upon any of the British Dominions. I think the noble Earl knows what I said on the previous occasion and I have not heard any answer to it. If you have, as is the case in our Empire, what I will call a common sovereignty, including both Mother Country and her Dominions, you cannot go to war so far as the Mother Country is concerned without involving the Dominions in the position of belligerents. That is a principle of international law which I have not seen questioned anywhere, although various articles have been written by Professor Keith and others pointing out its importance on the present occasion.
Now it is natural, of course, that the Dominions should be anxious, under our present Empire Constitution, to have a proper share in and proper knowledge of both our foreign policy and our Treaty obligations, and the noble Earl, in answer to a letter written to him, has supplied me through his secretary with two documents which give the information which I wanted. I will take the liberty of reading them shortly to your Lordships' House, because it is on the statements made in those two documents that I am largely basing this application for further information. The first of those documents is the Command Paper No. 1474, which contains a summary of the conference between the Prime Ministers and representatives of the United Kingdom and Dominions which was held in June, July and August, 1921. The then Prime Minister, Mr. Lloyd George, speaking on behalf of Great Britain, asked for suggestions for the conduct of Empire business and he made this statement:
"Any suggestions which you can make upon that subject we shall be very delighted to hear and discuss. There was a time when Downing Street controlled the Empire; today
592
the Empire is in charge of Downing Street."
Without committing myself to such a general statement as that, I think it is accurate to say that nowadays Downing Street cannot act independently of Dominion suggestion and influence, and that to that extent the Dominions are in charge of Downing Street rather than Downing Street dictating to the Dominions. Then Mr. Lloyd George said this:—
"On all matters of common concern we want to know your standpoint, and we want to tell you ours."
That is exactly what I desire should be done, but of course it can only be done effectively if, so far as is permissible, publicity is given to communications of that kind.
On the mutual relationship within the Empire this statement is made: I read it for the sake of concentration; it was I statement which was intended to bind, and does bind, the Mother Country in relation to the Colonies:—
"The British Dominions have now been accepted fully into the comity of nations by the whole world."
That is one of the results, as pointed out at that time, of the Great War.
"They are signatories to the Treaty of Versailles and of all the other Treaties of pence; they are Members of the Assembly of the League of Nations, and their representatives have already attended meetings of the League. …"
That, of course, very accurately points out the entirely new position, or the practically new position, occupied by the Dominions towards the Mother Country as a result of our common action and common assistance during the Great War. Then we have this passage:
"In other words, they have achieved full national status"—
I think those words are extremely important—
"and they now stand beside the United Kingdom as equal partners in the dignities and the responsibilities of the British Commonwealth. If there are any means by which that status can be rendered even clearer to their own communities and to the world at large we shall be glad to have them put forward at this Conference."
I adopt fully, at any rate on my own behalf, every word which was stated by the then Prime Minister as to the relationship between the Dominions and the Mother Country. The effect of it is

593
that as regards foreign policy, and morn particularly as regards Treaty negotiations, we cannot, in loyalty to our Dominions, proceed in those matters without taking thorn into our confidence and having common negotiations expressive of our common interests.
In 1923, in a special way outside the questions of foreign relationships dealt with in 1921, Resolutions—given in Command Paper No. 1987—were passed under the heading: "Negotiation, signature, and ratification of Treaties." Then there was a Resolution drawn up by the legal adviser of the Foreign Office—I believe we do not state names, but the name is giver, in the Paper itself—who we all know has very special skilled knowledge and experience in these matters. I cannot read all that Resolution, but I will deal with two paragraphs. In paragraph (b), on page 13, under the head "Negotiation":
"Before negotiations are opened with the intention of concluding a Treaty, steps should be taken to ensure that any of the other Governments of the Empire likely to lie interested are informed "—
Of course, ill asking for the correspondence I want to know whether that obligation which we have undertaken towards our Dominions was carried out. and whether, before opening the negotiations which resulted in the Treaty of Locarno, steps were taken to ensure that the Governments of our Empire in Canada and South Africa had full knowledge of what we intended to do—
"so that if any such Government"—
this shows the reason the information—
"considers that its interests would be affected, it may have an opportunity of expressing its views, or, when its interests are intimately involved, of participating in the negotiations."
What I want to ask the noble Earl—perhaps he will give me this information, although he may have reasons for not submitting the documents themselves—is this: Was the: Government of Canada given an opportunity of expressing its view and, where its interests were affected, of participating in the negotiations? I take Canada as an illustration because there has been a great deal of discussion on this matter in Canada, as well as h South Africa.
This if not a matter where any particular Government is concerned. I
594
should like to say in the strongest manner that I do not think matters of this kind ought to be approached from a political Party point of view at all. They are matters of great national and Imperial importance, quite outside the special interests of one Government or another. I should like to add this. It is sometimes suggested, I think quite wrongly, that perhaps the Labour Government may have, less interest in our Imperial position and in the relationship between the Mother country and our Dominions than may be held, for instance, by the Government in power at the present time. I want to deny that in the strongest terms. No doubt there may be differences as to the way in which the Imperial connection may be best fostered and encouraged. I do not believe, for example, in the attitude of the present Government on the question of preferential tariffs and matters of that kind. On the other hand, I do believe that the Empire ought to be regarded as an Empire of independent Commonwealths in an equal position, able to work together and negotiating so as to act for common purposes to preserve not only the peace of the Empire but also, and in connection with that, the peace of the whole world.
There is one other passage which I want to read, paragraph (d) under the same heading:—
"Steps should be taken to ensure that those Governments of the Empire whoso representatives are not participating in the negotiations should, during their progress, be kept informed in regard to any points arising in which they may be interested."
I find it difficult to conceive any matter of foreign policy in which the Dominions are not interested. If I may give an illustration, I may say that when I was a delegate at Geneva, we were in constant communication every day—I was going to say almost every hour—with the representatives of the Dominions as to the League policy to be followed. And, as a matter of fact, at that stage we all agreed; we not only negotiated and communicated, but we came to a common agreement. Subsequently, no doubt, as we know, there was some difference of opinion, although I think it was exaggerated, in the Dominions in reference to agreements which had been come to at Geneva, but no one stated more strongly than our critics, who were the succeeding Government, that no foreign policy of

595
that kind, no foreign policy in which there might be any liabilities or any burden thrown upon any of our Dominions, ought to be either negotiated or entered upon or considered until there was assurance that we were all working together for a common purpose. I felt, and still feel, the force of that. But I have seen no evidence at present that our successors in their policy had anything like the same regard for Colonial opinion that we had.
Since I put down my Question on the Paper I observed, in The Times of yesterday, a message from its Ottawa Correspondent headed "Canada and Locarno Correspondence." That message quotes the answer which was given by the Prime Minister of Canada, Mr. Mackenzie King, to an application that the documents to which I am referring should be laid on the Table. The answer given showed that the British Government are opposed to any such publication. But I should like to read the words and I think it is fair that I should do so because, although I do not agree with it, I appreciate what was stated on behalf of the British Government. I had not seen it until yesterday, but what Mr. Mackenzie King said was this—
"We intimated that the Canadian Government would be prepared to accede to any request, so far as communication on our part was concerned"—
That "communication on our part" had regard to the communication between them and Great Britain on the subject of Locarno. It was on that subject that he was asked to give information, and the documents on his side I am asking for now. I think I have rightly summarised the effect of it. Then he went on to say—
"but we are informed by the British Government that they do not see their way to consent to the publication of these Despatches, as they are of a detailed character, covering many phases of negotiations, and contain confidential information a-s to the views of foreign Governments."
I think the answer to that is one which has often been given. I realise that in communicating or publishing Despatches you must and ought to be careful not to interfere with private communications made by some third party—a foreign Government, for instance. That does not mean that the portion of the Despatches which is required to enable one to ascertain the attitude of the two
596
principal parties may not be published. It has to be done constantly. But in matters of this kind you have to omit, and very properly, certain portions of the letters or correspondence. I do not know how often I have seen correspondence made public with limitations of that character. But I am afraid I shall have an unfavourable answer from the noble Earl; I appreciated that when I saw the answer that had been given in the Canadian Parliament.
It is really important to remember that the Canadian Parliament were asking for information to which they seemed to me to be entitled so far as Canadian interests are concerned. I admit at once that they are not entitled to it in reference to secret correspondence, if I may use the term, and confidential information as between Great Britain and foreign Governments. If the foreign Governments do not assent to it I think it would be a breach of diplomatic etiquette at least, to put it no higher, to publish documents in those circumstances. But it is unnecessary. I do not want to see, and no one I think wants to see, any matters of diplomatic reserve as between ourselves and foreign Governments. What we want to see from this correspondence is the attitude taken up between Canada or South Africa on the one side and the Home Government upon the other. I regard this as a matter of the very greatest importance. There is no question to the front at the present moment, or since the War, of greater moment or more vital interest to the people of this country and to the world than the unity of the Empire in the cause of peace and of peace policy. I recollect an interjection of the noble Marquess the Leader of the House, the other day, in a speech by my noble friend Lord Thomson. The noble Marquess said that we are all pacifists now. We may all be pacifists, but I want to go a little further than that.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I did not quite say that.
LORD PARMOOR: The noble Marquess nearly said it and that is enough for my purpose. I very nearly congratulated him at the time—I did sotto voce— for making a statement of that kind. But that statement is not sufficient and I am sure the noble Marquess will agree

