Sitting of 22 April 1931

Preamble
The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Yorkshire (Woollen District) Transport Bill [Lords] (by Order),
Second Reading deferred till Monday next.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.
  >CHINA.

    KAILAN MINING ADMINISTRATION.
    Mr. ARTHUR MICHAEL SAMUELasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, in view of the fact that British capital is embarked in the Chinese Kailan Mining Company, he will state what steps he is taking to see that British interests in the company are fairly treated in relation to transport facilities over the Peking-Mukden Railway?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Arthur Henderson): His Majesty's Minister in China is in close touch with the management of the Kailan Mining Administration on the point raised by the hon. Member, and has made representations to the Chinese authorities in the matter. His Majesty's Minister will continue to do all he can to assist the British interests involved.
    Mr. SAMUEL: I am much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman. Will he ask the British Minister to remind the Chinese authorities that an attack on British capital is no inducement to further investments of British capital in Chinese undertakings?
    Mr. HENDERSON: I do not admit that statement.

    EXTRA-TERRITORIALITY.
    Captain PETER MACDONALDasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what is the present position in regard to the various negotiations with the Government of China, particularly in connection with extra-territoriality?
    Mr. WARDLAW-MILNEasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (1) whether the negotiations now being carried on by Sir Miles Lampson include any question of the future of Shanghai, or whether this matter is excluded from the discussions;
    (2) whether the negotiations now being conducted by Sir Miles Lampson and the Chinese Government provide safeguards in the interests of British subjects in the event of an agreement being reached between the parties which would modify the existing system in regard to extraterritoriality;
    (3) whether the negotiations now proceeding on the subject of extra-territoriality in China are intended to result in a treaty which will be subject to ratification by Parliament?
    Mr. A. HENDERSON: The only negotiations now proceeding with the Chinese Government are concerned with extraterritoriality, but, as I informed the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Wardlaw-Milne) on Monday last, I am not at present in a position to make any further statement. If, as I hope, the negotiations are successful, they will result in a Treaty, and there will, in accordance with the usual practice, be an opportunity for debate in this House before ratification.
    Mr. WARDLAW-MILNE: Will the right hon. Gentleman reply to my question whether Shanghai is or is not excluded from these negetiations?
    Mr. HENDERSON: I have that point in mind, but I am not in a position at the moment to make a statement.
    Mr. WARDLAW-MILNE: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that this House is entitled to some information before any negotiations are conducted with a Government which is quite unable to look after its own nationals, far less to look after British nationals?
    Mr. HENDERSON: That is another question.
    Lieut.-Colonel ACLAND-TROYTE: Is not this a case of secret diplomacy again?
    Mr. GODFREY LOCKER-LAMPSON: Can the right hon. Gentleman inform the House whether these negotiations are carried on on the basis of the report issued a few years ago by the extra-Territoriality Committee?
    Mr. HENDERSON: I must have notice of that question.
    Mr. WARDLAW-MILNE: Arising out of the previous answer—
    HON. MEMBERS: Order!

    MURDER OF BRITISH MISSIONARIES.
    Sir KINGSLEY WOODasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he has received any information as to the capture of the murderers of the two British lady missionaries?
    Mr. A. HENDERSON: I regret that the murderers have not yet been captured.

  SUEZ CANAL.
  Mr. QUIBELLasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs the names of the unofficial British directors on the board of the Suez Canal Company, and the date of appointment?
  Mr. A. HENDERSON: I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply which I returned on Monday last to a similar question by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy).
  Mr. QUIBELL: Will the right hon. Gentleman say what are the duties of this office, and when and where performed?
  Mr. HENDERSON: That does not arise out of the question.
  Sir CHARLES CAYZERasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury what instructions were given by the Treasury to the representatives of His Majesty's Government on the board of the Suez Canal Company with regard to the proposal to use some of the funds of the Suez Canal Company to finance an industrial trust company in Luxemburg?
  The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Pethick-Lawrence): No instructions in regard to this investment were asked for by, nor given to, the British Government directors of the Suez Canal Company.
  Sir C. CAYZER: In view of the widespread demand for a reduction of the canal dues, does the hon. Gentleman consider it proper for this company to invest large sums of money outside its own business in Continental industry which is directly competing with our own, and what action does he propose to take in the matter?
  Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: I have already said, in answer to the question, that no instructions were given. I do not adopt the view of the hon. Member as regards the fears which he has expressed.
  Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Are we to understand that general instructions are given to the representatives of His Majesty's Government to watch British interests?
  Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: That does not arise out of the question.

  TRADE AND COMMERCE.

    MERCHANDISE MARKS.
    Mr. FREEMANasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will consider the desirability of recommending to the League of Nations the establishment of an international mark, similar to the national mark now in use in this country, to be given to those goods or articles which are able to satisfy a minimum standard of purity, production, etc., according to the requirements of each commodity?
    The SECRETARY for MINES (Mr. Shinwell): I have been asked to reply. The question of the means at the disposal of foreign buyers to enable them to ascertain the quality of goods has already been considered by the Economic and Financial Section of the League of Nations, who have published a survey of the measures bearing on this subject which exist in a considerable number of countries. This was in their view the most useful step they could take. I

    955
    doubt whether the time is ripe for the institution of an international mark of quality.
    Mr. MARJORIBANKS: Why is the time not ripe?
    Mr. FREEMAN: Will the hon. Member consider the desirability of bringing this matter before the International Labour Office and ask them to institute a further inquiry?
    Mr. SHINWELL: The hon. Member will find that I have replied to that point in my answer.
    Mr. SMITHERS: Will the hon. Member use his influence to bring these recommendations to the notice of the Soviet Government of Russia?

    RUSSIA.
    Sir RENNELL RODDasked the President of the Board of Trade which countries have up to the present time taken legislative measures to prevent the unloading of Russian produce offered under conditions with which their home markets are unable to compete?
    Mr. SHINWELL: I would refer the right hon. Gentleman to the answer given to a similar question by the hon. and gallant. Member for North Midlothian (Major Colville) on the 18th March.

  RUSSIA (RELIGIOUS SITUATION).
  Sir K. WOODasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has received any recent report from His Majesty's Ambassador in Moscow as to whether there has been any abatement of religious persecution in Russia, or any amendment or modification of the recent decrees in relation thereto?
  Mr. A. HENDERSON: Recent reports from Moscow are to the effect that there was no visible obstruction in the way of religious services at Easter. As regards the second part of the question, I have received no information of new legislation beyond that which I communicated to the right hon. Gentleman on the 13th of March.
  Sir K. WOOD: Has the right hon. Gentleman any objection to communicating with our Ambassador and asking him whether there has been any abatement or modification of the recent decrees?
  Mr. HENDERSON: I have no objection to taking that into consideration.
  Mr. MARJORIBANKS: Is the right hon. Gentleman now able to indicate the position with regard to the Bible in Russia, which he promised to look into?
  Mr. R. A. TAYLOR: Is it not the case that the churches in Russia are better attended than they are in England?

  SPANISH GOVERNMENT (BRITISH RECOGNITION).
  Mr. MATTERSasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can now make a statement on the question of British official recognition of the provisional Government of the Republic of Spain?
  Mr. A. HENDERSON: His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom have been in communication with His Majesty's Governments in the Dominions, and I am now able to inform the House that, with the full concurrence of all His Majesty's Governments in the Dominions, His Majesty's Ambassador at Madrid has been instructed to recognise officially the new Government in Spain.
  Mr. MATTERS: May I ask whether this decision has been communicated formally to the Governments of other friendly Powers, who may or may not have yet recognised the Republic of regenerated Spain?
  Mr. HENDERSON: It has not been communicated, except through the Press, only in the way I have indicated through our own Ministers.
  Mr. MATTERS: May I ask whether this decison means that Don Alphonso, the Bourbon, no longer holds any official status?
  Mr. SPEAKER: That does not arise out of the question.
  Lieut.-Colonel FREMANTLE: May I ask why in communicating the concurrence of various Dominions the Dominion of Newfoundland was left out.
  Mr. HENDERSON: I do not know whether there was any particular reason for that.
  Mr. SMITHERS: May I ask whether the position will be reviewed after the elections which are due to take place in June?

  ROYAL NAVY.

    LOWER-DECK PROMOTIONS.
    Captain W. G. HALLasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether the scheme now under consideration by his Department dealing with promotion from the lower deck will be sufficiently wide to enable men entering the accountant branch of the Navy to rise to ward-room rank?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Mr. Ammon): This question is at present under consideration, in connection with the report of the committee.

    OIL FUEL.
    Sir WILLIAM DAVISONasked the First Lord of the Admiralty what is the estimated number of tons of oil fuel which would be required by the Royal Navy in a war with a first-class naval power for one year?
    Mr. AMMON: The disclosure of this information is not in the national interest.
    Sir W. DAVISON: At any rate, is it not a fact that many million tons of oil will be required?

    CRUISERS.
    Sir W. DAVISONasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether in fixing the number of cruisers required by this country to protect our trade routes in time of war, allowance was made for those which would be specially required in convoying from foreign countries the large amount of oil fuel now required by the Royal Navy; and what allowance has been made in this respect?
    Mr. AMMON: All relevant considerations are taken into account in calculating the number of cruisers required by this country to protect our trade routes in time of war. It would not be in the public interest to disclose details of the services which these vessels will be called upon to perform or to indicate what special steps are envisaged for the protection of supplies of any particular commodity.
    Sir W. DAVISON: Can the hon. Member say whether it is not a fact that a very much larger amount of fuel oil, in an ever increasing amount, is now re-
    958
    quired for the Royal Navy than was the case when the Washington Conference was held.
    Mr. MILLS: Oil on troubled waters.
    Mr. HOLFORD KNIGHT: May I ask whether the trade routes referred to traverse the trade routes of the world?

    ADMIRALTY CONTRACTS (GERMAN POTATOES).
    Sir THOMAS INSKIPasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he is aware that consignments of German potatoes have been recently obtained for the purpose of victualling the Royal Navy; whether any or all of these consignments have been delivered in German vessels within the last three months, and particularly within the last seven days; and whether a contract has been made for any future deliveries of German potatoes?
    Mr. AMMON: As stated in my reply of the 9th July last (OFFICIAL REPORT, column 403) to the hon. Member for Holland with Boston (Mr. Blindell), the Admiralty contracts for potatoes and other vegetables do not stipulate that supplies are to be home-grown produce and under present circumstances it would not be practicable to ensure that such a condition, if inserted, was in fact fulfilled. No contract has been made by the Admiralty for German potatoes, but it is quite possible that potatoes imported from the continent may be supplied at this time of year under Admiralty contracts at southern ports.
    Sir T. INSKIP: Is the hon. Member in a position to answer my question, whether German potatoes have been imported in a German motor vessel within the last few days at Portsmouth? That is my question, and I should like an answer.
    Mr. AMMON: I am not able to say exactly where they came from. Contracts are placed with contractors and where possible we get them from home supplies, but that cannot always be done.
    Sir T. INSKIP: Can the hon. Member say whether potatoes have come in a German motor vessel to Portsmouth?
    Mr. AMMON: If it is true, I do not think it makes any difference.
    Mr. MILLS: In order to comply with Admiralty regulations, will the hon. Member see that the eyes of these German potatoes are covered?
    Sir JOSEPH LAMB: May I ask whether there is not a clause in the contract which says that they should be of British origin if possible?
    Mr. AMMON: It is always indicated in the contract that these supplies as far as possible should be from home produce, and where this is departed from and it could be done the attention of the contractor is called to it.
    Mr. MACLEAN: Can the hon. Member tell us who is the contractor?

    His MAJESTY'S SHIP "GLORIOUS" (REPAIRS).
    Mr. HORE-BELISHAasked the First Lord of the Admiralty where the repairs to His Majesty's Ship "Glorious" are to be carried out; and whether, seeing that she was reconstructed in Devonport dockyard, he can arrange for the repair work to be done in that yard?
    Mr. AMMON: His Majesty's Ship "Glorious" belongs to the Mediterranean Fleet, and after temporary repairs at Gibraltar she will proceed to Malta dockyard for permanent repairs.

    SHIPWRIGHT BRANCH, MATE SCHEME.
    Mr. HORE-BELISHAasked the First Lord of the Admiralty why the mate scheme does not apply to the shipwright branch of the Royal Navy; and whether the committee inquiring into the mate scheme has investigated this aspect of the question?
    Mr. AMMON: As the mate scheme is a method of obtaining by promotion from the lower-deck a proportion of officers who would otherwise be entered through other channels, it is not applicable as such to the shipwright branch. The evidence, however, given before the committee as to promotion in branches to which the mate scheme is not at present applicable is receiving consideration in connection with the report of the committee.

    His MAJESTY'S SHIP "IRON DUKE."
    Mr. HORE-BELISHAasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether it is proposed to convert His Majesty's Ship "Iron Duke" into a training ship for boys at Devonport?
    Mr. AMMON: There is no intention of using His Majesty's Ship "Iron Duke" as a training ship for boys at Devonport. The ship is being retained under the terms of the London Naval Treaty as a gunnery training ship. Work of demilitarisation will commence in three months' time, after which she will be taken in hand at Devonport for conversion to her new service, probably before the end of the current calendar year.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is she to be a sea-going training ship or a harbour training ship?
    Mr. AMMON: Sea-going.

  HONG KONG (INFANT MORTALITY).
  Mr. GRAHAM WHITEasked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, seeing that some official information is available with regard to 1,724 out of 1,851 dead bodies of children of three years of age and less picked up in the streets of Hong Kong during 1928, he will call for a report upon the remaining 127 dead bodies; and whether in any case death was due to violence?
  The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Dr. Drummond Shiels): Of the 127 bodies, 98 were those of children over three years of age and 29 were infants of unknown sex. The Governor was requested by my Noble Friend to state whether in any of the 1,851 cases reported for the year 1929 death was due to violence, and he has replied that in no case was there found to be any evidence of violence. In 521 cases of children of three years or under, the cause of death was found to be smallpox.

  PALESTINE (PRISONERS' TREATMENT).
  Mr. FREEMANasked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware that the daily grant for food to Jewish political prisoners in Palestine gaols is 45 mils and for Arab political prisoners 11 mils per diem; what is the reason for this discrimination; whether there are any other differences in the treatment accorded to prisoners of Jewish, Arab, or European nationalities; whether he will state the

  961
  amount of food allowance for European prisoners; and whether measures will be taken to ensure that, in future, there shall be no race discrimination between prisoners confined in Palestinian gaols?
  Dr. SHIELS: As the answer is rather long and contains a number of figures, I will, with my hon. Friend's permission, circulate it with the OFFICIAL REPORT.
  Mr. FREEMAN: Is there a difference in the treatment of these prisoners?
  Dr. SHIELS: Yes, there is a difference, but it is a difference dependent on the former standard of life of the prisoners.
  Colonel HOWARD-BURY: Is it the case that the appetite of the Jew is four times that of the Arab?
  Mr. McSHANE: Surely we cannot have heard the Minister aright. Does he say that, if a man is put in prison and was more or less half-starved previously, that would still continue to be the diet of that man while in prison.
  Dr. SHIELS: No, Sir. I would like to make it clear that I did not say that at all.
  Following is the answer:
  No, Sir. No racial distinction is made in the treatment of prisoners in Palestine. As regards the third part of the question, the Palestine Government has adopted, so far as conditions and circumstances permit, the principle that special treatment should be accorded in prison to persons who are accustomed to a higher standard of living. As regards the fourth part of the question, the diet prescribed for persons receiving special treatment, as laid down in August, 1930, is as follows:

  Grams.

  Bread

  450

  Potatoes

  200

  Rice

  60

  Sugar

  60

  Beans

  50

  Meat (without bone or excessive amount of fat)

  250

  Fresh vegetables (without outside leaves, stalks, etc.)

  400

  Milk

  150

  Tea

  20

  Salt

  15

  Pepper

  0.25

  This scale of diet may be changed from time to time on the recommendation of the competent medical authorities. The fifth part of the question does not arise.

  MALAYA (HARBOURS).
  Colonel HOWARD-BURYasked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware that the Malayan Government claim to establish a monopoly in the provision of harbours in Malaya and have refused to permit any extension of the wharfage arrangements at Penang prior to carrying out experiments with the wharves at Prai; will he state whether the wharves at Prai have been successful or not; how much money has been expended on them; and how much is to be expended?
  Dr. SHIELS: I am not aware that permission to extend wharves at Penang has been refused in the interests of the wharves at Prai, but I will ask the Acting-Governor for a report. The wharves at Prai have not been a success. They cost about £2,000,000. There has been no capital expenditure on them since 1926.
  Colonel HOWARD-BURY: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that those wharves were really disastrous failures, and that to make them at all usable, as suggested, would cost an enormous further sum of money; and will the hon. Gentleman look into the matter again?
  Dr. SHIELS: I think that what I have said is in general agreement with what the hon. and gallant Member has said.

  AVIATION.

    AIRSHIP POLICY.
    Captain P. MACDONALDasked the Under-Secretary of State for Air whether he can now make a statement as to the policy of the Government in regard to airship construction?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for AIR (Mr. Montague): I am not yet in a position to add anything to the reply which I gave to my hon. Friend, the Member for Central Southwark (Mr. Day), on the 15th instant.
    Mr. DAY: When will a reply be available?
    Mr. MONTAGUE: I hope before long. The Report deals with matters for which the Government must be given ample time for very careful consideration.
    Captain MACDONALD: In view of the very high cost of maintaining these air bases, will the hon. Gentleman expedite a decision in the matter? If I put a question in a week's time, will he answer it?
    Mr. MONTAGUE: I will.

  AIR MAIL SERVICE (AUSTRALIA).
  Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYasked the Under-Secretary of State for Air why flying boats were not used on the experimental air-mail service to Australia for that part of the route that was over the sea between Singapore and Northern Australia; and whether it is intended to use flying boats in the future?
  Mr. MONTAGUE: Landplanes are being used because the route through the Dutch East Indies is organised for landplanes only. I may say that the Dutch Company also operate over that route with landplanes. As regards the future, the establishment of a regular service is itself still in the discussion stage, as the hon. and gallant Member is aware, but the use of flying boats would necessitate reorganising the route, at additional expense, instead of taking advantage of the organisation which already exists.
  Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that flying boats are used for the Mediterranean portion of the route? Why are they not being used for this long sea section?
  Mr. MONTAGUE: My answer explains that it is because the organisation is not there. When it comes to a question of a regular service, the matter will be reconsidered.

  TRANSPORT.

    DARTFORD-LONDON RAILWAY SERVICE.
    Mr. MILLSasked the Minister of Transport if his attention has been called to the overcrowding daily taking place on the railway service between Dartford and London on the workmen's trains, particularly on the train leaving
    964
    Dartford at 7.22 a.m.; and whether, in view of the rapid growth of the Barnehurst, Bexley Heath, and Welling areas, he will cause inquiries to be made as to the comparative development of the railway service?
    The MINISTER of TRANSPORT (Mr. Herbert Morrison): My attention has been called to the overcrowding of this train, and I have been informed by the railway company that arrangements have been made for a relief train to be provided when the time-table is next reissued, which I understand will be early in July next. The company state that it is not possible to make the alteration before as the running of this relief train will involve numerous alterations to other services.

    ROAD TRAFFIC REGULATIONS.
    Mr. ROSSasked the Minister of Transport whether he will from time to time issue in a bound volume the rules and orders relating to the Road Traffic Act and provide the same with an index?
    Mr. HERBERT MORRISON: I will keep the hon. Member's suggestion in mind for consideration at a later date. Certain regulations have yet to be made.
    Mr. ROSS: Is the right hon. Gentle man aware that it is very difficult for many thousands of people interested in investigations before area commissioners to deal with the large number of Orders and Provisional Orders issued as separate leaflets?
    Mr. MORRISON: So far as the proceedings before the area commissioners are concerned, I would hardly like to say that the regulations are particularly numerous. They do replace a lot of other regulations. Each section of motor users is interested in, perhaps, one body of regulations only, and they do not all need to know all the regulations. I should be sorry if they did.
    Mr. MARJORIBANKS: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that everyone is presumed to know the law?
    Mr. MORRISON: Yes, in relation to an offence against that law. So they ought.

    STREET ACCIDENTS.
    Mr. MATTERSasked the Minister of Transport what steps are being taken to secure a more effective classification

    965
    of the nature and cause of traffic accidents, so that the statistics may better indicate what measures are desirable for ensuring greater safety on the roads?
    Mr. HERBERT MORRISON: A Departmental Committee is examining the question of street accident investigation for the purpose indicated in my hon. Friend's question, and it is anticipated that their report will be submitted in the near future.

  HOUSE OF COMMONS (VENTILATION).
  Mr. STRAUSSasked the First Commissioner of Works whether he will publish the information in the possession of his Department in connection with the ventilation of this House?
  The FIRST COMMISSIONER of WORKS (Mr. Lansbury): I propose to publish a White Paper containing the report prepared in 1924 by Sir Frank Baines, then Director of Works of the Department.
  Mr. SHAKESPEARE: Is it not a fact that the oxygen is extracted from the air before it comes into this House, and that his Department has disregarded the report of an eminent medical authority?
  Mr. LANSBURY: There have been a good many reports of eminent medical authorities, but they all disagree with one another.

  INTERNATIONAL WHEAT CONFERENCE.
  Captain P. MACDONALDasked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs whether he has received any communication from the Canadian Government regarding the International Wheat Conference
  The SECRETARY of STATE for DOMINION AFFAIRS (Mr. J. H. Thomas): No, Sir.

  INDIA (ARMY COMMISSIONS).
  Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYasked the Secretary of State for India how many Indian gentlemen are at present holding commissions in His Majesty's Army; and how many are in training for commissions?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Mr. Wedgwood Benn): The number of those holding King's commissions was 114 at the end of March. The number under training is 39.
  Brigadier-General CLIFTON BROWN: Are these gentlemen who hold commissions in India from the martial races in India, or are they Hindus?
  Mr. BENN: I will make inquiries and give a detailed answer if a question is put on the Paper.

  MILK (IMPORTS).
  Miss PICTON - TURBERVILLasked the Minister of Agriculture whether he can inform the House how much per cent. of the milk consumed in Great Britain is imported, showing condensed milk and imported dried milk separately?
  Mr. PALING (Lord of the Treasury): I have been asked to reply. On the basis of estimates for the years 1924 to 1927, contained in "The Agricultural Output and the Food Supplies of Great Britain," 1929, which are the latest complete figures available, it is calculated that after converting preserved milk into its estimated equivalent in liquid milk, approximately 8 per cent. of the milk consumed in Great Britain is imported, of which condensed milk accounts for rather over 7 per cent. and milk powder for rather under 1 per cent.
  Mr. CHARLES WILLIAMS: Is the amount increasing?
  Mr. PALING: I could not say without notice.

  POST OFFICE (RURAL TELEPHONES).
  Mr. PYBUSasked the Postmaster-General whether he will consider the provision of telephone kiosks either inside or outside rural post offices in which, at the present time, it is impossible to conduct a private telephone conversation?
  The ASSISTANT POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. Viant): I am prepared to provide telephone cabinets inside, or telephone kiosks outside, rural post offices in all cases where it is anticipated

  967
  that the additional revenue obtained will approximate to the extra annual charges involved.
  Mr. PYBUS: Will the hon. Gentleman explain how, from a service which is at present useless because it lacks privacy, he can get any figures on which to estimate whether under proper conditions the service would be successful?
  Mr. VIANT: During the past two years we have opened 4,300 call offices in rural districts throughout the country, and we can only base our estimates of the anticipated loss on these services on the experience that we have already obtained.
  Major COLFOX: What is the extra cost involved?
  Mr. DOUGLAS HACKING: Can the hon. Member tell me of one single kiosk In the country where it is really possible to have private conversation?
  Mr. PYBUS: Are not most of these rural exchanges in noisy shops, without any privacy, so that the private business of the person telephoning is known and enjoyed by the whole village?

  FORESTS (SUNDAY FIRE PATROLS).
  Lieut.-Colonel ACLAND TROYTEasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade, as representing the Forestry Commissioners (1) whether he is aware that the men employed on fire patrol duty in their planted areas on Sundays are expected to do ordinary work in addition to their fire patrol duties on this day; and whether he will take immediate steps to stop this practice;
  (2) whether he is aware that men employed at Haldon, Devonshire, are now ordered to perform fire patrol duties on Sundays instead of being asked to volunteer, as was done formerly; and whether he will issue instructions that in future volunteers shall be called for and that men shall not be warned for these duties unless sufficient volunteers cannot be obtained?
  Mr. ALPASS (Forestry Commissioner): I have been asked to reply. At Haldon Forest, which is an extremely inflammable area much frequented by the public
  968
  especially at week-ends, a fire protection gang is detailed by rota for Sundays. Some of the men patrol and the others are engaged on screefing fire lines and other work unless fire breaks out in the forest when they proceed to extinguish it. A special rate of wages is paid. There is keen competition for the employment, and the men are detailed for the sake of convenience and to give the employment to all the men in turn. If a man detailed for a particular Sunday does not wish to attend he finds a substitute and informs the forester. There is therefore no need to change the existing practice.
  Lieut.-Colonel ACLAND-TROYTE: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that only six men are employed each Sunday; that they have to do this, in addition to their work; that they are working seven days a week; and that there is discontent at the present arrangement?
  Mr. ALPASS: All I can say is that the statement of the hon. and gallant Member is not in accordance with the information supplied to the Forestry Commissioners.
  Lieut.-Colonel ACLAND-TROYTE: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that I have this information direct from the men themselves?
  Mr. MARJORIBANKS: Will the hon. Gentleman find a better term than "gang" to apply to the men performing this duty?

  YARMOUTH NAVAL HOSPITAL BILL.
  Mr. ERNEST BROWNasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether the Yarmouth Naval Hospital Bill was submitted to the General Board of Control for Scotland; whether that board approved of the Bill; and whether, if the board did not approve, he will state the grounds of the board's disapproval?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Mr. William Adamson): The reply to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. As regards the remainder of the question, I would remind the hon. Member that the responsibility for decisions on questions of policy rests with me as the responsible Minister, and it would be contrary to practice to disclose correspondence or

  969
  other communications between myself and any of my Departments on such questions. I may say that having carefully considered the interests of all those who may be affected by the Bill in so far as Scotland is concerned the Bill had my full concurrence.
  Mr. BROWN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the House was assured that the evidence available from the Board of Control was in favour of the Bill; and, since the Minister in charge of the Bill has stated what the board said on the matter, are not Members of the House entitled to know the terms on which that answer was based?

  VIVISECTION (DOWNE HOUSE, KENT).
  Mr. FREEMANasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many licences have been granted for experiments at Downe House, Downe, Kent, or any laboratories attached to it; and how many experiments on living animals have already been performed there?
  The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Short): As Downe House is not registered no licence has been granted for experiments at this place nor have any experiments under the Act been performed there.
  Mr. FREEMAN: Is It intended to use these buildings for the purposes of experiments on animals?
  Mr. SHORT: I could not say.

  NATIONAL SAVINGS.
  Sir ARTHUR STEEL-MAITLANDasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury if he will give an estimate of the national savings in the years 1928, 1929 and 1930, comparable to that for 1924, submitted by Mr. Coates to the Colwyn Committee?
  Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: I regret I am not in a position to give these estimates.
  Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: Is there any estimate—even if it is not exactly comparable—which the Financial Secretary could give the House?
  Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: I am afraid that the data are not available.
  Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: In view of the great importance of ascertaining the amount, because of its bearing on the industrial situation, will the hon. Gentlemen undertake to get an estimate?
  Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: I will look into the matter. I could not promise to give an estimate on the lines suggested by the right hon. Gentleman.

  INDUSTRIAL UNDERTAKINGS (RESERVES).
  Sir A. STEEL-MAITLANDasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether he can state the sums, exclusive of allowances for wear and tear, placed to or taken from reserve in the years 1912, 1922 and 1923, and in 1928, 1929 and 1930, in each of the following groups of industries: mining, iron and steel, cotton, woollen and shipbuilding?
  Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: The statistics normally collected regarding the Income Tax do not contain any information as to the disposal of the profits of industry and an estimate of the amount of profits that is not distributed but is placed to reserve can be obtained only by way of a special investigation and then for companies only. Such an investigation covering the years 1912, 1922 and 1923 was made for the information of the Colwyn Committee on National Debt and Taxation and the right hon. Member will find the results in paragraph 51 of the committee's report (Command Paper No. 2800). No similar information is available for the other years named in the right hon. Member's question.
  Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: On account of its importance, industrially, would it not be possible to get the information available for some recent year, for the purpose of comparison?
  Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: I do not think it would, but I will look into the matter also.

  UNEMPLOYMENT.

    EXCHANGE FACILITIES (HAYES, MIDDLESEX).
    Mr. ARTHUR LAWasked the Minister of Labour whether she is aware that over 600 persons residing at Hayes have to walk regularly a distance of over two miles to Southall merely to sign the unemployment register; and when the promised Employment Exchange will be opened at Hayes?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of LABOUR (Mr. Lawson): The new Employment Exchange at Hayes will be opened as soon as suitable premises can be obtained. Meanwhile, the Department is considering whether temporary arrangements can be made.

    BUILDING TRADE OPERATIVES (KENT).
    Mr. MILLSasked the Minister of Labour if she is aware that, although over 600 building trade workers are registering at Erith, Dartford, and Sidcup, local work is being done by trainees from the Birmingham area owing to the low wage offered; and whether she will take steps to prevent this.
    Mr. LAWSON: I am making inquiries and will communicate with my hon. Friend as soon as possible.

  MINISTERS OF THE CROWN (PRESS CRITICISMS).
  Mr. OSWALD LEWISasked the Prime Minister if he will set up a committee to inquire as to the working of laws relating to the Press in other countries with a view to considering the possibility of securing to past and present Ministers of the Crown whose actions are criticised in any newspaper a statutory right of reply in the columns of the newspaper in question?
  Mr. A. HENDERSON: The Prime Minister has no reason to suppose that the Press of this country would deny past or present Ministers of the Crown the right to reply to criticisms of their actions in any newspapers, and in these circumstances he sees no need for the appointment of a committee such as the hon. Member suggests.
  Mr. LEWIS: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that similar legislation has been found to work extremely well in France and Germany?

  NATIONAL EXPENDITURE (COMMITTEE).
  Sir K. WOODasked the Prime Minister when the report, or any interim report, of the Economy Committee will be available?
  Mr. A. HENDERSON: I would refer the right hon. Member to the reply given by the Prime Minister to the hon. and gallant Member for Midlothian, North (Major Colville) on 24th March last, to which he has nothing to add.
  Sir K. WOOD: Surely some inquiry has been made with reference to this committee since the date mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman—nearly a month ago? May I ask the right hon. Gentleman to communicate with the Prime Minister and ask him to make some further inquiry into this matter?
  Mr. HENDERSON: A month is not a very long time.

  FOUNDLING HOSPITAL SITE.
  Miss WILKINSONasked the First Commissioner of Works whether the Government proposes to take any steps to acquire the Foundling Hospital site to secure the open space for the children of the neighbourhood?
  Mr. LANSBURY: The Commissioners of Works have no power to acquire this site as an open space. The London County Council is the authority in the county of London for such purposes.
  Miss WILKINSON: Will the Government get into communication with the London County Council with a view to some money being raised for this purpose?
  Mr. LANSBURY: I think a number of people and authorities are in communication with the London County Council and other people, and I am hopeful that good results will follow.

PETROLEUM.
Mr. HARDIE: I beg to move,
"That leave be given to bring in a Bill to provide for the enforcement of regulations, under Section ten of the Petroleum (Consolidation) Act, 1928, by officers of local authorities empowered to grant petroleum spirit licences under the Act."
A similar Bill has already been before this House to try to put right a defect that occurred while the Act of 1928 was going through. By a small error in that year, none of the cities or other authorities have any power to deal with the presence of petrol. This is becoming a very dangerous business. It is well understood now that those having motor bicycles and not having places in which to accommodate them or their petrol are allowed to take the petrol inside their houses. I do not need to expand upon the dangers involved in that practice, and the loss of life and property that might occur from a fire starting in a tenement or any other building where there might be human life. In 1928 I drew attention to what was taking place then, and the right hon. Gentleman then in charge said that immediate steps would be taken to rectify the error, but no such steps were taken.
I have brought in this Bill before, with the agreement of hon. Members below the Gangway opposite and also above the Gangway opposite, that the Measure should go through, but on the night on which it was to go through it was opposed by our own Whips of the Labour party. Now I come forward with this Bill in the hope that, since the question of human life—and no one wants to see human life or even property destroyed—is involved, the basis upon which it rests will make a successful appeal to hon. Members in all parts of the House to let the Bill go through in the same way as an Indemnity Bill went through the other day to protect one individual against something that had been done relating to a telephone exchange. If it is possible for this House to agree to permit something to be done in connection with a post office, surely it is not too much to expect the same expediency when it is a matter of human life.
In my own city of Glasgow it has only been by good luck that we have not had a big holocaust and great loss of life. If such had occurred, there would have
974
been the usual crocodile tears and sympathy from all quarters. Do not let us have any regrettable position like that. Let us use our intelligence in time, instead of waiting until it is too late. In my own constituency we have at the present time buildings in which entertainments are in one part and garages and the storage of petrol in the other, and yet the city council has not the power to inspect for the presence of petrol. All that this Bill asks is to give the local authorities power to inspect premises where petrol is kept. Those who know it, know its danger. The regulation itself is such a simple and small matter that it is only a question of something like four lines, and I know of no conditions obtaining anywhere upon which any Member of this House could possibly base any objections to this Bill. If you take docks and harbours or industries like transport, they too have suffered from this defect in the 1928 Act, and they too are trying to get this matter rectified. Surely therefore it is not too much to ask that, with the ever-increasing use of this dangerous element of petrol, especially where human life is concerned, power should be given to the local authorities to see to it that wherever petrol is stored the authorities may be able at all times to see to the safety of property and human life.
Question put, and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Hardie, Mr. Marcus, Mr. McKinlay, Dr. Marion Phillips, and Mr. Kelly.