597
that if he and I are pacifists we have approached the problem from different points of view. I do not think he will deny that for one moment. I am approaching the Dominion question at the moment from the point of view that the unity of the Empire and the working of the Empire together for a peace policy is one of the most important of the peace project which are to the front at the present time. It is absolutely essential that there should be unity on foreign policy in a peace spirit as between the Dominions and the Mother Country. Perhaps I might quote words used by General Smuts of which I took a note at the time. Ho urged them to pursue a common policy to bring real peace both for the Empire and the world generally.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Hear, hear.
LORD PARMOOR.: There are many points in which I do not entirely agree with the noble Marquess, but I am glad to have his assent upon that matter.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: What I assented to was what General Smuts said.
LORD PARMOOR: That is sufficient for my purpose. I do not desire to cross-examine the noble Marquess further on any interjectional statement he may have made. To ensure that common policy is a great national purpose, or may I put it, that to ensure it is a great Imperial purpose. If it is a great national and Imperial purpose there ought to be publicity as far as it can possibly be carried, in order that if anything like a breach or difference of opinion arises it may be dealt with at the earliest possible moment. I have said that what I am calling your Lordships' attention to today has no reference to what has been passing at Geneva; but we get lessons from time to time in the importance of frank and straightforward publicity in connection with foreign policy and international relationships. The area is so large, the number of people interested so great, that unless there is the maximum of publicity you can never be certain that you are carrying with you the people you desire to carry with you in any policy you may choose to adopt.
I do not want to say more at present because if anything had to be done concerning
598
any fresh statement as to the relationships between this country and her Dominions I suppose it would be likely to take place at the Imperial Conference, which I am told is to be held in the autumn. In the meantime let there be the frankest statement possible. I am sure the noble Earl will agree that there is no statement which will carry the same weight as the publication, with the necessary eliminations and omissions, of the documents for which I have asked in my Motion. Therefore, so far as it is consistent with our obligations to other countries, and eliminating those parts I have mentioned, I ask that this correspondence may be published. I beg to move.
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOK DOMINION AFFAIRS (THE EARL OF CLARENDON): My Lords, I am sure the noble Lord who has just addressed you will forgive me if I say that I am sorry he has raised this Question to-day, because the operation of Article 9 of the Locarno Treaty to which he has referred is necessarily dependent upon the coming into effect of the Treaty itself in accordance with the provisions of the subsequent Article, Article 10. The conditions precedent to the coming into force of the Treaty, as laid down in Article 10, not yet having been fulfilled, it docs appear to be inopportune, if I may say so without discourtesy to the noble Lord, to discuss at this moment matters in connection with it—that is to say, in connection with Article 9. I should like to make this observation, however, that in so far as His Majesty's Government are aware, none of the Dominion Parliaments have as yet been invited to express their views regarding adhesion to the Locarno Treaty.
As regards the noble Lord's request for Papers, and his references to the Resolutions which were passed at a previous Imperial Conference on the subject of mutual consultation—these were contained in the earlier passages in his speech—I should like to make it quite clear that the correspondence with the Dominions on the subject of the Locarno Treaty falls under two capital heads. In the first place, during the period leading up to the signature of the Treaty last December, His Majesty's Government; have kept every one of the Dominion

599
Governments fully informed of every phase of the negotiations. I think I am correct in stating that over seventy telegrams have passed between this country and the Dominions on this subject during the year 1925. These telegrams were of a detailed nature, covering many phases of the negotiations, and including in many cases confidential information as to the views of foreign Governments. The passage which the noble Lord quoted in his speech was mentioned by the Prime Minister of Canada in the Dominion House of Commons, on Monday of this week, and a notice of it appeared in The Times of yesterday. The noble Lord read a part of the speech, if I remember correctly, but did not state the expression of views of His Majesty's Government as to why publication could not be agreed to.
LORD PARMOOR: I read all I had.
THE EARL OF CLARENDON: The expression of views of His Majesty's Government appears in the latter part of the statement which was made by Mr. Mackenzie King in the Dominion House of Commons. His Majesty's Government, consider that publication of such correspondence would be prejudicial to the future free interchange of opinion, not only with foreign Governments but between the Governments of the Empire itself. The noble Lord has referred to what Mr. Mackenzie King said in the Dominion House of Commons. I have referred again to it, and I will not repeat it, but I would like also to refer the noble Lord to the remarks which were made on this question by the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, in another place, on November 18, as to the position of the Dominions in relation to the negotiation of the Treaty. As to the communications which have passed since the signature of the Treaty, I can only repeat what has already been stated by the Prime Minister and by the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs, in another place, that it is not possible at this stage to lay any Papers. As to how the situation will develop between now and the month of October, when the Imperial Conference is to meet, I am sure the noble Lord would not wish me to make any prophecy or forecast. He is aware, as this has already been announced, that it is contemplated that at the Imperial Conference there should be a general discussion
600
of foreign policy, including, of course, all matters arising out of the Treaty of Locarno.
LORD PARMOOR: My Lords, I want to say only a word in reply. Being an advocate, as I am, of publicity in these matters and not an advocate of reservation in the direction of secrecy, I am naturally disappointed with the answer that the noble Earl has given, although, as I have said already, I presumed that he would give the same answer as was given in the Canadian Parliament. I am not quite certain after listening to the noble Earl—he will correct me if I am wrong—about his statement as to what took place before the Treaty of Locarno. I do not know whether be meant that before the Treaty, negotiations had been entered into with, for instance, the Canadian Government disclosing—I use a term that cannot be misunderstood—the nature of those communications?
THE EARL OF CLARENDON: All the Dominion Governments were communicated with.
LORD PARMOOR: I do not know if I ought to ask the noble Earl a further question. If all the Dominion Governments were communicated with, were all their answers in favour? My point is that on questions of this sort you ought to negotiate in order to obtain a common concensus of opinion before you come to what is often called a fait accompli. Were the answers of the Dominions, if they were all communicated, all in favour? That is what we want to know. In other words, did the Government, not merely in words but in spirit, act up to the Resolutions that were arrived at in 1923, and the statements that were made in 1921? There is only one other point I desire to mention. I have not got Article 10 before me, nor have I the Treaty of Locarno. Is Article 10 the one which makes the Treaty dependent on the entrance of Germany into the League of Nations?
THE EARL OF CLARENDON: Yes.
LORD PARMOOR: What has that to do with my Question? It has nothing on earth to do with it. It is not a question connected with the entry of Germany into the League. It is an entirely different

601
matter. In these negotiations and communications did you get a concensus of opinion from the Dominions before you entered into an important Treaty of this kind? That is the; question. It has nothing to do with the date of the entry of Germany. I postponed this matter, but if I had raised it a month ago it would not have made the slightest difference. Nor would it if I raised the matter a month hence. We are pledged. I devoutly hope, and noble Lords hope, that the cloud may be dispersed, and that at a future stage the entry of Germany may be accomplished in accordance with the Treaty of Locarno. I am all in favour of peace and I want success quite irrespective of political Party feeling on one side or another. But what has that to do with the question whether you have properly negotiated with the Dominions in the terms of the Resolutions which I have read? I do not desire to keep this matter up further, but I do regret that we have not had further information from the noble Earl.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