PETROLEUM.
  PETROLEUM BILL,
  "to provide for the enforcement of regulations, under section ten of the Petroleum (Consolidation) Act, 1928, by officers of local authorities empowered to grant petroleum spirit licences under the Act," presented accordingly, and read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 129.]
BILLS REPORTED.

  MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER (CITY OF WORCESTER) BILL.
  Reported, with Amendments [Provisional Order confirmed]; Report to lie upon the Table.
  Bill, as amended, to be considered To-morrow.

  MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDERS (MANCHESTER AND SOUTH STAFFORDSHIRE) BILL.
  Reported, without Amendment [Provisional Orders confirmed]; Report to lie upon the Table.
  Bill to be read the Third time To-morrow.

  CARNEGIE HERO FUND TRUST BILL [Lords].
  Reported, without Amendment; Report to lie upon the Table.
  Bill to be read the Third time.

  LOWESTOFT WATER AND GAS BILL [Lords].
    PORTSMOUTH CORPORATION BILL.
    Reported, with Amendments; Reports to lie upon the Table and to be printed.

    LOCAL AUTHORITIES (PUBLICITY) BILL.
    Reported, with Amendments, from Standing Committee A.
    Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
    Minutes of Proceedings to be printed.
    Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), to be considered upon Friday, 1st May.

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
That they have agreed to,
Gillingham Corporation Bill, with Amendments.
That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act to extend the boundaries of the city of Coventry; and for purposes incidental thereto." [Coventry Extension Bill [Lords].]
And also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act to empower the Grand Union Canal Company to execute works and improve part of their canal; to confer powers upon that Company with reference to part of the Oxford Canal Navigation; and for other purposes." [Grand Union Canal Bill [Lords].]

Coventry Extension Bill [Lords],

Grand Union Canal Bill [Lords],

Read the First time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.

SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES).

  STANDING COMMITTEE C.
  Mr. William Nicholson reported from the Committee of Selection; That they had discharged the following Member from Standing Committee C (added in respect of the British Museum and National Gallery (Overseas Loans) Bill [Lords]): Mr. Pethick-Lawrence; and had appointed in substitution: Mr. Lees-Smith.
  Report to lie upon the Table.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE (No. 2) BILL.
  [4TH ALLOTTED DAY.]
  Considered in Committee.
  [Sir ROBERT YOUNG in the Chair.]

  REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE (No. 2) BILL.

    CLAUSE 6.—(Restriction on use of vehicles at parliamentary elections.)
    The CHAIRMAN: The first Amendment that I call is the one standing in the name of the hon. and gallant Member for Yeovil (Major G. Davies)—in page 3, line 38, to leave out from the word "vehicle" to the end of the Sub-section, and to insert instead thereof the words:
    "other than a vehicle bona fide used for trade or professional purposes in any constituency on the day of the poll."
    Sir SAMUEL HOARE: On a point of Order. Before my hon. and gallant Friend moves his Amendment, do I understand that it is your intention, Sir Robert, to allow a general Debate upon it and a good deal of latitude in its discussion, and that, when this Amendment is disposed of, we shall proceed with the more specific Amendments?
    The CHAIRMAN: If the right hon. Gentleman means that hon. Members will not bring forward discussion on the other Amendments, I agree.
    Sir S. HOARE: I am afraid I did not mean that. I meant that there would be no unduly long discussion on the other Amendments. I dare say you will see that this Amendment raises a great many points connected with the Bill, and I think it would be better and for the convenience of the Committee to have a general discussion now, and the discussion on the subsequent Amendments could be much shorter. We are under a time table anyhow.
    The CHAIRMAN: On that understanding, that there will not be a long discussion of the subsequent Amendments, I quite agree.
    Major GEORGE DAVIES: I beg to move, in page 3, line 38, to leave out from the word "vehicle," to the end of the Sub-section, and to insert instead thereof the words:
    986
    "other than a vehicle bona fide used for trade or professional purposes in any constituency on the day of the poll."
    This Amendment raises the whole question of Sub-section (1), which I venture to describe as the most ludicrous provision in a ludicrous Bill. It is impossible not to overlap to some extent some of the later Amendments, and for that reason the decision to take a general discussion will facilitate our Debate. The object of this Sub-section is a very narrow party one. Hon. Members opposite feel satisfied that by passing this provision dealing with the use of motor cars, they will damage the party represented on these benches more than anyone else, and, in order to put that seriously into operation, they have endeavoured to include it in an Act of Parliament which, it is supposed, will be workable. The limitation appears to be applied to a question of intent. It affects the owner or the driver of a motor car, and it is a perfectly impossible provision to carry into operation.
    There can be only two ways in which such an absurd suggestion can really be carried out. One is to prescribe a definite geographical area round each polling station, past the boundary of which no motor car of any kind may go; or, as my Amendment suggests, have a regulation whereby on polling day in all constituencies the use of all motor cars is absolutely prohibited unless they are bona fide being used for trade or business purposes. I make that exception for two obvious reasons. One is that not even the wild fury of anti-Conservatism on the benches opposite would suggest an interference with the ordinary carrying on of trade and industry with motor vehicles; and, secondly, there is the security that usually the licences of such cars do not permit the carrying of passengers other than one beside the driver.
    As we shall see when we reach the various Amendments which have been put down, it is incredible that His Majesty's Government should bring forward a suggestion of this sort and think that they can make it operative. It is hardly the Amendment on which to point out some of the crassnesses and stupidities of the Sub-section, such for instance as that it will affect only transportation in one direction, that is, to and not from; and that it talks about the poll without specifying what that may mean.

    987
    When such things are pointed out, hon. Members opposite will realise what a wide opportunity for evasion or for extraordinary and foolish attempts at bureaucratic interference this Sub-section opens up. Who is to know or to take on himself the responsibility of knowing the intentions of the people he may be carrying in his car? On every day of the week throughout the country people get lifts from one place to another, and it is not incredible that a driver of a car may take a person closer to where he wants to go than if he picked him up from his own home.
    Hon. Members opposite live in an environment which does not let them realise the difficulties in the countryside as compared with the populated towns, and I want to commend this Amendment because of the effect of the Sub-section in the country districts—not that the Amendment has my whole-hearted support, but it is a way of making workable what is an unworkable provision. There are very often long distances between the scattered cottages and hamlets in the countryside and the polling stations. The question of flood and so forth assumes serious proportions in regard to the possibility of electors getting to the poll. My hon. Friend opposite, the Member for Rochdale (Mr. Kelly), will bear me out that on a historic occasion, I, taking time by the forelock, and realising that the floods were going to ascend, got to the poll early in the day all those whom I thought would vote Conservative, whereas he left the bringing up of his supporters to the end of the day when the floods were up. This illustrates the practical difficulties in the country districts, and in seeking to wreak vengeance on the Conservative party, as they are doing by this Sub-section, the Government will inflict great hardships on large numbers of people.
    It will be impossible to carry it out fairly unless one of the two suggestions to which I have alluded is adopted. One of those is embodied in the Amendment. If you really and genuinely want to put a provision of this sort on the Statute Book, you cannot enforce it unless you say that no motor cars of any kind can be used anywhere at any time on polling day throughout the countryside except bona fide business and commercial vehicles.
    988
    Otherwise, there will be innumerable ways of getting round the provision which is so hopefully brought forward by the Government. I am satisfied that, as the Debate goes on to-day, it will be fully borne out that this is the most ludicrous provision in a ludicrous Bill.
    Mr. KELLY: This is the first time that I have heard, although I have often said it, that the party opposite has such a close connection with the Flood.
    Major DAVIES: We survived it; you did not.
    Mr. KELLY: I want to ask whether this Amendment is in order. This Sub-section, I take it, deals with the use of vehicles for the purposes of an election, but the Amendment does not refer to voting, voters, or anything in connection with an election. The hon. Member is asking that on the day of an election no motor cars of any kind may be used for any purpose in any part of the country where the election is proceeding, and that only trade vehicles may engage upon their business that day. Is it intended that we shall have power to lay down that people who have no concern or connection with an election shall be compelled to lock up their vehicles on election day? That means that a doctor who is called out to a patient—
    Major DAVIES: No.
    Mr. KELLY: Oh, no; I see that professional purposes are included. Well, other people then. Is it intended that we should lay down the purposes for which vehicles can be used other than for election purposes? The hon. and gallant Member spoke of the Clause as being stupid, and perhaps he may be able to prove it, but it is not half so stupid as his Amendment.
    Captain BOURNE: The hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. Kelly) has put his finger on the weakness of the Government's proposal. I agree with him that if this Amendment were accepted the effect would be that no one could use a car on polling day except those using cars for trade or professional purposes, and that would be a very undesirable thing, but I fail to see how the proposals of the Government can operate unless some such fantastic provision is put into the law. The whole point of the Clause is that no one shall be allowed to drive a car up to a polling station except to

    989
    take himself or some member of his family resident with him to the poll. In a big town, who is to know whether a person accompanying the driver of a car is or is not a member of his family or resident with him unless each party employed personation agents, a practice which, I am happy to say, has died out in most of the districts in the South of England? It was found that they were not needed. With personation agents it might be possible to ascertain whether a person emerging from a polling station was a member of the family of the owner of the car, and even to ascertain whether he actually resided with him, but in the very large constituencies such as we have to-day—even in my own constituency, which is a small one, there are some 40,000 voters—I very much doubt whether there is any person who knows by sight one-half of the people entitled to record their votes at any particular polling station.
    It seems to me that the law will be unworkable, and in any case there will be many ways of getting round it. If a policeman sees a car containing more than one person going in the direction of a polling booth, is he to stop it and inquire whether the second person is going to the poll or not? Then, again, what is meant by "going to the poll"? The car might be stopped a couple of hundred yards away, and those who had been driving in it might finish the journey on foot. Would such a proceeding be within the terms of this Clause or not? I do not know. Perhaps the learned Solicitor-General will explain it to us. Then, again, how is a person who takes another person for a drive on polling day to know whether the other person, if he gets near to a polling station, intends to go to vote?
    The Government are enacting a law which will be absolutely unworkable, and are doing so largely because of the belief among hon. Members opposite that motor cars are a necessary assistance to a candidate. Just before the last General Election there were one or two by-elections in which the Socialist candidates, who were returned, had the assistance of a large number of motor cars, owing to the slight disagreement which existed at that time between the bookmakers and my right hon. Friend the Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill). I
    990
    did not observe that on that occasion there was any unwillingness on the part of the Members of the party opposite to avail themselves of the help of the large number of motor cars which came to them so fortuitously and unexpectedly. When the General Election took place later, the divergence of opinion between the bookmaking fraternity and my right hon. Friend had passed away, and so many cars were not forthcoming for the Socialist candidates in the constituencies to which I have referred; but I fancy that if anybody takes the trouble to compare the returns in those constituencies he will discover that, in spite of the great number of cars available for the Socialist candidates in the by-elections, and perhaps the lesser number available at the General Election, the result of the elections was unchanged.
    Hon. Members opposite exaggerate the value of motor cars in elections. Their chief use is to bring up the sick, the infirm and the aged, and those who reside at long distances from the polling stations. In the country, where the distance to a polling station is often too great to be walked easily, some people may feel that there is a moral responsibility to see that people are got to the poll. [Interruption.] An hon. Member disagrees with me, but I assure him that lots of people make it a condition that all their employés and their wives shall have an opportunity of being taken to the poll. But I do not believe that the assistance of motor cars is really of so much advantage to the party which has it as is commonly believed. However that may be, I do not think this Clause can possibly be worked unless we make the use of motor cars on polling day absolutely impossible to everybody.
    The ingenious type of person who likes to get round the law will find it just as easy to drive a coach-and-four through this Clause as people found it easy to send money to the Irish sweepstake in spite of the ban of the Home Secretary. He announced that it was illegal, he employed the forces of the Criminal Investigation Department and the Post Office to try to stop money being forwarded to Ireland, but none the less some £1,000,000 left these shores; and I am sure that when he tries to put this Clause into force he will find his efforts futile. It will throw on those who, as it is, get too much work

    991
    on polling day, the police forces of the country, a heavy and impossible task; it will result in the prosecution of people who are probably innocent of having wittingly committed any offence, but who, in a moment of charity, have given one of their neighbours or friends a ride to the polling booth; and at the same time it will do nothing to stop those who really wish to evade the law.
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: In moving this Amendment the hon. and gallant Member for Yeovil (Major Davies) has adopted the proper method with a Clause of this kind, the method of reductio ad absurdum. There is no way of killing this Clause except by ridicule.
    Major COLFOX: Get the Liberals to vote against it!
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: The Clause brings the Government into contempt. Is the Home Secretary going to stand at that Box and say, seriously, that in a future General Election nobody shall be permitted to take anyone to the poll in his motor car except a member of his own family? The Solicitor-General is sitting there, and I ask him why there is no definition of "family" in the interpretation Clause? It will be a new thing in British law if the word "family," which has hitherto had a very general connotation, a somewhat elastic connotation, is to be put within the terms of a definition Clause.
    Mr. MacLAREN: All people of the same name.
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: Then the Smith's will have a very good time. The Clynes's will have a very unfortunate time. My family could all be taken in a Baby Austin! What is the object of this Clause? The vote is not a privilege, it is a right, and, if you give the vote to people, you should give them an opportunity to exercise it. The problem you should face is not that of bringing the people to the poll but of bringing the poll to the people. If you cannot, under the present system, allow people to record their votes without very great inconvenience, the Amendment that you ought to be proposing to the present law is one which would secure that there was a polling booth within reasonable distance of every elector. This Bill does not increase the number
    992
    of polling booths, but it virtually prevents the use of motor cars altogether.
    We are told that the use of motor cars puts a premium upon wealth. What does this Clause put a premium on? It stops the poor man who is not within reach of a polling booth from getting there. Why should it be left to a Socialist Government to take away from the aged and infirm the right to record their votes. Why do you not devote yourselves to providing them with the proper means of getting to a polling station, if you suffer from the delusion that a motor car is an index of wealth? Of course, it is nothing of the kind. It is not my hon. Friend who moved this Amendment who is "living in the time of the Flood," but hon. Gentlemen opposite, who have not yet awakened to the fact that not only they themselves but many working persons have motor cars or motor-bicycles.
    You do not want to penalise people because they have or have not motorcars, but that is exactly what you do in this Clause. You penalise the man who has a motor car, by making it impossible for him to use it without great circumspection as to whom he may be taking. You treat him as a kind of Rouse. He has to be frightened of the person whom he picks up—or rather the person who is picked up has to be frightened of him. The man cannot take his own housekeeper or his own chauffeur to vote, and under the Amendment he cannot even take himself. The candidate cannot even use a motor car, if this Amendment be carried. The great British House of Commons is reduced to legislating about impossibilities. I appeal to the right hon. Gentleman, out of regard for good Government and because the House of Commons should only endeavour to legislate about possibilities, that he should withdraw this Clause and try to do something in a more practical manner for the aged and infirm.
    I have put down an Amendment about travelling polling booths for the sick and I am glad to have the right hon. Gentleman's acceptance of the principle, because I hope it is an indication that, if the Amendment is called, he will accept it. That is what you ought to do. Under one of Mr. Disraeli's Bills, voting by post was proposed—and indeed, you have now the system of the absent voter. Therefore I repeat to the right hon.

    993
    Gentleman that he should make it unnecessary to restrict the taking of people to the poll by taking the poll to the people.
    Mr. J. WILSON: It is very undesirable for this proposal to be discussed in the narrow partisan spirit that I see the Debate is taking. I said "narrow partisan spirit" advisedly, because this is a matter that ought to have the interest of all parties. We ought all to agree. I have seen in the Press that hon. Gentlemen opposite say it is a duty devolving upon the good citizen to register his or her vote at every election. If we accept that, surely it is the duty of those who are responsible for enabling the citizen to register their votes, to provide due and adequate means for them so to do. I have the privilege and the honour to represent a constituency where the principles embodied in this Bill are now in operation, and have been in operation for a number of years. My hon. Friend the Member for St. George's (Mr. Duff Cooper), whom I am glad to see back in the House, and I have fought two perfectly honourable and straightforward fights, and by common agreement between all parties, motor cars were not used for conveying electors to the poll, except that a man might take his own wife or members of his own family. That was an arrangment which has been perfectly honourably carried out for the last four General Elections, and which I am quite sure will be carried out so long as the law remains as it is.
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: What kind of constituency?
    Mr. WILSON: I will deal with the constituency in a moment. If an arrangement of that sort is possible in one constituency, where there is an honourable standard, ought it not to be possible in every other constituency? Hon. Members on this side are always willing to observe an honourable arrangement of that kind, and if hon. Members on the other side say that their standard of honour will not allow them to rise to that height, I will make them a present of their confession. The question arises: should any impediment be put in the way, either by reason of distance or anything else, of the citizen discharging his duty to vote at the polling station? What happened in my constituency was that as soon as that agreement was made between the
    994
    parties, the parties did something else. They provided facilities for the electors to vote at a polling station contiguous to their home, and now no elector in Oldham is required to walk more than 300 or 400 yards to the polling station.
    4.0 p.m.
    The hon. Member for Devonport (Mr. Hore-Belisha) says: Why not alter the law? He said that the Home Secretary, instead of dealing with the question of motor cars, ought to deal with the question of polling stations. I would invite the Committee to remember that, under the present law, those responsible for conducting elections, the returning officer of each constituency, have power to have as many polling stations as are necessary for the needs and convenience of the constituents. There are no limits to the number of polling stations that may be provided in any one constituency. Since that is so, our reason for supporting a proposal of that kind is that neither wealth nor poverty ought to enter into the question. I never voted Tory in my life, but I have been to the polling station in a Tory motor car, and I find that very often in other places people do the same thing. But I do not believe that that is a sound principle, and the principle we are trying to establish by this proposal is that the means of recording a citizen's vote shall be accorded to a citizen at a place contiguous to his home, where it will not be necessary to use motor cars. If the Committee look at the question from the point of view of bringing the polling station near to the voter's home, instead of compelling many voters to rely on some public or private means of transportation, and not look at the question from the rather narrow partisan point of view which I see manifesting itself in the Debate, I am sure that the Committee will come to the conclusion that the provisions in this Bill are to the benefit of the electors, and finally will be to the benefit of the political life of the country.
    Sir CHARLES OMAN: I have three points to put arising out of the remarks by the last speaker. He wishes to have polling booths placed conveniently for every voter. I know many places in Scotland where lonely farms are three, four or five miles from the nearest polling station. According to the theory of the

    995
    hon. Gentleman, the whole population of some regions of counties such as Caithness, Ross or Sutherland would be absorbed by acting as presiding agents, poll-clerks, etc., in the polling stations, and there would be nobody left to vote, because the number of remote places where the voting would have to take place would be so enormous that there would be no surplus citizens left to vote. The hon. Member's argument seems to be entirely related to urban dwellers, who know nothing of the remoteness of one place from another in Scotland, and even in some country districts of England and Wales. The whole thing is perfectly preposterous; save in towns, one cannot hope that every voter should have a polling booth within 400 yards of the place where he dwells. It simply could not be done. It would mean 150,000 polling booths in Scotland alone.
    The second point is this: It has already been, to a certain extent, made by the hon. Member for Devonport (Mr. Hore-Belisha). The point is, what is the vehicle that is to be prohibited? I cannot see how it can be legally possible to prevent a person who is in the habit of driving about on business in a district, such as a tradesman, or a doctor, from taking voters about and dropping them at some place in the district which may or may not be convenient to the Post Office or the draper's or, incidentally, to the polling booth. It is impossible to go into the question of stopping the village carrier, and asking him, as to half a dozen people inside his cart, "How many of them are going to the bank; how many to the Post Office and how many surreptitiously, in a horrible criminal way, are going to vote?" It is a preposterous idea.
    The last point I wish to make arises from a second remark made by the hon. Member for Devonport. I never saw such a loosely drafted Bill. What does a "family" mean? In old Roman times it meant the whole household, slaves and everybody. The "family" nowadays is possibly a narrower thing. The word used to be applied to the whole of the staff officers attached to a general in the army of Wellington, but nowadays that use of the word is obsolescent. But what constitutes a family in the sense of to-day's Bill? There is a
    996
    supplementary definition like a Table of Affinities, or something of that kind, which is required to be added. For example, I take a case where a gentleman has his house looked after by an elderly person—his daughter-in-law's stepmother. He is a member of the family group, but is she? Here is another case. Two partners, say, doctors, live together. The elder one, the senior partner, owns a motor car. Though they live together and interchange their duties, the owner of the car is not allowed to lend it to his junior partner, because he is not a member of the family. He would have been in the 18th century sense of the word, but not now. Again, take the case of a person having on his premises as his helper and assistant his deceased wife's brother. That person is no longer a member of his family, he having married again. He who was once his brother-in-law cannot have the use of the motor car, because he is no longer a member of the family.
    The whole of this Clause as to the "family" is vitiated by the absence of accurate definition. You cannot see who will, or who will not, be included, and the only way out is to follow the very reasonable Amendment which is down in the name of my hon. Friends to insert the words "or any person ordinarily" resident in the house. That will cover every member of the family group, and settle the matter, but to leave the word "family" in, without stating precisely who are the members of anyone's family is ridiculous, and I do not envy the person who has to draw up the Schedule defining the exact meaning of the phrase.
    Mr. McSHANE: I am sure we have all listened with considerable interest and amusement to the speech of the hon. Member for Oxford University (Sir C. Oman), and there are only two things I have to say with regard to it. The first is that the difficulties as to the use of the word "family" in the cases to which he referred would really never arise, for the simple reason that a man who is looked after by his daughter-in-law's stepmother would cease to take interest in any election whatever. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] I am sorry that it should be necessary to get the proverbial corkscrew in order to drive home the point I am making. Sydney Smith seldom used a mixed metaphor like that.

    997
    The second point with regard to the speech of the hon. Member for Oxford University is this: While he was pointing out the difficulties inherent in the scheme suggested by my hon. Friend, it occurred to me that, at any rate, it was a most useful suggestion for the solution of unemployment. If we got all the voters engaged as election agents, I consider we should have made a considerable advance towards the solution of unemployment. There was a time when I was in favour of Clause 6, but I am not quite certain that I am now in favour of it, if I may say so jocularly, because of my constituency, which is one of the biggest numerically in the whole country, though certainly not nearly so dense as constituencies which elect hon. Members opposite. My constituency numbers about 62,000, and it may interest the Committee to know that we very rarely have any difficulty with the question of motor cars, because we have trained our people so thoroughly that, as these motor cars are free on election day, there is no necessity for them to make any fine discrimination. We have taught them, in fact, to use the other motor cars generously. We ourselves at the last election had for that vast electorate four cars; our opponents each had about 200 cars, and I can assure the Committee that our people did thoroughly well with the use of the other cars. We have trained them to it, on the principle that we ought to exploit the exploiters, and they have responded admirably.
    There is one other point—a, serious one—which was adumbrated by the hon. Member for Devonport (Mr. Hore-Belisha). I think the idea which he put forward with regard to travelling polling booths, particularly in country areas, would obviate the use of motor cars.
    The CHAIRMAN: If the hon. Member for Devonport (Mr. Hore-Belisha) had gone any further in regard to that question, I should have called him to order. The Amendment on travelling booths may not be called.
    Mr. McSHANE: The party to which I belong has been at a serious disadvantage, particularly in country areas, on account of the use of cars, and I hope that the Clause will go through.
    Lord ERSKINE: The two speeches we have just heard from the Government
    998
    side of the Committee show the attitude adopted by the Socialist party in this matter. Both the hon. Members who spoke really spoke from a borough point of view. The hon. Member for Oldham (Mr. J. Wilson) said, "Why cannot you have a great many more polling stations?" and mentioned that in his constituency people never had to walk more than about 400 yards to record their votes. I understand that the constituency of Oldham is about one mile square. I believe that in boroughs a great many motor cars are not required by any party, but my own Division happens to be very large, and in it I have a town of 35,000 inhabitants, besides a very large area of country. I do not want motor cars in the town. The electors there are perfectly capable of walking to the polling station, but in the country districts many people are miles from a polling station, and it is quite impracticable to have polling stations everywhere so that the people can vote, because however many polling stations you might have, there would still be hundreds of people who would be more than two or three miles from a polling station. My Division in Somerset is an average country division, but there are divisions in Scotland, Yorkshire and elsewhere where, perhaps, there are many hundreds of square miles with the population very much scattered, and where any suggestion of that kind would be quite impracticable.
    This question really cannot be approached from a town point of view as against the country point of view. After all, what is the object of elections? It has always seemed to me that the object of elections, in this country at all events, is to get as many people to the poll as you possibly can, and, if you can get to the poll 85 or 90 per cent. of those on the register, you poll very nearly everyone who can vote. Surely, it is our desire, in all quarters of the House, to get as many people to vote as possible, and if in a big Division practically 100 per cent. of the voters go to the poll—because, if you poll actually in figures 85 or 90 per cent., you poll practically everyone there is, allowing for people who have died since the register was introduced and people who have removed—it is to the advantage of all parties. It has been said by various hon. Members opposite that their supporters travel in other parties' cars. I have no doubt that

    999
    they do. I have no doubt that in Somerset my cars have carried a great many of my opponents to the poll. While I would not knowingly take a lot of people to the poll who would vote against me, nor would anyone else, nevertheless I have no doubt that my cars have carried a large number of people who have voted against me.
    I remember listening to the Debate on Monday night, when it was wound up by the hon. Member for Shoreditch (Mr. Thurtle). I listened very carefully to some part of his remarks, because, strange to say, I think they have some bearing on this Debate to-day. It was not very easy to hear him, on account of the hubbub, but I did pick out one or two or his sentences, which were very illuminating. He said—I hope I am not misquoting him; I do not think I am—that a question such as that of the opening or closing of cinemas should be decided, as most other things were decided, by the great bulk of the population concerned, and he said that much of the opposition to that Bill came from our villages, but that they should not really be considered—that the only people who should be considered were the people who lived in the great towns. That was a rather remarkable observation from a Member of the Front Bench on the Government side, but it does show the mentality of hon. Members opposite. They merely think in terms of the great towns. They live so much in the great towns that some of them have begun to think that the people of the countryside have not any rights at all. I am quite sure that, if this Clause goes through, and people in the countryside find that, by order of the Socialist party, they are unable to go in motor cars to the poll, and must either refrain from using their votes on account of the distance or must walk, as hon. Members opposite like to think they made London walk a few years ago, the passage of this Clause will not redound to the advantage of the party opposite.
    Various arguments have been put forward to show how ludicrous this Clause is. I do not propose to go into them, because I daresay a good many more Members on this side of the House will raise that point, but we put forward this Amendment in order to show how ludicrous we think the Clause. It will be
    1000
    quite impossible to work it. I do not think that the Home Secretary himself believes that he can work the Clause as it is drafted at this moment, and this House should not pass Clauses for party purposes which it knows will not work in practice. After the "basting," if I may use that term, that the Clause has received up to the present from hon. Members on the Liberal benches and from hon. Members here, it is about time we had some reply from one of the two Ministers who are in charge of this Bill, because I think that sufficient has already been said to show that the Clause is ridiculous, that it cannot be worked, and that it is brought in mainly for partisan purposes.
    Mr. MORRIS: I had hoped that the right hon. Gentleman would see his way to withdraw this Clause, for it is a very retrograde Clause when you come to examine it. The cars referred to in Subsection (1) are defined in Sub-section (4), and then you have a very serious addition to the Clause in Sub-section (2), which provides that cars can be registered with the returning officer, and the whole of the Clause has to be read together in order to see what its effect is going to be. The problem in the urban areas is not serious. It has just been said that anyone in an urban area can readily walk to the poll. But when you come to rural areas, the problem is a totally different one. I have in my own division people living five, six, and indeed seven miles away from the polling booth—[Interruption]—and my right hon. Friend says that he has some who live 20 miles away. To walk seven miles, even on a fine sunny day, requires a considerable sacrifice on the part of an elector, and demands, in some cases, great physical effort. I have cases where old people of 65 and 70 walk the whole seven miles to the polling booth and back again. That is a totally different problem from the problem referred to by the hon. Member opposite. [An HON. MEMBER: "Get more polling stations."] It may be said that you can get more polling stations, but you have to consult the county council about that. The county council determines the number of polling stations, and one of the relevant questions with regard to that is the question of expense, on the ground of which the suggestion is always turned down.

    1001
    I would point out to the right hon. Gentleman that the people who will be affected by this Clause are not the rich people who own motor cars, but poor people who do not own motor cars, and many of whom will be virtually precluded from getting any facilities to attend at the polling booth at all. The only answer that the right hon. Gentleman can give is that there is provision in Sub-section (2) for the registration of cars. With regard to that, let me ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he realises what he is doing when he is giving power to the returning officer to determine whether a car shall be registered, and for whose benefit it shall be registered. The returning officer only has to consult the election agents of the candidates concerned, and the returning officer himself is not free from political bias. [Interruption.] I can give instances both ways, or in three ways if hon. Members like, because there are three parties. The returning officer has political views, like everyone else, and he is to be given this power under Sub-section (2). Anyone who knows anything at all about it knows exactly what will happen, whatever the designs of the right hon. Gentleman may have been. The Clause as it stands in the Bill is a very retrograde Clause. Hon. Gentlemen opposite argue that it does not matter who uses the cars; they say they carry voters to the poll irrespective of the way in which they are going to record their votes—
    Mr. McSHANE: Not knowingly.
    Mr. MORRIS: I thought it was said that they did not mind carrying their opponents to the poll.
    Mr. McSHANE: I said so jocularly.
    Mr. MORRIS: It is becoming rather the fashion with hon. Members opposite to make statements jocularly, and we want to know exactly when they are made seriously and when they are made jocularly. Actually, in these rural areas, it does not matter. I join with what was said by the Noble Lord the Member for Weston-super-Mare (Lord Erskine). I do not mind how many cars my opponent uses. I know that a large number of my opponent's cars have carried my voters, while, on the other hand, I know that a large number of my opponent's voters have been carried in
    1002
    my cars in the same way. That really does not matter. What really matters is that there should be facilities in the rural areas, and, although I might be out of order if I referred to the Amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for Devonport (Mr. Hore-Belisha), the solution in the rural areas lies in the movable booth. I cannot understand why our election system to-day cannot be modified to fit into the modern conditions of transport. This Clause, however, from start to finish, is a retrograde Clause. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will see fit to withdraw it, or, if he does not, that the Committee will reject it.
    Sir S. HOARE: I have been expecting that some Member on the Front Bench opposite would have answered the case, which appears to be quite overwhelming, against this Clause. Instance after instance has been given to show, beyond fear of contradiction, that the Clause is totally unworkable, and I should have thought that by this time we might have had some answer. So far, the only answer we have had from the back benches opposite has been rather of a jocular nature. I think we might have had some serious answer from the Front Bench to show that this Clause is workable. One of the criticisms constantly made against this House and against politicians is that we pass Acts of Parliament which are unintelligible to the world outside, and that we enact things which, when people try to put them into operation, are found to be totally unworkable. This Clause is one of the worst instances of that fault that I have ever seen. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Yeovil (Major G. Davies) has moved the only Amendment that is at all applicable to it in its present form, and, unless some Amendment of this kind be carried, the confusion that will arise afterwards will be incredible.
    Under the provisions of this Clause, unless the Amendment be carried, no one will know whether they are transgressing the law or not. Everyone who is engaged in an election, whether he be the candidate, the agent, or an ordinary voter, will have to go to his solicitor and will have to take counsel's opinion as to whether he can take out his car at all on election day, and as to whom he can take in it. When the Solicitor-General comes to speak, let him explain to the

    1003
    Committee certain provisions which appear at present to be almost unintelligible. One would have thought that, in dealing with a question of this kind, the Government would have stated clearly what the candidate and what the owner of a car can and cannot do at an election, but nothing of that kind is done in this Clause, and the limit is reached—I will not deal with it now, because it is referred to in a later Amendment—in Subsection (4), which appears to be totally unintelligible to almost everyone who reads it. As I have said, the candidates and the ordinary elector will be totally ignorant as to what he can and as to what he cannot do with his car on election day, and the only logical way to deal with the matter is to exclude the use of motors altogether—
    Mr. McSHANE: Or stop legal drafting.
    Sir S. HOARE: And particularly the drafting of the Law Officers of the party opposite. Let me point out to the right hon. Gentleman the kind of uncertainties in which the poor candidate at an election will find himself, and let me remind the right hon. Gentleman, first of all, that there is no safeguard for the unfortunate man or woman who unintentionally transgresses the provision of this Clause, because, unlike every other Bill of this kind, the present Bill contains no provision to excuse a man who makes a mistake without knowing about it. We shall come to that question later on. There is no provision in the Clause to say that a man who does not knowingly transgress the Clause will not be liable to the penalty.
    Then, again, as my hon. Friends behind me have pointed out, there is no definition of what is meant by the poll, or of what is meant by a man's family. What exactly is meant by the poll? Can a man drive a voter within 10 yards of a polling station? One can go on asking questions of that kind almost ad infinitum. A case of that kind shows how vague the position is left by the Government's proposal and what an impossible position the candidate and the voters will find themselves in. Hon. Members behind me have also asked what is meant by the word "family." My hon. Friend the Member for Oxford University (Sir C. Oman) was right in saying that we shall
    1004
    want a new table of affinity to show who may and who may not be carried in a man's car. The Home Secretary will have to flood constituencies with some new kind of police to watch over cars and their occupants at election time. He will have to have a new kind of Ogpu to make them produce their marriage lines. "Are you the man's wife?" If you say you are, "What is your evidence?" "Are you the man's children? If so, produce your birth certificates."
    To have to mention these things shows to what an extent the Committee is wasting its time in dealing with a provision which is totally foolish and unworkable from start to finish. It is another in stance of the fact that, of all the reactionary Governments we have ever had, the Government of the party opposite is the most reactionary. Not for the first time in this Parliament they are living, not a few years ago but generations ago. They are dealing with this question as if they were living in the 18th century, when you had small constituencies in which you knew by sight every voter, in which not only every voter voted, but very often more besides, in which there was no need to encourage them to go to the poll because they went for reasons which are not applicable to present elections, and in which there were no motors at all. At this time in the 20th century we are asked to go back to conditions of that kind when we have these huge constituencies, some with 100,000 voters, others, in the country, with great distances, particularly in Scotland and Wales, in which it is almost impossible for the voter to vote unless he has a motor conveyance of some kind. I should have thought the Home Secretary, if he was really devoting himself seriously to the question of Parliamentary reform, would have been making proposals which would ensure it being not more difficult but more easy for voters to record their votes. I should have thought, so far from discouraging the use of motors, he would have been encouraging it. The more motors in a constituency, the more voters would go to the poll. One of the great disadvantages of electioneering at present is the difficulty of getting voters to the poll, a difficulty which is becoming worse and worse as the number of voters becomes greater.
    The right hon. Gentleman may say that by a later provision in the Clause allowance is made for a certain number of cars,

    1005
    which will be placed at the disposal of the returning officer and presumably will be used in the transport of the disabled and the infirm and people who could not otherwise vote. That provision is totally useless. First of all, no one is likely to lend his car under conditions of that kind. Secondly, it would place the returning officer in an impossible position. Last December we had a Debate on a private Member's Resolution on the question of the use of motors at elections and the Under-Secretary, as far as I could understand his speech, turned down the idea of the returning officer being given duties of this kind. Let me quote his words:
    "Reference has been made to the responsibility for prescribing the conditions being laid upon the shoulders of the returning officer. As the law stands at the present moment, all the powers in relation to Parliamentary elections and to elections in general are well defined, and it may well he that it would be difficult to make arrangements for placing those responsibilities upon the returning officers. I see difficulties in that direction because the great thing in elections is to secure uniformity of adminstration and, if we were to place the responsibility upon our returning officers, the result might be that we should get all kinds of discrimination and different decisions. Consequently, we shall have seriously to consider how far we should put such a responsibility upon those officers."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 10th December, 1930; cols. 454–5, Vol. 246.]
    That certainly shows that as recently as last December the expert opinion of the Home Office was against the experiment being made and these duties being put upon the returning officer. It is a completely antiquated and futile proposal. It will not work and, if it did work, it would make it more difficult for voters to vote and not easier, as we should make it for them. There is no country in the world in which such a proposal has been tried except the two States in the United States of Nebraska and Minnesota. Why should we, without any case being made for the change, imitate examples of this kind? Why should we not rather follow the example that has been set in some of the newer constitutions, in which every encouragement is given to the voters to vote and in which full use is made of the modern developments of machinery, mechanisation and all the rest to make the possibility of their voting easier. From start to finish during the Debate objection after objection has been urged against the proposal. No defence has been made of it, and I ask the Home
    1006
    Secretary, in view of the overwhelming case that has been made from the Liberal benches as well as from ours, to take the only course open to him, to save the Committee further discussion, to withdraw the Clause altogether, and to admit that the proposal is entirely unworkable.
    The SOLICITOR - GENERAL (Sir Stafford Cripps): I think this Clause merits rather more consideration than has been given to it by some speakers opposite. The important case against it was made by the Noble Lord the Member for Weston-super-Mare (Lord Erskine), who put forward a serious argument with which I should like to deal. No one will deny that considerable value is attached to motor cars at elections. One only has to examine the appeals to owners of cars for their use, and the expensive and elaborate machinery that is organised at every election for the purpose of allotting motor cars to various districts and getting the loan of them from members of the public who are fortunate enough to own them. It is certainly my experience that at elections a great deal can be done by the use of motor cars, and election agents certainly attach very great importance to them. If one gets to that point of agreement, I think it will also be agreed that it is not desirable, if you desire to get the fair vote of a constituency, that one party or another should be advantaged by the fortuitous accident of having more cars at its disposal and, therefore, being able to poll a greater number of electors. [An HON. MEMBER: "Or trade union organisation."] It does not matter from what source the cars come. I am dealing with one party having more cars at its disposal than another.
    If one also goes so far as to agree to that proposition, there clearly is a case made out for some method—it may not be the precise method laid down in this Clause—of arriving at a fairer use of cars. As I understand hon. Members opposite, they agree that it is desirable that as many voters as possible should get to the poll, and that in their experience electors are honest in their dealings as a whole on polling day. If that be so, surely there is a strong case for having as many cars available for the general body of voters as possible, and some satisfactory means has to be devised by which that can be achieved. The means sug-

    1007
    gested in this Clause seem to the Government to be those that are most likely to work. [Interruption.] I am delighted to hear the cheers and laughter because having, I think, agreed with me so far that something is desirable, we shall, no doubt, have in due course the method which hon. Members opposite suggest as being the proper way of fairly arranging the distribution of cars. [An HON. MEMBER: "That the Clause be left out."] If the Clause be left out, that would, of course, be an assumption by the Committee that here is a matter which should be remedied and which the Committee is incapable of dealing with.
    The method we propose is that only those cars should be used for taking voters to the poll which are registered with the returning officer. He will not have the task of registering them. They will be registered by the owner with the returning officer, and, assuming that the owners desire, as has been so generally expressed opposite, that as many people as possible should get to the poll, a large number of cars will be offered. [Interruption.] I again remark the laughter, which seems to add considerable point to the argument that Tory cars are largely used for carrying Tory electors and will not be made available for other electors. That is the view which is generally taken on this side of the House, and that is the view that leads us to believe that a very considerable advantage at present is gained by that party. I think hon. Members opposite realise perfectly well that the use of large numbers, running into hundreds, of cars at their elections, especially in country districts, is a matter of very great importance to them. The cars will, in accordance with the directions of the Secretary of State, be allotted by the returning officer to work in various districts and will have to carry voters of whatever complexion, irrespective of their party allegiance. [Interruption.] They will presumably not be allowed by the Regulations of the Secretary of State except on condition that they are free for use by any elector and have been registered for that purpose with the returning officer.
    Sir THOMAS INSKIP: Is it really proposed that the Home Secretary shall make Regulations saying these registered cars
    1008
    are free for use by any voter when that provision is not to be put into the Bill?
    The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: The provision which is in the Bill says that they
    "shall be allotted by the returning officer for use in such manner as he, after consultation with the election agents of all the candidates, thinks desirable … with a view to facilitating the conveyance of voters irrespective of party."
    I think the clear implication is that, unless some peculiar circumstances arise, in agreement with all the election agents there will be indiscriminate use made of them for the benefit of all the various candidates.
    Mr. OLIVER STANLEY: Who are going to use them? Will electors stand in the street and call them like calling a taxicab, and say, "Drive me to the polling booth"?
    The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: I should imagine not. If, personally, as a returning officer, I were asked to organise the vehicles, although I am a child at organisation of any sort or kind, I should have them attached to the various polling districts, and I should have some arrangement by which the representatives of the parties there could call upon them to fetch people who were ill, decrepit, or lived a long way off, and for other purposes of that sort.
    Mr. MORRIS: Is it true that the person owning a car can register the car, but that the area in which the car can serve and the conditions, will be determined absolutely by the returning officer? Is not that so? It will be subject then, of course, to any possible bias which the returning officer may have.
    The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: I must strongly dissent from any suggestion that returning officers would act with bias in any matter of this sort. The hon. Member may have had that unfortunate experience of a returning officer, but I am bound to say that, as far as general experience goes, I understand that returning officers, in matters of this sort, act entirely without bias. Furthermore, there will be protection—if protection were needed at all—by the fact that he can only act after consultation with all the election agents, so that they must be aware of the use he is making of the cars. That would, if it were necessary—I suggest that it is not necessary at

    1009
    all—prevent any possibility of his acting in the interests of one against others, because it would be a matter known to all parties.
    Mr. MARJORIBANKS: Is not the Home Secretary the fons et origo of all those regulations? Will he also act with political bias, or will he have to resign from the Socialist party for the purpose of organising elections?
    The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: That question does not call for an answer. [Interruption.] I will pass to one or two criticisms of the words which are used in this Clause. The first one was a criticism as regards the words "to the poll." These words have successfully served since 1883 to define the question of illegal carriage in regard to hackney carriages and there has never, as far as I can ascertain, been any difficulty. It is clear that in such a case as this the court would look at the substance of the matter. It would be a question of proving before the court that there had been an illegal hiring. If it were proved that the object was substantially to take a man to the poll the person would be held to have committed an offence within the meaning of the Act, but, on the other hand, if it were a mere casual lift for a few yards and the man did not know whether the person was going to the poll or not, then the court would refuse to convict. You have to look at the substance of the Clause to find out whether there has been any offence under it. As regards the question of family, I admit that the word "family" is difficult to define. I think that my right hon. Friend would be prepared to substitute for that word the word "household" or some such word as that, as it is more easily understood and more easily defined.
    A further question was raised as to whether it would be possible for any person owning a car to know whether he might or might not use it, and whether it would be necessary for him to take the advice of his solicitor or counsel? I would point out that it would be a perfectly simple matter for anybody to know. First of all, he would know that he could use it for himself, or his household, or his family, as the case might be, and, secondly, he would know that unless it was
    1010
    registered with the returning officer he could not use it otherwise for taking voters to the poll at all. If he did not register it with the returning officer, he would know he could not use it. The question of picking up people on the road and giving them a lift is a matter which arises very often in cases where cars are hired. People hire cars, as they constantly do, and as a candidate does for his own personal use, and an owner has to exercise the same discretion as regards picking up people on election days. I do not think that there will be any substantial difficulty, although in one or two cases there might be some slight difficulty for a particular person. [Laughter.] If hon. Members opposite are amused at the prospect of there being a slight difficulty for one or two persons, I think that they will find great difficulty in arriving at any method of regulating the use of cars. [Laughter.]
    Again, I am delighted to hear that laughter because I feel that the real position of hon. Members opposite is one which has not yet been disclosed. The real position is that they desire to preserve their position of superiority in the use of cars at elections. It is not this particular method which they are opposing on this occasion, but it is any method which will enable fair and equal treatment to be meted out to the different followers of different parties. If that is the attitude which they take up over this Clause, it is clear that it would be no good considering any other method by which a fair distribution of cars might be arrived at. Certainly, my right hon. Friend in those circumstances would go forward with this Clause in its present form, which we believe to be a perfectly workable form, but if, on the other hand, there is some suggestion that there might be a more workable means of arriving at this fair treatment, that is a matter which we should be quite prepared to consider.
    Sir JOSEPH LAMB: Would the hon. and learned Gentleman mind saying what is the qualification?
    The CHAIRMAN: The practice of asking questions in Committtee appears to be too frequent.
    Sir T. INSKIP: We are all glad to see the hon. and learned Gentleman back in his place, and, indeed, he will need all

    1011
    his health and vigour to defend the Clause which we are discussing at this moment. The hon. and learned Gentleman in his closing passages appeared a little to depart from the suavity and moderation with which he had appeared to discuss the provisions of the Clause in the earlier part of his speech. He appeared to have been stung, I am afraid, by the criticisms which have been made about the practicability of this Clause into asserting that everybody on this side of the House is only anxious to preserve an unjust privilege for the party to which we belong. [An HON. MEMBER: "That is correct."] I can understand that hon. Members opposite are of that opinion, but do not let any hon. Member opposite be under any misapprehension as to the opinions which they hold about other people. They are generally uncharitable. We will leave it at that. It is right that we should remember that this Clause was introduced to the House by the Home Secretary deliberately as a Clause designed in the interests of the party opposite. One of the hon. Members opposite complained about the narrow and partisan spirit in which the Clause is being discussed. The right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary spoke of
    "the handicaps and limitations under which often we have fought,"—
    we, of course being the Socialist party, and he proceeded to say that
    "it is still a problem which we must face with a view to overcoming the injustice of which we"—
    again the great Socialist party—
    "rightly complain."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 2nd February, 1931; col. 1478, Vol. 247.]
    It is a rather astonishing feature in this Debate that this Clause has by the confession of the Home Secretary deliberately been intended to give the Socialist party a greater advantage at the polls than it enjoys at the present time. Everybody is aware of the fact that both parties undoubtedly have advantages in one direction or another. Does anybody pretend that the Socialist party have no advantages at the poll over the other two parties by reason of the great trade union organisations? Somehow or other, they are directed, or compelled, to lend their allegiance to the Socialist party. For instance, does anybody suppose that the law as to election expenses, if interpreted strictly accord-
    1012
    ing to the spirit and the letter of the law, would allow the clerical assistance afforded by trade unions to be employed, as it is in elections, by the Socialist party? Suppose that the Conservative party when in power were to speak, in the words of the Home Secretary, of the injustices of which we, the Conservative party, have a right to complain, and were to make more severe and more watertight the legislation affecting the use of clerical labour at general elections. If we were to select that one privilege, that one instance, that one advantage attaching to the Socialist party in connection with the elections, we should justly deserve the condemnation of hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite. If you are going to make the law of elections—
    Mr. GEORGE OLIVER: On a point of Order. Arising out of the statements which are now being made, shall we be entitled to refer to the privileges which the Tory party have over the Labour party, in view of the fact that the hon. and learned Gentleman is introducing a question about clerical labour which has nothing to do with this Clause?
    The CHAIRMAN: Because the hon. and learned Gentleman is giving examples of what he thinks are injustices on the other side, it is no reason why we should not keep within the limits of fair discussion.
    5.0 p.m.
    Sir T. INSKIP: I am a little surprised, and, yet, perhaps I am not very much surprised, that the hon. Gentleman should seek to prevent me from mentioning this matter. The point, which I am quite sure is apparent to the learned Solicitor-General, if not to hon. Gentlemen opposite, is that, if we are seriously to consider what reforms are necessary in the light of corrupt practices in order to prevent any political party having an undue advantage, then let us do it in a balanced and a reasonable way. Do not let us have the selection of one particular incident or advantage which hon. Members think the Conservative party have, and in that partisan spirit introduce a proposal intended to cripple our side without doing anything to diminish the advantages which their side enjoy. But the hon. and learned Gentleman has avoided, except for a few perfunctory observations, the criticisms which have been

    1013
    made and has chosen—I am bound to say contrary to the Ruling which you, Sir, gave in reference to Sub-section (2) of this Clause—to shelter himself behind the provisions of Sub-section (2) as to the registration of motor cars with the returning officer. I will only make this comment. I venture to think that the Solicitor-General's statement that the Home Secretary is going to make regulations of the nature which he adumbrated shows a monstrous and dangerous intention on the part of the Government to refrain from putting into the Act of Parliament that which this House should consider and criticise and leave to the Home Secretary power to manipulate elections as he chooses. Let us consider what the Home Secretary said. He actually said that, although Clause 2 is silent as to the use which is to be made of the motor cars to be registered with the returning officer, the intention of the Home Secretary is to say that they are to be available for the use of any elector who chooses to use them. That may be a good or a bad proposal; it may be one which is necessary to make the rather ridiculous provisions of Clause 2 workable at all. But that it should be left to the Home Secretary to propose those regulations rather than to this House to approve them, seems to me to be an abrogation of the duties which the Government have in connection with those proposals. The Attorney-General and the Solicitor-General are not giving the House the benefit of their great abilities and experience, if they do not realise that the difficulties are overwhelming of making this Clause work.
    The Solicitor-General gave us an answer which I am afraid is now becoming familiar in connection with the exposition of Government Measures. When hon. Members on this side ask what a particular phrase or word means, they tell us that the time will come when the Courts will decide what it means. That was the explanation which the Attorney-General was fond of giving on the Trade Disputes Bill. It is perhaps characteristic of the Government and of the two hon. and learned Members opposite who are responsible for the drafting of this provision, that they are not able to tell us what the Clause means and that the Courts, if it comes before them, will be able to tell us. I doubt it. The Solicitor-
    1014
    General tells us that the words "to the poll" are consecrated by having been used in the Corrupt Practices Act of 1883 and that no difficulty has been found ever since that time. But the hon. and learned Gentleman did not explain that the place in which the words were used was Section 14, which says:
    "A person shall not lend or employ for the purposes of conveying electors to or from the poll any person"—
    That is a clean-cut provision dealing with the concrete case of letting or lending or hiring for an express purpose. If a man lends a vehicle and does not claim that it is for the purpose of taking a voter to the poll he is not guilty. He would not be committing an offence against the Act. But when you have a provision that no person shall use a vehicle for the purpose of going to the poll, then it is a different question altogether, because a person who is hiring a vehicle wants to know of the person who is using it whether it is going to the poll within the meaning of the Act or not. If, in the case under the Corrupt Practices Act, a man is told that his vehicle is wanted for the purpose of taking people to the poll, that is enough for him, and he does not need to ask any other question. If he is not told that, he need not ask any other question. Therefore, in the context of this Bill the words "to the poll" leaves everybody in a state of uncertainty, until it is removed when the hon. and learned Gentlemen opposite care to take an unfortunate voter before the magistrate or the judge by way of prosecution.
    I should like to ask whether it will be an offence for a voter to be driven some five or six miles to an adjoining village, where perhaps he may be dropped at a place several hundred yards from the poll. Will it be taking him to the poll if a vehicle goes to a town 50 or 75 miles distant and brings him within convenient distance of a county town in a country district? If a vehicle is sent to a county or town some hundreds of miles away to bring a voter a 100 miles nearer to his polling place irrespective of the fact that he may be left at the end of his journey some distance from the poll, is that bringing him to the poll?
    The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: I should have no doubt, and I do not think that my hon. and learned Friend would have the slightest doubt, that if a case came

    1015
    before the court where a vehicle was sent to fetch a voter 100 miles and brought him 96 miles of the way that would be bringing him to the poll.
    Sir T. INSKIP: Suppose that the vehicle was not sent to fetch him, but it happened to be a vehicle which belonged to a neighbour who was going in that direction, would that be taking him to the poll or not?
    The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: It would depend entirely upon whether the vehicle was being used for the primary purpose of conveying him to the poll, or whether it was merely a casual lift.
    Sir T. INSKIP: Then I am to understand that if I am 100 miles or 10 miles away from my polling place at the next election and I see a neighbour who is going in the direction in which I am walking to the poll, I must make up my mind whether if he takes me into his car I shall be accepting a casual lift or pursuing a primary purpose. What about the country folk who have not the training in these niceties of the law? Is a lady who is walking from the village with great patriotism and public spirit, at the expenditure of perhaps strength and time and money, to consider whether she may accept a casual lift or whether she has a primary purpose? Does the hon. and learned Gentleman suggest that the country folk will be able to dissolve these legal niceties? The hon. Gentleman insults the intelligence of the House.
    The hon. and learned Gentleman was asked the meaning of the word "family," and he said light-heartedly that the Home Secretary was prepared to accept the word "household." I do not see any Amendment on the Paper in the name of the Home Secretary. After all, those Amendments have been on the Paper for several weeks. Does the Home Secretary or do the Law Officers suggest "household" as a better word than "family"? Is a man who lives upon premises which structurally are the same premises a member of your household? Is a gardener a member of your household? Is an employé of any sort a member of the household? That merely indicates the inability of the Government to choose words capable of precise or clear meaning. Let me take the word "residence." Nobody knows better than the Law
    1016
    Officers that that word used in the Income Tax Acts has led to intense difficulties in administration. It has been held that the taxpayer is residing in a place which he only visits once a year in order to carry out the duties of directorship which he holds. Perhaps the hon. and learned Gentleman will tell us what length of time makes residence. Is it a length of time that enables a couple to be married at Gretna Green or is it a longer residence? The hon. and learned Gentleman has so much courtesy and ability that I am not asking these questions from any idle motive. I am asking for definite and clear explanations which not only lawyers can accept, but which the ordinary man may understand and read when he runs.
    The Corrupt Practices Act, to which reference has been made, is very explicit in pointing out that, although there is a law against hiring a vehicle to take persons to the poll, any one person may hire a vehicle or any number of persons may join together and hire a vehicle to take the party themselves to the poll. Under this Clause only the owner is allowed to use the vehicle, you cannot hire a vehicle of any kind. I know that the hon. and learned Member will say that the provisions regarding hackney carriages and stage carriages in the Corrupt Practices Act cover vehicles; but what about the country districts? You do not find hackney carriages and stage carriages in little villages and farming centres. Is it really to be said that a group of people in a little village in the Cheviots may not club together and hire a vehicle, which is not a stage carriage or hackney carriage, to take them to the poll 10 miles away to the town where they must vote? My first two elections were in Berwick, and the shepherds on the Cheviots used to vote at one election and ask who won the last. Is it really to be said that they may not join together and hire a vehicle which belongs to a friendly farmer because the Labour party have thought it necessary to redress the inequalities which afflict them at the poll? The Corrupt Practices Act preserves this privilege; this Government is depriving the people of the privilege.
    Look at the Clause how you like, the Government cannot get away from the fact that they are going to make it more

    1017
    difficult for people in scattered districts to vote; they are going to make it more difficult for the old people and the infirm people to vote and they are going to make every elector who desires a casual lift to consider whether or not, he is committing a criminal offence when all his energies should be directed to getting to the poll. The provisions of the Clause clearly show that the Home Secretary never uttered a truer word than when he said that this Clause was devised solely in the interests of the Socialist party.
    Sir HERBERT SAMUEL: The Committee has been asked to address itself to a Clause which undoubtedly raises a great many points of real difficulty. At the same time, it is a Clause which addresses itself to a real problem. The hon. and learned Member for Fareham (Sir T. Inskip) has made, as he always does, a forceful speech, but I suggest that he has not replied to the three main propositions which were laid down by the Solicitor-General as the basis of any discussion of this subject. Those propositions were, first, that motor cars do play an important part in Parliamentary elections—that will be universally agreed—secondly, that they may play a very useful part in helping to bring voters to the poll who cannot otherwise be brought to the poll—that will be also agreed—thirdly, and on this there may not be general agreement, that the law relating to motor cars ought to be such as not to give an advantage to wealth or to a party which consists largely of the wealthier classes as against other parties. The third proposition is, in my view, quite sound.
    The hon. and learned Member for Fareham has said that the Clause will in effect be to the disadvantage of his party and to the advantage of the Government party or possibly of the Liberal party—[Interruption.] Is that a reason for saying that the Clause is wrong? The whole of our election law with regard to corrupt practices is designedly intended to prevent the use of wealth in influencing Parliamentary elections, and when the Corrupt Practices Act was originally introduced any opponents of that Act might have said that they objected to it because the advantages given to wealth to promote corruption of various kinds, and give bribes and privileges, were taken
    1018
    away, to the disadvantage of their political cause. That might have been true, but it was no argument against the Corrupt Practices Act, which was right in itself. Similarly, it is right that our political constitution should be such that it does not give any privilege to any particular class. If any privileges are now being given to the Labour party or to the Liberal party, let hon. Members propose an alteration of the law, and, if they can show a good case, the Committee would accept it. Two minor points have been raised on the Clause and one or two major points. The two minor points are questions of legal interpretation, almost of drafting. The hon. and learned Member for Fareham has said that the drafting is unsatisfactory, because no one can tell whether a particular car on a particular occasion is being used for conveying voters to the poll or not, and to that the Solicitor-General has replied that the same term:
    "The conveyance of voters to or from the poll,"
    has been enshrined in our law for half a century in connection with the hiring of vehicles and that no difficulty has arisen. The hon. and learned Member for Fareham says that this is no reply, because the hiring of a vehicle is one case and the use of a vehicle is another case. I submit that that is no answer to the Solicitor-General. All the conundrums which the hon. and learned Member for Fareham has put to the Committee might arise if a car or hackney carriage was hired. No one would overtly go to the owner of a hackney carriage and say: "I am proposing to hire your carriage to take people to and from the poll." He would probably say: "I propose to hire your carriage to take some of my friends"—not to the poll, but to a different part of the town in which the poll happens to take place—"to the cinema this afternoon," but everybody would know that the vehicle was really hired for the purpose of taking them into the polling centre in order to vote.
    Sir T. INSKIP: The person employing the vehicle would, of course, know what he was going to do. His intention is not to go to the cinema but to take voters to the poll. But as far as the person who lends out or hires a vehicle, he only

    1019
    commits an offence when he knows what is being done.
    Sir H. SAMUEL: But somebody is liable— [Interruption.] Hon. Members above the Gangway are constantly indulging in jeering laughter. It was a continuous accompaniment to the speech of the Solicitor-General, who could hardly utter a sentence without being met with jeers and laughter from hon Members above the Gangway. The interruptions of hon. Members whenever they disagree with what is being said are becoming intolerable. The point made by the hon. and learned Member for Fareham was that some persons may escape and that other persons would be liable, but, if a case is brought, the court would have to determine whether an attempt was being made to evade the clear intention of the law by persons being deposited at a spot away from the polling booth. No one can suggest that the present law in regard to hackney carriages can be voided by a person being given a lift towards the poll and not to the poll itself. Precisely the same interpretation which applies now under a Statute 50 years old, and which includes the words:
    "The conveyance of voters to or from the poll,"
    will apply to this Clause as apply now to the use of hackney carriages, and no legal subtleties can evade that conclusion. It is not a question of the purpose for which it may be stated that the vehicle is to be used; it is a question of geographical propinquity, the real purpose of the journey, the real use of the vehicle on the particular occasion, and that must be interpreted by the court on the merits of the case. The other point is with regard to the family. Certainly the Bill here, I think, needs amendment, and the Government, I understand, are prepared to accept an Amendment to include in this use of the motor the use by any person "ordinarily residing" as well as any person who belongs to the household of the owner of the car. These are only minor points, and really do not affect the Clause as a whole.
    There are two much more important points. If the Clause is passed in its present form, is it probable that a
    1020
    sufficient number of cars will be forthcoming in order to fulfil the purpose which the Government agree ought to be fulfilled at elections by the use of motors? People now have an inducement to lend their cars, and do so, sometimes at some inconvenience and at some expense, because they know that they will be used to assist the political cause to which they are strongly attached, but if that is no longer to be so, if they are to be used as freely for opponents as for their own supporters, will people lend their cars at all? That seems to me to be one of the main points which the Committee must consider. Some of my hon. Friends who represent rural constituencies feel strongly that their constituents may be prevented altogether from coming to the poll if the Clause is passed precisely in its present form and that, of course, applies to all hon. Members representing rural constituencies.
    One of the great dangers of democracy is apathy and abstinence, and it is an unhappy feature of elections recently that nearly 50 per cent. of the voters have abstained from going to the poll—[Interruption]—and candidates of the Conservative party at recent by-elections only secured 26 per cent. of the total electorate. [interruption.] That is significant, and the Committee should note that by making our election law too restricted, we may not give a sufficient inducement to enable people to be brought to the poll. If we found that only one-half of the electorate voted it would be a serious reflection on our democratic system. Do the Government consider that if the Clause is passed as at present drafted there will be a sufficient number of cars available for the purpose which they think is necessary
    My second point is one that has been already raised by a speaker from the Conservative benches. It is not clear from the Bill who is actually to use the cars on the polling day in any particular district. The Bill simply provides that the returning officer, from the pool of cars at his disposal, is to allocate them, after consultation with the different agents to the different districts of the constituency. That having been done, what is to happen? At the present time cars are used under the guidance of the workers attached to the different

    1021
    parties. They go to the various houses and take away the people, invalids and others, of the different parties. What machinery is suggested as a substitution for that? Under the Clause the conveyance is to be used irrespective of parties. What is to happen when the car arrives in the district. It cannot be used, and sent about from one street to another or from one house to another, by the presiding officer. There is no official machinery that can employ the cars. We need some explanation as to how the Government expect that the Clause will work in practice. Towards the end of his speech the Solicitor-General stated that the Government. were prepared to consider Amendments, if Amendments could be suggested to make the Clause more workable. It would not be in order now to discuss future Amendments, many of which are already on the Paper; but I hope that the Solicitor-General and the Home Secretary will not be deterred from considering on their merits a number of Amendments which the House may well accept.
    Mr. W. B. TAYLOR: I do not intend to follow the legal pleasantries to which we have been privileged to listen from the hon. and learned Member for Fareham (Sir T. Inskip), but I would like to assure those hon. Members opposite who think that, we are simply supporting this Clause because the Labour party represents only urban areas, that the few of us who have been able to win elections in country districts, in spite of the hundreds of motor cars, do sincerely support the Clause, provided one or two of the points mentioned by the right hon. Member for Darwen (Sir H. Samuel) are included as Amendments. I would assure the Committee that the three definite charges made by the hon. and learned Member for Fareham in regard to Members on the Labour side of the Committee were a little uncalled for, and, certainly so far as I am concerned I say definitely are absolutely untrue. If I correctly remember what the hon. and learned Member said, he suggested that Members on this side secured an unfair advantage because they were here by reason of having access to trade union funds.
    Sir T. INSKIP: No. Let me explain. I am sure the hon. Gentleman wishes to understand. What I said was that there
    1022
    was good reason for thinking that the clerical assistance afforded by trade union officials and clerks was available to hon. Members opposite without really being included in their election expenses, as it ought to be.
    Mr. TAYLOR: Of course I accept the hon. and learned Gentleman's correction, but, if I may say so with great respect, that was his second point. His first reference was certainly to trade union funds, if I recollect aright. His second point was regarding the privileges associated with election expenses which could be secured through trade union assistance. I may have incorrectly understood him, but the obvious meaning that came to my mind was that the Labour party's position was rendered somewhat unfair because this trade union machinery assisted in election work. Is any one going to suggest that a very wealthy candidate, fighting a man like myself with no means, has not got a very strong advantage, from the standpoint of sportsmanship in the ordinary sense of the word? I do not think we do well to bandy these charges across the Floor in regard to either side. I was a little amazed that the hon. and learned Gentleman should descend to that level. Now that I am following him we must both plead guilty.
    So far as I am concerned, I content myself with saying that in my division we are in the position that neither by trade union assistance nor by wealthy support were we able to win our seat, but by the humble assistance of the electors themselves, many of whom, I am glad to say, were enabled to vote by the kindly courtesy of friends on the other side. I am not at all sure that I do not see opposite an hon. Baronet friend of mine who, perhaps unwittingly, helped to strengthen my majority somewhat. There was a rhyme—it is common all over the country—
    "Whether you walk or whether you ride,
    Be sure you vote Labour when you get inside."
    People understand that, perhaps, better than some of the legal definitions associated with the abstruse and wonderfully intelligent funniosities that we have had put up against this Clause. But I want to suggest, as representative of a constituency which is the largest in area in East Anglia, which covers 168 parishes

    1023
    and has only 66 polling places, that the question of some elasticity regarding the number of cars under the control of a returning officer, should be sympathetically considered, because there are these many villages and the ordinary citizen in the village is just as important as the citizen in the city. I do not accept for one moment the suggestion from the other side that they possess a monopoly of interests in the welfare of the countryside.
    I believe the Noble Lord the Member for Weston-super-Mare (Lord Erskine) said that we on this side were acting as thought the countryman was intended to have no rights at all. I do not think that the progressive forces in this House have any apology to make in the matter of giving rights to the people of the countryside. Possibly those rights were too long withheld by other people when they had the power to remedy matters. But they were just as anxious then as now to retain privileges which the ordinary and average man does not possess when it comes to fighting an election on square terms in the countryside. I put it to hon. Members opposite that in this business there is a quality of sportsmanship to which they might do well to rise. Is it to be always the case that 200 cars are to be on the one side against about five on the other Do they consider it quite fair fighting in the realm of a good sporting engagement? With the best of good feeling, I hold that the control by an outside and impartial authority of this means of securing votes would be a more sporting way of getting people to the poll and would be facing the question in a sporting rather than a party spirit.
    I am sure that hon. Members will agree, on reflection, that this Clause does not impose any hardship on any political party from the standpoint of equality of opportunity. I associate myself with the fear expressed by the right hon. Member for Darwen in reference to the growing disinclination of people to go to the poll. That is a very serious matter in a Parliamentary and national sense, from the standpoint of citizenship, and I hope that the Home Secretary will sympathetically consider some measure of elasticity which will not only control impartially the cars available. I have
    1024
    heard of returning officers for a county being responsible for refusing polling places. I also have heard a whisper that the real trouble is that the higher authority will not allow the county officials sufficient money to provide adequate polling places. I do not know whether that is correct. I mention the matter in good faith, because when a Member has only 66 polling places for 168 villages, it becomes a question of bringing legitimate pressure to bear in order to get a square deal, so that citizens in the country may have the same chance as is enjoyed by those living in the towns.
    Mr. O. STANLEY: I do not intend to follow the last speaker, because a large part of his argument was built up on an entire misapprehension of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Fareham (Sir T. Inskip). I would like, however, to give him one warning. He talked a great deal about the sporting spirit, as if a General Election was a boat race or a horse race. I would remind him that my right hon. Friend the Member for Chelsea (Sir S. Hoare) ventured to say, on the Second Reading of the Bill, that the country regarded a General Election in a sort of Derby spirit, and he was roundly taken to task by the Minister of Health, who said that it was not at all in that kind of spirit, but rather in prayer and fasting, that the electors of the country approached their task.
    The hon. Member for Walsall (Mr. McShane), who addressed the Committee earlier, very wisely took the precaution to tell the Committee, before he made a joke, that he was going to speak jocularly. I wondered whether the Solicitor-General in bringing forward this Clause had omitted to take that precaution, and whether this really was not in the long run nothing but a bad joke. I was astounded and horrified to find from the speech of the Solicitor-General that he was evidently taking the Clause seriously. Whatever you may say about the rest of the Bill—that it is wrong in principle, that the motives are directed to unworthy partisanship—at least it works, but this Clause is partisan, is wrong in principle and is absolutely impracticable. One consolation at least we shall have if this Clause is passed, and that is that in years to come, if we happen to feel disappointed with the Government of the day, if we think that