COMPULSORY VOTING.
VISCOUNT BURNHAM VISCOUNT BURNHAM asked whether the attention of His Majesty's Government has been called to the system of compulsory voting for Parliamentary Elections now in force in the Commonwealth of Australia, and whether they will agree to setting up a Select Committee of this House to inquire into the subject and report thereon. The noble Viscount said: My Lords, I am venturing this afternoon to draw the attention of your Lordships to the principle of compulsory voting in Parliamentary Elections, and I hope I am not doing it out of due time. It has been adopted after considerable discussion by the Commonwealth of Australia, which is in reality the most democratic country, not only in the British Empire, but in the whole world. It prevails in some of the States of Australia. It prevails in several of the European countries. I am, however, putting it down here, not by way of Motion, but by way of Question. All I ask His Majesty's Government to-day is to agree to the nomination of a Select Committee which shall inquire into this matter and report upon it to this House by the consecrated means of Parliamentary inquiry.
We have not had any inquiry into electoral systems since 1910. In that year the Royal Commission, presided over by Lord Richard Cavendish, reported to Parliament and it concerned itself mainly with proposals for the introduction of proportional representation, which it did not recommend. Personally I think an inquiry of this sort would be conducted much better by a Joint Committee of both Houses even than by a Select Committee of this House. I can conceive that the terms of reference might be widened sufficiently to include the second ballot and the second preference. All I say is that in the changed circumstances of to day it seem to me imperative that there should be some inquiry as to whether the Parliamentary system as we have it, with Elections on the old principles, which sufficed for another time, are good and sufficient for our own time.
We no longer look to the ballot box with the superstitious reverence that people used to in the latter days of Queen Victoria. Then they regarded the ballot much as a Tibetan regards his praying wheel, thinking it was bound to work well, and to turn out something worthy. I doubt if your Lordships are of that opinion now. We all, of course, rejoice in the present state of tranquillity, and I have no doubt the throat majority of this House would like to see the noble Lords who now sit on the Government Bench sitting there to the end of their natural lives. Whether that is so or not, it seems to me that we are in great danger of drifting with a light heart, but with a perfect sense of inevitableness, into the stormy circle of minority Government. You have now three Parties competing for power in this country, with financial means such as were never at the disposal of any Party before. Their power of promoting Elections is practically inexhaustible. I am bound to say that that seems to me to foretell some danger in the future. What I want to ensure is that if we are asked to listen to the voice of the people, we shall hear the voice of the whole people, not the voice of part of the people only.
I do not think it is necessary for me to argue with those who are so well versed in political philosophy as are the members of this House whether the Parliamentary vote is a right or a trust. We

603
all know what Burke said about it and how he thought it would be best to curtail, and not to extend, the number of voters. We seem to halt between two opinions. Female suffrage is limited to those above thirty years of age and they are supposed virtually to represent their younger sisters. At the same time, if we accept that, even to that extent, the vote remains a trust, surely it is a duty which every citizen is bound according to his citizenship to exercise. Some people imagine that there is something humiliating, or in the nature of an indignity, in compelling men to vote. Why should it be more of an indignity to compel a man to vote than to compel him to perform any other of his civic duties? Half the acts of our lives are done under compulsion.
A NOBLE LORD: I am sorry it is so.
VISCOUNT BURNHAM: My noble friend says he is sorry it is so, but I do not think even he would propose to reverse the present position.
THE NOBLE LORD: I would.
VISCOUNT BURNHAM: At all events, compulsion does exist now and it is well that we should recognise it. Compulsion is exercised by one great Party in the State, and it is exercised very effectively, and I would ask why we should only have it exercised, when a Labour candidate is standing, by those organisations which support his Parliamentary candidature. The real danger seems to me to lie in the apathy and indifference of the majority of voters rather than in the zeal and impatience of the minority. I do not suppose, for example, that the influence of an industry with which I am connected tends very much to stability of mind in the country, but I do know this, that the constant criticism, which some people think carping, in the public Press of the Government of the day is likely to induce people to abstain from voting rather than to commit themselves to any side. I am not asking your Lordships to express an opinion on the matter. I am only asking you to admit that it is worth inquiry.
The example of Australia is recent and cogent, and I have all the figures here in regard to its results. In Australia it was first adopted in the
604
State of Queensland in the year 1915. Before it was adopted 52 per cent, of the electors voted. After it was adopted 82 per cent. voted. It was mainly on the results there that proposals were made that it should be adopted in the Commonwealth at large, and a debate took place, which some of your Lordships may have read in the Australian Hansard, which shows how carefully all The aspects were considered. There is no doubt that the results in Australia have been very remarkable, and from the point of view of those who favour or believe in the necessity of compulsion as being a corollary to democratic government, very convincing. In the results of the Federal Election for the Senate in November, 1925, the enrolled electors numbered some 3,200,000 and the number that voted was 3,015,000, so that the percentage that voted was 91·3. Voting in the different States ranged from 88·7 per cent, for Tasmania to 92·98 per cent, for Victoria, The figures of the Election held in 1922, when voting was optional, were: Enrolled electors, 2,980,000; voted, 1,700,000; percentage, 57·90. The highest percentage of voters previously recorded was in 1917, when it was 77 per cent. Whereas, in 1922, the female voting percentage was 13 per cent, below the male, in 1925 it was only 1 per cent, below and in one State it was even 1 per cent, above the male percentage.
The official view in Australia is that compulsory enrolment is necessary as an adjunct to compulsory voting and ensures approximately complete, up-to-date and accurate rolls. Statistics show that after allowing, (1), for people who are enrolled but who are not qualified to vote, (2), for incapacity through sickness or infirmity, and (3), for those having a valid excuse, for example, death, sickness in the family or approaching maternity, the percentage of electors who are enrolled, who did not vote and were without valid excuse, probably does not exceed 1 pet cent, of the enrolments. This is regarded as a striking example of the desire of Australian electors to obey the law. I think that those figures are very remarkable, especially when compared with our own.
I do not know that I ought to trouble your Lordships with the actual figures, but at the last four Elections the percentages

605
wore as follows: in 1918, 58 per cent.: in 1922, 75 per cent.; in 1023, 74 per cent.; and in 1924, 80 per cent. I cannot help pointing out that the proportion is likely to be very one-sided. Personally I believe—and it is all to their credit that one should say so—that the members of the trade unions of the country vote up to their full strength. I confess that nobody knows how they vote, but it is the business of every branch secretary in the country to see that the members of his branch record their votes, and that is a very effective way of doing it. They are subject, of course, to the usual influence of what is called "moral suasion"—and I am not suggesting that this means more than I say. One must recollect, however, that in those things a new sort of loyalty has arisen in this country. In industrial life "loyalty" means loyalty to the union and "disloyalty" means disloyalty to the union. It is all to the credit, no doubt, of those who formed and maintained the great organisations of Labour that this should be so but it is looked upon as a disloyal act if a member of a trade union does not vote, presumably, for a Labour candidate when a Labour candidate is in the field. I do not for a moment think that there is any such feeling in the ranks of the other Parties in the State.
I cannot understand anybody wishing to go on in the haphazard way in which we are going on now, always trusting to the luck of England to pull us through, never being willing to consider anything on its merits but always trying to see no further than we are obliged to see for the moment. I believe that this will bring a serious reaction in time, and we cannot: charge, democracy with being at fault. I have no idea, in recommending an inquiry of this sort to your Lordships, of suggesting any dodge or device for stemming the tide of democracy or, as Sir James Barrie wittily put it, "damming the flowing tide." I do not believe, that this is possible, and this would not be a way of doing it. We are all ready to accept the considered verdict of the country and we take it from the jury of the electorate. But what we want to make sure is that the jury shall be a full jury and that it shall not be a packed jury. If we deliberately allow ourselves to go to the next Election, all three Parties, as I say, striving against one another and
606
pouring out gold like water in the streets of the constituencies, we have only ourselves to blame if we find the results far different from what we anticipate.
I say this because I am well aware of the resources that are at the disposal of at least two of the Parties—I know very much less about my own—and I speak with some knowledge on that point because some of it is embarked in the trade with which I am myself connected. But I point this out only because of the dangers which seem to loom in the future. All I am asking your Lordships to-day is to agree that the time has come for a fresh inquiry into our electoral system. To-day I am only suggesting that it should relate to the principle of compulsory voting, but I should be quite willing, to ask for a further reference and, if the Government will agree to such a Motion, to extend it to the second ballot and to the second preference. That, at least will be some, assurance that we should get at the real voice of the people which we want to hear and which, when it is expressed fairly and unmistakably, I am sure we are always prepared to obey.
VISCOUNT HALDANE: My Lords, I do not know what answer the Government proposes to give to the Question that the noble Viscount hap put, but I confess that I have been rather disappointed in the case that he has made, and for two reasons. First of all, if there be a ease, it is not one on which a Select Committee, however capable, can properly pronounce. The question is one of broad principle, to be decided by public opinion and not by the report of any Committee.
VISCOUNT BURNHAM: To inform public opinion.
VISCOUNT HALDANE: Yes, but that brings me at once to my great objection to the noble Viscount's proposal. It is a proposal that by the aid of compulsion 3rou should count noses much better and more numerously than you do at the present time. But I do not want to count noses: I want to count minds; and the noble Viscount has shown no indication that by compulsion we shall get any more intelligent voting than we get at the present time. True, you can send people to the polls in flocks like sheep and, when they come there, they will probably do in large measure what you