    1025
    they are bad, and if we sigh for "the good old days," we shall look up this Clause and look at the work of this Government, and find relief by comparison.
    As to the principle of the Clause, the hon. and learned Gentleman argued upon these lines: He said that by general assent there was considerable value in having a large number of cars; that there was an advantage to the political party which had the largest number of cars; that that advantage ought to disappear and that equality ought to be maintained. Where the hon. and learned Gentleman failed was in not analysing further the peculiar quality of that equality. If his argument had been based on the assumption that the possession of a large number of cars induced people who, otherwise, would not have voted Conservative or Liberal to do so—that in fact it was in the nature of a bribe—I could have seen some basis for his argument. But I can hardly believe that he seriously means to make such a suggestion. Does he think that a ride in a Tory car would convert a Socialist, a man who has been able to pass the innumerable tests now required for membership of the Socialist party? Does he think that the man who can recite this creed: "I believe in the 65 points in 'Labour and the Nation' when we are in Opposition, and the policy of the Socialist Government when we are in office; I believe in the simple nobility of our leaders and the callous brutality of our opponents; I abhor the Tory party, the Independent Labour party, the Communist party, the New party, and the wrong part of the Liberal party; I acknowledge the sanctity of the political levy and the sincerity of the Prime Minister," will add to it: "as long as I walk, but give me a chance to ride in a Tory car, and I will vote for the capitalist, the landlord, and the vested interests"? It would be sad indeed to think that the gulf between the friends of the poor on the other side of the Committee, and their exploiters on this side, is so narrow that it can be bridged by a "baby Austin."
    In these days of the secret ballot, when motor car rides are not the novelty that they were 20 or 30 years ago, no one is induced to change his political complexion by the chance of riding in a car. This Clause, if successful, will not result
    1026
    in more people voting Socialist. It will only result in less people voting Conservative. I take my stand, not on the difference between town and country, not on the wording of the Clause or the difficulties of carrying it out, but on the objection in principle to the House of Commons at this time introducing any Measure which will have the effect and is intended to have the effect of reducing the number of people who go to the poll. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Darwen (Sir H. Samuel), on other Clauses of this Bill, has pointed out the dangers which this country may suffer from having a minority Government in power. I am much more frightened at the prospect of the next election resulting, not in a minority Government, but in a minority Parliament—that it will not be a case of a Government being placed in power by less than half the votes of the country, but of the whole House of Commons being chosen by less than half of the electorate.
    A Measure of this kind does not change people's politics. Conservatives who, through laziness, or physical inability, or the lack of time or opportunity, do not go to vote when they cannot have the use of cars, are not prevented from being Conservatives. They do not change their political opinions. They have only failed to undertake their share of the responsibility in choosing the Government of this country, and having failed to, or having been prevented from undertaking their share of the responsibility, they in their turn are apt to forget their share of the obligation which is placed upon them. I should have no objection to any proposal intended to reduce any inequality which may now exist, because of one party having more cars than another, if that proposal were based upon an effort not to level down the superior amenities of the lucky party of to-day, but to increase the inferior amenities of the party which is to-day in an inferior position. Proposals such as have been made to make voting easier—to increase the number of polling booths, or to have a travelling polling booth—which I am not allowed to discuss at present, measures which would reduce the advantage given by the possession of motor cars, would, I am

    1027
    sure, receive the consideration and support of hon. Members on this side.
    The Solicitor-General may argue that under Sub-section (2) of this Clause he has provided a measure of that kind, and has made it possible for the amenities in the way of motor cars, now enjoyed by a constituency, to be continued in the future and to he shared equally between the contesting parties. But I think that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Darwen put his finger on the spot when he asked the Solicitor-General if he really believed that under this Subsection, as drafted, it would be possible to get a pool of motor cars registered with the returning officer which would afford the same facilities for transporting people to the poll as those enjoyed to-day. I do not believe for a moment that the ordinary man, the frankly partisan politician, who wants his side to win and is prepared to drive his car all day up and down country lanes or in the rougher parts of towns, meeting perhaps with a good deal of opposition and insult from friends of hon. Members opposite—I do not believe that such a man is going to undertake all those duties and make all that sacrifice for the sake of an impersonal motor car pool at the request of a high sheriff or some other official.
    During the sittings of the Ullswater Committee, we discussed the question of electoral expenses and some of the delegates were much struck by the fact that the expenditure of Socialist candidates was lower than that of candidates of the other parties, largely because they paid less for clerical work, and messengers and things of that kind. It was explained to the Committee by the Socialist delegate that his party were fortunate in being able to call upon a large number of enthusiastic volunteers, who were able to give one day's work or several days' work without pay, for the sake of helping Socialist candidates. Would those enthusiastic volunteers who give their services freely to-day, be prepared to give those services in the same spirit, if a pool of clerical workers were formed to help candidates, irrespective of party? The hon. and learned Gentleman knows that the pool which he proposes is doomed to failure. He knows that it will not provide the amenities in the matter of motor cars which are enjoyed by people
    1028
    in the country districts to-day. He knows that that failure will depend not on any party bias but on the ordinary tendencies of human nature. A man who is prepared to labour and to sacrifice himself for a definite cause which he has at heart, in the heat and excitement of a Parliamentary election, in which he feels he is taking a part, will not be prepared to act under the direction of a stranger at the beck and call of everybody, and to feel in the end that he has had no personal share in the contest. For that reason it appears to me that Sub-section (2) is no answer to our complaint about Sub-section (1). This is a Measure designed by a House of Commons, which is, to-day, failing to interest the public, and it is designed by them to make it more difficult than it is to-day for those few who remain interested, to show their interest at the General Election.
    Mr. de ROTHSCHILD: I wish to join with those representatives of rural constituencies who have raised their voices against this proposal. Particularly I wish to echo the remarks made by the last speaker and by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Darwen (Sir H. Samuel) in asking the Solicitor-General to give us some explanation of what he proposes to do in order to ensure a sufficient supply of motor cars at elections. At the present time people are willing to allow their ears to be used in support of the candidate who happens to be sporting their own political colour, but I fear that unless cars are actually commandeered by the returning officer, he will have a very small pool at his disposal. If he is going to commandeer cars he will have to pay for them, and the cost of elections will be very much increased. At the present time, as I have said, a man is prepared to lend his car on behalf of his own candidate and does not mind what the expense may be. I wonder how many people will be prepared to lend cars to this pool and to run the risk, perhaps, of having several burst tyres and of having to pay for them afterwards?
    What I particularly object to in this Bill is that although it is proposed, practically, to do away with motor cars in elections altogether—because that is what the effect of the Measure will be—yet nothing is proposed in the place of the present system. In my own constituency there are several places where there are

    1029
    schools but no polling places. There are 22 villages in that position; in the neighbouring constituency of Louth, for instance, there are 27 school villages which poll elsewhere, and in the county of Cambridge there are 29 school villages which poll elsewhere. If the number of polling stations is increased it will add considerably to the cost of elections, and it is pretty obvious to me that, even if the number of polling stations is increased, a certain number of motor cars will still be required to take people to the polling stations, especially in widely scattered areas. If the Government consider this part of the Measure worth while, they should endeavour conscientiously to provide some substitute for the present use of motor cars. As their proposal stands, they are going to abolish the advantage which we enjoy at present under the old system and put nothing in its place.
    The present system on the whole works fairly well, and has worked fairly well for a good many years. It worked in the old days when horses were used, and it works very well to-day. A young relative of mine drove a large car for me at the election. She brought a certain number of voters from a distant brickfield to a polling station. They were all wearing the red buttonholes which one so often sees sported by hon. Members opposite. When they reached the polling station she said in a friendly way that she would wait for them and take them back, but they were quite fair. They said that they were not going to vote for the colour which she represented and that they would walk the six miles back and leave her to carry some of her own people. That is a fair example of the "give and take" which goes on at elections.
    6.0 p.m.
    I, for one, shall not find myself in the Division Lobby in favour of this Clause. I feel that when men and women in my constituency have spent a long day in singling beet, or lifting potatoes, or cutting flowers, they should not have to tramp three or four, or perhaps six, miles to a polling station in order to vote. I remember a picture which one used to see very often in the old days of men and women praying in the fields, while the church bell was ringing. I can well imagine the church bell ringing in the evening, and these labourers turning their thoughts to the recording angel and
    1030
    hoping that their own political faith would be upheld at the election. But the returning officer will find that their votes will not be recorded. Therefore, I feel that this will be disfranchising a section of the very poorest and humblest men and women in this country, and I shall not support this Clause, although I hope that members of the Government will not accuse me of being bribed in this matter. I will not be bribed either by one side or by the other, or by the threat that this Bill will be dropped and that other inducements which may be offered to me will also disappear. I hope that this Clause will either be so altered by the Government that it will be unrecognisable, or that it will be withdrawn.
    Mr. G. OLIVER: The last speaker said that people who had worked hard all day in the factories and fields would have to walk to the poll if this Clause were passed. I am quite sure the hon. Member would well know that that is the position of thousands of Labour voters in this country when they are in a constituency where the Labour candidate is not sufficiently wealthy to run a fleet of cars to take them to the polling booth after their day's work is done. We all appreciate the great need of motor cars and the great use to which they are put at the present time. They are most serviceable, but when the motor car is used almost to the exclusive advantage of people who are financially well placed, obviously the position which allows that to operate cannot be permitted to last a day longer than is absolutely necessary, if we are to balance and make fair between one party and another the right of voters to go to the poll.
    We have been criticised by the hon. and learned Member opposite for the advantages which the Labour party have over the Tory party, but what would be the burden of his song if in his constituency his opponent could bring up hundreds of voters in motor cars and the right hon. and learned Member could only run two or three? He would do precisely the same thing, when the opportunity arose, as he did when he introduced or took part in the introduction of the Bill of 1927 to curtail the activities of the civil servants and the political funds of the Labour party. He would take the earliest opportunity, and I am very glad

    1031
    the Government are taking this opportunity to adjust the balance of advantages between the rich candidate and the poor candidate. The hon. Member who spoke last said that this Clause, if carried, would mean that there would be fewer people going to the poll. It is rather an audacious proposal to put forward if he is asking that this Clause should be dropped so that more Tories or Liberals might be drawn to the poll to defeat us. Of course, the people who possess a great number of motor cars would have a decided advantage.
    May I recall to hon. Members, many of whom took part in the 1924 election, that that election took place in a deluge of rain from morning to night? The candidates who had 100 or 150 motor cars at their disposal had a decided advantage in that election, which resulted in the return of the Tory party. I do not say that that was the determining factor, but in my constituency, which is a county division motor cars in 1924 played a very important part in bringing my opponent's voters to the poll. There are many technical defects, admirably put forward by the hon. and learned Member for Fareham (Sir T. Inskip), in this Clause, but there is no defect that I can see which is so great as the present system, which permits the use of motor cars by the hundred for the rich man and practically no motor cars for the poor man; and, so far as I can see, the only means of adjusting that disparity is contained in this particular Clause, under which motor cars can be at the disposal of the returning officer.
    I hope my hon. and learned Friend will attend to this matter. I think there will be a great tendency, if the Clause is passed as it now stands, for it to be a virtual prohibition of motor cars coming forward. We want to be quite frank about this matter. The man who has a motor car to lend is not likely to lend it with the same zest for general use at an election as he would be to lend it for his own political party. I think that is perfectly true, but the point which we have to consider is this: Grave as that defect is, it is infinitely more unfair to leave the law as it now stands, and for that reason we have had propositions put forward to-day which seem perfectly sound, such as a travelling polling booth
    1032
    to deal with the outlying and scattered areas.
    The CHAIRMAN: Earlier in the afternoon I ruled that matter out of order on this Amendment.
    Mr. OLIVER: I did not hear it ruled out, although I heard it discussed, but will not refer to that, because while I recognise that there are grave defects in this Clause and that propositions have been put forward this afternoon which no doubt would be admirable in themselves, there can be no defect which would be so grave as to allow the law to stand unamended; and for that reason I shall support the Clause.
    Mr. OSWALD LEWIS: I have listened with considerable interest to the speeches made during the Debate to-day, and I think I can say without fear of contradiction that, with the exception of that of the Solicitor-General, there has not been a single speech delivered by any Member of this Committee which could be described as being in whole-hearted support of the Clause as it stands, and even the Solicitor-General's speech was so full of the expression "I should imagine," that one is tempted to wonder whether his enthusiastic support of the Clause was not due in part to an imperfect apprehension of what would happen if it came into operation.
    If we have not heard as much as would probably be of interest to us all in support of the Clause, this is not the first time in this Session that the problem of the use of motor cars at election time has been discussed in this House. It was discussed on the 10th December last, on a Motion by the hon. Member for South Salford (Mr. Toole), and it was discussed, of course, to some extent in the Debate on the Second Reading of this Bill. I had the curiosity yesterday to read through the speeches on both those occasions, and I could not help being struck by a certain confusion of thought that was apparent in the minds of those who supported this Clause the most warmly. I will not quote from obscure back-bench Members of the party opposite to illustrate what I mean, but I will quote from the speech of one of their principal Ministers. The Minister of Health, on the Second Reading of this Bill, speaking of the advantage of having

    1033
    motor cars at one's disposal during an election, said:
    "While the law describes very definite limits as to what candidates may do—as to the number of paid officials and so on—there is unlimited power to use motor cars, and that inevitably means that the richest candidate has an unfair pull over his opponents."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 2nd February, 1931; col. 1584, Vol. 247.]
    A similar suggestion has been put forward by other hon. Members even to-day. That is obviously due to a confusion of thought. It is not a question of the richest candidate; it is not a question of wealth at all; It is a question of his supporters. The candidate does not own the cars; he does not hire them. Take my own case in Colchester, where I hear that I have just got a new prospective Labour opponent, the third that I have had in the last three years. He has the reputation of being a man of means, and for aught that I know to the contrary, I am a poorer man than he is. It does not follow that he will get more motor cars for his use and support at the next election than I shall get. It is not a matter of the private means of the candidate. So far as wealth is concerned, it is a question of the means of his supporters, and that is a very different thing.
    Let us just consider this interesting question of which party motorists as a body should support. We have had a number of statements to the effect that being able to depend upon a considerable fleet of cars during an election is of great assistance to a candidate. That seems to be generally accepted, at any rate by hon. Members opposite. Some have even gone further and suggested that it is of help not merely in getting voters to the poll. One hon. Member—I think it was the hon. Member for Oldham (Mr. Lang)—speaking in the Debate last December, laid great stress on the psychological effect of seeing motor cars going about the streets, bearing a man's photograph, and posters urging people to vote for him.
    However that may be, there seems to be a very firm conviction on the part of supporters of the Government that it is a very great advantage to have the use of a large number of motor cars on an election day. Further than that, they seem to be convinced that it is an advantage which the Conservative party gets and which their party does not
    1034
    get. In order not to put it too high, I will put it in this way. The overwhelming preponderance of this benefit for motorcars is enjoyed by the Conservative party as opposed to the Labour party. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] Some hon. Members are willing at once to subscribe to that argument. Let us see where that takes us. The Minister of Transport, in answer to a question in the House in July, 1929, stated that the number of cars which were then licensed, not including cars licensed for hire, was 918,000. I have not a later figure than that, but the Committee will agree that if I say that the number must now be in the neighbourhood of 1,000,000, I shall not be overstating the facts. These cars are not all rich men's cars. There are those who own Rolls Royce cars and luxury vehicles of that type, but they are in a small minority. The great output of cars in this country is of the small type which is in a large majority.
    Therefore, the argument which hon. Gentlemen opposite use that the overwhelming body of motorists in this country support the Conservative party rather than the Labour party amounts to this, that if a man has enough to spend, say, £200 or £300, to buy a motorcar, or if he has sufficient credit and a sufficient weekly income to buy such a car on the instalment plan, the probability is that he is of a Conservative way of thought rather than a supporter of the Socialist party. In other words, the probability is that not merely the wealthy, but the man of small means, support the Conservative party rather than the Socialist party. I do not say for a moment that hon. Gentlemen are wrong in that belief, but it is an interesting, if somewhat unconscious admission of it, particularly having regard to the fact that the President of the Board of Trade stated recently that in his opinion a sense of a definite stake in the country was necessary for social progress. To use his own words—
    "that sense of a definite stake in the country without which all social progress is impossible."
    By their arguments this afternoon, hon. Gentlemen opposite seemed to suggest that when people have a stake in the country, there is, at any rate, a strong probability that they will be

    1035
    opposed to the doctrines of the Socialist party. I had intended to say something of the practicability of this Clause, but I will not weary the Committee by repeating arguments which have already been used by other hon. Members. I will content myself with saying this: The Clause has been described by many Members of many shades of opinion, but the best description of it was given by a Labour Member on the Second Reading when the hon. Member for Derby (Mr. Raynes) said:
    "Clause 6 dealing with the restriction of the use of vehicles is, in my opinion, in its present form nothing less than ridiculous."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 3rd February, 1931; col. 1701, Vol. 247.]
    I do not think that a more apt description has been given by any Member of any party since. Suppose the Clause be passed, the only concrete effect of it can be to reduce the number of people who go to the poll. When the Home Secretary was making his speech in introducing the Bill on Second Reading, he told us that the Government had intended to include proposals for facilitating the recording of votes by electors who change their residences, but for reasons, into which he did not think it well to go, the Government had decided not to include this. Instead, apparently, they have included a Clause to make it as difficult as possible for such voters to record their vote. There is, of course, no class of voter who is more dependent on a motor car to get to the poll than the out-voter. The broad effect of this Clause must be practically to disfranchise the out-voter, except in those limited cases where he has only moved to some place adjacent to his original residence.
    It is no abuse of language to describe this Bill, so far as this Clause is concerned, as primarily a disfranchisement Bill. I do not think that even the Solicitor-General seriously hopes that under this provision he will get a large fleet of motor cars anything comparable with the number of cars which are at present voluntarily put at the disposal of candidates by their owners. Therefore, the Clause, in effect, must mean, in so far as people cannot get to the poll by reason of distance, health or age, that a large number of voters will be disfranchised. I hope that on further
    1036
    reflection hon. Members who normally support the Government will not agree to the proposal, and that the Committee as a whole will reject it.
    Mr. MUGGERIDGE: The hon. Member for Colchester (Mr. O. Lewis) has argued that the use of motor cars does not give an undue advantage to one party. If that be so the extraordinary thing is that the party opposite should be reluctant to comply with the provisions of this Bill to supply motor cars for the general use of the voters at an election. One hon. Member has pathetically put the point that he is afraid that in future parliaments it will not be a question of minority Governments, but, owing to the withdrawal of motor cars from the decorative influence which they have upon elections, we shall have minority parliaments. If he really thinks that, and with such sorrow looks forward to that possibility, may I suggest that the party opposite, with the noble constitutional fervour which we always expect from them, will feel that whether this Bill passes or not, they will save this part of the constitution of the country by pouring in even more liberally than they have in the past, their limousines, Austin Sevens, and the other cars with which they have won elections in the past. They have said that if this Bill pass, the trouble will be that the returning officer will have no cars, except the few second-hand cars which Labour candidates are able to put in, and it is clear from that that the party opposite have used motor cars for a party purpose; they have not used them for any real, broad, general purpose for the constitutional benefit of the country.
    I will mention one or two of the advantages which are possessed by a party which has motor cars. What are frequently called, in some parts of the House, the humbler classes, are so unaccustomed to getting any attention from people in the motor class, that they are rather overawed if they travel by motor car, and, feeling that a benefit has been conferred upon them, even though no word has been passed by the owner of the car, their conscience makes them vote in favour of the man whose name is placarded outside the car. Only people in a comfortable state of life are able to receive with largeness of mind and frankness of gesture a gift, especially a gift from a stranger, but humbler people who

    1037
    receive a gift are suspicious of it, and feel that something is wanted in return for it. The other party know that perfectly well, because they have shown to-day that they are not prepared to use their motor cars merely for the general use of the voters. They will only use them if it gives them an electoral pull.
    Under recent legislation the amount of expenditure that can be indulged in at an election is limited to so much a voter. Anyone accustomed to the procedure of elections knows that the greater part of the expenditure is on advertising. Far and away the largest part, if you have a wise agent who does not take too much as his own salary, is spent in advertising. The party opposite, when they compare notes after an election, find in 99 cases out of 100, that while they have spent right up to the limit, the Labour party, in order to win their numerous successes, have spent very much less, and very much below what they might have spent. The greater part of what is spent is wisely spent on advertising. Motor cars, however, give the party opposite free of cost, except for the small cost of printing, a much wider field of advertising than they can get in the other legitimate way.
    If a candidate can be clever enough and is popular enough to get about 500 cars, it is practically tantamount to having 500 sandwich-men all over the constituency. It is even better than having sandwich-men, because a car can be covered with more placards than a man can display, seeing that the car contains the man and the whole is generally greater than the part. Cars, therefore, give them a very wide area of advertisement, and it enables them, to some extent, to circumvent the limits of expenditure which have been imposed.[Interruption.] Yes, and the Union Jack is also displayed. They appropriate the Union Jack to themselves. They not only appropriate the cars, but appropriate the national emblem, as though they were monopolistic possessors of it. They use it to convey the impression that they are the only party who stand for the Red, White and Blue, and that other parties are opposed to it. It is an old dodge, and I am not blaming them for it, but it is time they were deprived of this extra,
    1038
    and legal, opportunity of throwing about a constituency these persuasions to voters.
    A good deal was said by an hon. and learned Gentleman opposite about the wording of the Clause. He asked what was meant by "conveyed to the poll." He was very much troubled lest the Clause should be made to apply to people who were carried to within a mile of the poll; and said that if the owner of a car did convey a person to within a certain distance of the poll, how were we to be sure that he was not acting in a genuine way and not attempting to circumvent the law by using the car to take a man to the poll? He asked, further, whether, in such circumstances, it could be said that he had conveyed the man "to the poll"? If there is any doubt on such a matter, a very little investigation will prove the motive of the owner of the car. First of all, we have to ask whether the person riding in the car is in the habit of visiting the owner's residence. Have they ever exchanged visiting cards? If, as will prove to be the case in most instances, they are unknown to each other, it is a pretty good inference that the owner of the car has simply picked up the person in order to convey him to the poll, even if he does not actually convey him to the poll. A point of that kind is easily dealt with.
    Then, again, is the person who rides in the car in the same rank of society as the owner; does he belong to the same profession? If the owner of the car is the head of a big county family, and the person riding in it, and who is conveyed to somewhere in the neighbourhood of the poll, is a bricklayer, the inference is that he is in the car to be conveyed to the poll. Let me say that bricklayers very often know the motive with which they are asked to ride in the limousines and Rolls-Royces of other people. There is the celebrated instance related in this House—I am not sure whether it was in the House itself or in the Smoking Room—by the late Mr. Labouchere. A bricklayer was once conveyed to the poll in one of these carriages during the spacious Victorian period. He sat there in full glory, with a man in livery driving him; and when they arrived at the poll he still sat there. The flunkey called out to him, "Here you are," but still he sat there,

    1039
    Presently the flunkey said, "Aren't you going in there to vote?" "Oh," said the bricklayer, "I am waiting until you get down, and open the door to allow me to vote." [Laughter.] That shows that people who ride in these cars do very often understand the position, and do rise to the occasion. Strictly speaking, no one should laugh at that incident. If you ride in a duke's car you should consider yourself a duke for the time being; but what often happens, unfortunately, with that inferiority complex with which the people of this country are afflicted, is that when they find themselves in unaccustomed surroundings it rather compels them to follow the lead of those who have put them in those uncomfortable circumstances.
    Coming to another point, we all know other cases in which proximity to a place carries with it the same penalties and obligations as actually being at the place. To say that people are not to be conveyed by car to the neighbourhood of the poll is a reasonable thing in the light of other legislation. There is a law which punishes a man who is found merely loitering in the neighbourhood of a place where he might commit a burglary. He is merely there, he has not actually committed the burglary, any more than the owner of a car may have driven a voter right up to the poll, but it may be shown that he has the motive to commit the burglary, just as it may be shown that the other had the motive to take the man to the poll. It is perfectly clear that there is no legal difficulty. It is all a question of intention. If there was an intention to take the voters to the poll, then I suggest that the case would come within the purview of the Bill.
    I feel that the extent to which the use of cars to take voters to the poll has practically amounted to bribery has not yet been recognised. An incident happened to me some time ago, and had I liked to take action I could have compelled the people to disclose their hand in the matter. On one occasion a poll was in progress in the place where I live, and where I am rather well-known—[Interruption.]—Yes, to the police included. I arrived at the railway station in time to go to the poll, and as I was walking away a car drove up and the
    1040
    driver asked, "Can we give you a lift to the polling station?" Standing near was a political agent who knew me, and he came along and said, "Don't take him." I heard him say it. Why was the man not to take me? Because the agent knew that I should not vote for his candidate. That sort of thing often goes on. I have known cases in which people have been asked for whom they were going to vote before they got into the car. To my mind, that is nothing but a breach of the Corrupt Practices Act. After all, a ride in a car is money's worth, as we all discover if we hire one, and if you offer a man a ride in a car on certain conditions as to what he will do in the polling booth, obviously, it is a case of bribery. I suggest that opportunities for that kind of thing should be done away with, and that voting should be as free as possible.
    Then there are the cases of the distant voter, the maimed voter, the infirm voter, and the old voter. All have to be provided for. It is clear that the class who are the largest owners of motor cars, and the class who could meet that need, will, if this Bill passes, leave those people unprovided for. We have been told so in this House. It has been held out, as a reason why we should not vote for this Clause that if we do so those cars will be withdrawn. That is a reflection upon the motives of the owners of those cars. The right hon. Member for Darwen (Sir H. Samuel) said one of the weaknesses of the Clause is that it does not say what is to be done with the cars which are offered to the returning officers. I say let the returning officers allocate them to a list of infirm or old people, or people living in distant villages according to the names and addresses supplied to him. That will be the test, and we shall see whether those owners of cars to whom I have referred feel penitent on the matter. It will be an opportunity for them to show the genuineness of their feelings. We shall know whether the tears they have shed over the inability of the aged and the infirm and the others to get to the poll are real tears or crocodile tears.
    There are cases in country districts where people have to walk a considerable distance to the poll. That difficulty could be met by providing a larger number of polling places. All the county councils ought to be told that we must

    1041
    have a polling place in every village. I was surprised to hear during this Debate—and I suppose it is a genuine statement—that some people may have to walk 10 or 15 miles to the poll. It is a great strain upon the patriotism of people to ask them to do that. It is a great strain even upon members of the Labour party, and we all know that they are very much more zealous and loyal to their party than are the supporters of other parties. The way to meet that difficulty is not to rely upon motor cars provided chiefly by one party, but to say to the proper authorities that every village must have its polling place.
    It is not correct to say that elections are conducted in the free air of men or women having absolutely free choice to vote for which candidate they please. There are too many undue influences affecting and deflecting their votes, and too often their opinions. I think that the freer you make elections and the less you make wealth an element of success necessary for winning elections, the better it will be for the future of this House as a part of our great Constitution, and the more likely it is that the people will feel the full responsibility of their actions in voting. When you are led to feel, as you are, that hon. Members on the other side act in the belief that the mere carrying about in a town of placards on motor cars, and the mere setting up of the idea that the place is en fôte by reason of these motor cars and by the presence of people in humble streets whom you never see at any other time, make it a great occasion, a sort of air of a fair is given to an election which disparages serious thought. I hope to get rid of those influences and to rest more directly and exclusively upon the deliberate judgment of the people, thus setting them free to respond to such knowledge as they can become possessed of, and to yield themselves to such legitimate moral and intellectual influences as can be brought to bear upon them. The nearer we can get to that condition, the closer we are to securing the Constitution of this country, and to establishing, on an ever firmer basis, the lasting influence and power of this House.
    Mr. BEAUMONT: I will address myself to one factor only, and that is the real divergence that has appeared
    1042
    between us during this short Debate. The Solicitor-General, in a moment of asperity during his speech—and although there was a note of asperity I do not suggest that the speech did not "go with a roar" from start to finish—accused the party to which I belong of having only one interest in this matter, to preserve a privilege which we now hold. He added that the only way we could say that that was not, so, was to join with the Government in finding an alternative method. The answer that we give is that, first of all, we do not consider that this is a privilege that amounts in fact to anything. Hon. Members who say that they have lost elections owing to motor cars, suffer, I am afraid, from a severe lack of modesty, and do not take sufficient account of the occasional common sense of electors. No system has been devised which will get as many people to the poll as the existing system, and the desire of all is to get the maximum number of people to the poll. We like the present system, because we think it does that. If the Government can produce a system which will alter the present one and get more people to the poll, we will support them. We suggest that the whole of this Clause would, in fact, disfranchise not only all the sick but anyone who lives a considerable distance from a polling station. It is unnecessary to say, as did the hon. Member for Romford (Mr. Muggeridge) in an airy tone, "Have more polling booths." There are isolated houses five miles from any village in some parts of the country; are you going to have a separate polling booth for each house? It is absolutely impossible. Attempts made again and again to get more polling booths for places of this kind have been discarded on account of expense. You will always get outlying hamlets which are too small to be coped with. Even if you extend the number of polling booths, you will still have innumerable houses whose occupants would want conveyance to the poll. It is true that this will mean that fewer Conservatives will go to the poll, as one hon. Member said, but that is what hon. Members on the other side want. They want to equalise things. Of course, if you think your opponents are going to get more votes than you, and you believe in equality, if you can stop them going to

    1043
    the poll that is a very good way of getting equality. I really do not think hon. Members opposite want to disfranchise any of the voters. I wish a method could be devised which would give every person a perfectly equal chance of recording the vote. If the Home Secretary can devise such a method, he could be assured of the support of all parties, but until he can, all hon. Members who wish to see large polls at elections and the maximum number recording their vote, will go into the Lobby and oppose a Clause such as this, which will disfranchise a large portion of the population.
    The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Clynes): I think I can fairly claim that there has been no new argument advanced in the recent speeches, since my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General replied at an earlier stage of this discussion. I rise for a few moments to indicate what we have in our minds, rather than to endeavour to controvert statements which have been made in the course of the last hour or so, as I am certain that the Committee would like to proceed to a Division on this Amendment. I do not for a moment wish to discuss what has been the purpose of the Government in submitting this Clause, and I will not claim that it is the last word in perfect draftsmanship or that it is incapable of amendment. Indeed, all who have had a little experience of this House know quite well that, in the Committee stage, no matter what be the subject or who have been the draftsmen, defects are revealed. Hon. Members have been imagining possible circumstances, instead of confronting the questions which can really arise in fact and in substance, and one world imagine that an election was not an election but a comic opera. We have endeavoured to equalise the race between the poor voter and the rich, and to diminish the force of the weapon of wealth which owners of many now have against poor candidates in Parliamentary elections.
    Mr. O. STANLEY: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us, how does a rich candidate use his money for the purpose of conveying electors by motor car?
    Mr. CLYNES: The hon. Member is not so innocent as to need an explanation.
    1044
    The hon. Member knows that a candidate, having a wide circle of rich friends individually possessing motor cars—
    Mr. STANLEY: Some rich men have not any friends at all?
    Mr. CLYNES: We have been afforded instances of a candidate having as many as 200 or 300 motor cars, particularly in a by-election fight, while the poorer candidate, having no such circle of friends, had not that advantage. We have tried to lessen this power of the wealthy candidate, and to take away the only remaining instrument of wealth which the richer candidates have in Parliamentary contests. We are disposed to accept an amplification of our language in order that complete satisfaction should be given under that head.
    With the permission of the Chair, I would like to indicate that if a much better plan than the one expressed in the Clause before the Committee, which would meet the need of equity between the candidates in the matter of motor cars, can be agreed on, the Government will be disposed to accept, it. Some such plan, or the germ of it, is given in an Amendment, near the end of the second page of Amendments, standing in the name of an bon. Gentleman opposite. We are disposed to accept the idea of the principle expressed in that Amendment, which proposes to regulate the number of motor cars according to the number of the electorate in a division. I agree that some difficulty arises. It will be advisable to endeavour to provide for the exceptional circumstances of widely scattered areas of the great agricultural constituencies. We will agree to words which will provide that the number of motor cars be fixed in relation to the area. I think that some such Clause would go far to establish a state of equality of opportunity among the different candidates, regardless of their social or financial position. It would not be possible just now to say that we accept this Amendment entirely, but only that we are disposed to accept, its idea and its principle, and to endeavour before the Report stage to insert words that will attain that end. I am indebted to the Chairman for permission to make this announcement. I do not want to argue it further, but perhaps in the course of the discussion some indication will reach us from the other side, as to how they

    1045
    view the suggestion, which is made with a genuine desire on our part to equalise the conditions between the poor and the rich candidates.
    Earl WINTERTON: I am bound to confess I am astonished at the speech to which we have just listened. No one on the Front Bench is better able to argue a case with efficiency and with complete confidence than the right hon. Gentleman. In this most important Debate this afternoon, one of the most interesting short Debates which I recollect to have heard in the course of the present Parliament, there have been very interesting speeches from all sides. All sorts of important new points have been put forward which had not emerged before. There have been very important points put from below the Gangway, and a series of important points by my hon. and learned Friend who sits on the Bench beside me. Yet when the right hon. Gentleman gets up to reply to those points, he makes use of the remarkable phrase that he is not going "to endeavour to controvert statements which have been made," because he understands that the Committee is now wanting to go to a Division. It is certainly important that the Committee should give its decision on this matter, which is of a fundamental character. It is equally important that the Government should explain to the Committee on what they are asking the Committee to vote before it gives its decision.
    7.0 p.m.
    I was expecting to hear from the right hon. Gentleman some answer to the points which have been put by my hon. and learned Friend, and by Members below the Gangway, and also by Members on the other side, but apparently we are not to have it. In regard to what the right hon. Gentleman said in the concluding words of his speech, I confess that the promises, if promises they can be called, are of such a vague and conditional character that I do not think they are of very much value. Two other points arise. In the first place, it is exceedingly difficult to amend a Bill properly on Report when the discussion is taking Place under the guillotine. In the second place, the Amendments of my hon. Friends on this side of the House have been on the Paper for no less than five weeks and yet were not referred to in
    1046
    the opening speech from the Government Bench. The Solicitor-General was exceedingly coy in coming forward, and it was not till the second speech from the Government Bench that we were told in a very few, almost cursory, sentences by the right hon. Gentleman that he was prepared to agree under certain conditions to make important Amendments in this Clause.
    I feel bound to make one or two observations on the general tenor of the Debate. It is quite clear from the discussion this afternoon, what most of us who have studied political conditions knew was the case, that the party opposite is predominantly a town party, and looks at these matters through smoke-dimmed and fog-dimmed eyes. One of the peculiarities of the House now seems to be that Members make a speech and immediately dash out. We shall eventually, I suppose, reach a time when there is no one left in the House except the Member who is speaking and those who are endeavouring to catch your eye, Mr. Dunnico. That has been a feature of most of the Debates this year. We have had one or two speeches this afternoon from Members who are not now present. The two I have in mind were clearly thoroughly unacquainted with the conditions in, for example, a constituency like my own.
    Reference has been made to Yorkshire, Scotland and the Welsh hills, but it is not only in those more remote parts, geographically speaking, that these things occur. I can assure the Committee that on the Sussex Downs there are areas where the voter has to go many miles to the poll, and where it would be impracticable to increase the number of polling places. For one reason there would be no houses in which to put them, and even if movable polling places were provided it would be very difficult to know where to station them. You would not get people to vote in the teeth of a sou wester on the Downs. They would want to vote in the ordinary polling places to which they have been accustomed to go, and the only way in which you can get them to go is by conveying them in some vehicle.
    I do not know what the experience is in the constituencies of my hon. Friends, but I should imagine it would be very much the same as in my own. In such

    1047
    country constituencies it is a well known thing that the motor cars of any party are ready to give a lift to anyone who wants to go to the poll. I have always had an enormous majority; at the last election it was 16,000. I have no doubt that a small minority of people who were so misguided as to vote for the party opposite rode to the poll in a motor car which bore my colours and my inspiring photograph. In the country constituencies you do not ask people in advance how they want to vote. You simply ask them to go to the poll. But the result of this Clause, if passed, would be that in these remote parts they would not go to the poll at all. Any Member of this House, no matter where he sits or what are his views, ought to feel his responsibility and some sense of shame at the lack of interest which the public takes in him and his, in this House, its policies, parties and leaders, in so far as they go in smaller proportions to the poll at elections nowadays than previously.
    It seems to me astonishing that any Government at such a time should come down to the House with a proposal that would make the proportion still smaller. I venture to say that if this point was put to an intelligent observer in any foreign country—that the British politicians, owing to the lack of political leaders or policies or the bad procedure of this House, were unable to get people to go to the poll, and yet the same British politicians were going to make it harder for people to get to the poll—he would say it is a typical example of the foolish, fatuous manner in which Great Britain has been behaving since the War. It is an astonishing proposal. I should have thought that everybody in this House would have done everything he could to induce more electors to go to the poll, and would have made it more easy instead of more difficult for them to do so. I go further, and say that this Clause is an attempt to monkey with the Constitution. Every elector has a right to be conveyed to the poll providing that he does not pay for being taken. I think you are getting perilously near taking away a constitutional right of the people.
    It is perfectly clear from some of the speeches of Members opposite that this Clause is actuated by envy, hatred and
    1048
    malice—envy of those who possess motor cars, hatred of those whose views are different from those of hon. Gentlemen opposite, and malice in so far as they think they will prevent their political opponents from voting. That is the true object of the Clause. The spirit that has been displayed in the Debate is the spirit of a man who says: "He is better off than I and has better clothes than I; let us heave half a brick at him." The right hon. Gentleman said motor cars were instruments of wealth. That is a very strange definition of the almost universal motor. It is as if to say that the workman in America who owns a baby Austin has an instrument of wealth. The real motive of the right hon. Gentleman is that of taking away something from those to whom he is in political opposition. This proposal is an atavistic proposal, and shows the mentality of man's most primitive ancestors. It is at all costs to prevent people riding in that horrible modern invention, that instrument of wealth, the motor car. Let them walk. If they cannot walk, let them go back to the trees. That is the modern policy of this great progressive party, which we are told is the new party. Is it any wonder that at the present moment the hon. Gentleman the Member for Smethwick (Sir O. Mosley) is doing what from his point of view he is perfectly entitled to do, that is to break up the most reactionary party that ever sat on the benches opposite.
    Mr. BROCKWAY: The right comment to make on the speech to which we have just listened is that, if there has been one bad-tempered speech in this Debate, it is the speech of the right hon. Gentleman. I want to assure the right hon. Gentleman, and very sincerely to assure the hon. Member for Westmorland (Mr. O. Stanley), that in many parts of the House there are Members who are equally alarmed at the indifference of the electors to the proceedings of this House. I suggest that the solution of that problem is not the provision of motor cars during an election, but the pursuance of a policy in this House between elections which will deal with the problems of the country. I will not go further in comment upon that, except to say that there are Members on all sides of the House who realise the danger in that situation.

    1049
    The real issue we are discussing this afternoon is not whether motor cars should be used in elections, but whether they should be used predominantly under the control of one party. I imagine that all of us on this side of the House are in favour of the use of motor cars for sick, disabled and infirm people, for those who reside at a long distance from polling stations, and those who for other reasons are not able easily to walk to the polling station. But if motor cars are to be used for that purpose the control of them should be under the returning officer as a representative of the community generally, and should not be under the control of one political party. The real reason why there has been some ferocity shown—it may be on one side or the other—is because on one side there is a determination to retain a privilege and on the other a determination that that privilege shall be ended. That is the real issue of this discussion, despite all the very courteous cleverness of the hon. Member for Westmorland, and despite the more ferocious argument of the right hon. Member for Horsham (Earl Winterton). But when I have said that, I want to support the plea which has been made from nearly all quarters of the House for some reconsideration of the present form of this Clause, and I hope that the Government, in that reconsideration, will try to accept the principle that, if motor cars are to be used during elections, they shall not be under the control of the returning officer merely in the sense which is now described in this Sub-section, but that they shall be entirely under his control, and shall be utilised, irrespective of party, for those who are sick, disabled, infirm, or at long distances, so that we may have real democracy in the distributive use of motor cars during elections.
    Mr. CHARLES WILLIAMS: The last speech shows very clearly that the whole aim and object of some people's minds is obsessed with the idea that in some extraordinary way there are some people who have privileges and others who have none. I will not follow the words of the hon. Gentleman, because I am directly interested in the Amendment. I was surprised at the extraordinary and amazing speech of the Home Secretary. If there is any meaning in that speech, or any intention behind its words, it must be evident to people who heard
    1050
    it that the right hon. Gentleman is going greatly to reorganise the Clause, and I see no real meaning in it, if he intends to reorganise the Clause, except that he should withdraw the Clause at once. I cannot see, when he admits that there is very great confusion of words in the Clause, and that practically its whole basis will have to be changed, how he can do that unless he takes it back and reorganises it from the beginning. If he is humbugging with the House, in the same kind of way as the Prime Minister does from time to time, he obviously will go on with the discussion of the Clause, but, if he meant what he said, he is bound in common honesty to have the Clause withdrawn at once.
    The most interesting speech, to my mind, during the afternoon, was that of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Darwen (Sir H. Samuel). It was a speech that would have torn our hearts if only it had been made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George), but, as it was made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Darwen, we merely wondered what he was meaning. First of all, he told the House that motor cars were used in elections in such a way as to he in reality a method of bribing the electors. Then, after having given the Government side completely, he turned round and gave to the House the other side of the case. [Interruption.] If a good deal of the case is black and a good deal of it is white, surely we might be told by hon. Gentlemen on the Front Bench below the Gangway how far they are going. We have heard nothing from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon. Boroughs, who is generally sympathetic as far as the widely scattered agricultural communities are concerned, and than whom no one would know better how extremely difficult it would be in many cases, and particularly as far as the older people are concerned, without a real method of getting them to the poll by motor car.
    I understand that the real object of the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Darwen was to interpret the speech of the Solicitor-General, and I do not think that that speech was intelligible, if I may say so, until we had this interpretation. I wonder what he

    1051
    meant by one phrase that he used. He said that cars could not be used at all unless they were registered. He did not say so, but I presume he meant used for election purposes. Surely, a candidate would have the right to use a car; surely ordinary people going about their ordinary business would have the right to use cars; and yet, according to the Solicitor-General's own words, they would have absolutely no right to use a car at all on that day. [Interruption.] No doubt hon. Gentlemen opposite would be delighted if I joined their ranks, but I hope I have still sufficient intelligence to abstain from that foolishness, if I may say so.
    The Solicitor-General also made another curious statement. He was giving the opinion of a Law Officer of the Crown on a most complicated matter, and, referring to the returning officer and the position taken up by the returning officer, he made the momentous announcement that he was not the person who registered the car, but that the person who registered the car was the person who went to the returning officer. When we are dealing with a matter of this kind, the House might expect that a Law Officer, however green and young he may be in experience of this House, would give serious consideration to a Clause of this kind, because we realise that the Clause as it stands now, with the words which the Law Officers have put into it, would deprive millions of people of this country of an easy method of registering their votes, and that it would deprive hundreds of thousands of people in the rural areas of this country of, possibly, their only means of registering their votes; and that is being done simply because a section of the community, who have extraordinary means of compelling people to vote, and have used those means absolutely ruthlessly in many cases, have found some small flaw in the election law which they think registers against them, and they are so afraid of putting their policy before the country that they will use every means in their power to deprive their opponents of what they think—wrongly, as I consider—is an advantage.
    This Clause, and particularly the first portion of it, is perfectly unworkable. When a Government puts up three front-bench sneakers to explain a part of a
    1052
    Clause, and when those speakers never keep to the words of the Clause and never deal with the very sensible Amendment on the Paper, I think that that is ample reason why the House of Commons should accept the Amendment and reorganise the whole of this Clause; and I hope that even yet the Government may see their way to do the only decent and honest thing, and that is to withdraw the Clause.
    Miss RATHBONE: It is sometimes said that the outsider sees most of the game, and in this matter I may claim to be an outsider. For one thing, I represent a constituency which, thank Heaven, never makes any use of motor cars in elections, a fact which ought to commend it to the party opposite. I have been impressed by two things to-day—firstly, by the overwhelming strength of the case for the principle of this Clause, and, secondly, by the overwhelming case against the particular method employed in the Clause for carrying that principle into effect. As to the principle, I have listened to Member after Member striving to prove that the advantage given to the Conservative party, or any party which represents the wealthier portion of the community, by their superior power in regard to motor cars, is not an unjust advantage. That seems to me to be an unutterably weak case. Of course, the predominant use of motor cars by one party, which it is not within the power of another party to command, is an unjust use of them. It cannot be compared, as one hon. Member tried to compare it, with the fact that the Labour party might find it more difficult to command clerical assistance. Any party, if it had more voluntary workers who were willing to give voluntary service, would have a right to make use of that service; but an advantage which cannot be obtained by another party because of its inferiority in wealth cannot be described as a fair advantage.
    One hon. Member spoke of this Clause, especially in the rural districts, disfranchising the poorest and most physically helpless members of the community. Is he only unwilling that the poorest and most physically helpless members of the community should be disfranchised if they happen to belong to the Conservative party? Is there no hardship if the poor and physically weak belong to another party? I suggest that really

    1053
    there can be no heart in the opposition to the principle that underlies this Clause. No one who has gone through a contested election can really feel happy if they feel that their election has been gained by the use of more motor cars than their fellows could command. There is something particularly offensive in all displays of wealth, but, if there is one kind of wealth that is particularly offensive, it is that which is embodied in the use of a motor car. I think we all hate motor cars; there is something insolent about them.
    As to how this principle can be carried out, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Darwen (Sir H. Samuel) pointed out flaws in this particular Clause which cannot be denied. In the first place, if motor cars all have to be pooled and used in common at the direction of the returning officer, does anyone believe that private owners of motor cars are going to lend their cars at all under such conditions? And, even if they did, who is going to distribute the cars? The whole value of a car at such a time is to be able to have it in the right spot at the right moment. It seems to me that the only way of meeting these difficulties is one which was alluded to in extremely vague terms by the Home Secretary. He gave us a very imperfect idea of what he really meant. The principle that he suggested is the only right principle, and that is that in every election there should be a maximum set to the number of cars to be used for each candidate. The number can be fixed by the returning officer, possibly after consultation with all the candidates. Then you would have complete equality, and yet each candidate would be controlling his own set of cars, though one might show superior skill in their manipulation. The fact that a Particular candidate can control his own car would make a sufficient motive for his friends to lend him cars, because each candidate would have confidence in his own capacity and that of his election agent to make a better use of his cars than his opponent.
    If that is found impracticable, there is one other proposal which I hope will be considered. Could it not be made a rule that every car used in elections should bear a placard stating that riding in it shall not constitute any obligation to vote for any particular candidate? Several speakers have mentioned that many
    1054
    voters ride in cars belonging to opposition candidates, but nearly every voter who does that does it against his conscience. There is a feeling that it is a dishonourable thing to do. Either it should be allowed or it should not, and it would secure a certain amount of free use of motor cars by all parties if such a placard was placed on every car. I hope the Government are going to consider before the Report stage some way of carrying out the excellent principle that underlies the Clause.
    Mr. O'CONNOR: The Debate has been characterised by a certain amount of loose thinking. Here is a Clause which is admittedly vindictive and pusillanimous, and vindictive and pusillanimous Clauses have a knack of looking silly when they are subjected to Debate. That is the fate that has befallen this Clause when subjected to the close analysis of the late Attorney-General and others and to criticisms to which no answer has been attempted from the Front Bench. Stripped of all the class prejudice and ornament that we have heard from the other side, their argument really amounts to this: "We have a policy upon which we cannot hope to captivate any of those people who are divided from extreme poverty by the narrow margin of a baby Austin secondhand car, and, knowing that we cannot achieve the support of anyone who has the smallest amount of property, our method is to deprive those people, not only of the vote, but of the power to use their influence in order to win elections." Added to that, they say at one and the same time: "But we will retain all the powerful machinery that we possess through the trade unions, whereby we can outlaw, we can harass, we can make difficult the lot of anyone—I apprehend your early movement, Sir, and I will not pursue that line of discussion.
    It seems to me that there is one really vital principle, which was insinuated for a moment by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Darwen (Sir H. Samuel), which is the real reason that moves us strenuously to oppose this portion of the Clause. If there is one compelling duty upon citizens at present it is the duty to vote. If there is one duty above all others that those who believe in our Parliamentary institutions can carry out,

    1055
    it is to induce people to vote upon the great issues that arise at a General Election. Does anyone believe for a moment that under this shoddy, ramshackle second part of the Clause people are going to lend their motor cars to be put into some pool where they would be used ad lib by any of the other parties? It is obvious to anyone who knows the difficulties that exist that, even with the fire and enthusiasm of supporting a party in getting cars for the use of the party, they will not be brought forward if they are to be used by the Liberal or the Socialist party or by any party at the whim of the returning officer.
    The Bill throws an almost impossible burden upon the returning officer. I am certain that the returning officer would not suffer from political bias, as has been suggested, except perhaps in one case out of 100,000. But think of the impossible burden that you are putting upon him. At the moment when the choice of the area into which he is going to send motor cars may decide the issue of the election, you are casting upon him the burden of saying: "I am to decide where I am going to send cars at this moment," and the bias might operate quite unconsciously in the opposite way. A man of nice principles might easily send cars into a district which was remote from his political bias rather than be suspected of lending his bias towards the party that he favoured. One is surprised to find this Clause emerging from a party which prides itself on being the party of progress, which seems to have forgotten that to-day the motor car is the democratic instrument of everyone, and which, instead of bringing in pin-pricking Measures of this kind, ought to devote its attention to seeing that more people have motor cars.
    Mr. de ROTHSCHILD: Might I ask the Solicitor-General if he would implement the remark of the Home Secretary and explain in what way he proposes on Report to alter the Clause, whether he considers that motor cars under this new arrangement will be at the disposal of the electorate and not al the disposal of the returning officer, and whether it will only mean that there will be a more equal distribution of cars at elections.
    The DEPUTY - CHAIRMAN (Mr. Dunnico): I think I ought to make it clear that, though the question may be put and an answer may be given, no discussion can take place upon the answer at this stage.
    The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: I cannot say anything further than that my right hon. Friend is prepared to accept the principle of the Amendment standing in the name of the hon. and gallant Member for Oxford (Captain Bourne)—in page 4, line 9, to leave out from the word "registered," to the end of the Sub-section, and to insert instead thereof the words:
    "may, notwithstanding anything contained in this section, be used for the conveyance of electors to the poll on behalf of such candidate. Provided that the returning officer shall not permit the registration in respect of any one candidate of a greater number of vehicles than one vehicle for every complete two hundred electors in a county or for every complete five hundred electors in a borough, and if in either case there is a number of electors over and above any complete two hundred or five hundred electors, respectively, then one vehicle for every such number."
    We do not bind ourselves to the numbers specified in that Amendment, but to the principle that the number of cars available shall be determined firstly by means of the number of electors, and secondly-by means of the area over which the cars will operate.
    Sir S. HOARE: The Solicitor-General has not answered the question who will control these cars. Will the returning officer allocate them and direct where they shall go, or will it be the candidates or the party agents? That is a question that vitally matters.
    The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: I can only say that, if the right hon. Gentleman looks at the place where the Amendment comes in, he will see that the registration will be limited to the number of vehicles—some number which will be arranged. That is what I understood my right hon. Friend to say.
    Sir S. HOARE: It is impossible to debate the question now, particularly when we have not the actual words that the Government are prepared to accept, but, as far as I can judge, the Solicitor-General's answer really amounts to nothing at all.
    Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out to the word 'to,' in line 40, stand part of the Clause."
    The Committee divided Ayes, 253; Noes, 160.

    Division No. 219.]

    AYES.

    [7.41 p.m.

    Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)

    Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)

    Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Hackney, S.)

    Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)

    Hall, Capt. W. G. (Portsmouth, C.)

    Morrison, Robert C. (Tottenham, N.)

    Aitchison, Rt. Hon. Craigle M.

    Hamilton, Mary Agnes (Blackburn)

    Mort, D. L.

    Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (Hillsbro')

    Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Zetland)

    Muff, G.

    Alpass, J. H.

    Harbord, A.

    Muggeridge, H. T.

    Ammon, Charles George

    Hardie, George D.

    Murnin, Hugh

    Angell, Sir Norman

    Harris, Percy A.

    Nathan, Major H. L.

    Arnott, John

    Hastings, Dr. Somerville

    Naylor, T. E.

    Attlee, Clement Richard

    Hayday, Arthur

    Noel Baker, P. J.

    Ayles, Walter

    Hayes, John Henry

    Noel-Buxton, Baroness (Norfolk, N.)

    Baker, John (Wolverhampton, Bilston)

    Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley)

    Oliver, George Harold (Ilkeston)

    Barnes, Alfred John

    Henderson, Arthur, Junr. (Cardiff, S.)

    Oliver, P. M. (Man., Blackley)

    Barr, James

    Henderson, Thomas (Glasgow)

    Owen, Major G. (Carnarvon)

    Benn, Rt. Hon. Wedgwood

    Henderson, W. W. (Middx., Enfield)

    Palin, John Henry

    Bennett, Sir E. N. (Cardiff, Central)

    Herriotts, J.

    Paling, Wilfrid

    Bennett, William (Battersea, South)

    Hicks, Ernest George

    Palmer, E. T.

    Benson, G.

    Hirst, G. H. (York W. R. Wentworth)

    Perry, S. F.

    Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)

    Hoffman, P. C.

    Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.

    Birkett, W. Norman

    Hollins, A.

    Phillips, Dr. Marion

    Bondfield, Rt. Hon. Margaret

    Hopkin, Daniel

    Picton-Turbervill, Edith

    Bowen, J. W.

    Horrabin, J. F.

    Pole, Major D. G.

    Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.

    Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield)

    Potts, John S.

    Broad, Francis Alfred

    Isaacs, George

    Price, M. P.

    Brockway, A. Fenner

    Jenkins, Sir William

    Pybus, Percy John

    Bromfield, William

    John, William (Rhondda, West)

    Quibell, D. J. K.

    Bromley, J.

    Johnston, Rt. Hon. Thomas

    Ramsay, T. B. Wilson

    Brooke, W.

    Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)

    Rathbone, Eleanor

    Brothers, M.

    Jones, Rt. Hon. Leif (Camborne)

    Raynes, W. R.

    Brown, C. W. E. (Notts. Mansfield)

    Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

    Richards, R.

    Brown, Ernest (Leith)

    Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W.

    Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

    Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (South Ayrshire)

    Jowitt, Sir W. A. (Preston)

    Riley, Ben (Dewsbury)

    Buchanan, G.

    Kelly, W. T.

    Romeril, H. G.

    Burgess, F. G.

    Kennedy, Rt. Hon. Thomas

    Rosbotham, D. S. T.

    Buxton, C. R. (Yorks. W. R. Elland)

    Kinley, J.

    Rowson, Guy

    Caine, Hall-, Derwent

    Knight, Holford

    Russell, Richard John (Eddisbury)

    Cameron, A. G.

    Lang, Gordon

    Salter, Dr. Alfred

    Cape, Thomas

    Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George

    Samuel, H. Walter (Swansea, West)

    Carter, W (St. Pancras, S.W.)

    Lathan, G.

    Sanders, W. S.

    Chater, Daniel

    Law, Albert (Bolton)

    Sandham, E.

    Church, Major A. G.

    Law, A. (Rossendale)

    Sawyer, G. F.

    Clarke, J. S.

    Lawrence, Susan

    Scrymgeour, E.

    Cluse, W. S.

    Lawson, John James

    Shepherd, Arthur Lewis

    Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.

    Lawther, W. (Barnard Castle)

    Sherwood, G. H.

    Cocks, Frederick Seymour

    Leach, W.

    Shield, George William

    Cove, William G.

    Lee, Frank (Derby, N.E.)

    Shiels, Dr. Drummond

    Cripps, Sir Stafford

    Lee, Jennie (Lanark, Northern)

    Shillaker, J. F.

    Daggar, George

    Lees, J.

    Shinwell, E.

    Dallas, George

    Lewis, T. (Southampton)

    Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)

    Dalton, Hugh

    Lindley, Fred W.

    Simmons, C. J.

    Davies, D. L. (Pontypridd)

    Lloyd, C. Ellis

    Sinclair, Sir A. (Caithness)

    Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

    Logan, David Gilbert

    Sinkinson, George

    Denman, Hon. R. D.

    Longbottom, A. W.

    Sitch, Charles H.

    Dudgeon, Major C. R.

    Longden, F.

    Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)

    Duncan, Charles

    Lovat-Fraser, J. A.

    Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)

    Ede, James Chuter

    Lunn, William

    Smith, Rennie (Penistone)

    Edmunds, J. E.

    Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)

    Smith, Tom (Pontefract)

    Edwards, E. (Morpeth)

    MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham)

    Snowden, Thomas (Accrington)

    Foot, Isaac

    MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)

    Sorensen, R.

    Freeman, Peter

    McElwee, A.

    Stamford, Thomas W.

    Gardner, B, W. (West Ham, Upton)

    McEntee, V. L.

    Stephen, Campbell

    George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd (Car'vn)

    McKinlay, A.

    Strauss, G. R.

    George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)

    MacLaren, Andrew

    Sullivan, J.

    Gibbins, Joseph

    Maclean, Sir Donald (Cornwall, N.)

    Sutton, J. E.

    Gibson, H. M. (Lancs. Mossley)

    Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)

    Taylor, R. A. (Lincoln)

    Gill, T. H.

    MacNeill-Weir, L.

    Taylor, W. B. (Norfolk, S.W.)

    Gillett, George M.

    McShane, John James

    Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby)

    Glassey, A. E.

    Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)

    Tillett, Ben

    Gossling, A. G.

    March, S.

    Tinker, John Joseph

    Gould, F.

    Marcus, M.

    Toole, Joseph

    Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)

    Marley, J.

    Tout, W. J.

    Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)

    Marshall, Fred

    Townend, A. E.

    Granville, E.

    Mathers, George

    Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

    Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Colne)

    Matters, L. W.

    Vaughan, David

    Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)

    Maxton, James

    Viant, S. P.

    Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro' W.)

    Middleton, G.

    Walkden, A. G.

    Groves, Thomas E.

    Mills, J. E.

    Walker, J.

    Grundy, Thomas W.

    Milner, Major J.

    Wallace, H. W.

    Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

    Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)

    Watkins, F. C.

    Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)

    Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood)

    Winterton, G. E.(Leicester, Loughb'gh)

    Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)

    Wilkinson, Ellen C.

    Wise, E. F.

    Wellock, Wilfred

    Williams, David (Swansea, East)

    Wood, Major McKenzie (Banff)

    Welsh, James (Paisley)

    Williams, Dr J. H. (Llanelly)

    Welsh, James C. (Coatbridge)

    Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)

    West, F. R.

    Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

    Westwood, Joseph

    Wilson, J. (Oldham)

    Mr. Charleton and Mr. Thurtle.

    White, H. G.

    Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)

    NOES.

    Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

    Duckworth, G. A. V.

    Nicholson, O. (Westminster)

    Ainsworth, Lieut.-Col. Charles

    Dugdale, Capt. T. L.

    O'Connor, T. J.

    Albery, Irving James

    Edmondson, Major A. J.

    Oman, Sir Charles William C.

    Alexander, Sir Wm. (Glasgow, Cent'l)

    Elliot, Major Walter E.

    O'Neill, Sir H.

    Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.

    England, Colonel A.

    Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William

    Aske, Sir Robert

    Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s. M.)

    Peake, Captain Osbert

    Atholl, Duchess of

    Everard, W. Lindsay

    Penny, Sir George

    Atkinson, C.

    Falle, Sir Bertram G.

    Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)

    Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley (Bewdley)

    Fielden, E. B.

    Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)

    Balfour, George (Hampstead)

    Ford, Sir P. J.

    Ramsbetham, H.

    Balfour, Captain H. H. (I. of Thanet)

    Forestier-Walker, Sir L.

    Rawson, Sir Cooper

    Beaumont, M. W.

    Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.

    Remer, John R.

    Berry, Sir George

    Galbraith, J. F. W.

    Reynolds, Col. Sir James

    Betterton, sir Henry B.

    Ganzoni, Sir John

    Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall)

    Bird, Ernest Roy

    Grace, John

    Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell

    Bourne, Captain Robert Croft

    Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)

    Ross, Ronald D.

    Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart

    Gunston, Captain D. W.

    Rothschild. J. de

    Bowyer, Captain Sir George E. W.

    Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.

    Ruggles-Brise, Colonel E.

    Boyce, Leslie

    Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)

    Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

    Bracken, B.

    Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

    Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

    Brass, Captain Sir William

    Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.

    Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)

    Briscoe, Richard George

    Herbert, Sir Dennis (Hertford)

    Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart

    Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)

    Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller

    Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.

    Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y)

    Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.

    Shepperson, Sir Ernest Whittome

    Buchan, John

    Hore-Belisha, Leslie

    Skelton, A. N.

    Burton, Colonel H. W.

    Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.

    Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)

    Butler, R. A.

    Hurd, Percy A.

    Smith-Carington, Neville W.

    Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward

    Inskip, Sir Thomas

    Smithers, Waldron

    Campbell, E. T.

    Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)

    Somerset, Thomas

    Carver, Major W. H.

    Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

    Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)

    Castle Stewart, Earl of

    Kedward, R. M. (Kent, Ashford)

    Stanley, Hon. O. (Westmorland)

    Cautley, Sir Henry S.

    Knox, Sir Alfred

    Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)

    Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)

    Lamb, Sir J. Q.

    Thomas, Major L. B. (King's Norton)

    Cazalet, Captain Victor A.

    Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.

    Thomson, Sir F.

    Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. Sir J. A. (Birm.,W.)

    Law, Sir Alfred (Derby, High Peak)

    Todd, Capt. A. J.

    Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Edgbaston)

    Lewis, Oswald (Colchester)

    Train, J.

    Chapman, Sir S.

    Little, Graham-, Sir Ernest

    Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement

    Christie, J. A.

    Llewellin, Major J. J.

    Turton, Robert Hugh

    Cobb, Sir Cyril

    Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hon. Godfrey

    Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon

    Colfox, Major William Philip

    Locker-Lampson. Com. O. (Handsw'th)

    Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. Lambert

    Colman, N. C. D.

    Long, Major Hon. Eric

    Waterhouse, Captain Charles

    Conway, Sir W. Martin

    McConnell, Sir Joseph

    Wayland, Sir William A.

    Cooper, A. Duff

    Maitland, A. (Kent, Faversham)

    Wells, Sydney R.

    Courtauld, Major J. S.

    Makins, Brigadier-General E.

    Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)

    Cowan, D. M.

    Margesson, Captain H. D.

    Wilson, G. H. A. (Cambridge U.)

    Crichton-Stuart, Lord C.

    Marjoribanks, Edward

    Windsor-Clive. Lieut.-Colonel George

    Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.

    Mason, Colonel Glyn K.

    Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl

    Crookshank, Capt. H. C.

    Meller, R. J.

    Withers, Sir John James

    Croom-Johnson, R. P.

    Merriman, Sir F. Boyd

    Wolmer, Rt. Hon. Viscount

    Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West)

    Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. Sir B.

    Womersley, W. J.

    Cunliffe-Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip

    Morris, Rhys Hopkins

    Davies, Maj, Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)

    Morrison, W. S. (Glos., Cirencester)

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

    Dawson, Sir Philip

    Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive

    Captain Wallace and Sir Victor

    Despencer-Robertson, Major J. A. F.

    Muirhead, A. J.

    Warrender.

    Dixey, A. C.