607
may tell them, but that is not the kind of voting that I want as a guide in estimating policy.
It is a great fallacy to suppose that the mere fact that the votes cast at an Election are not very numerous is an indication that there is something wrong, that you could have got a better and more intelligent vote if you had forced people to come there. Not at all; the real reason for a small vote is that the people have not been interested. Very well, interest them. You see what happens whenever there is an Election in which there is great keenness. People come; forward and percentages rise to that 80 per cent, of which the noble Viscount spoke, and sometimes even higher. But that is because the public have been interested and because constituencies have been moved by the pressure of that which interests them. If there is to be a remedy for the state of things to which the noble Viscount refers—and that there is something that requires a remedy no intelligent person will question—it is not to be got by compulsion. It is to be got by instructing the people in the great political questions of the times and by interesting them. Far more, is to be done in that way than in any other.
There are some things that are wrong in the present system. I think it is quite wrong that women should not be able to vote until they are thirty years of age. I should like to see women put on a complete equality with men and I should be quite content that men and women alike should not vote before the age of twenty-five. Then you would get an approach towards the intelligence which seems to me to be the real desideratum in the whole matter, but as to which there was nothing provided in the noble Viscount's speech. We are told that this has been done in Australia. Every country knows its own social conditions, but I have noticed that no country knows the whole social conditions of another country. Here we have had varied propositions. We have had proportional representation, the second ballot, the transferable vote and a number of things which are regarded with a good deal more suspicion than they were a few years ago. I was myself at one time moved by the speciousness of the proposal for proportional representation, but I have since seen it in operation in two cases which
608
showed what an immense field it opened for organisation and wire pulling, so that the real determining votes became the votes of a well organised minority working the will of its leaders.
That is not what I want. I want to see an educated democracy and a keen democracy. I have witnessed such a democracy. The Labour Party has not got those funds which the noble Viscount seemed to attribute to it. The Labour Party worked with very small funds indeed, and it can work with small funds because, as anybody who has had to do with it and who has gone through Labour elections on a considerable scale knows, the work is done voluntarily by people moved and stirred deeply on the questions in which they are interested. They may be wrong—I am not arguing that—but at least they are keen, they bring their own voters up to the poll and do not depend upon vehicles to the extent that others do. The Labour Party have very little paid organisation—almost none. People come up because they are keen. They may be right or wrong about their views, but it is that kind of thing which we wish to see.
I should like to see the energies of the Primrose League concentrated upon the education of the voters. I notice a great deal more activity on the part of the League in the constituencies than used to be the case. That is a very good thing, and I only hope that the instruction given by the representatives of the Conservative Party will be of that high class which carries conviction. If it is, I have no doubt that they will find it quite unnecessary to use any means of compulsion to get voters to poll. Compulsion is no remedy for a case of this kind. What is wanted is to inspire the people concerned. If you do that, you will get those large votes of which the noble Viscount spoke, and, without being reduced to bare counting of noses, you will get electoral majorities which will ensure that the opinions carried into effect are the opinions of the nation, and not the opinions of mere groups.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: My Lords, I should like to congratulate the noble and learned Viscount upon having made a sound Conservative speech. Having said that, I hope His Majesty's

609
Government will not accede to the request of my noble friend Lord Burnham. What is it that he wants? He wants to set up a Committee to ascertain whether or not it would be advisable to compel people to vote. That is a very simple question. I should have thought that anybody could form his own opinion as to that, and that it is not necessary to set up a Committee to inform people what is the opinion of that Committee.
VISCOUNT BURNHAM: To inquire into the operation of the system elsewhere.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: I am only concerned with what we do in this country. I do not care in the least what other countries do. I am of opinion that other countries should take their example from us, and not we take the example of other people. What is it that the noble Viscount proposes to do? He proposes to say to every man and woman who desires not to vote: "You have got to go and vote," and he says that that is not a bad thing to do, because, fortunately I presume, I think he said half of our actions at the present moment are controlled by officials. I was not aware that half our actions were controlled by officials at the present moment. I think there are a great deal too many and that they interfere in things with which they have nothing to do. This was nominally a free country a few years ago, but of late years, owing partly to the noble and learned Viscount and his friends, and partly to noble Lords opposite, who set up officials to tell us what to do, it is ceasing to be a free country.
What would happen if we set up officials in order to count noses, as the noble and learned Viscount said just now? Why do people not vote? I think there are three reasons. Firstly, there are a considerable number of men, and a very much larger number of women, who do not in the least know anything about political questions, who do not know why they should vote or for whom they should vote, or for what they should vote, and some of them, being sensible people, say: "We know nothing about it and the best thing we can do is to stay at home and carry on our domestic work or our business, and take no part in the voting."
610
Why compel such people to go and vote? The next class are those who only vote if they like the candidate, or if they know him. I remember my first election in Peckham. My wife was canvassing. She went to a house, and saw my photograph and card in the window. She rung the bell and a woman came to the door. My wife said: "I am very glad to see you have my husband's picture and card in the window." The reply was; "Oh! yes, we like his face." What a reason for voting! Yet the noble Viscount would compel such people to go and vote for such a reason. The third class of people remain at borne and do not take the trouble to go and vote because they are infirm, or because it is a wet day or a cold day.
If all those people are to be compelled to vote I suppose you would get them into the ballot box with the aid of a large number of policemen. But having got them into the polling booth and into the ballot box, how can you ensure that they will not write on the ballot paper what they think of the people who have compelled them to vote? I believe that all ballot papers have a number. I believe if you go through all the ballot papers and check them you can find out who did vote, and who wrote something bad about my noble friend. The secrecy of the ballot is destroyed. Then you will have to have an army of officials who will come forward and having examined all these papers—I think there are 20,000,000 people entitled to vote—somebody will have to go and find those who have not voted. I do not know whether it is intended that the offenders shall go to prison if they do not vote, but presumably there would be some fine or punishment of some sort.
VISCOUNT BURNHAM: A fine is inflicted.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: So far as I know Australia is governed by trade unionists, who are a most tyrannical body, and I hope we shall never see this country governed by trade unionists. I trust that the Government will refuse the inquiry asked for.
THE EARL OF MAYO: My Lords, I should like to congratulate the noble Viscount, Lord Burnham, upon his speech. After all, he has only asked for an inquiry,

611
and, in regard to some statements which he made, they have, I think, been interpreted in a way that he did not at all intend. He said there was compulsion in the trade unions, and that is perfectly true. I know nothing about the enormous sums of money that these trade unions are supposed to have, though that has been contradicted by the other side, and I should think that the other side know more about it than most people. But there is no doubt that what Lord Burnham said is perfectly true, that the trade unions have the power of making people vote, because, if they do not vote, their position is made excessively uncomfortable. That is a form of compulsion which we all understand. The noble and learned Viscount, Lord Haldane, referred to well-organised minorities, and said he did not know of any cases, except two, where there was a well-organised minority. In Ireland we have had a form of election which you all know, and there is nothing in Ireland which comes under the category of a well-organised minority. Proportional representation, which has been alluded to during this debate, has been exceedingly successful in Ireland.
I was very glad that the noble Viscount, Lord Burnham, pointed out the dangers that are likely to arise in this country if we do not take notice of the trend of modern thought, and of the growing feeling that the present form of Election is out of date and ought not to continue. I do not know whether I shall live to see a change, I hope I shall. As for saying that thought has not changed on this subject, and that we are going to stay as we are in this country, you might as well say that the moon is not going to shine. We live in changing times, and now the women of the country have votes, and if they were all to vote they could put in what Government they liked, whether a Labour Government, a Liberal Government, or a Tory-Democratic Government. I am very glad that this Question was raised by Lord Burnham, who, in his most interesting speech, mentioned the power of the Press in certain direction. He knows more about that than most of your Lordships. I only hope that many of Your Lordships will read his speech, and think about it when you go home.
EARL RUSSELL: My Lords, there is one difficulty to which the noble Viscount,
612
Lord Burnham, has not alluded, nor has any subsequent speaker. I am not talking of the physical difficulty suggested by Lord Banbury when he talked about getting voters into the ballot box—I did not understand that that was part of the scheme—but neither the noble Viscount nor any one who has followed him seems to have asked himself what would happen if there was no candidate for whom you desired to vote. I have long felt that voting was the duty of a citizen, and that everything should be done to encourage it, and I have even had leanings, like the noble Viscount, towards compulsion. But let me ask him to consider a position which might perfectly well arise. Suppose that there were only two candidates—the noble Lord opposite, a true-blue Tory, and, let us say, a Constitutional Liberal like Mr. Winston Churchill, who had not yet quite joined that Party—and that those were the only two candidates in my constituency. Am I to, be dragged to the polling booth and compelled to vote for one or the other, when neither of them will in the very least represent my opinions or my principles? Is not that a difficulty which has to be met?
The only way, it seems to me, in which you could meet it would be by compelling people to attend at the polling booth and letting them give a blank vote. And that is surely a reductio ad absurdum. You are going to compel the voter to go to the polling booth, and, when he gets there to let him say: "I do not want to record my vote.' That seems to be a fatal difficulty in the way of any scheme. We have three Parties now, and we may have more, and that may happen increasingly—certainly as long as you have single-member constituencies. The difficulty which I have mentioned is one which I think everybody who considers this question must face and must devise some solution for, if the matter is to be further considered at all.
There is one other point that I want to touch upon, because I think perhaps the noble Lord who is going to speak for the Government may have something to say upon it. Of all possible tribunals to inquire into a new form of franchise I should have thought that a Select Committee of your Lordships' House was the