    Nelson, Sir Frank

    Mr. O. STANLEY: I beg to move, in page 3, line 41, after the word "owner," to insert the words "or driver."
    The meaning of the Amendment is perfectly plain, and as for the reason for supporting it, perhaps the Committee will allow me to give what may become a personal experience. I happen to live in the constituency which I represent, and I have a vote in that constituency. Unfortunately, however, in this mechanised scheme of things, I am one
    1060
    who has never shown any mechanical inclination. At an early age, in an attempt to drive a motor car, it was borne in upon me that my inability to concentrate on the road ahead made it impossible for me to become a successful driver. Therefore, the circumstances are that to-day for me to drive a motor car affords no pleasure for myself and very little profit to the ordinary wayfarer. When I start out—and soon I hope—on the polling day of the next general elec-

    1061
    tion to do a tour of the polling districts in my constituency in my car driven by a chauffeur I shall stop at the polling booth in my own village for the purpose of recording my vote. I shall, observing the letter of the Clause which the Solicitor-General has presented to the House, give my chauffeur, who is also a voter in the constituency the strictest instructions that under no circumstances is he to record his vote. But suppose that he disregards my instructions. Suppose that he even defeats any physical attempt I may make to restrain him from entering the polling booth and that, despite all my efforts, he enters the polling booth and records his vote. The result of that will be that I shall be unseated. I shall have used my car for the purpose of bringing to the poll a man who is not a member of my family and, as a consequence, I shall be unseated.
    The hon. and learned Gentleman tells me that he is not quite certain. Of course, I shall be liable to prosecution under the Act, but it is possible that, if I go before the court and I am well defended by a barrister of repute at a considerable fee, recommended no doubt by the Solicitor-General, the court may take a lenient view of the facts of the case. When you are instituting a new penal offence and new Acts of Parliament it is as well that those who commit the offences should know beforehand whether they are going to be liable to a penalty or not. It should not be left for them to go before a court of law to find out whether in fact they have infringed the statute or not. I cannot believe that it is the intention of the Government, absurd as is the Bill and ridiculous as is this particular Clause, to carry the matter to the limit of absurdity which I have instanced to-night.
    Take the case of the invalid lady owning a car and having to be driven by a chauffeur. Her chauffeur may have been with her for years, and therefore may be a voter in the locality. If the man drives her to the poll she has committed an offence, but, if the day before the election she dismisses that man and takes a temporary chauffeur who does not reside in the constituency and is therefore not a voter, she is keeping within the letter of the law. I cannot imagine that right hon. Gentlemen opposite, much as they
    1062
    have strained my credulity in the past, can really intend that anomalies of this kind should continue, and therefore I hope that the Solicitor-General will accept the Amendment.
    The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: The harrowing story which has been given from the opposite benches having touched the heart of the Government, they are prepared to accept an Amendment but not one precisely in the present words. With regard to the Amendment of the hon. Member and the next Amendment on the Paper in the name of the hon. Member for Barnstaple (Sir B. Peto)—in page 3, line 42, after the word "family," to insert the words "or any person ordinarily"—we are prepared to insert the following words at the end of Sub-section (1):
    "or any person being the owner of the vehicle or persons permanently or temporarily resident with him or a driver in Ins regular employment."
    If hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite will accept these words as covering the two Amendments, we shall be prepared to make such an Amendment. The words "permanently or temporarily resident with him" are to get over the difficulty of definition, and I think it would clearly mean anybody who on that day was living in his house. If we undertake to put these words in on the Report stage, I hope that it will satisfy hon. Members opposite.
    8.0 p.m.
    Sir BASIL PETO: As far as I can follow the words of the Solicitor-General, he referred to the Amendment which stands in my name and pointed out that the words "permanently or temporarily" might well be taken as a substitute for the word "ordinarily." I would point out, however, that the word "ordinarily" is wider in its application, and it would cover a person who was usually resident with him but who did not happen to he resident at the time in the sense that he happened to be resident in the neighbourhood and not in the actual household. With regard to drivers, the Solicitor-General's words would not cover the case where the owner of the car found that on the polling day his regular permanent driver, owing to stress of the election, having driven him constantly, almost day and night, for a fortnight, had broken down in health. He would have to make his tour as usual

    1063
    and register his vote. I am in exactly the same position as my hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland (Mr. Stanley). I am also a voter in my own constituency. This sort of thing might happen to me in the next election, and I should not dare to engage a driver for the day to drive my car. If I did so, he would not be able to get down and record his vote because he would not be the driver permanently engaged in my employ. I still think that the words of the Amendment on the Paper are wider and cover the case better than the superior words that the Solicitor-General has suggested. I admit that the point of my Amendment is a small one, but I think it is foolish to try and say that only a driver permanently in the employ of a person shall be allowed to drive. Why should not a person he conveyed to the poll by anyone who ordinarily drives the car, and what is the objection to that person getting down and voting? We do not want to carry this inquisition, this effort to get some niggling party advantage for hon. Members opposite any further.
    Mr. SHAKESPEARE: The Amendment of the hon. Member for Westmorland (Mr. O. Stanley) shows how ridiculous this whole Clause is, because several suggestions occur to one. Suppose, for instance, that the hon. Member put down his chauffeur 100 yards from the polling booth, and he then walked. The only way of preventing the hon. Member from being unfrocked or unseated would be for the chauffeur to marry into the family in order that he might come under the provisions of Clause 1. I heard of a case the other day of a girl marrying her chauffeur, but it is surely too much to ask our female relations that in order to save ourselves they shall be asked to marry the chauffeur. It really shows the absurdity of the whole business. However, I congratulate the learned Solicitor-General on trying to square the hon. Member.
    Mr. O. STANLEY: The learned Solicitor-General has annealed to me to withdraw my Amendment in view of what he has said, and I realise that he has genuinely tried to meet the point I have put. But I am not quite certain that the words he proposes do, in fact, cover the case. The case which has been suggested
    1064
    might easily occur. Your chauffeur might go sick, and a day or two before the election you might have to employ a man who is not in your regular employment, and who, therefore, would come outside the scope of the Amendment of the Solicitor-General. I think, however, there is a more likely case that might happen. I understand that, as the law stands at present, a candidate can hire a car for the purpose of going round the polling booths. In those circumstances, it is very likely that the man who drives a car which the candidate hires for the day is a voter. He obviously is not in the regular employment of the candidate; and, if he chooses to get out and vote at the polling booth ot which he is entitled to vote, it would appear that under the Clause the candidate, if he became the Member, would be unseated. I realise that the Solicitor-General intends to meet my point, but I do not think the actual words that he has read out will do so. But I am content to ask leave to withdraw my Amendment at the moment, it being perfectly understood that on Report stage I shall be at liberty to criticise the Amendment of the Solicitor-General if I feel that it does not cover the point that I have raised.
    Major G. DAVIES: On a point of Order. I understand that the substitute words suggested by the Solicitor-General cover only the question of the owner, but there is also the question of the family. Do I understand that that point will be considered now or on a later Amendment, because it is of some importance?
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: That is hardly a point of Order, but I must say that I am placed in a very difficult position. We have really been discussing the words of an Amendment which is to be moved, not in Committee, but on Report.
    Major DAVIES: Exactly.
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I do not quite know what to permit or not to permit in those circumstances, but I understand that the hon. Member for Westmorland (Mr. O. Stanley) wishes to withdraw his Amendment.
    Major ELLIOT: On a point of Order. What happens to the next Amendment which deals with the point of the family?
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: If this Amendment be withdrawn, I shall call

    1065
    upon the hon. Member to move that Amendment. It rests with him whether he wishes to move it.
    Major ELLIOT: And the question of the family can then be debated?
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: Yes.
    Sir T. INSKIP: Is there any reason why we should not have this comparatively simple Amendment put into the Bill now? It can be done if you, Mr. Dunnico, will accept a manuscript Amendment from the Government.
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I am quite willing to accept the Amendment now, but I ought to have it in front of me.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Short): I beg to move, in page 2, line 42, to leave out from the word "or" to the end of the Sub-section, and to insert instead thereof the words
    "a person permanently or temporarily resident with him, or a driver in his regular employment."
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: If the hon. Gentleman will hand me his copy of the Amendment, I will put the questions to the Committee.
    Major ELLIOT: It has been said that, the legislation of the Government reaches its highest point when it is funny without being vulgar. In this Committee it has been reached by the learned Solicitor-General in the Amendment that he has recently put forward. I take it that it is an Amendment for the purpose of promoting house parties in the mansions of the great on the eve of the poll. As a move towards "a brighter England" it might well be commended, but as a contribution towards the serious business of this Committee, it can only be treated with the utmost contempt. The learned Solicitor-General seems to have left the House, for what reason I do not know, unless he is so staggered by the contribution he proposes to make to the statutes of the country that he has gone to fortify himself with a drink before coming back to discuss the matter. The astonishing definition which he gave of a person "temporarily resident with him," amazes me. He said that anybody who
    1066
    has stayed with him for the night would thereby become eligible to be driven. One can conceive that the humble cottages of the poor will doubtless become greatly crowded. The words of this Amendment will do much to fill the humbler mansions with persons whom the owner desires to be driven to the poll the next morning, and according to the definition of the Solicitor-General, they have slept there all night, or part of the night, or called there the night before, they can be driven to the poll in the owner's car in safety. But will the learned Attorney-General tell us if the courts will maintain that definition of residence? This is a new definition of residence which it is now proposed shall be spatchcocked into the law of the land? Will a night's lodging enable a person to be qualified? [HON. MEMBERS: "The Census."] The census does not raise the grave question of gerrymandering the electorate of this country, which is the purpose for which this legislation is being proposed. This is a manuscript Amendment, and it was said by Lord Randolph Churchill on a famous occasion:
    "We have come to a pretty pass in the House of Commons when Amendments are handed about on dirty bits of paper."
    The Chair is in the difficulty of being called on to decide on an Amendment which the Government propose to move into the law of the land after five weeks' incubation. I do not blame them, but I would point out that, with the command of the machinery available, the Government might at least have provided three additional copies—ane for both sections of the Opposition, which makes two; one for you, Mr. Dunnico, which makes three; and one for the Members of the Government, in case they have forgotten the words, which makes four. Is it impossible for the Government to supply four copies of an Amendment, of this importance to the House of Commons in considering the question of the new electorate and the conditions under which that electorate is to go to the poll?
    Surely, we must make it quite clear that we are in no way bound to accept the principle of the Amendment and that we are in no way limited from criticising the principle of the Amendment when we finally see it in print in the

    1067
    Bill on Report. At present we are bound to do our best to try and elucidate from the Government the meaning of this manuscript Amendment which has now been taken away from us for the purposes of being read by you, Mr. Dunnico. The Amendment is on a piece of paper, torn off "roneo-ed" script, and the words previous to it have been carefully obliterated. No doubt they contained other gems of wisdom which the Government did not wish incorporated in the law of the land. [Interruption.] I can well imagine that there is uneasiness on the part of some hon. Members opposite. [Interruption.] Hon. Members opposite are gradually realising into what a quagmire of nonsense the Government are getting. The Socialist party when hit always squeals, and this evening is no exception to that rule. When anybody is making a speech against them, they do their best to howl him down. We get that in our constituencies, and this attempt is merely one step further in that process.
    The fact remains that, after five weeks, the Government have been totally unable to supply more than one copy of this Amendment. The Deputy-Chairman himself has had to beg for the only copy to be handed to him in order that he may read it to the Committee, and hon. Members have to come to a decision on this important point without having a copy and the words of the Amendment before them and my hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland (Mr. O. Stanley) and other hon. Members are actually asked to withdraw their Amendments in view of this ridiculously sketchy proposal which the Government have brought forward. No wonder hon. Members opposite howl because a more lamentable exhibition has rarely been seen in the House of Commons.
    Mr. CLYNES: The hon. and gallant Member will not expect me to say more about the speech he has just delivered than that I have been highly entertained by it. I rise for the purpose of asking the Leaders of the Opposition to make their choice. The speech of the hon. and gallant Member is illustrative of how impossible it is for the Government to satisfy hon. Members opposite even when they are doing what they themselves suggest and propose. The Amendment is an
    1068
    agreed Amendment, in its terms and in its substance. The Solicitor-General said that the Government would make the matter right on Report. Thereupon the hon. and learned Member for Fareham (Sir T. Inskip) asked whether there was any objection to doing it now. We said no, we were quite willing to do it now, but it appears that in meeting the wishes of hon. Members opposite we are still wrong. I merely ask hon. and right hon. Members opposite to choose whether we are to discuss the matter now or on Report stage.
    Sir T. INSKIP: There is no reason for the Home Secretary to attempt to read us a lecture. It is a little difficult to introduce an atmosphere of reality into a Clause so fantastic as this. An Amendment was moved from these benches. It has been en the Paper for some five or six weeks, and the Government, through the Solicitor-General, suggested that they were prepared on Report to put in some words which it was difficult for hon. Members to follow although the Solicitor-General repeated them. It seemed to some of us on this side that the best course was to give an opportunity to the Committee to consider the words now and get them into print, as the Government have not thought fit to put them on the Order Paper, and with that object in view I suggested that the Amendment should be incorporated in the Bill at this stage so that we might be able to pin the Government down to something which can be considered on Report. That was not unreasonable. [Interruption.] If hon. Members opposite could for a moment divest themselves of a little of the prejudices they feel against any suggestions from this side of the Committee they would realise and agree that it was desirable in the interests of legislation that the Amendment suggested by the Solicitor-General, which contained more than one or two words, should be put into print so that the House might be able to consider it.
    My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Kelvingrove (Major Elliot) has made it plain, however, that the Amendment must be subject to review by the Opposition, and they have a perfect right to reconsider the Amendment on Report stage. The Home Secretary objects to the tone and temper of the speech of my hon. and gallant Friend. I

    1069
    can quite appreciate the fact that the Home Secretary objects to speeches which show him and his colleagues in an unfavourable light, but what does debate come to if we cannot make our own speeches without the Home Secretary lecturing us? In dealing with the ludicrous business of this Clause both sides should at any rate try to do their duty. If the Home Secretary and hon. Members opposite will do their duty we will do ours and try to make intelligible what the Government have not even made intelligible.
    Mr. MORRIS: The Home Secretary says that this is an agreed Amendment, and on the face of it it does look something like the Amendment on the Order Paper. If that is so I invite the right hon. Gentleman to reconsider it; and, indeed, the whole Clause. The speech of the hon. and gallant Member for Kelvingrove (Major Elliot) was quite legitimate criticism, and I think the Home Secretary would be well advised to reject the Amendment and the Clause too. It is really an undemocratic Clause and the Amendment makes a bad Clause worse. What is its effect? Under the Clause yon have a large number of registered cars Sub-section (1) excludes those registered cars and gives power to certain privileged people to use their own cars. The Clause, in its original form, limited that exception to the owner of the car and his family, but the Amendment extends that limitation and says:
    "a person permanently or temporarily resident"
    There comes the point made by the hon. and gallant Member for Kelvingrove. You may have a large house party on the eve of the poll and the whole lot can be driven to the poll. You are extending a privileged position. Does the Home Secretary agree? If he does, is he going to accept the Amendment? It is undoubtedly an increase of a privileged position and I invite the Government to give more careful consideration to this matter. I invite the right hon. Gentleman before the Report stage to reject it, and the whole Clause.
    Mr. BRACKEN: I join my hon. Friends in protesting against the language used by the Home Secretary in dealing with the perfectly reasonable remarks of the hon. and gallant Member for Kelvingrove
    1070
    (Major Elliot), and I hope, moreover, that in doing so I shall have the support of the back benchers on the other side of the Committee. It must be clear to everyone that this is a very important Bill. An hon. Member comes down to the Committee and makes a criticism of the Amendment, whereupon the Home Secretary, like petty Prussian princeling, reads him a rebuke and says that this is an agreed Amendment. We know nothing about that. We are not so privileged as you, Mr. Dunnico; we have not had a glance at the paper on which the Amendment is written, and we feel that there is a great deal to be said for the point made by my hon. and gallant Friend. I am not a friend of the rich like the Home Secretary, but men who own large country houses, like Lord FitzWilliam or the Duke of Marlborough, could fill their mansions with large numbers of electors and run them to the poll in omnibuses or other vehicles whilst a poverty-stricken person like myself, who lives in a cottage, must trust to Providence to get to the poll. I think hon. Members opposite, who claim to have more regard for the cottage than for the ducal palace, will see the strength of that point. As a private Member I think this is perfectly scandalous procedure. The hon. and learned Member for Fareham (Sir T. Inskip) whose agreeable character has endeared him to hon. Members, has said that this Amendment, which is written on a piece of tissue paper, was produced at the last moment by the Home Secretary. I ask hon. Members opposite, how are we going to transact business in this way?
    I am not a person who would be called hard of hearing but there must be many people behind the Labour benches who have not heard a word of this Amendment which we are asked to accept now. The Attorney-General, with his great capacity for speech, has not condescended to explain it and here we have to sit ignorant and uninstructed. [Interruption.] I am glad hon. Members opposite so cordially agree with me. Private Members like myself have to depend upon you, Mr. Dunnico, for protection, and as a mere private Member I sympathise with you in the scandalous way in which you have been treated by the Government. They have had five weeks' interval already and at the end of that time they hand you this grubby piece of paper—
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I have enough responsibility without being made a party to this Debate. I must point out that, while it may be inconvenient, it is not out of order to hand in a manuscript Amendment, and it is often done in Committee.
    Mr. BRACKEN: Of course I accept your Ruling absolutely. I was not attempting to interpret the Rules of the Chair, but was offering the Chair the humble and respectful sympathy of a back bench Member.
    Major G. DAVIES: I am the person largely responsible for this Debate, for when I rose on a point of Order to ask the guidance of the Chair if my hon. and gallant Friend who moved the original Amendment about the owners of cars and the drivers of cars had merely withdrawn it, we should have been left without the suggestion of an alternative and without having the opportunity of seeing it ultimately in black and white, though so far we are denied that privilege. A good deal has been made of the question of the driver of the car, the owner of the car and so forth. But there is another point which is entailed by the words now moved from the Government Front Bench. Some people, for instance, may have a lodge occupied by a gardener. Is that gardener to be regarded as "resident" with the person concerned? Or the person may have household assistants living outside, in a garage behind the house. I am not trying to make party capital. I should appreciate some information from the learned Attorney-General as to what in his opinion the expression "resident with him" will mean. Does it mean that if anyone has a footman living in the house he can take that footman to the poll, but that if the footman is living in a room over the garage he cannot be taken to the poll?
    It is true that these questions do not arise except in a limited number of cases, but we are legislating for the electors as a whole. Indeed at the moment we are legislating for the fortunate owners of motor cars, which, though not yet universal, soon will be, because the motor bicycle is included, and the girl on the pillion is going to be ruled out on polling day. If these words are not given a rather wide interpretation the Amendment will cause absurd hardship. For
    1072
    example, you may have working for you people who are living close by, in cottages. Their voting district may be two or three miles away. They are the whole day at work in the garden or doing something of that sort, and unless they are to be regarded as pant of your establishment they will be obliged at the end of a day's work to tramp two or three miles to the poll and back again.
    The ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir William Jowitt): I will take the Committee into my secrets at once by saying that I do not pretend that I have been immersed in the details of this Bill. The Solicitor-General is absent for a short time, and I will do my best to answer the questions, but I must make it plain that I am answering on the spur of the moment, and that I cannot pretend that I have given consideration to the matter before or looked up any authorities. First, in answer to the hon. and gallant Member for Kelvingrove (Major Elliot), if anyone is staying at a house the night before the poll he would be at least temporarily resident. The two adverbs used here are "permanently or temporarily." Nothing in this world is permanent, and the word here is used only relatively. But I think that the two adverbs make it plain that a night's residence at the house with the owner of the car before the polling day constitutes residence within the meaning of this Amendment. An hon. Member points out that in the case of the Census it is necessary to enter the names of those living in the house, but there the test of residence is different.
    Sir T. INSKIP: There they interpret "residence" on the form, and point out that anyone sleeping in the house on the previous night is intended.
    The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I should have thought that would be so. An hon. Member asked a question as to what constitutes residence. I should have thought, again speaking off-hand, that the test is whether the person has an "occupation" of his own. Suppose you have a lodge-keeper living in his lodge. That lodge, I think, is in the occupation of the park-keeper, and I should not think that he could be said to be resident in any sense with the person who owns the park. If you have a footman living in the house he has no "occupation" of his own at all,

    1073
    but I think would be resident with the owner of the house. Someone mentioned the footman living over the garage. There, again, I conclude that he has no "occupation" of his own at all, and that he is resident with the owner of the house. I am using the word "occupation" in the sense of occupation of a residence. A footman living above a garage or in a house would be resident, but someone living in a lodge—it may be two or three miles away—would not be resident. That is the test I would apply, but I will look into the matter between now and Report, and if there is any further light to be thrown upon it I will inform the House then.
    Mr. ATKINSON: There is the question of the hire of a car. I supose that the great bulk of us hire a car for the day of the election, and a great many of us have a vote in our own constituencies. Apparently that car cannot take me to the poll. I suggest that after the word "owner" there should be inserted the words "or hirer." Then there are the people who buy cars on hire purchase. They are not owners but hirers. They ought to be able to use their cars to go to the poll. Such people may have had their cars on hire purchase for several months, but presumably they would not be allowed to use the cars in going to the poll.
    Mr. FRANK OWEN: I appreciate the Attorney-General's difficulty in defending a Bill which he has not studied, and we should be sorry to set him a new puzzle while the Solicitor-General has so inconveniently disappeared. Under this Bill what would happen in the case of the residents in a hotel? Suppose that you had residents more or less permanent in a great hotel. There may be several hundred. Would the owner or manager of that hotel be permitted to take those residents to the poll?
    The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I should have thought not.
    Lieut.-Colonel WATTS-MORGAN: They would not be on the register.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Major ELLIOT: I beg to move, in page 3, line 42, at the end, to insert the words:
    "Provided that nothing contained in this section shall, subject to the provisions of
    1074
    the Corrupt and Illegal Practices Prevention Act, 1883, prohibit any person from conveying to the poll any elector who by reason of age, bodily infirmity, or any other incapacity would be unlikely to vote unless conveyed to the poll."
    This Amendment raises the question of whether or not it is the intention of the Government to prohibit persons, who, by reason of age, bodily infirmity or other incapacity would be unlikely to vote unless conveyed to the polls, being so conveyed. It will be agreed that the small number of persons who are covered by this Sub-section ought to have every consideration possible and it is not an unreasonable request that a person who is unable to vote or unlikely to vote, unless conveyed to the poll, in the circumstances indicated in the Amendment, should have the facilities which a motor transport and other transport afford. I do not know if the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department will say that the point is covered by Sub-section (2) which deals with the pool of cars, but I ask him to consider whether it is desirable to limit the facilities offered to infirm persons as rigorously as will necessarily be the case, if only the provisions of Sub-section (2) are to apply.
    After all, any person who conveys a voter to the poll unnecessarily under this proviso is subject to the extremely severe penalties imposed by the Corrupt Practices Act and I should have thought that those penalties would be quite sufficient to ensure that the Sub-section would only be used in a bona fide manner. It will require almost a triumph of organisation if a census of the infirm persons in a huge modern constituency has to be made and if the names have to be sorted out by the returning officer after consultation with the election agents and the infirm persons then conveyed to the poll by means of this novel scheme of a pool of cars under the direction of some officials not connected with any of the parties concerned in the election. We all know how difficult it is to arrange for cars for those persons who are found in the course of an election to be sick or infirm or liable not to vote unless conveyed to the poll. It is not an easy matter and it is not quickly done. We know that on polling day itself, the election rooms are frequently rung up by persons to say that so-and-so is ill, or that so-and-so cannot possibly get down to the poll, or that some old

    1075
    lady is unable to come out to vote because the weather has broken.
    We all have had examples of such incidents in our own experience and it is these emergency cases arising on polling day which will be ruled out by the very stringent provisions of this Clause unless some step is taken to deal with it. The proviso which we propose may not be ideal but it is an attempt to deal with the situation. It leaves the person who conveys any voter not covered by the Sub-section, subject to the extremely severe penalties of the electoral law and it allows the person who is not able, otherwise, to get to the poll to be conveyed there without going through the elaborate formalities prescribed in Subsection (2). It is almost a matter of agreement that the provisions of the Sub-section are so elaborate that they will not work and that it will be necessary to modify them. Here is the first attempt at modification. As I said it may not be ideal but I have confidence that the Government will see the justice of the point and will do their utmost to meet it in some way or other. [HON. MEMBERS: "Quite right!"] Apparently I have been more successful with the Government on this occasion than I was a few moments ago, and, having succeeded in the eliciting of that expression of approval from hon. Members opposite, I leave it at that. I only say that a case of real hardship might arise in this connection. Our Amendment attempts to meet that case of real hardship and is also a first attempt to deal with a provision which I think we all agree will have to be considerably modified before it is placed on the Statute Book.
    Mr. G. OLIVER: I heard the hon. and gallant Member for Kelvingrove (Major Elliot) on the last Amendment denounce the Government in all the moods and tenses, for the nature of the Amendment which they had accepted—
    Major ELLIOT: No, which they had moved.
    Mr. OLIVER: It was an agreed Amendment.
    Major ELLIOT: Oh, no!
    Mr. OLIVER: Yes it was, if we are to accept the statement of the Solicitor-General.
    Major ELLIOT: In case there should be any charge of bad faith in connection with this matter—which is a really serious thing in the House of Commons—let me make it clear that there was no question of those words having been agreed upon, nor could there have been any question of those words having been agreed upon. I think the Minister's contention was that the Government were meeting the principle of the matter but it was not suggested for a moment that those words had been agreed to by or had even been submitted to hon. Members on this side.
    Mr. HOLFORD KNIGHT: It was certainly understood on these benches.
    Major ELLIOT: I leave it to the Minister.
    Mr. SHORT: It was an attempt on the part of the Government to meet the views which had been expressed and the views contained in Amendments. We put forward the words on that understanding. I certainly understood that the Opposition were not bound to the exact words and indeed the Attorney-General has indicated that if, between now and the Report stage, further elucidation should be found necessary, he will be prepared to consider the matter.
    Mr. KNIGHT: It was understood that it was on that basis that those words were agreed to.
    Mr. MORRIS: I think it will be found that the phrase used by the hon. Member for Ilkeston (Mr. G. Oliver) was quite accurate. It will be within the recollection of the House that what the Home Secretary said was that the Amendment was an agreed Amendment.
    Mr. G. OLIVER: The hon. and gallant Member used most violent language against the Clause, but when we read the Amendment down in his name and heard his exposition of it, a more amazing thing never emanated from any Member of Parliament. I put it no higher than that. We have heard condemnations of the appointment of officials, but who, in Heaven's name, is going to determine at what age an elector may be conveyed to the poll? Are we going to start at 50, 55, 60, 65, 80, 90, or 100? What age has the hon. and gallant Member opposite in his mind

    1077
    when he puts forward this proposal? As to infirmity, who is to determine that point? Must we have a board of doctors to declare beforehand that this gentle man or that lady is infirm? and is it confined to physical infirmity, or does it extend to mental infirmity? These are very relevant points—certainly as relevant as anything which has yet come from the other side during this Debate. If there is any case at all for the use of motor cars for the purpose of taking people to the poll, surely it is for the people who, through various causes, cannot get there without some such means. The determination of that question ought to be in the hands of the returning officer, and not of "any person" as set forth in the Amendment. The hon. and gallant Member was very scathing in some of his comments, but I hope that in the next Amendment that he moves, he will be a little clearer in his definitions and in his attempts to establish the purpose which he has in mind.
    Lieut. - Colonel FREMANTLE: The great point is that we want to establish the principle contained in this Amendment. It is likely that the Government may suggest a further limitation of this Clause, but the point is that, in our opinion, there will be very few persons owing private motor cars who will place them at the disposal of the returning officers under Sub-section (2) of this Clause, and therefore the alternative is not a true one. To my mind, the probability is that there will be very few motor cars of which the returning officer will have control, and if, as is frequently the case, in any particular constituency there may be one or more institutions, containing between them hundreds of electors who are bodily infirm, and unable to go to the poll on foot, the returning officer may not have sufficient motor cars to deal with them.
    There are many electors who would be quite prepared, out of their warmth of heart, to lend motor cars for the purpose of taking individual infirm persons whom they know to the poll, or who can themselves take them, but who will not give their cars to the pool under the returning officer, and we believe that we ought to be allowed, on our own initiative, to use cars under those circumstances for those who are sick or infirm. If that is not
    1078
    allowed, the result will be that the Government will be branded in those constituencies will having deprived the sick, the aged, and the infirm of their vote, because that will be the effect of the Clause without this Amendment. I therefore beg the Government to consider the substance of the Amendment on behalf of the sick and the infirm.
    Mr. KNIGHT: I believe it is the general desire in all parts of the Committee that provision should be made for the sick and infirm. It may be that the Government contemplate under Sub-section (2) that the returning officer may make provision for these persons under the regulations which he is authorised to make, but the case just stated by the hon. and gallant Member for St. Albans (Lieut.-Colonel Fremantle) may well arise, where the number of cars which the returning officer can allocate will not suffice, and we should like, from these benches, to hear from the Government how they propose to secure the conveyance of sick and infirm persons to the poll. I am not much concerned about the difficulties mentioned by one hon. Member who analysed the description in the Amendment of age, infirmity, and so on. It is a description that is well known in election Statutes and is no doubt lifted from the old Statutes. It is not a controversial matter at all, but we want to make quite sure that provision is made for the conveyance of sick and infirm persons, and, if it is the intention of the Government so to provide under Sub-section (2) and that provision does not suffice, what other provision the Government have in mind.
    Sir C. OMAN: I wish to support the Amendment from personal experience, and from my memory of a thing that has always struck me as most sympathetic, and that has been going on in the village with which I am best acquainted. The local small shopkeeper has a little lorry, and next door to him is a very aged lady who cannot walk at all. I have seen him repeatedly loading her on to the lorry and taking her down to the poll—a piece of neighbourly kindness which has always gone to my heart. Unless this Amendment is accepted, such a thing becomes impossible. The owner of the little lorry must tell the old lady that though he has taken her down to the poll for the last four or five elections, it is no longer

    1079
    possible, because the Government, always the enemy of the aged, the infirm, and the poor, prevent her from being taken to the poll by her old friend and neighbour who lives next door.
    Mr. CLYNES: My hon. and learned Friend the Member for South Nottingham (Mr. Knight) has put a point to which I shall be glad to give an answer. The hon. and gallant Member for Kelvingrove (Major Elliot), who moved the Amendment, is not now in his place. Had he been here, I should have said that, from my quite recent experience, I have concluded that it is inadvisable to settle a matter like this by inserting anything on the Committee stage of the Bill. But I quite admit that there is something in the idea of this Amendment, and that it may well be that there is in every Parliamentary constituency a group of persons, quite unlike the general body of electors, in such a condition of infirmity as to be physically disabled from going to the poll like the rest of the electors and in such a condition as not to feel quite safe going with groups of other people, and who would therefore desire to be conveyed in what I would term the ordinary private way by friends of their own who may have a motor car at their disposal. I can assure the Mover of the Amendment that I have some sympathy with his object, and that we will consider whether, between now and the Report stage, some words might be proposed to cover what he has in mind.
    Sir S. HOARE: I want to draw the attention of the Committee to one or two points that have emerged from this Debate. First, there is the fact that under the Bill as it is drawn, the aged and infirm will find it more difficult, to vote than they have in the past. That affects my constituency very much. In Chelsea there is the Royal Hospital, with many hundreds of old men who have served their country well, and most of them have to be conveyed to the poll if they are to vote at all. As the Bill 'stands, these men will be debarred from voting. All that the Home Secretary said to us is that he will try to think of something new between now and the Report stage. My only comment is that I regret that he has not thought of something new since the
    1080
    last discussion on the Bill. It is five weeks since the last Debates, and it has been quite obvious since that time that this Clause was totally unworkable and objectionable in its present form. Yet to-day we are brought to this Committee to waste our time in long discussions, and at the end are told that the Government may think of something new between now and the Report stage, when they might have thought of some of these things during the last five weeks. Under these circumstances, it is scarcely worth continuing a Debate of this kind at all. As far as I am concerned, I am prepared to vote upon this Amendment and to make it clear that I am not prepared to take any action which will make it more difficult for the aged and infirm to vote at elections.
    9.0 p.m.
    Mr. McSHANE: I do not quite understand the complaint of the right hon.
    Gentleman the Member for Chelsea (Sir S. Hoare), for I understand the function of a Committee is to try and mould a Bill into something that will be equitable and just in its final form. I hope, however, that the words that I seemed to hear from the Home Secretary are not a correct indication of what he proposes to do. We do not hear a great deal in the tete-a-tetes that regularly go on. What we understood from the Home Secretary was that private owners of cars might be allowed under circumstances like this to take old and infirm people to the polling booths. I hope that the Home Secretary will not agree to that. It would mean giving way all that we have already won on the first Sub-section of the Clause. The view of most democratic people has always been that, in order to prevent those who have an undue proportion of cars having an undue influence at elections, the returning officer should have left at his disposal, or have the power to obtain, such cars as were necessary for any such people who put in a claim to be taken to the poll. I see no difficulty in that at all. Sub-section (2) seems to suggest that, but it does not make it at all clear, and the simplest way would be for the Government to make Sub-section (2) a little more explicit in that respect. It speaks of those who wish to pool their cars, giving the use of them to the returning officer. Let us be frank. Those who have used

    1081
    cars in the past in order to get the advantage which comes from the possession of cars, will not be governed by such an altruistic spirit as to let the returning officer have cars in order to help political enemies; so that we may regard that provision as useless. We shall therefore have to come to the point where the returning officer must be given power to obtain cars in order that he may, in consultation with the agents, equitably distribute them among the political parties. I hope that we shall not hear again that private owners of cars are to be allowed the privilege of bringing up those who, by age, infirmity or otherwise, are unable to go to the poll.
    Mr. KINGSLEY GRIFFITH: The hon. Member for Walsall (Mr. McShane) cannot have fully followed the language of the Home Secretary when he spoke on the previous occasion, because the right hon. Gentleman gave us distinctly to understand that the principle of the Amendment which stands in the name of the hon. and gallant Member for Oxford, would be accepted. Unless the principle of that Amendment is eventually embodied in this Clause, I could not support the Clause at all. That principle would involve the leaving of cars in the hands of private individuals to use them in their discretion for aged and infirm persons. The hon. Member for Walsall, however, objects to the whole principle of private persons being entitled to fetch
    the sick and infirm to the poll. I can only support this Clause if, instead of there being this pool, which would never in fact come about, a registered minimum number of cars were left in the hands of each party, the cars to be employed as they desire. As the Government have indicated that they intend to accept this proposal, it is desirable that this matter should be cleared up. Either I have misunderstood the Home Secretary, or the hon. Member for Walsall has understood him worse.
    Sir C. OMAN: The hon. Member for Walsall (Mr. McShane) is proposing to put in the hands of the returning officer such a power as, except in time of war, has never been given to any British official, that is, the power to commandeer cars belonging to other people and to use them for certain purposes. That is absolute dictatorship, and quite contrary to the rules of British law. If the returning officer commandeers cars and any harm comes to them, surely he will personally be liable for any damage, which the officer will not at all like. It is absolutely contrary to all the rules of State to give a private official in time of peace power to commandeer the property of other persons.
    Question put, "That those words be there inserted."
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 142; Noes, 250.

    Division No. 220.]

    AYES.

    [9.5 p.m.

    Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

    Clydesdale, Marquess of

    Greene, W. P. Crawford

    Alexander, Sir Wm. (Glasgow, Cent'l)

    Cobb, Sir Cyril

    Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John

    Atholl, Duchess of

    Colfox, Major William Philip

    Gunston, Captain D. W.

    Atkinson, C.

    Cooper, A. Duff

    Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.

    Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley (Bewdley)

    Courtauld, Major J. S.

    Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)

    Balfour, George (Hampstead)

    Cowan, D. M.

    Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)

    Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.

    Cranborne, Viscount

    Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

    Berry, Sir George

    Crookshank, Cant. H. C.

    Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.

    Betterton, Sir Henry B.

    Croom-Johnson, R. P

    Herbert, Sir Dennis (Hertford)

    Bird, Ernest Roy

    Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West)

    Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S J. G.

    Bourne, Captain Robert Croft

    Cunliffe-Lister. Rt. Hon. Sir Philip

    Hore-Belisha, Leslie

    Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart

    Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil

    Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.

    Bowyer, Captain Sir George E. W.

    Dawson, Sir Philip

    Hurd, Percy A.

    Boyce, Leslie

    Despencer-Robertson, Major J. A. F.

    Hurst, Sir Gerald B.

    Bracken, B.

    Dixey, A. C.

    Inskip, Sir Thomas

    Brass, Captain Sir William

    Edmondson, Major A. J.

    Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)

    Briscoe, Richard George

    Elliot, Major Walter E.

    Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

    Brown, Ernest (Leith)

    England, Colonel A.

    Kedward, R. M. (Kent, Ashford)

    Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y)

    Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.

    Kindersley, Major G. M.

    Buchan, John

    Falle, Sir Bertram G.

    Knox, Sir Alfred

    Burton, Colonel H. W.

    Fielden, E. B.

    Lamb, Sir J. Q.

    Butler, R. A.

    Fison, F. G. Clavering

    Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.

    Campbell, E. T.

    Ford, Sir P. J.

    Law, Sir Alfred (Derby, High Peak)

    Carver, Major W. H.

    Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.

    Leigh, Sir John (Clapham)

    Castle Stewart Earl of

    Galbraith, J. F. W.

    Leighton, Major B. E. P.

    Cautley, Sir Henry S.

    Ganzoni, Sir John

    Lewis, Oswald (Colchester)

    Cazalet, Captain Victor A.

    Glyn, Major R. G. C

    Llewellin, Major J. J.

    Chapman, Sir S.

    Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)

    Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hon. Godfrey

    Christie, J. A.

    Granville, E.

    Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (Handsw'th)

    McConnell, Sir Joseph

    Remer, John R.

    Train, J.

    Macdonald, Sir M. (Inverness)

    Reynolds, Col. Sir James

    Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement

    Maitland, A. (Kent, Faveraham)

    Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall)

    Turton, Robert Hugh

    Makins, Brigadier-General E.

    Ross, Ronald D.

    Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon

    Marjoribanks, Edward

    Ruggles-Brise, Colonel E.

    Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. Lambert

    Meller, R. J.

    Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

    Warrender Sir Victor

    Merriman, Sir F. Boyd

    Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

    Waterhouse, Captain Charles

    Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. Sir B.

    Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)

    Wayland, Sir William A.

    Morris, Rhys Hopkins

    Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart

    Wells, Sydney R.

    Morrison, W. S. (Glos., Cirencester)

    Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.

    Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)

    Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive

    Shepperson, Sir Ernest Whittome

    Wilson, G. H. A. (Cambridge U.)

    Muirhead, A. J.

    Smith, R.W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)

    Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George

    Nelson, Sir Frank

    Smithers, Waldron

    Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl

    Nicholson, O. (Westminster)

    Somerset, Thomas

    Withers, Sir John James

    O'Connor, T. J.

    Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)

    Womersley, W. J.

    Oman, Sir Charles William C.

    Stanley, Lord (Fylde)

    Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William

    Stanley, Hon. O. (Westmorland)

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

    Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)

    Thomas, Major L. B. (King's Norton)

    Sir George Penny and Captain

    Ramsbotham, H.

    Thomson, Sir F.

    Wallace.

    Rawson, Sir Cooper

    Todd, Capt. A. J.

    NOES.

    Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)

    Foot, Isaac

    Lee, Jennie (Lanark, Northern)

    Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)

    Freeman, Peter

    Lees, J.

    Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher

    Gardner, B. W. (West Ham. Upton)

    Lewis, T. (Southampton)

    Aitchison, Rt. Hon. Craigle M.

    George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd (Car'vn)

    Lindley, Fred W.

    Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (Hillsbro')

    George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)

    Lloyd, C. Ellis

    Alpass, J. H.

    George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesea)

    Logan, David Gilbert

    Ammon, Charles George

    Gibbins, Joseph

    Longbottom, A. W.

    Angell, Sir Norman

    Gill, T. H.

    Longden, F.

    Arnott, John

    Gillett, George M.

    Lovat-Fraser, J. A.

    Aske, Sir Robert

    Glassey, A. E.

    Lunn, William

    Attlee, Clement Richard

    Gossling, A. G.

    Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)

    Ayles, Walter

    Gould, F.

    MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham)

    Baker, John (Wolverhampton, Bilston)

    Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)

    MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)

    Barnes, Alfred John

    Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)

    McElwee, A.

    Barr, James

    Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Colne)

    McEntee, V. L.

    Batey, Joseph

    Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)

    McKinlay, A.

    Beckett, John (Camberwell, Peckham)

    Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro' W.)

    MacLaren, Andrew

    Benn, Rt. Hon. Wedgwood

    Groves, Thomas E.

    Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)

    Bennett, Sir E. N. (Cardiff, Central)

    Grundy, Thomas W.

    McShane, John James

    Bennett, William (Battersea, South)

    Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

    Malone, C, L'Estrange (N'thampton)

    Benson, G.

    Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)

    Manning, E. L.

    Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)

    Hamilton, Mary Agnes (Blackburn)

    Mansfield, W.

    Birkett, W. Norman

    Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Zetland)

    March, S.

    Bondfield, Rt. Hon. Margaret

    Harbord, A.

    Marcus, M.

    Bowen, J. W.

    Hardie, George D.

    Marley, J.

    Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.

    Harris, Percy A.

    Marshall, Fred

    Broad, Francis Alfred

    Hastings, Dr. Somerville

    Mathers, George

    Brockway, A. Fenner

    Haycock, A. W.

    Matters, L. W.

    Bromfield, William

    Hayday, Arthur

    Messer, Fred

    Bromley, J.

    Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)

    Middleton, G.

    Brooke, W.

    Henderson, Arthur, Junr. (Cardiff, S.)

    Milner, Major J.

    Brothers, M.

    Henderson, Thomas (Glasgow)

    Morgan, Dr. R. B.

    Brown, C. W. E. (Notts, Mansfield)

    Henderson, W. W. (Middx., Enfield)

    Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)

    Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (South Ayrshire)

    Herriotts, J.

    Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Hackney, S.)

    Buchanan, G.

    Hicks, Ernest George

    Morrison, Robert C. (Tottenham, N.)

    Burgess, F. G.

    Hirst, G. H. (York W. R. Wentworth)

    Mort, D. L.

    Buxton. C. R. (Yorks. W. R. Elland)

    Hoffman, P. C.

    Muff, G.

    Caine, Hall-, Derwent

    Hollins, A.

    Muggeridge, H. T.

    Cameron, A. G.

    Hopkin, Daniel

    Murnin, Hugh

    Cape, Thomas

    Horrabin, J. F.

    Naylor, T. E.

    Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S.W.)

    Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield)

    Noel Baker, P. J.

    Chater, Daniel

    Isaacs, George

    Noel-Buxton, Baroness (Norfolk, N.)

    Church, Major A. G.

    Jenkins, Sir William

    Oliver, George Harold (Ilkeston)

    Clarke, J. S.

    John, William (Rhondda, West)

    Oliver, P. M. (Man., Blackley)

    Cluse, W. S.

    Johnston, Rt. Hon. Thomas

    Owen, Major G. (Carnarvon)

    Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.

    Jones. Rt. Hon Lelf (Camborne)

    Palin, John Henry

    Cocks, Frederick Seymour

    Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

    Paling, Wilfrid

    Cove, William G.

    Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W.

    Palmer, E. T.

    Cripps, Sir Stafford

    Jowitt, Sir W. A. (Preston)

    Perry, S. F.

    Daggar, George

    Kennedy, Rt. Hon. Thomas

    Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.

    Dallas, George

    Kinley, J.

    Phillips, Dr. Marion

    Dalton, Hugh

    Knight, Holford

    Picton-Turbervill, Edith

    Davies, D. L. (Pontypridd)

    Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George

    Pole, Major D. G.

    Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

    Lathan, G.

    Potts, John S.

    Denman, Hon. R. D.

    Law, Albert (Bolton)

    Price, M. P.

    Dudgeon, Major C. R.

    Law, A. (Rossendale)

    Pybus, Percy John

    Dukes, C.

    Lawrence, Susan

    Quibell, D. J. K.

    Duncan, Charles

    Lawson, John James

    Ramsay, T. B. Wilton

    Ede, James Chuter

    Lawther, W. (Barnard Castle)

    Raynes, W. R.

    Edmunds, J. E.

    Leach, W.

    Richards, R.

    Edwards, E. (Morpeth)

    Lee, Frank (Derby, N.E.)

    Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

    1084

    1085

    Riley, Ben (Dewsbury)

    Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)

    Walker, J.

    Romeril, H. G.

    Smith, Rennie (Penistone)

    Wallace, H. W.

    Rosbotham, D. S. T.

    Smith, Tom (Pontefract)

    Watkins, F. C.

    Rowson, Guy

    Snowden, Thomas (Accrington)

    Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)

    Russell, Richard John (Eddisbury)

    Sorensen, R.

    Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)

    Salter, Dr. Alfred

    Stamford, Thomas W.

    Wellock, Wilfred

    Samuel, H. Walter (Swansea, West)

    Stephen, Campbell

    Welsh, James (Paisley)

    Sanders, W. S.

    Strauss, G. R.

    Welsh, James C. (Coatbridge)

    Sandham, E.

    Sullivan, J.

    West, F. R.

    Sawyer, G. F.

    Sutton, J. E.

    Westwood, Joseph

    Scrymgeour, E.

    Taylor R. A. (Lincoln)

    White, H. G.

    Shepherd, Arthur Lewis

    Taylor, W. B. (Norfolk, S.W.)

    Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood)

    Sherwood, G. H.

    Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby)

    Wilkinson, Ellen C.

    Shield, George William

    Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)

    Williams, David (Swansea, East)

    Shiels, Dr. Drummond

    Thurtle, Ernest

    Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)

    Shillaker, J. F.

    Tinker, John Joseph

    Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)

    Shinwell, E.

    Toole, Joseph

    Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)

    Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)

    Tout, W. J.

    Wilson, J. (Oldham)

    Simmons, C. J.

    Townend, A. E.

    Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)

    Sinclair, Sir A. (Caithness)

    Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

    Winterton, G. E. (Leicester, Loughb'gh)

    Sinkinton, George

    Vaughan, David

    Wise, E. F.

    Sitch, Charles H.

    Viant, S. P.

    Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)

    Walkden, A. G.

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

    Mr. Hayes and Mr. Charleton.

    Major G. DAVIES: I beg to move, in page 4, line 1, to leave out Sub-section (2).
    In view of the way in which this Bill has been drafted, it has been impossible to debate the various Amendments on Sub-section (1) without alluding to some extent to this Sub-section, because the two overlap. I have no wish to repeat at undue length any of the criticisms that have been applied to this Sub-section during the course of the Debate. I move this Amendment for two reasons, and the first is that it will hopelessly fail to achieve its objective. The objective put forward by various hon. Members, including one or two from the other side, for reasons into which it is unnecessary to go, is that it will lead to unfairness and discrimination on polling day, because the party represented on these benches, with possibly a few from the party below the Gangway, have control of a larger number of motor cars to carry their supporters to the poll. As my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Louth (Lieut.-Colonel Heneage) reminded me, and as I was going on to point out, it is to a great extent a fallacy for hon. Members opposite to think that only the occupants of these benches have this facility. What is said about the motor car applies also to the motor-cycle and the sidecar, and to other forms of transportation of many humble folk, a large number of whom are supporters of hon. Members opposite. It is absurd, in this year of grace, to suggest that the motor car is a prerogative of the wealthy or of the Tory voters. That is based on a complete misapprehension.
    1086
    Be that as it may, as I read this Sub-section, its intention is to try to undo, to some extent, the sheer stupidity of the preceding Sub-section. The preceding Sub-section disfranchises the motor car. It says: "Here is a method of transportation which has added to the convenience of the community to an ever-increasing extent and for an ever-increasing number of people in all ranks of society. Nevertheless, we, in our great wisdom, are going to put an end to that, when it comes to the question of Parliamentary elections, and we are going back into the Middle Ages." Having done that that in Sub-section (1), in Sub-section (2) they say: "Now we are going to reconsider it, to get a pool of motor cars and to allot them equally to all concerned." How do hon. Members opposite think that that will operate? Do they imagine that the Socialist owner of a motor-cycle and side-car is going to place his vehicle at the disposal of a pool to carry members of the Liberal or Conservative party? If so, they are living in a fool's paradise. It is the same appeal to human nature as in the question of the alternative vote. Individuals, at the time of an election, are backing a horse, as it were, and they do not want to work it all out by permutations and combinations, deducting the number they first thought of, and then dividing by three in order to find out who won. It is precisely the same with the motor car. Motor car owners want to feel that they are working for their party with their car. They put on the party colours, and he or she is willing from morning till night, going into all kinds of unattractive and unusual spots to pick up those who otherwise would find it difficult to get to the poll.

    1087
    It is proposed in this Sub-section to form a pool, into which people are to put their cars, they are to set aside all those feelings which are one of the mainsprings at the time of an election. You are to go to a returning officer and say: "Here is my car. Do what you like with it for the day."
    My first objection is that the Sub-section is based on a complete misapprehension of what human nature is going to do. The thing will not work at all. The returning officer will say: "From nine until four, I am at home to those who are going to place cars at my disposal to-morrow." He will be at home a long time before anybody of any party comes up with a car. Let us suppose for a moment, bringing the matter down to homely and personal example, that I happened to be so foolish as to send my car, complete with chauffeur, to the returning officer, and that I said: "Here am I. Send me,"—in good Scriptural phrase. What happens? The returning officer is a busy man. He takes instructions prescribed by the Secretary of State, who is generally a busier man, or ought to be. The Sub-section says that people may register their cars, and that
    "any vehicles so registered shall be allotted by the returning officer for use in such manner as he, after consultation with the election agents of all the candidates, thinks desirable, having regard to the needs of the several parts of the constituency, with a view to facilitating the conveyance of voters irrespective of party to their polling stations."
    What is the intention of that? Is the returning officer going to allot the car for an area? I am thinking of what would happen to me personally. I send my car to the returning officer, who, on instructions from the Secretary of State, which are obviously general instructions, allots. Is he going to allot the car to an area, or from a list of agents? Will he say: "You may take Mrs. Jones to No. 30 polling station, or Mrs. Smith to No. 27"; or will he say, "I allot your car to that area and there you operate, and the people who wave their umbrellas or say "Hi!" you must stop and pick up"? It is a vital question, as to whether the car is to be allotted to certain individuals or to an area. I care not which it is; neither can possibly work. I say "Here am I." I report with a car. It is all so beauti-
    1088
    fully arranged, with the yearning for the international spirit of hon. Members opposite, that now we are to have an inter-party spirit at the time of an election. The returning officer says to my chauffeur: "You go and get Mrs. Jones, Mrs. Smith, and Mrs. Robinson." My chauffeur then goes to our election agent and says, "What are the politics of Mrs. Smith, Mrs. Jones and Mrs. Robinson?" The agent says, "Mrs. Smith and Mrs. Robinson are good Tories, but do not take Mrs. Jones, as she is either Liberal or a Socialist." How is any Home Secretary, or anybody else, going to compel my chauffeur to pick up Mrs. Smith and Mrs. Robinson and also Mrs. Jones; or, if it is a question of area, to pick up all those who wave their umbrellas and call "Hi!" The chauffeur is going to have a list from my political agent and pick up those who are going to support him.
    These are absolutely practical objections to the working of the scheme, because that is the way in which it is going to work out in practice. There is no way to compel the chauffeur, unless you are going to bring in some other factor, and my chauffeur will have to go to gaol or pay a fine because he did not like the look of Mrs. Smith or her politics. There are those who say that the prestige of Parliament is sinking in the estimation of people in general. I think our proceedings on this absurd Clause, and the absurd methods of handing round the manuscript Amendment, which very few hon. Members know anything about, and some who do jolly well wish they did not, are not going to raise the prestige of Parliament in the eyes of electors. Therefore, with confidence I move the omission of this Sub-section, hoping that the majority of the Committee will express their common sense by throwing it out.
    Mr. GRIFFITH: I feel a great deal of sympathy with the very cogent criticisms made by the Mover of the Amendment. I think his criticism of the actual working of the pool is almost irresistible, but I want to point out that, perhaps, his object is not fully met by the Amendment which he has moved. What is the position? If with Sub-section (1) already standing part of the Clause, Sub-section (2) is now omitted, the result will be that no motor cars will be able to be

    1089
    used in elections except to convey the owner of a vehicle or members of his family. Surely that defeats the object which hon. Members above the Gangway have been trying to achieve by their criticism. They have thought it wrong to limit the use of motor cars for fear that motor cars for people who really need them would not be provided. If they leave out this Sub-section, they preclude the possibility of the consideration of any Amendment subsequently which will give a more genuine extension of the use which might usefully be made of motor cars. There is the Amendment standing in the names of the hon. and gallant Member for Oxford (Captain Bottrne), and hon. Baronet the Member for Barnstaple (Sir B. Peto) to this Sub-section which would, if carried, involve a substantial addition to the amount of legitimate use which could be made of motor cars at elections. Hon. Members rule that out if they reject this Sub-section, and will leave the Clause as a whole in a much worse condition than it might be. Of course, they know their own tactics best.
    Major DAVIES: That particular Amendment is ruled out, anyhow.
    Mr. GRIFFITH: In point of fact, that is the Amendment to the principle of which the Government have already undertaken to give effect upon the Report stage. That was said by the Home Secretary. It might not be taken here to-day, but there has been an undertaking that some effect shall be given to that principle on the Report stage.
    Sir T. I NSKIP: The Committee should not be under any misapprehension. Could the Solicitor-General say whether the hon. Member is right in saying that there has been an undertaking?
    The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: I under stand that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary stated that he was prepared to accept an Amendment to Sub-section (2) on the principle of the Amendment referred to, but not in the terms. He gave an undertaking, or made a statement, that he was prepared to accept an Amendment if the Committee thought that that was a better way of dealing with this limitation of motor cars than the way suggested in Sub-section (2).
    Mr. GRIFFITH: I am very glad to have had that stated, because it is very
    1090
    important from the point of view of Members on these benches. Very many of us cannot accept the principle of this Clause as a whole unless we have some understanding that some such Amendment, perhaps not here but on the Report stage, will be introduced which will give effect to the general principles underlying the Amendment standing on the Order Paper in the names of the hon. and gallant Member for Oxford and the hon. Member for Barnstaple. That was clearly stated by the Home Secretary, and I understood from him that he did want time between now and the Report stage to consider the exact terms which would be used, and that he was not going to be bound by the words which appear on the Order Paper. If that is going to be done, we should not be achieving very much by ruling out at this stage Sub-section (2), because there would be nothing to which an Amendment might be added at a subsequent stage. This is a matter of great importance, and although I agree strongly with many of the criticisms which have been passed on the working of the pool, we have to contemplate the possibility, and even the probability, that that arrangement will work in an entirely different way, and, at any rate, we should in Committee preserve space in the Bill in which some provision may be made for a much more extensive use of motor cars than would be provided for in the Clause if we had only Sub-section (1). That is a point which I desire to make, and which prevents me from supporting this Amendment.
    Sir S. HOARE: The speech to which we have just listened shows the great difficulty under which the Committee is labouring. It is almost impossible to carry on this discussion in face of the slipshod way in which the Government have conducted this Debate. At the end of the general Debate before eight o'clock, the Solicitor-General, in response to questions raised almost at the very last moment of the Debate, gave an answer which I, personally, totally fail to understand. He said that the Government were prepared to agree, in principle, to the Amendment which stands in the name of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Oxford (Captain Bourne), but it is impossible to know what the Government mean until we see their Clause actually drafted.

    1091
    Let me in a sentence or two point out the difficulties in which we are placed. It is no good talking in general terms about the principle. What we want to know is whether, in every constituency, there is going to be an adequate number of motor cars in the control of each of the parties for the voters who need motor transport. From the answers so far given by the Home Secretary and the Solicitor-General, it is clear that they are thinking of something quite different from what my hon. Friends and I are thinking of. They are thinking of a very limited number of cars, still placed at the disposal of the returning officer, and still kept under the control of the returning officer. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] Hon. Members on the other side, in applauding that view of the case, are confirming my fear as to what is meant by the Home Secretary's pledge.
    Let us be clear about this. We on our side mean a totally different thing. If the Home Secretary means what his friends behind him mean, there can be no compromise between us. We believe, unlike hon. Members on the back benches opposite, that the more motors there are in a constituency, and the greater the number of voters who are likely to vote, the better it is for the general interests of the country. We believe, further, that to ask private owners to put their cars at the disposal of a pool to be managed by the returning officer is sheer humbug, and that no private owners are going to lend their cars on those conditions. We also believe that the course which apparently is approved by hon. Members opposite, of putting this matter in the hands of the returning officer, is objectionable. We think that it places the returning officer in a very objectionable position—that he would be laid open to charges of partisan feeling in favour of this or that party; and in our opinion, without any organisation for the purpose such as is now possessed by the parties in an election, he will be totally unable practically to deal with the problem with which he will be faced.
    Let hon. Members turn aside from a partisan consideration of these questions and think of their own experience at elections. I am sure they will agree with me when I say that there is no part of
    1092
    an election which needs more careful organisation than that which deals with the transport of electors, and in nine constituencies out of 10 there is a number of workers, working, very likely, for a considerable time, arranging the details of the transport of out-voters, the aged and the infirm, and the other voters who without transport could not vote. Surely, it is sheer humbug to talk of the returning officer, without any organisation of this kind, attempting a duty of that nature. If the Home Secretary simply means, when he says he accepts the principle of the Amendment of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Oxford, that he simply intends to go on the principle already set out in Sub-section (2), namely, that there should be a very small number of cars available, that those cars should be put into a common pool, and that the cars should be under the control of the returning officer, I and my hon. Friends on this side of the Committee cannot agree in holding that view. We think it is much better to vote against this Sub-section and get it out of the Bill altogether.
    Mr. McSHANE: Personally, I am inclined to think that the proposal in this sub-section with regard to the voluntary pooling of cars would be, in its effect in obtaining cars, ridiculous. I do not think that the average wealthy Conservative Member or those who support him would go out of their way to offer their cars to the returning officer with the knowledge that they were going to bring Socialist voters to the poll. [Interruption.] I am asked why I speak of wealthy Conservatives only. It is quite true that in this party there is, in relation to the party opposite, a very small number of wealthy people, but the general character of the Conservative political party is that of a wealthy party, while the general character of the party here is that of a party of the working class. It is quite true, as I have said, that there are a few wealthy people in it, some of whom have recently left us. It would be against all common sense and against all common experience to expect that a wealthy Tory voter or candidate would, sua sponde, give up his car to the returning officer to be used in evidence against him. I do not think there is the slightest hope of that.
    There is one thing in which this Sub-section is excellent, and that is that, if

    1093
    it were passed into law, it would, in the case of those who would then have the opportunity of offering their cars so that Socialist candidates might be helped, "call their bluff" immediately. The fact of this provision being passed would be the test as to whether, on the one hand, Conservative Members are anxious to have a big poll, or whether, on the other hand, they are anxious to have a big Conservative poll; and I know what would happen—they would not offer their cars at all. Therefore, that aspect of the Sub-section is ridiculous. It would not lead to any large number of cars being offered to the returning officer, and I say that it has "called the bluff" of those who are always anxious to have a big poll provided that it is a big Conservative poll.
    I heard the Home Secretary say, and I think every hon. Member in the House would agree with him, that he was prepared to consider on Report the Amendment moved from the Front Bench opposite with regard to aged and infirm people. I think that every Member of this House would be glad to see some provision made for those voters, so that they may have the opportunity of recording their votes if they are handicapped by some physical incapacity. The only difficulty that arises is as to the means by which that is to be done, and I certainly hope that no proposal will be made on Report that is going to lose for us the benefit that we rightly consider we have gained by Sub-section (1). If, as was suggested by the hon. Member for West Middlesbrough (Mr. Griffiths), something is going to be interpolated in the Bill to the effect that there shall be, say, one vehicle for every complete 500 electors in a borough, I am bound to say that it will meet with considerable opposition from some of us here. The position is too ridiculous to admit discussion. What would it mean in my constituency? I myself had four cars for an electorate of 64,000. My opponents would have, according to that proposal, 128 cars; there would be 16 for every ward. No doubt they would like to have a good poll on that day, provided it were a good Conservative poll.
    There is another aspect of the matter. Even if any sort of ratio were to be worked out in relation to the three parties which would still leave the principle the
    1094
    same, it would be just as bad as if Subsection (1) had never been passed at all. Take the case of a poverty-stricken country area—[Interruption]. Someone sneers at that—[HON. MEMBERS: "No"!] I have the highest admiration for the humble men and women who belong to our party in the poverty-stricken country areas. Not only do they require money, but they require intense moral courage in those areas, where they are trying to build up the Socialist party—[Interruption.] I will not argue with the hon. Gentleman as to moral courage; if he does not understand it, it is for the others. The point I am making is that no rationing of cars would be in the slightest degree beneficial or just to members of our party in the country areas, nor in my own case. I do hope that this principle alone may operate, that, if there are people who cannot get to the poll through infirmity, or age, or physical incapacity, decent men and women throughout the country will say that some extra provision shall be made, outside the partisan machinery, to help them to get to the poll. That is the only principle that ought to guide the Committee in coming to its decision.
    Mr. RAMSBOTHAM: Might I suggest to the Home Secretary that it is time the Committee had some guidance from him? It is very difficult to know the Government's intention upon the Clause. As far as I can gather, it has scarcely a friend. It is a half dead and moribund Clause, and, as far as we know, the Government will not defend it. I do not know if it is in order to debate the later Amendment, with which the Goverment apparently have sympathy. The Home Secretary has not up to the present given us any guidance. He dealt briefly and in a perfunctory fashion with the matter on the previous Amendment. It reminded me of a previous Minister 100 years ago who was asked to give some information upon a Clause of a Bill of which he was in charge, and he informed the House that, before he came down, the Clause had been explained to him and the reasons for supporting it were very good but he had forgotten what they were. The position of the Home Secretary is not unlike that. In the circumstances, I presume the only thing to do is to go on debating the Sub-section on the

    1095
    assumption that it is to be dropped and some other solution substituted.
    If that be so, I should like to draw attention to what will happen under the suggestion of the Solicitor-General. It made me think that the proper title of the Bill should be "The Election Amenities Bill." Under this solution of control by the returning officer, the Solicitor-General informed us that he would allocate to each polling station a certain number of cars. It does not matter whether the subsequent Amendment is accepted, because, whether it is 200 or 300 cars, the same principle applies. When the cars get to the polling station the representatives of the parties take control of them. Will it be a case of one representative bowing to another and saying, in the words of Sir Philip Sidney, "Your need is greater than mine." A worse solution than that put forward by the Solicitor-General I never heard.
    As regards the returning officer, there has been some mention of possible bias. It puts the returning officer in a very unpleasant position. Whatever he does will be wrong, and the few Socialist Members who will survive the next election will spend most of the time at Question Time raising questions as to the deeds of the various returning officers in making wrong allocations of cars. It is not a fair position in which to put them. Neither side is satisfied and the onus of bias, or alleged bias, will fall upon them. The principle that we want to equalise the chances of all parties is admitted, but that does not mean that we have to adopt a solution of this kind, which will do no good except make most people walk. We want to get as many people as possible to the poll. Any solution like this can only result in preventing a great many people getting to the poll. I may be debating a Clause which the Government have no intention of passing, and that is the reason why I hope that, as soon as possible, the Home Secretary will explain exactly what he intends to do. Is the Clause to stand as it is, or is it to be amended, and, if so, how? At any rate, let us know what the position is.
    Mr. CLYNES: It is not the fault of the Home Secretary if the Committee has not had the opportunity and the advantage of discussing in detail the
    1096
    principle outlined in the Amendment of the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Oxford (Captain Bourne), for three hours ago I appealed to the Committee to proceed to a Division on the Amendment then before them and went on, with the consent of the Chair, to hint at what I understood this Amendment to mean, and I hoped that long before this it would have been reached and a discussion would have taken place upon it. But hon. Members have preferred to give their time to other Amendments. I do not complain of that, but I complain of being blamed for not having made a statement after rising three hours ago to indicate my willingness to do so. May I briefly repeat what I have in mind. The Sub-section now being discussed is an expression of a plan. You may say what you like about it, but it is the Government plan. The Amendment to which I refer has in it the germ of an alternative plan, and I am quite willing to enter into discussions with the party leaders in order to see whether we can come to an agreement for an alternative plan, the alternative plan being the use in a Parliamentary division of a fixed maximum number of motor cars, fixed first in relation to the number of voters, and next in relation to the dimensions of the constituency. That seems to me to offer the groundwork of an alternative plan.
    If hon. Members opposite are anxious for equity, the object at which the Government Clause aims, they can have that condition, or equal conditions of treatment as between rich and poor candidates, on the basis of their Amendment with, of course, a very substantial variation in the matter of numbers. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall (Mr. McShane) that the numbers in the Amendment on the Paper are preposterous. It would mean in my own division, for instance, that the Conservative candidate would have 100 motor cars, and so could I if I could get them. But I have never had as many as 10. So it is only upon that basis of agreement, if we are to accept the principle of the Amendment, that anything like a final understanding can be reached among the parties.
    Sir T. INSKIP: We are much obliged to the Home Secretary for what he has

    1097
    said, but can he make clear beyond doubt what in his view is the intention of the Amendment which, subject to an alteration of numbers, he thinks might possibly be adopted as an alternative? He remembers what my right hon. Friend the Member for Chelsea (Sir S. Hoare) said as to our understanding of the Amendment in the name of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Oxford (Captain Bourne). The intention of that Amendment is that, the cars are to be just as much at the disposal of the candidates, or of their organisations or their friends, as motor cars are at present, but hon. Members behind the Front Government Bench understand the Amendment in a wholly different sense. Their intention is, as I understand it—indeed, they have said so—that the cars, even if the Amendment at the bottom of the page is accepted, will still be employed only as allotted by the returning officer. I find it difficult to understand how the Home Secretary is in agreement with hon. Members behind him, because, in the speech he made just now illustrating what would happen if the numbers in the Amendment are accepted, he said, "For instance, I might have 100 cars if I could get them." That seems to suppose that the cars are to be at his disposal and are not to be allotted— [Interruption.] It is no good hon. Members disputing what I say, because the Home Secretary and the Solicitor-General hear me. If I have misunderstood the Home Secretary, I am only too anxious to be corrected, but I respectfully think that it is fair and legitimate—and I want to be perfectly fair—from what the Home-Secretary has said, to say that his intention or his contemplation is, that the motor cars are to be, as he says, in his case, at his disposal if he can get them, and at the disposal of his opponents if they can get them. That is what he seemed to imply. If I misunderstood the Home Secretary, will he be good enough to tell me so, because if I have not misunderstood him there is a variance between him and his hon. Friends behind him, and it is no good the Committee being at cross-purposes. Let us understand which is the view that is presented and accepted by the Home Secretary.
    Mr. CLYNES: In the main, the hon. and learned Gentleman has not misunder-
    1098
    stood my intentions, but let me say that if an alternative plan be approved and agreed upon there must, of necessity, be many consequential points and additions to be dealt with which it is impossible to discuss just now. This, I think, can be said, that while any plan would, of necessity, involve the registration of cars so as to obtain accuracy and certainty in respect of cumbers, it also seems to me to be a wholly unnecessary procedure to leave those cars under the control of a registration officer, or a returning officer, or anyone else.
    Sir H. SAMUEL: The matter is clear. The plan of the Bill, obviously, is that there shall be a pool of cars which shall be under the control of the returning officer, who will allocate them to different districts. Those cars are to be used irrespective of party considerations for any voters who may wish to be conveyed, and who have a claim to be conveyed. The number of cars would be unlimited by law, though, of course, it might be very strictly limited by the number of cars that would be offered and supplied. The plan of the Amendment of hon. Members above the Gangway is that there should not be a pool, that there should be no cars under the authority of the returning officer to be allocated in that way, that the owners of the cars are to be free, as now, to use their cars to bring up their own supporters in whatever locality they wish, and that the number of such cars available for each party is to be limited by a certain formula to be inserted in the Bill. Those are two quite different plans. The first plan, which is in the Bill now, as I endeavoured to point out at an earlier stage of the proceedings to-day, is open to several objections. First, you may have so few cars offered that the admitted need for cars at an election might not be fulfilled. You may find that cars are very few for conveying the aged, the invalids and the sick, and the public would be very greatly disappointed as soon as the law came into operation.
    10.0 p.m.
    Secondly, it would be exceedingly difficult for the returning officer to allocate the cars in a way to give satisfaction to everyone, and there would be no certainty who is to have the use and the direction of any particular car. There is no machinery created for making use of those cars. It seems,

    1099
    therefore, that the proposal in the Amendment is much better than the proposal in the Bill. I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman has indicated his willingness to accept it, at all events, in principle. I did not fully gather from the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Chelsea (Sir S. Hoare) whether he approves of the Amendment or not. He seemed to lay down the principle that the more cars there were the better. "The more motors the more voters" seems to be his maxim. Does that mean that he is unwilling to agree to the Amendment put upon the Order Paper—it has been there for a long time—by several of his supporters who have given very close attention to these matters, and which is now in the way of being accepted by the Government? Does he approve of that Amendment or not? It is rather important that that should be known at this stage. We think, as we have thought from the beginning, that, the Clause, as drafted, will be exceedingly difficult to work, if, indeed, it can be worked at all. At the same time, there is a case for a limitation of the excessive number of cars. What the number should be, as the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill has reasonably said, is a matter for discussion between the three parties. He is quite willing to enter into such a discussion. The difficulty as to the Amendment is that you will provide for a number of cars greater, I imagine, that any used at any election at the present time. In my own constituency, which is a compact county constituency, it would allow each party to use 250 cars. I do not think that such a number has ever been known in that or any similar constituency, although we are not ill-provided with cars. If this Amendment be carried to a Division, and if the Committee accept it, it would mean that the Clause would be left only with its operative provision in Sub-section (1), namely, that the vehicles are not to be used in any circumstances except for conveying to the poll members of the family, or, it may be, of the household of the owner of the car. I am sure that no section of the Committee desires that. Therefore, it seems that this is an Amendment that, at all events, ought not to be carried.
    Sir S. HOARE: The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Darwen (Sir H. Samuel) has asked me a question, and I have no intention of taking up the time of the Committee longer than is needed for my answer. He asked what is my attitude towards the Amendment in the name of the hon. and gallant Member for Oxford (Captain Bourne). I say that the Amendment of my hon. Friend is a great deal better than the Clause as it is at present. I think that it is a great mistake to try to restrict the number of motor cars, and that it would be much better to leave the liberty which exists at present. If cars are to be restricted, I think that the plan of the hon. and gallant Member for Oxford is much better than the plan of the Government. It is worth noting that during this long Debate there has not been a friend to say a word in support of the Government Clause. Our difficulty now is that we are asked not to vote for but to withdraw the Amendment upon a very vague undertaking of the Home Secretary. I do not know what hon. Friends behind me think, but my view is that it is so vague that I really do not know what it means or what it does not mean. I suggest that the safest course to take, if we face the facts as they are to-night, is to support the Amendment which has been moved, and to get the Sub-section omitted if we can, and by that means help to destroy a totally unworkable Clause.
    Mr. G. OLIVER: I am sure that the statement which has been made by the Home Secretary must have filled many of us on this side with grave disquiet. I feel that the whole principle of Sub-section (1) of Clause 6 will be completely destroyed. The whole purpose of the Clause is to do away with the inequality which exists between the rich candidate and the poor candidate. I cannot see the validity of the argument that if a man to-day can have 400 motor cars at his disposal, acceptance of an Amendment merely to reduce the 400 to 100 while your opponent cannot get one, will reduce the unfairness. It will reduce the disparity, but it will not reduce the unfairness. It will merely limit the number which the wealthy candidate will have at his disposal, but it will not increase the number which the poor candidate can obtain. What purpose will the first Sub-section of