613
most unsuitable. We have nothing to do with the franchise, we have nothing to do with Elections.
VISCOUNT BURNHAM: I suggested preferentially a joint Committee.
EARL RUSSELL: I understood the noble Viscount to refer to a Select Committee of this House—those are the words in the Question. I think that that would be a tribunal which, though it might be extremely competent, would have little authority and would be rather unsuitable for considering a question of franchise, which concerns, practically entirely, the other House of Parliament.
LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEY: My Lords, I am inclined to agree with the latter part of the noble Earl's speech, when he suggested that this is not exactly the House to deal with the franchise by which the other House is elected. But with regard to his earlier remarks, I must, with some knowledge of the application of compulsory voting in Australia, point out to him that it is quite a common thing for those who are compelled to vote to abstain from giving a valid vote. Sometimes they even comment on the merits or demerits of the candidates who are submitted to them, and that, if I am not mistaken—and I do not think I am—happens even in this country, where compulsion is not in force. Voters do sometimes write on their voting papers "Socialism for ever," or "A plague on both your Houses." or various remarks of a nature which does not indicate their political affinity but which expresses their views for the time being.
The question, as the noble Viscount, Lord Haldane, said, is whether you desire to get the instructed opinion of the country or that of the uneducated mass of voters, who are indifferent as to the questions before the country. For my part, I would much rather see an educated minority voting than a majority of fluctuating voters, influenced by the breezes from ail quarters of the heavens, and sometimes influenced by more material considerations. The more you extend the class of indifferent voters, the more you render the country liable to influences, not of intellect, not of opinion, but influences of a debasing and degrading character. The more you have a mass
614
of voters who are completely indifferent and completely ignorant of the political questions before the country the more you are likely to have a potentially corrupt electorate. I confess that I fear the introduction of compulsion on those who otherwise take no interest whatever in politics, for it may well be that if compulsion is in existence it will give a lever to those who use improper methods of persuasion. The more indifferent an elector is the more ready will he be to give his vote away to the Party which offers him some material advantage for it.
I have witnessed more than one Election in Australia, though I have not taken part in any, both under compulsory voting and under compulsory registration. Those are two completely different things. There exists, I think, in the State of Victoria and in the Commonwealth, a system of compulsory registration. Compulsory registration existed before compulsory voting was introduced. I believe that while I was Governor of Victoria. I was on the register of voters for the Commonwealth and, for all I know, I might have been on the register of voters for the State of Victoria. Had I attempted to exercise that vote I think I should have been subject to some criticism as occupying an official position under the Crown—a position which I believe to be one of holding a balance and protecting the permanent interests of the Constitution against any temporary attack. I think I should have been strongly criticised had I taken part in proceedings over which to some extent I and those holding positions similar to mine were placed in supervision. I am well aware, however, that my neighbour in South Australia was proceeded against, I believe by an over-zealous electoral officer, because he failed either to register or to record his vote in South Australia. The matter, of course, was not tried out, but it illustrates the effect of indiscretion on the part of those charged either with the supervision of registration or of voting.
My objection, however, to compulsory voting is not so much that as the obvious difficulty of enforcing the law once it is brought into force. It is true, as the noble Viscount pointed out, that at the last Commonwealth Election in Australia a very considerable proportion of the electors voted, and possibly all who could

615
register their votes did so. No one cares to subject, himself to a penalty for failing to do a thing which gives him comparatively little trouble. But what will happen, not after this present Election, nor after the next, but when people gradually lose interest and discover from their neighbours that they had not voted and that nothing had happened to them? Nothing will happen to the elector who fails to vote. You cannot prosecute 18 per cent. of an electorate. You cannot bring 18 per cent. of an electorate before a bench of magistrates and fine them 40 s. each. Examples may be taken, but those examples are very likely to be improper examples of men picked out because some body has a grudge or has informed against them.
To suppose that it is possible to enforce compulsory voting upon 100 per cent. of the electorate is, I think, to hold out an impossible expectation. It will happen, I think, that the law will be on the Statute Book and the man who does not go to the polling booth will be liable to a fine of 40 s. But I think it will be disregarded by all who wish to disregard it. I feel confident that a law that is systematically broken is one of the worst laws there can possibly be. A law upon which people look with contempt and derision had much better be repealed at once. If an example of contempt for, and derision of, laws passed by the parliamentary body of a country is once set, a tendency is created towards lawlessness and a tendency to say that a law need only be obeyed if one feels inclined to obey it. That is comparatively unimportant, perhaps, in the matter of voting, but it may be carried to other things, and if the public of a country find that they can safely disregard any law which they have no inclination to obey, the law will be weakened and the influence of parliamentary institutions over the people will be weakened also.
I am not in favour of an inquiry into compulsory voting. The effect of compulsory voting is quite clear and it is well understood that Parliament could enact that voting should be compulsory. The noble Viscount who introduced the subject discussed proportional representation, second ballots, and the like, as well as compulsory voting, and he was gladly followed, I think, by other noble Lords who have spoken. Compulsory
616
voting, of course, has nothing whatever to do with those questions. You may have proportional representation without compulsion and you may have compulsion without proportional representation. You may arrive by different methods at the political opinion of the country. I do not think this is the occasion, indeed, I hardly think it would be in order, to discuss the question of minority representation. The question before your Lordships to-day is whether it is desirable to compel a qualified person who is on the roll to exercise his vote. It can be clone. Such a law could be passed, though I doubt its effectiveness. I do not feel any anxiety as to the danger of people giving invalid votes when they come to the ballot box. All that could possibly be done is to pass a law compelling a man to go into the polling booth. If it is considered to be worth while to do that let it be done, but I feel very strongly with the noble Viscount on the Front Opposition Bench that it is better to have a small instructed electorate than a large and indifferent one.
LORD DESBOROUGH: My Lords, I rise to reply very briefly to my noble friend and I propose to keep rather more closely to the terms of his Question than a large number of the speakers who have addressed your Lordships have done. The first Question is a very simple one—namely, to ask whether the attention of His Majesty's Government has been called to the system of compulsory voting for Parliamentary Elections now in force in the Commonwealth of Australia. That seems to me to be a very definite Question. The second one is whether His Majesty's Government will agree to set up a Select Committee of this House to inquire into the subject and to report thereon.
Your Lordships are very greatly indebted, I am sure, to my noble friend for the powerful manner in which he introduced his Question and for the experience which he brings at first-hand from Australia. I hope he will allow me, although I am only a humble Captain of the Yeoman of the Guard, to congratulate him upon the splendid public service which he did while in Australia, and not for the first time, in the interest of this Empire. I do so with the more pleasure

617
because I find I am totally unable to give him any satisfactory reply as to the intentions of His Majesty's Government. We must all admit, however, that his object is a most noble one. It is, generally speaking, to make the mass of his fellow-countrymen take more interest in Elections than they do at present.
Although his object is a noble one it is by no means new. It is as old as the time of Aristophanes. I believe it is actionable to quote Latin in Parliament, and criminal to quote Greek. Still, in the time of Aristophanes, whom I prefer to quote in the English tongue, people felt and were impressed with the same ideas as my noble friend—namely, that a large number of the people of Athens, who were as intelligent, I am sure, as my noble friend opposite could desire, had to be intimidated to take more interest in political matters. According to Aristophanes, the police of the day armed themselves with a rope covered with yellow ochre, and those who did not show a sufficient interest in public affairs and record their votes, were surrounded by this rope and marked with yellow ochre. By means of this mark of yellow ochre it could be seen that a person was not performing his public duties satisfactorily. What the very large number of female electors that we have at the present moment in this country would think of this method of making them perform their duties I do not know, but I have no doubt that the Select Committee, if it was ever set up, would be able to give us all information upon that point.
We have been told something at first hand about Australia. I quite agree with my noble friend's facts and figures. They were very backward in voting in Australia in times gone by. In 1922 the percentage of voters was That is very small. In 1917 it was 77 per cent. In 1924 the Act to make voting compulsory was passed, but it only came into operation in the year 1925. I humbly submit that we have not yet, at this early part of 1926, had a real opportunity of studying what the effect of that Act is likely to be. The immediate results, as claimed by my noble friend, are that 90 per cent. of the electors went to the poll. That seems a very large number, but we must remember that in Australia an absent vote is allowed. Invalids can vote by post. Supposing 5 per cent. were invalids and voted by post, that brings the percentage down
618
to 85, and probably it would bring it down a great deal more. I am only taking that as a figure. The fact has been referred to in the debate in this House that 5 per cent. of the votes cast, which is a very large proportion, were spoilt papers. That rather bears out the remark of my noble friend Lord Stanley of Alderley, who spoke just now, that you can bring a person, not perhaps into the ballot box, but into the neighbourhood of the ballot box, but you cannot make him vote, or, if you do, he spoils his paper.
A difficulty was suggested by my noble Friend Earl Russell just now. We have three Parties in this country. How many sub-parties they are divided into it is almost impossible to say; anyhow, there are three Parties in this House. It is possible, if I were an elector, that I might have to make my choice, between an enthusiastic follower of my noble friend opposite and an enthusiastic land nationaliser following Mr. Lloyd George. If I had to vote compulsorily it would be very difficult for me to say which of those two candidates I liked best. I think that is almost putting it too high; it would be more correct to say that it would be difficult for me to make up my mind which I liked the less. But I should have to go and pretend to vote. I must say that in those circumstances I think it very likely I should follow the example which has apparently been carried into practice by those 5 per cent. in Australia who voted for both candidates. you would have this difficulty. You might have an excess of goodness and an excess of badness. You might like both candidates very much, or dislike them both very much, and it would be difficult to vote for either of them. In that case you vote for both, which is as good as voting for neither.
It is no new thing even in this country to have a compulsory voting Bill. I have a Bill in my hand which was introduced into the House of Commons on April 21, 1921. The fate of this Bill is not likely to make the Government, more anxious than they would otherwise be to introduce a Bill on this subject. This Bill did not get very far. It was read a first time and then, I think, it disappeared. But it was a Bill that showed some of the difficulties. Among other things it provided that the returning officer should serve a notice on all those voters who

619
had not recorded their vote. In this country there are over 20,000,000 voters. Supposing 80 per cent. voted, and 20 per cent, would not vote. That would mean that 4,000,000 voters would have to be served with notices. This would have to be done, I suppose, in the counties by the clerk to the county council, and in the boroughs by the clerk to the borough council.
Imagine the enormous amount of work that would be thrown upon their shoulders if those unfortunate people had to begin a correspondence with 4,000,000 persons—and when you once begin an official correspondence you are cheaply let off with under ten or fifteen letters. Fifteen times 4,000,000 letters would have to be written on this question! But that is only to begin with. Obviously, every person who had not voted would write an excuse, and the less often he voted the more excuses he would give. He would go into detail in writing his excuses to the unfortunate returning officer, and probably the next Election, or it might be the Election after that, would arrive before the returning officer would have cleared off even a small proportion of the arrears of letters clue to be written to the recalcitrant voters in answer to their excuses. In Australia, I understand, there were 300,000 abstentions—I do not know if my noble friend has later information—and so far there have only been two prosecutions. It does not look as if the law was being very actively put into force. In any case I submit that the law is of such recent date that it is almost premature to make these inquiries in Australia.
There is another point. We are all striving after economy — somewhat ineffectually perhaps, but at all events we are doing our best in that direction—and I am informed that both the Home Office and the Treasury are very much averse to setting up an extra Select Committee of this House, or even a Joint Committee, because, first of all, it would be very unlikely to have much effect, and, secondly, of the expense that it would entail. The suggestion is that the Committee should study the system of voting now in force in the Commonwealth of Australia. Any Select Committee, if they are to study a question, ought to examine a very large number of witnesses, otherwise it would not be a study at all. There is a question of whether
620
this Select Committee would have witnesses brought over here from Australia, or whether they would have to set up a Commission to go to Australia and examine both sides on the spot. I have no doubt, if the latter course were adopted, the people in Australia would be delighted to welcome back my noble friend Lord Burnham, even to the extent of putting up triumphal arches, but on the ground of economy as well as for many other reasons which have already been given by others, I cannot, I am afraid, return a satisfactory reply to my noble friend.
EARL BEAUCHAMP: My Lords, I do not rise to criticise in any way the decision which the noble Lord who represents His Majesty's Government has announced. I think that the refusal to have a picemeal inquiry, as it were, into the matter of electoral reform is very wise and sensible. The suggestion which fell from the noble Viscount who introduced this Question that there should be an inquiry into a number of other things—the second ballot, I think, was one which he mentioned—is one which is much more valuable and one which I hope he will be inclined to push further on a subsequent occasion. But I would venture to take this opportunity of repeating a question which I have already once addressed to His Majesty's Government in relation to the Speaker's Conference, which they have announced will be appointed in the course of this Session to go into the question of women's votes. I do not know whether they are prepared to tell me whether that Conference will discuss other things besides women's votes, or confine itself to that one topic. We shall be glad to know as soon as it is convenient to His Majesty's Government to tell us.
I understood the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Haldane, on the question of votes for women and for men, to express the opinion that on the whole the better system would be that women of the age of twenty-five should be allowed to vote and that no man under that age should be allowed to vote. That is what I understood him to say. That is a very important and striking declaration from the noble Viscount who represents the Labour Party in this House. May I venture to ask whether that is the considered decision of the Labour Party? Do they agree to that?
VISCOUNT HALDANE: I did not say so.
EARL BEAUCHAMP: The noble Viscount now tells us that it is not the opinion of the Labour Party.
VISCOUNT HALDANE: I did not say that.
EARL BEAUCHAMP: It is exceedingly inconvenient if the noble Viscount who represents the Labour Party says one thing and the Labour Party says another.
VISCOUNT HALDANE: I am not aware that! have said so.
EARL BEAUCHAMP: It is not the first time we have found ourselves in that position, and I do venture to say it is very desirable that we should know exactly where the Labour Party stands in this matter. Are they or are they not in favour of taking away the vote of all people under twenty-five? If they are not in favour, I venture to say it is somewhat, misleading if the noble Viscount, who represents the Labour Party in this House, expresses his opinion that that is a desirable course, without in any way leading your Lordships to imagine that it is purely a personal opinion on his part.
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY): My Lords, I think the noble Earl will see that I should be much better able to give an answer to his question if I had had any idea that he would put it. The noble Earl will know that any question he puts always receives the closest attention of His Majesty's Government, and if he will be good enough to repeat it on another day I will give him full information.

TRAFFIC REGULATION.
EARL RUSSELL,EARL RUSSELL, who had given Notice to call attention to the use and abuse of the white line on public highways, and to ask His Majesty's Government whether legislation in connection with this matter is contemplated, said: My Lords, I think probably all your Lordships are familiar by now with the new white lines that have appeared on our public thoroughfares in various places, and with their purpose. I am proposing to speak, tonight, not about any improvements or
622
arrangements for traffic in London, but about white lines on our open country roads. There, as your Lordships know, their usual purpose is to protect a corner by putting a line in the middle of the road which will compel vehicles, or is intended to compel vehicles, to keep to their own side at the corner and thereby make collisions at the corner impossible.
I should like to say at the outset that I think that the invention and the introduction of the white line upon the public roads of this country is one of the most, valuable things that has been done for many years for the purpose of regulating motor traffic and preventing collisions. I have had a good deal of experience on the roads, having driven 150,000 miles with my own hands, and so I may give Sour Lordships a particular instance, with which I am very familiar, and which I dare say is familiar to some of your Lordships; that is, the double corner on the western side of Godalming on the Portsmouth road. That is a corner which every cautious motorist always approached with his heart in his mouth, for he never knew what fool he might meet coming round the corner on the wrong side. The provision of white lines has made that corner perfectly safe, and they have the incidental advantage to residents in the locality that they have made it unnecessary for a motorist continually to sound his horn while rounding the corner, because if the white lines are observed each vehicle has a perfectly clear line of traffic.
In the Notice I have on the Paper I have referred to both the use and abuse of the white line. The instance I have given is an instance of its most valuable use, but in driving over other roads during last summer—I have particularly in mind some roads in Oxfordshire—I found white lines on broad main roads at places which were not corners at all, but merely bends, and so open that every motorist could see a quarter of a mile on each side of the bend. It is essential, if white lines are to be treated with any respect, that they should not be put down in such places, because there would be no harm whatever in driving at any part of the road, as you could see anything approaching, and could not possibly run into anything unless you were blind. The object of the white line is to give protection at what are called blind corners, where one cannot see what is coming. For that purpose the

623
white line is most valuable, and I hope its use may be extended.
The Ministry of Transport; I know, is watching this question. I am not sure whether it has issued, or only announced the intention to issue, a circular about white lines. I think they have only announced the intention to do so. The questions I want to put to the noble Viscount who represents the Ministry of Transport are these: (1) Would the Ministry consider it worth while to provide that these lines should not be placed upon the highway without some sort of official sanction, possibly even more official sanction than that of the local authority, although it may be difficult to override that; at any rate after the considered view of the local authority, guided and informed by the advice of the Ministry of Transport, has been obtained? (2) Would the Ministry consider, if it has not done so, the advisability that. when white lines are placed at corners by the proper authority there should be a clause in the new Motor Act) about which we have heard such a lot but seen so little) if it ever comes to fruition, to the effect that disregard of the white line should be regarded as driving to the public danger?
It seems to me that white lines, if they are really to be useful, must be in some way enforced. I think I am right in saying there is no penalty now for driving on the wrong side of a white line. A motorist may be prosecuted at a police court for driving to the common danger, and it may be said that that is what he has done, but it would be quite within the option of the magistrate to say that merely to prove that he has driven on the wrong side of a white line without proving that there was other traffic was not enough. I want to suggest that if white lines are to have full effect in preventing collisions it will be necessary to give legal sanction to them, and probably it would be the best way to say that any disregard of the white line might be one of the circumstances making for driving to the common danger. It is really to ask both whether the Ministry would be prepared to take steps to have white lines established only under proper authority and in places which will lead to their being regarded loyally, and whether the Ministry will
624
consider making the position legal that I have put down this Question.
VISCOUNT PEEL: My Lords, I take note of the compliment which was paid to the Ministry of Transport by the noble Earl as to the establishment of white lines, and may I say that I can bear witness to his gratification for the white line at Godalming corner because I am very familiar with that piece of road myself? I may say also that the Minister of Transport appreciates very fully the dangers which may arise from the indiscriminate use of white lines as a device for the regulation of traffic on the highways. In 1925 the Minister took steps to find out the views on this subject of a large number of local authorities, of the Central Conference of Chief Constables, of the County Surveyors' Society, of the Institution of Municipal and County Engineers and of the London Traffic Advisory Committee. After considering the views of these bodies and weighing the experience already gained in the use of the white line, the Minister sent out a circular—I do not know whether this is the one to which the noble Earl referred; it is Circular No. 238 (Roads)—
EARL RUSSELL: How long ago?
VISCOUNT PEEL: I think it was in January last.
EARL RUSSELL: Yes, I think that is probably the one.
VISCOUNT PEEL: It was to be issued, I think, on January 29 last, so no doubt it has already been issued to all the highway authorities in Great Britain. I should like to make a few quotations from this Circular which will show, I think, the attitude of the Ministry of Transport on this subject. In paragraph (1) it is stated that—
"The Minister is of opinion that the experience already gained tends to show that the white line is calculated not only to reduce the number of accidents, but also to assist materially in the control of traffic by the police."
In paragraph (2) the Circular goes on to say—
"Uniformity of practice being the primary aim in all matters affecting highways and traffic control, the Minister view's with some apprehension the diversity of practice which is growing up in connection with the use of the white line."

625
In paragraph (3), again—
"It is recognised that precise methods, which would be applicable in all eases, cannot be laid down, as the position of the lines will depend on the volume and direction of the various streams of traffic and also upon the physical conditions (such as width of carriageway, nature of intersection, etc.). The use of the white line should be confined to points where it is clear that it would minimise danger or be of material assistance to traffic."
I think that deals with the noble Earl's point about the straight, highway—
"over-lavish use of white lines in one locality may tend to give drivers an unwarranted sense of security in adjoining districts where highway authorities may not bare used white lines to any extent."
If I may make one more reference to this Circular, paragraph (4) lays down the general principle that before any white lines are placed on the highway the police of the district should be consulted. The rest, of the Circular deals with more or less detailed suggestions as to the lay-out of white lines at typical road junctions where their use would be of assistance to traffic and promote the safety and convenience of the public.
As regards the question of legislation which the noble Earl raised, the Minister of Transport has under consideration the desirability of making some provision in the matter in the Road Vehicles Bill referred to in the gracious Speech from the Throne. It is proposed that this should be effected by taking powers in the Bill for the Minister to prescribe the size, colour and nature of warning sign-posts, signs or devices used on roads for the guidance of drivers of motor vehicles and to exercise a certain degree of control over the places at which signs or devices are to be used. The primary responsibility for the erection of the signs or the laying down of white lines would, of course, rest with the local authority. I think the only other point raised by the noble Earl was, the question of penalties. I will discuss that point with the Minister of Transport and make known to him the observations of the noble Earl.

DELAY IN REVENUE CASES.
EARL RUSSELL EARL RUSSELL rose to call attention to the observations of Mr. Justice Rowlatt in a Revenue appeal heard on 4th March, and to inquire why the case
626
had taken four years to come to trial, and whether in the circumstances the Crown propose to insist upon claiming their costs? The noble Earl said: My Lords, this Question relates to a matter about which I know nothing except that which has appeared in the public Press. In The Times of March 5 there were reported some very severe observations by Mr. Justice Rowlatt in a Revenue appeal. I do not propose to quote the observations, and I regret that I cannot give the name of the case, as it was not mentioned in the report. The Judge made some very severe observations upon the fact that the case had taken four years to come into Court from the time when the Commissioners had considered it, and he also suggested that he would have liked to deprive the Crown of their costs but, since the Crown had asked for their costs, he felt, bound to give them.
The question that I should like to ask is whether there is any reasonable explanation why this case took so long to come on. I may point out that counsel who appeared for the Crown had not been instructed in that point, for they were obviously quite unable to reply to the learned Judge's criticism or to explain the reasons. I should also like to know whether, in the circumstances, the Crown think that they would be right to press for their costs from the other party, or whether they would be prepared to remit them. Since I put the Question on the Paper I have been told that on a subsequent occasion the learned Judge to some extent modified his remarks. I regret to say that I did not see this in the newspaper and, if I had done so, I am not quite sure that I should have put my Question down. I do not know to what extent the criticism was modified, for I have not been able to find out, but I understand that there was still some comment and, whatever the learned Judge says, I think possibly the House would like to know why a case should take four years to come on. This is a very long period and it does inflict some injustice upon people and possibly a considerable expense as well. Accordingly I have put the Question down merely to ask for an explanation.
LORD BUCKMASTER: My Lords, I think it would be right that I should intervene before the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack replies, lest

627
some of the criticisms that I have to make might be urged at a time when he was not in a position to reply. I greatly regret that this Question has come before your Lordships' notice at a time when it will receive less ample consideration than it might have enjoyed at an earlier stage of this afternoon's proceedings because, to my mind, although this seems a simple matter, it is a matter of the greatest and of the gravest consequence. The root of the question does not merely depend upon the particular illustration which the noble Earl's Question involves. It depends upon a general principle as to whether or not the subjects of the Crown are being harassed and distressed by the needless prolongation of litigious proceedings in which they are involved.
For some eleven years I had experience of judicial work in the highest tribunals of this country and I hope that it may not, be impossible that my experience may be in the future renewed. The one thing that disturbed and distressed me beyond anything else was the delay with which I constantly found that causes had been beset from the time when they were instituted until the time when they were heard. I have myself, in similar cases in which the Crown has been involved, found periods of delay that were wholly inexplicable and that caused a litigation which, if promptly prosecuted, could, I am quite satisfied, have been amply considered and concluded from the earliest court to the last in eighteen months, to extend to three years.
Whenever questions are asked of counsel as to the explanation of this delay they have no answer that they can possibly give you. They generally say that they will make inquiries, and of course they are most polite, but the Judge who is presiding in the Court knows that he is defenceless and can do nothing. He does not know what the real facts are and, unless he is going to have a day fixed for their hearing, he will never be able to ascertain them. Consequently he has to assent to something which I have always thought to be one of the gravest defects connected with the administration of the law.
The "law's delay" which, to people who are professionally engaged in it, means nothing but the passage of a little time between one case and another, is
628
to the unfortunate litigant a period of anxiety and distress which it is very difficult indeed for people properly to realise. I have always felt, and always said, that if you want to consider these questions properly you must look upon them from the point of view of the litigant, and not from that of the solicitor, or the counsel, or the Judge. It is the litigant who has invoked the protection of the Courts, and it is his interest which ought to be first considered.
Now, I think this question of delay may well be involved with another matter which is often concerned with it. At the present time it is the practice of all Government Departments to have their own legal advisers, and with them rests the pursuit of the litigation in which that Department is involved. Who is it that looks after the legal offices? I suppose the real answer is that it is the Minister in charge of the Department, but can you imagine the Minister in charge of any great Department examining what is the course of the litigation in which his Department may be involved? One must know perfectly well that nothing of the kind can take place, and the consequence is that you have not got behind the solicitor that driving power which should exist to compel every step to be properly and effectively taken at the earliest possible moment. The solicitors engaged in the work are men of the highest possible quality, and I have no desire to say anything to depreciate their skill or zeal, but I say that in all such cases, unless you have some individual whose interest it is to see that the matter is pushed forward, it is very apt to slide backward and never get pushed forward at all.
I could give illustrations, but I have no desire to mention names or to involve individuals in the dispute. I believe it is the system which is wrong. I believe that the right way to conduct Government litigation is to put each business in the hands of a firm of solicitors known to be best qualified to deal with it, and they will be interested in pursuing it diligently, because if they act well and efficiently for the Government Department they will not only have the work renewed but also, I should hope, receive due recognition when rewards and honours are being distributed, as having rendered great public service. You stimulate

629
ambition and competition ii you do that, and by the other system you destroy it.
That is one thing, but there is another. The procedure relating to Revenue cases, to my mind, is obsolete and antiquated and ought to be abolished. There is no reason whatever why you should proceed by information, and why these eases should be brought in the King's Beach Division, as they are. All the Courts are open, and the Chancery Courts are not so crowded. Why should they not have seizin of these cases? They are just as competent and the procedure might be accelerated by such a step. I venture to think that all of us are much toe prone to accept things as they exist, and as if they must be all right. I believe that is wrong. Whenever you find there is a hitch in the machinery you should set the machine clear and examine it carefully, and see if it is not possible that the difficulty or trouble may be removed.
I am sure we shall have an illuminating and candid answer from the Lord Chancellor, and I feet also pretty certain that we shall have that smooth answer which, we are told on the highest authority, turneth away wrath; but so far as I am concerned there is nothing which stimulates my wrath more than a smooth answer. I would much rather have something which is acrimonious, because then I should know exactly what I should have to do; but I earnestly entreat the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack, in whose hands the matter is now vested, to see whether it is not possible to remove from our Courts what I regard as a scandal. That there is no reason for such delay I think I can show your Lordships in one instance. When I held the position which is now filled by the present occupant of the Woolsack we determined in this House a dispute with regard to an accident to a man, where the accident itself had happened within twelve months of the decision of your Lordships' House. I believe that speed can be maintained in nearly every law suit, if only the parties can be made active and prompt in taking the necessary steps. It is because I feel that the law's delays are one of the reproaches from which the law suffers, but which it is wholly capable of remedying, that I am anxious to have an answer to the Question of the noble Earl.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT CAVE): My Lords, the attention of the Government has, of course, been called to the observations made by Mr. Justice Rowlatt in the case to which the noble Earl has referred. The learned Judge seems to have said that the case had taken four years. He is not quite right there. The time which had elapsed between the first hearing of the case by the Commissioners and the decision in the High Court was not four years but three and a half years. Before I deal with the particular case I want to say this, that it is not right to assume in every ease where delay occurs, or indeed in any one particular ease, that the Crown and the Crown alone is to blame. In fact, it is usually the other way. When a decision has been given by the Commissioners either party may express dissatisfaction. Thereupon the Commissioners state a case for the opinion of the High Court, and it is the custom, and I think a reasonable custom, to submit the draft ease to both sides. It is in the settlement of the draft case that the greater part of the delay occurs. I do not think that the Crown is usually slow in sending in its observations upon the draft, but of course the taxpayer is generally in no hurry at all. The question is whether he shall be called upon to pay a considerable sum in taxes, and he is in no great hurry to have that question determined by a Court, because it may result in a heavy charge being imposed upon him. Therefore it is only natural that in many cases the taxpayer takes his time before approving the draft case.
That this is often so is, I think, shown by the later observations of the learned Judge, to which the noble Earl referred. I will read what it was that Mr. Justice Rowlatt said in two later cases, on, March 10. He said this:—
"These two cases relate to claims for taxation for the years 1914 up to 1916, and it is obvious that there has been very great delay in bringing them forward. I said something the other day about the delay in these cases, which seems to have attracted a great deal of attention, and the position put—and it is repeated this morning in a very prominent journal—is that the taxpayer, having won his case before the Commissioners, is subjected to appeal on the part of tine Inland Revenue, and then that appeal is delayed, to the prejudice of the taxpayer. Now I wish to point out that that is not an accurate statement of fact, and it is not an accurate

631
report of what I said, and it is not quite fair. As a matter of fact, the appeals which come to this Court are just as often on the part of the taxpayer as they are on the part of the Revenue, and in these present eases that I have before me now, and in the two cases which I had yesterday, the taxpayer was the appellant, and the delay was even worse than in the case in which I made the remarks of which so much notice has been taken.
"I do think it is a great pity that these delays occur. It is very prejudicial to the public, and it defeats what is the object of the tax, that the tax for the year should be collected in the year for which it is imposed, but I do not know whether these delays are the fault of the appellant (whether the Crown or the subject), or whether they are the fault of the respondent (whether the Crown or the subject), or whether they are the fault of both put together, or whether they are purely the fault of the Commissioners, who are probably very greatly overworked. Therefore, whatever remarks anybody may make about delay, I hope they will not cite me as an authority for saying that it is a matter for which the Crown is solely and obviously to blame. I think it is only fair to make that clear."
So much for the general statement, but I have made inquiries about the particular case, and I have details here.
I will not trouble the House as to the exact dates when the several steps were taken, but the result of the information which I have is this. The decision was given against the taxpayer. A draft case for appeal was sent out and the Crown returned the draft case approved about six months after the decision was given, and, of course, nobody can much complain of that delay—nobody can impute that delay especially to the Crown. But, unfortunately, the taxpayer was not so prompt. He desired to have the case tried with some other case which was coming on, or to await the decision of some other case, and another year passed before the taxpayer sent in the draft of the case approved. Some time was occupied in sending the thing backwards and forwards, with the result that it was almost another year before the case was finally approved and signed by the Commissioners. So far as I can understand the dates the greater part of that delay was due, not to the Crown, but to the taxpayer. Then, I am sorry to say, it took almost another year after the case had been signed before everything was adjusted, and the Revenue paper came on early this year and the case was heard. I have given those dates, not as a favourable example of
632
litigation at all, but as showing that there is no ground in this case to impute special delay to the Crown. If there is a question of blame the blame rests rather upon the other side.
What is to be done? I agree entirely with the learned Judge in what he said. I think it is true that it is desirable in these eases that the decision should be as prompt as possible. It is desirable for the litigant, and even more desirable for the Revenue, which desires to have its tax at the earliest possible date. I think we must see whether we cannot expedite things considerably. I am sure that the Crown authorities will do their best to press these eases on. I do not think the taxpayer will, but I think the Commissioners should take their part and should constantly press the parties to take steps from time to time, so that the matter may be ready for hearing. It is possible, as the learned Judge hinted, that the Commissioners are overworked. They are extremely able men, but they have a very difficult task to perform, and it may be that the labour put upon them is greater than they can well bear. Whether that is so or not I will enquire, because to add further Commissioners would be a very serious expense. But I shall certainly make it my business to see whether anything can be done to get these appeals expedited.
The noble Earl asks about costs. I think he will see from what I have said that there really is no reason why the Crown should not have its costs in this case. They were given after discussion. The delay was not due to the Crown in the main, and did not increase the costs, and there is certainly no reason why in this case they should be withheld. It does sometimes happen that when a taxpayer is held to be not liable the Crown appeals, even when the sum is small, so as to get an important question of principle settled, and then the Crown very often and very properly pays the costs, saying, "Well, it is we who want this question settled. Whatever the result we will bear the costs of both sides." That happened the other day and has happened in a good many other cases, and I am sure it is reasonable that whenever that occurs the same course should be taken.
So much about this particular case. I must add a word about my noble and

633
learned friend Lord Buckmaster. I hope he will not think me too conciliatory, but I must express my satisfaction at the hint which he gave that he may before long come back to us and again take part in the hearing of these appeals. We much regret his temporary absence, and the sooner he comes back the better his colleagues will be pleased. But, having said that, I will try not to give him any further satisfaction. I am not quite sure that I agree with what he said about the solicitors. I think that on the whole the practice of having advisers to particular Departments, who have become familiar with the work of those Departments and are able to deal with the questions which arise, has worked well. It is too great a question to discuss to-day, but the noble and learned Lord must not think that I entirely agree with him. But I am afraid I must agree with him on one point, that is, in what he said about the
634
Revenue cases not always being heard in one Court. I quite hold his view that these cases might as well be heard in the Chancery Division as in the King's Bench Division. It has long been in my mind and in the. minds of others, but I am sure he will understand what I mean when I say that under the present arrangements the cases are so well dealt with, and dealt with in such a manner, by the learned Judge who has charge of them, that no change could be made without very careful consideration. Subject to that, I myself think that the time may come when some arrangement will be made which would make it possible for some of the cases to be heard in another Division, and so relieve the King's Bench Division. I think I have answered all the questions, and I hope the noble Earl will be satisfied with the assurance I have given.
House adjourned at twenty minutes past six o'clock.