    1101
    the Clause fulfil? What candidate is likely to register with the returning officer if the candidate is entitled only to run so many cars per 100 of the electors? I feel that the Home Secretary has not followed the implications of the Amendment which he proposes to accept. I hope before we come to the Report stage, that this matter will be seriously considered, because I fear that the whole principle of the Clause will be destroyed if the Home Secretary does what he has indicated.
    Sir B. PETO: As my name stands in connection with the Amendment which is so often alluded to in the discussion which we are having on a totally different Amendment, may I point out, to avoid any possible doubt, that the hon. and gallant Member for Oxford (Captain Bourne) and myself had never any intention whatever of leaving the disposal of these motor cars to the returning officer. If our Amendment had been accepted, it would have left the disposal of cars by the returning officer entirely outside the Clause. It would have left the disposal of cars as they are now. There is nobody, under this part of the Bill, who is going to be given the franchise, and we have now got down to the dregs of the Bill and to a Clause dealing with a purely party issue, in the most bitter party spirit, a Clause which proposes to regulate elections and take away what is supposed to be to the advantage of one party while doing nothing to take away the corresponding advantages of other parties.
    We obviously wish to omit Sub-section (2) of this Clause, because it is unworkable, unreasonable and irrational. Nobody would offer any cars. That has been freely admitted in all parts of the House, and, if they did, the cars could not be worked. The Government, five weeks since they were defeated on university representation, have now found out that this Clause would not work. Can they wonder that we should want to omit this Sub-section in order that the Government should put in something that could possibly be worked? Why should they look for an Amendment to be put down by one section of the Opposition in order to get them out of a hole? The first thing we have to do is to take the Sub-section out and leave the emasculated Clause till the Report stage,
    1102
    when it will be the duty of the Government to put in something which has some sense in it and can possibly be worked at the next General Election.
    There is nothing in the Bill that any election agent could possibly work. There is nothing to enable people to get to the poll to vote. The Government, far from enfranchising anybody, are attempting to take away from those who have the vote but who have not a motor car of their own, the chance of getting to the poll. I cannot understand the view of the hon. Member for West Middlesbrough (Mr. Griffith) that, because there is supposed to be something in an Amendment proposed by this side of the House which perhaps the Government will some day consider and put something analogous into the Bill, we should be doing something wrong in taking this Sub-section out. If the Government are going to put something into the Bill, we have to make a hole for them to put it Into.
    Mr. TINKER: I agree that the back benchers on this side of the House are against what the Home Secretary has said. I cannot for the life of me think that anybody would be so public-spirited as to put motor cars at the disposal of returning officers without their knowing what voters are to he carried in them. In my constituency, on the lines followed here, each candidate would be left with 100 motor cars. That is far in excess of what we have had before. I suggest that it might be narrowed down to one motor car for each five thousand electors. In my constituency that would give 10 motor cars to each candidate; and that would be quite enough. I think some settlement might be arrived at on the line of bringing up to the poll infirm voters. We are all agreed that we want all voters to come to the poll, and the only persons who ought to be brought are those who cannot get there because of some physical disability. If we can provide for these it should meet the case. I agree with the Home Secretary that this Sub-section is unworkable and that something will have to be done in its place, but I hope that we may get a settlement on the lines I have suggested.
    Major GLYN: I am certain that the Home Secretary will realise that as this

    1103
    Sub-section has not a single supporter he will accept the Amendment to take it out of the Bill. What hon. Members opposite feel, as we feel on this side, is that it is wrong to put the returning officer in a position which may be prejudiced. We do not want to put the returning officer in an invidious position. This is a thoroughly bad Clause because it will lead to something approaching jerrymandering in our elections. Not a single Member opposite has spoken in favour of the Sub-section as drafted. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Oxford (Captain Bourne) has an Amendment later to set up a form of registration so that no unauthorised cars will be able to function in a constituency on polling day, and I gather that it is the intention of the Government to adopt the sense of that proposal. Therefore, it seems that those who desire to support this Amendment in the Lobby will be able to count on the support of hon. Members opposite because they are in favour of the deletion of this Sub-section.
    Mr. MARJORIBANKS: I think that some answer is needed to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Darwen (Sir H. Samuel). One of the most vicious things in the Bill is the phrase "regulations made by the Secretary of State." We have heard a great deal about the provision relating to the returning officer but to my mind it is nothing compared with the provisions regarding the Secretary of State. I put a question to my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General, who has been at the Bar for a considerable time and is a very successful member of the Bar. He said that my question was not worth considering. My question was this: Was it right and proper that a Secretary of State, a member of the Socialist party, should be the fons et origo—[Interruption.]—that is, the fountain and origin, of regulations affecting the whole of our electoral law as he is, ex hypothesi—[Interruption.]—a prejudiced person. [An HON. MEMBER: "Why not pons asinorum?"] The result of regulations coming from a Secretary of State who, ex hypothesi, is a Socialist Minister, may vitiate in the public mind the whole of the regulations for the election. That is a real point of substance.
    1104
    It may be that the Secretary of State is a fair-minded man—we know that he is—and that he will deal fairly in these matters. But this will lead, at any rate, to all sorts of complaints being made after an election. It may be that people will claim that the results of an election were determined by these regulations. It ill becomes any Secretary of State of any party to undertake this responsibility. I think the Solicitor-General might have considered this as a relevant argument to which he could at least have had the courtesy to give a reply. Perhaps I did not give him much notice and he could not think of a reply, but in the courts he is used to having arguments raised against him, and I should have thought that even he, with his short experience in the House, would have been able to reply. [Interruption.] I am perfectly serious. It is a very vicious characteristic of this Clause that the Secretary of State is given authority to make these regulations. If the power is given the Secretary of State ought to throw aside his membership of the Socialist party and become a sort of non-party Secretary of State.
    There is one other consideration regarding motor cars in general. During the last election I called upon a very wealthy elector in my constituency who, I knew was the possessor of several motor cars. I hoped to be able to enlist his sympathy and to obtain the loan of his cars. He refused to lend them. What was his reason? He said, "You and your friends have enough motor cars of your own, and you will be able to carry all your people to the poll without my help, but if I lend my beautiful cars you will fill them with Socialists. You will not do any good to yourself, and you will only spoil my cars." People are sometimes very proud of their cars, and do not at all like to think that they will be used expressly for Socialists. [Interruption.] That is a complete answer to the argument of the pool. Unbeknown Socialists can go in the capitalists' cars to the poll. But they will not be able to go in future, because no sensible person, as has been recognised by hon. Members opposite, will lend his cars for the express purpose of use by opposing political parties. After all the arguments that have been brought forward on this Amendment there is no other course for the Committee to take but to leave out the Sub-section.
    Mr. ERNEST BROWN: It seems that between now and the next stage of the Bill, we shall have to consider whether we are to have a pool or limitation. I must confess that I am not quite decided about it. I want to do away with privilege, but the problem has never seemed to me to be a problem of the use of cars inside a division. More elections have been won by sending cars outside a division to get in removals, than by the use of cars inside a division. The friend of the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Marjoribanks) was right. Inside the divisions people make use of the other party's cars and, as regards boroughs, any non-Socialist candidate who runs his cars in a borough after dusk deserves to be beaten. I never ran mine—the few I have ever had—after dusk. If the Government are going to consider this question as between a pool and limitation, may I ask the Home Secretary to apply his mind to this point.
    How can you possibly prevent a clever transport officer who has plenty of motor cars of all three parties—for there are plenty of Socialist cars in some divisions now—at his disposal, and have information about removals, perhaps 100 or 200 miles away from the scene of the election, arranging to send cars away quietly a day or two beforehand to pick up those voters and drop them at a station within a few miles of the place where the election is being held. Any man who does not like privilege would like to lessen privilege, hut the fact is that whether the weight of privilege is on the one side or the other, no form of words in an Act of Parliament will do away with it. The real problem is not the problem of the use of the motor car inside the division, but how to prevent inequality in the matter of bringing in removals from outside the division. I have never yet been able to get any solution of that problem and if the
    Home Secretary can find a solution, I shall be interested to hear it.
    Brigadier-General Sir HENRY CROFT: There is one point which has not been raised so far in this Debate. In numerous countries, notably Canada, Australia, New Zealand and the United States, the working classes have by far the greatest number of motor cars. Why is it assumed that we in this country will not eventually—after a change of Government—rise to that same standard of civilisation? Is it the fear that we are going to have Socialism in our time, which makes us content to sit down under the proposition that we are not going to rise to that standard To attempt to do away with the advantage, which it is claimed, a certain section of the community has to-day, is going in the face of the facts of modern civilisation. If we pass this very foolish and vindictive Clause, a time will come, before long, when hon. Gentlemen opposite will be the first to demand that they shall be allowed to use their own property in any way they like to bring people to the poll.
    Mr. SMITHERS: In the short time remaining, I wish to ask a question, and if there is no time for an answer to it, I hope it will receive consideration. In the event of motor cars being allocated to the returning officer, or the agents of the parties, is there any provision in the Bill which will inflict a penalty on the driver of a car who refuses to carry out the orders of the returning officer or other official concerned? That point is worth consideration, and I think it shows the folly of these proposals.
    Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out to the word 'and,' in line 9, stand part of the Clause."
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 264; Noes, 226.

    Division No. 221.]

    AYES.

    [10.30 p.m.

    Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)

    Barr, James

    Brockway, A. Fenner

    Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)

    Batey, Joseph

    Bromfield, William

    Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher

    Beckett, John (Camberwell, Peckham)

    Bromley, J.

    Aitchison, Rt. Hon. Craigle M.

    Benn, Rt. Hon. Wedgwood

    Brooke, W.

    Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (Hillsbro')

    Bennett, Sir E. N. (Cardiff, Central)

    Brothers, M.

    Alpass, J. H.

    Bennett, William (Battersea, South)

    Brown, C. W. E. (Notts, Mansfield)

    Ammon, Charles George

    Benson, G.

    Brown, Ernest (Leith)

    Angell, Sir Norman

    Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)

    Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (South Ayrshire)

    Arnott, John

    Birkett, W. Norman

    Buchanan, G.

    Attlee, Clement Richard

    Bondfield, Rt. Hon. Margaret

    Burgess, F. G.

    Ayles, Walter

    Bowen, J. W.

    Burgin, Dr. E. L.

    Baker, John (Wolverhampton, Bilston)

    Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.

    Buxton, C. R. (Yorks. W. R. Elland)

    Barnes, Alfred John

    Broad, Francis Alfred

    Caine, Hall-, Derwent

    Cameron, A. G.

    Kelly, W. T.

    Richards, R.

    Cape, Thomas

    Kennedy, Rt. Hon. Thomas

    Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

    Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S.W.)

    Kinley, J.

    Riley, Ben (Dewsbury)

    Charleton, H. C.

    Knight, Holford

    Romeril, H. G.

    Chater, Daniel

    Lang, Gordon

    Rosbotham, D. S. T.

    Church, Major A. G.

    Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George

    Rowson, Guy

    Clarke, J. S.

    Lathan, G.

    Russell, Richard John (Eddisbury)

    Cluse, W. S.

    Law, Albert (Bolton)

    Salter, Dr. Alfred

    Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.

    Law, A. (Rossendale)

    Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)

    Cocks, Frederick Seymour

    Lawrence, Susan

    Samuel, H. Walter (Swansea, West)

    Cove, William G.

    Lawson, John James

    Sanders, W. S.

    Cripps, Sir Stafford

    Lawther, W. (Barnard Castle)

    Sandham, E.

    Dagger, George

    Leach, W.

    Sawyer, G. F.

    Dallas, George

    Lee, Frank (Derby, N.E.)

    Sexton, Sir James

    Dalton, Hugh

    Lee, Jennie (Lanark, Northern)

    Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.

    Davies, D. L. (Pontypridd)

    Lees, J.

    Shepherd, Arthur Lewis

    Davies, E. C. (Montgomery)

    Lewis, T. (Southampton)

    Sherwood, G. H.

    Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

    Lindley, Fred W.

    Shield, George William

    Day, Harry

    Logan, David Gilbert

    Shiels, Dr. Drummond

    Denman, Hon. R. D.

    Longbottom, A. W.

    Shillaker, J. F.

    Dudgeon, Major C. R.

    Longden, F.

    Shinwell, E.

    Dukes, C.

    Lovat-Fraser, J. A.

    Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)

    Duncan, Charles

    Lunn, William

    Simmons, C. J.

    Ede, James Chuter

    Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)

    Simon, E. D. (Manch'ter, Withington)

    Edmunds, J. E.

    MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham)

    Sinclair, Sir A. (Caithness)

    Edwards, E. (Morpeth)

    MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)

    Sinkinson, George

    Foot, Isaac

    McElwee, A.

    Sitch, Charles H.

    Freeman, Peter

    McEntee, V. L.

    Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)

    Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton)

    McKinlay, A.

    Smith, Rennie (Penistone)

    George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd (Car'vn)

    MacLaren, Andrew

    Smith, Tom (Pontefract)

    George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)

    Maclean, Sir Donald (Cornwall, N.)

    Snowden, Thomas (Accrington)

    George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesea)

    Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)

    Sorensen, R.

    Gibbins, Joseph

    McShane, John James

    Stamford, Thomas W.

    Gill, T. H.

    Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)

    Stephen, Campbell

    Gillett, George M.

    Manning, E. L.

    Strauss, G. R.

    Glassay, A. E.

    Mansfield, W.

    Sullivan, J.

    Gossling, A. G.

    March, S.

    Sutton, J. E.

    Gould, F.

    Marcus, M.

    Taylor, R. A. (Lincoln)

    Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)

    Marley, J.

    Taylor, W. B. (Norfolk, S.W.)

    Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)

    Marshall, Fred

    Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby)

    Granville, E.

    Mathers, George

    Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)

    Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Colne)

    Matters, L. W.

    Thurtle, Ernest

    Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)

    Maxton, James

    Tillett, Ben

    Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro' W.)

    Messer, Fred

    Tinker, John Joseph

    Groves, Thomas E.

    Middleton, G.

    Toole, Joseph

    Grundy, Thomas W.

    Milner, Major J.

    Tout, W. J.

    Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

    Morgan, Dr. H. B.

    Townend, A. E.

    Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)

    Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)

    Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

    Hall, Capt. W. G. (Portsmouth, C.)

    Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Hackney, S.)

    Vaughan, David

    Hamilton, Mary Agnes (Blackburn)

    Morrison, Robert C. (Tottenham, N.)

    Viant, S. P

    Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Zetland)

    Mort, D. L.

    Walkden, A. G.

    Harbord, A.

    Muff, G.

    Walker, J.

    Hardie, George D.

    Muggeridge, H. T.

    Wallace, H. W.

    Harris, Percy A.

    Murnin, Hugh

    Watkins, F. C.

    Hastings, Dr. Somerville

    Naylor, T. E.

    Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)

    Haycock, A. W.

    Noel Baker, P. J.

    Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)

    Hayday, Arthur

    Noel-Buxton, Baroness (Norfolk, N.)

    Wellock, Wilfred

    Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley)

    Oldfield, J. R.

    Welsh, James (Paisley)

    Henderson, Arthur, Junr. (Cardiff, S.)

    Oliver, George Harold (Ilkeston)

    Welsh, James C. (Coatbridge)

    Henderson, Thomas (Glasgow)

    Oliver, P. M. (Man., Blackley)

    West, F. R.

    Henderson, W. W. (Middx., Enfield)

    Owen, Major G. (Carnarvon)

    Westwood, Joseph

    Herriotts, J.

    Palin, John Henry

    White, H. G.

    Hicks, Ernest George

    Paling, Wilfrid

    Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood)

    Hirst, G. H. (York W. R. Wentworth)

    Palmer, E. T.

    Williams, David (Swansea, East)

    Hoffman, P. C.

    Perry, S. F.

    Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)

    Hollins, A.

    Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.

    Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)

    Hopkin, Daniel

    Phillips, Dr. Marion

    Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)

    Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield)

    Picton-Turbervill, Edith

    Wilson, J. (Oldham)

    Isaacs, George

    Pole, Major D. G.

    Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)

    Jenkins, Sir William

    Potts, John S.

    Winterton, G. E.(Leicester, Loughb'gh)

    John, William (Rhondda, West)

    Price, M. P.

    Wise, E. F.

    Johnston, Rt. Hon. Thomas

    Pybus, Percy John

    Wood, Major McKenzie (Banff)

    Jones, Rt. Hon. Leif (Camborne)

    Quibell, D. J. K.

    Young, R. S. (Islington, North)

    Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

    Ramsay, T. B. Wilson

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

    Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W.

    Rathbone, Eleanor

    Mr. Hayes and Mr. B. Smith.

    Jowitt, Sir W. A. (Preston)

    Raynes, W. R.

    NOES.

    Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

    Astor, Maj. Hn. John J. (Kent, Dover)

    Beaumont, M. W.

    Ainsworth, Lieut.-Col. Charles

    Atholl, Duchess of

    Bellairs, Commander Carlyon

    Albery, Irving James

    Atkinson, C.

    Berry, Sir George

    Alexander, Sir Wm. (Glasgow, Cent'l)

    Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley (Bewdley)

    Betterton, Sir Henry B.

    Allen, Sir J. Sandeman (Liverp'l., W.)

    Balfour, George (Hampstead)

    Bevan, S. J. (Holborn)

    Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.

    Balfour, Captain H. H. (I. of Thanet)

    Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman

    Aske, Sir Robert

    Balniel, Lord

    Bird, Ernest Roy

    1108

    1109

    Blindell, James

    Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.

    Oman, Sir Charles William C.

    Bourne, Captain Robert Croft

    Galbraith, J. F. W.

    O'Neill, Sir H.

    Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart

    Ganzoni, Sir John

    Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William

    Bowyer, Captain Sir George E. W.

    Gault, Lieut.-Col. A. Hamilton

    Peake, Capt. Osbert

    Boyce, Leslie

    Gibson, C. G. (Pudsey & Otley)

    Penny, Sir George

    Bracken, B.

    Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John

    Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)

    Brass, Captain Sir William

    Glyn, Major R. G. C.

    Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)

    Briscoe, Richard George

    Grace, John

    Power, Sir John Cecil

    Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)

    Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)

    Pownall, Sir Assheton

    Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y)

    Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter

    Ramsbotham, H.

    Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.

    Greene, W. P. Crawford

    Rawson, Sir Cooper

    Buchan, John

    Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)

    Remer, John R.

    Bullock, Captain Malcolm

    Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John

    Rentoul, Sir Gervals S.

    Burton, Colonel H. W.

    Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.

    Reynolds, Col. Sir James

    Butler, R. A.

    Gunston, Captain D. W.

    Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall)

    Butt, Sir Alfred

    Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.

    Rodd, Rt. Hon. sir James Rennell

    Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward

    Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)

    Ross, Ronald D.

    Campbell, E. T.

    Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)

    Rothschild, J. de

    Carver, Major W. H.

    Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

    Ruggles-Brise, Colonel E.

    Castle Stewart, Earl of

    Hartington, Marquess of

    Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

    Cautley, Sir Henry S.

    Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)

    Salmon, Major I.

    Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)

    Henderson, Capt. R. R.(Oxf'd,Henley)

    Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

    Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth. S.)

    Herbert, Sir Dennis (Hertford)

    Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)

    Cazalet, Captain Victor A.

    Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.

    Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart

    Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord H. (Ox. Univ.)

    Hore-Bellsha, Leslie

    Savery, S. S.

    Chamberlain, Rt. Hn.Sir J.A.(Birm.,W.)

    Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.

    Shepperson, Sir Ernest Whittome

    Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Edgbaston)

    Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)

    Simms, Major-General J.

    Chapman, Sir S.

    Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer

    Skelton, A. N.

    Christie, J. A

    Hurd, Percy A.

    Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)

    Clydesdale, Marquess of

    Hurst, Sir Gerald B.

    Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)

    Cobb, Sir Cyril

    Hutchison, Maj.-Gen. Sir R.

    Smith Carington, Neville W.

    Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir George

    Inskip, Sir Thomas

    Smithers, Waldron

    Cohen, Major J. Brunei

    Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)

    Somerset, Thomas

    Colfox, Major William Philip

    Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

    Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)

    Colman, N. C. D.

    Kedward, R. M. (Kent, Ashford)

    Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East)

    Colville, Major D. J.

    Kindersley, Major G. M.

    Spender-Clay, Colonel H.

    Conway, Sir W. Martin

    Knox, Sir Alfred

    Stanley, Lord (Fylde)

    Cooper, A. Duff

    Lamb, Sir J. O.

    Stanley, Hon. O. (Westmorland)

    Courtauld, Major J. S.

    Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.

    Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur

    Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L.

    Law, Sir Alfred (Derby, High Peak)

    Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)

    Cowan, D. M

    Leigh, Sir John (Clapham)

    Thomas, Major L. B. (King's Norton)

    Cranborne, Viscount

    Leighton, Major B. E. P.

    Thompson, Luke

    Crichton-Stuart, Lord C.

    Lewis, Oswald (Colchester)

    Thomson, Mitchell-, Rt. Hon. Sir W.

    Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.

    Little, Graham-, Sir Ernest

    Tinne, J. A.

    Crookshank, Capt. H. C.

    Llewellin, Major J. J

    Titchfield, Major the Marquess of

    Croom-Johnson, R. P.

    Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hon. Godfrey

    Todd, Capt. A. J.

    Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West)

    Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (Handsw'th)

    Train, J.

    Cunliffe-Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip

    Long, Major Hon. Eric

    Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement

    Dalkeith, Earl of

    Lymington, Viscount

    Turton, Robert Hugh

    Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. (Hertford)

    McConnell, sir Joseph

    Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon

    Davies, Dr. Vernon

    Macdonald, Sir M. (Inverness)

    Wallace, Capt. D. E, (Hornsey)

    Davies, Maj. Geo. F.(Somerset, Yeovil)

    Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)

    Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. Lambert

    Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)

    Maitland, A. (Kent, Faversham)

    Warrender, Sir Victor

    Dawson, Sir Philip

    Makins, Brigadier-General E.

    Waterhouse, Captain Charles

    Despencer-Robertson, Major J. A. F.

    Margesson, Captain H. D.

    Wayland, Sir William A.

    Dixey, A. C.

    Marjoribanks, Edward

    Wells, Sydney R.

    Duckworth, G. A. V.

    Mason, Colonel Glyn K.

    Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)

    Dugdale, Capt. T. L.

    Meller, R. J.

    Wilson, G. H. A. (Cambridge U.)

    Edmondson, Major A. J.

    Merriman, Sir F. Boyd

    Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George

    Elliot, Major Walter E.

    Mitchell, Sir W Lane (Streatham)

    Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl

    England, Colonel A.

    Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. Sir B.

    Withers, Sir John James

    Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.)

    Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)

    Wolmer, Rt. Hon. Viscount

    Everard, W. Lindsay

    Morris, Rhys Hopkins

    Womersley, W. J.

    Falle, Sir Bertram G.

    Morrison, W. S. (Glos., Cirencester)

    Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley

    Ferguson, Sir John

    Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive

    Wright, Brig.-Gen. W. D. (Tavist'k)

    Fermoy, Lord

    Muirhead, A. J.

    Fielden, E. B.

    Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

    Fison, F. G. Clavering

    Nicholson, O. (Westminster)

    Major Sir George Hennessy and

    Ford, Sir P. J.

    Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W. G. (Ptrsf'ld)

    Sir Frederick Thomson.

    Forestier-Walker, Sir L.

    O'Connor, T. J.

    It being after half-past Ten of the Clock, the CHAIRMAN proceeded, pursuant to the Order of the House of 3rd March, to put forthwith the Question necessary to dispose of the business to be concluded at this day's Sitting.
    Question put, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 263; Noes, 229.

    Division No. 222.]

    AYES.

    [10.41 p.m.

    Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)

    Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (Hillsbro')

    Arnott, John

    Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)

    Alpass, J. H.

    Attlee, Clement Richard

    Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher

    Ammon, Charles George

    Ayles, Walter

    Aitchison, Rt. Hon. Craigle M.

    Angell, Sir Norman

    Baker, John (Wolverhampton, Bliston)

    Barnes, Alfred John

    Henderson, Thomas (Glasgow)

    Pole, Major D. G.

    Barr, James

    Henderson, W. W. (Middx., Enfield)

    Potts, John S.

    Batey, Joseph

    Harriotts, J.

    Price. M. P.

    Benn, Rt. Hon. Wedgwood

    Hicks, Ernest George

    Pybus, Percy John

    Bennett, Sir E. N. (Cardiff, Central)

    Hirst, G. H. (York, W.R., Wentworth)

    Quibell, D. J. K.

    Bennett, William (Battersea, South)

    Hoffman, P. C.

    Ramsay, T. B. Wilson

    Benson, G.

    Hollins, A.

    Rathbone, Eleanor

    Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)

    Hopkin, Daniel

    Raynes, W. R.

    Birkett, W. Norman

    Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield)

    Richards, R.

    Bondfield, Rt. Hon. Margaret

    Isaacs, George

    Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

    Bowen, J. W.

    Jenkins, Sir William

    Riley, Ben (Dewsbury)

    Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.

    Johnston, Rt. Hon. Thomas

    Romerll, H. G.

    Broad, Francis Alfred

    Jones, Rt. Hon. Leif (Camborne)

    Rosbotham, D. S. T.

    Brockway, A. Fenner

    Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

    Rowson, Guy

    Bromfield, William

    Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. w.

    Russell, Richard John (Eddisbury)

    Bromley, J.

    Jowitt, Sir W. A. (Preston)

    Salter, Dr. Alfred

    Brooke, W.

    Kelly, W. T.

    Samuel Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)

    Brothers, M.

    Kennedy, Rt. Hon. Thomas

    Samuel, H. Walter (Swansea, West)

    Brown, C. W. E. (Notts, Mansfield)

    Kinley, J.

    Sanders, W. S.

    Brown, Ernest (Leith)

    Knight, Holford

    Sandham, E.

    Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (South Ayrshire)

    Lang, Gordon

    Sawyer, G. F

    Buchanan, G.

    Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George

    Sexton, Sir James

    Burgess, F. G.

    Lathan, G.

    Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.

    Burgin, Dr. E. L.

    Law, Albert (Bolton)

    Shepherd, Arthur Lewis

    Buxton, C. R. (Yorks. W. R. Elland)

    Law, A. (Rossendale)

    Sherwood, G. H.

    Caine, Hall-, Derwent

    Lawrence, Susan

    Shield, George William

    Cameron, A. G.

    Lawson, John James

    Shiels, Dr. Drummond

    Cape, Thomas

    Lawther, W. (Barnard Castle)

    Shillaker, J. F.

    Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S.W.)

    Leach, W.

    Shinwell, E.

    Chater, Daniel

    Lee, Frank (Derby, N.E.)

    Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)

    Church, Major A. G.

    Lee, Jennie (Lanark, Northern)

    Simmons, C. J.

    Clarke, J. S.

    Lees, J.

    Simon, E. D. (Manch'ter, Withington)

    Cluse, W. S.

    Lewis, T. (Southampton)

    Sinclair, Sir A. (Caithness)

    Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.

    Lindley, Fred W.

    Sinkinson, George

    Cocks, Frederick Seymour

    Lloyd, C. Ellis

    Sitch, Charles H.

    Cove, William G.

    Logan, David Gilbert

    Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)

    Cripps, Sir Stafford

    Longbottom, A. W.

    Smith, Rennie (Penistone)

    Daggar, George

    Longden, F.

    Smith, Tom (Pontefract)

    Dallas, George

    Lovat-Fraser, J. A.

    Snowden, Thomas (Accrington)

    Dalton, Hugh

    Lunn, William

    Sorensen, R.

    Davies, D. L. (Pontypridd)

    Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)

    Stamford, Thomas W.

    Davies, E. C. (Montgomery)

    MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham)

    Stephen, Campbell

    Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

    MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)

    Strauss, G. R.

    Day, Harry

    McElwee, A.

    Sullivan, J.

    Denman, Hon. R. D.

    McEntee, V. L.

    Sutton, J. E.

    Dudgeon, Major C. R.

    McKinlay, A.

    Taylor, R. A. (Lincoln)

    Dukes, C.

    MacLaren, Andrew

    Taylor, W. B. (Norfolk, S.W.)

    Duncan, Charles

    Maclean, Sir Donald (Cornwall, N.)

    Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby)

    Ede, James Chuter

    Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)

    Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)

    Edmunds, J. E.

    McShane, John James

    Thurtle, Ernest

    Edwards, E. (Morpeth)

    Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)

    Tillett, Ben

    Foot, Isaac

    Manning, E. L.

    Tinker John Joseph

    Freeman, Peter

    Mansfield, W.

    Toole, Joseph

    Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton)

    March, S.

    Tout, W. J.

    George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd (Car'vn)

    Marcus, M.

    Townend, A. E.

    George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)

    Marley, J.

    Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

    George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesea)

    Marshall, Fred

    Vaughan, David

    Gibbins, Joseph

    Mathers, George

    Viant, S. P.

    Gill, T. H.

    Matters, L. W.

    Walkden, A. G.

    Gillett, George M.

    Maxton, James

    Walker, J.

    Glassey, A. E.

    Messer, Fred

    Wallace, H. W.

    Gossling, A. G.

    Middleton, G.

    Watkins, F. C.

    Gould, F.

    Milner, Major J.

    Watson, w. M. (Dunfermline)

    Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)

    Morgan, Dr. H. B.

    Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)

    Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)

    Morris-Jones. Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)

    Wellock, Wilfred

    Granville, E.

    Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Hackney, S.)

    Welsh, James (Paisley)

    Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Colne).

    Morrison, Robert C. (Tottenham, N.)

    Welsh, James C. (Coatbridge)

    Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)

    Mort, D. L.

    West, F. R.

    Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro' W.)

    Muff, G.

    Westwood, Joseph

    Groves, Thomas E.

    Muggeridge, H. T.

    White, H. G.

    Grundy, Thomas W.

    Murnin, Hugh

    Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood)

    Hall. G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

    Naylor, T. E.

    Williams, David (Swansea, East)

    Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)

    Noel Baker, P. J.

    Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)

    Hall, Capt. W. G. (Portsmouth, C.)

    Noel-Buxton, Baroness (Norfolk, N.)

    Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)

    Hamilton, Mary Agnes (Blackburn)

    Oldfield, J. R.

    Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)

    Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Zetland)

    Oliver, George Harold (Ilkeston)

    Wilson, J. (Oldham)

    Harbord, A.

    Oliver, P. M. (Man., Blackley)

    Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)

    Hardie, George D.

    Owen, Major G. (Carnarvon)

    Winterton, G. E.(Leicester, Loughb'gh)

    Harris, Percy A.

    Palin, John Henry.

    Wise, E. F.

    Hastings, Dr. Somerville

    Paling, Wilfrid

    Wood, Major McKenzie (Banff)

    Haycock, A. W.

    Palmer, E. T.

    Young, R. S. (Islington, North)

    Hayday, Arthur

    Perry, S. F.

    Hayes, John Henry

    Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

    Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)

    Phillips, Dr. Marion

    Mr. Charleton and Mr. B. Smith.

    Henderson, Arthur, Junr. (Cardiff, S.)

    Picton-Turbervill, Edith

    1112

    1113

    NOES.

    Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

    Dixey, A. C.

    Morris, Rhys Hopkins

    Ainsworth, Lieut.-Col. Charles

    Duckworth, G. A. V.

    Morrison, W. S. (Glos., Cirencester)

    Albany, Irving James

    Dugdale, Capt. T. L.

    Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive

    Alexander, Sir Wm. (Glasgow, Cent'l)

    Edmondson, Major A. J,

    Muirhead, A. J.

    Allen, Sir J. Sandeman (Liverp'l., W.)

    Elliot, Major Walter E.

    Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)

    Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.

    England, Colonel A.

    Nicholson, O. (Westminster)

    Aske, Sir Robert

    Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.)

    Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W. G. (Ptrsf'ld)

    Astor, Maj. Hn. John J.(Kent, Dover)

    Everard, W. Lindsay

    O'Connor, T, J.

    Atholl, Duchess of

    Falle, Sir Bertram G.

    Oman, Sir Charles William C.

    Atkinson, C.

    Ferguson, Sir John

    O'Neill, Sir H.

    Baillie-Hamilton, Hon. Charles W.

    Fermoy, Lord

    Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William

    Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley (Bewdley)

    Fielden E. B.

    Peake, Captain Osbert

    Balfour, George (Hampstead)

    Fison, F. G. Clavering

    Penny, Sir George

    Balfour, Captain H. H. (I. of Thanet)

    Ford, Sir P. J.

    Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)

    Balniel, Lord

    Forestier-Walker, Sir L.

    Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)

    Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.

    Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.

    Power, Sir John Cecil

    Beaumont, M. W.

    Galbraith, J. F. W.

    Pownall, Sir Assheton

    Bellairs, Commander Carlyon

    Ganzoni, Sir John

    Ramsbotham, H

    Berry, Sir George

    Gault, Lieut.-Col. A. Hamilton

    Rawson, Sir Cooper

    Betterton, Sir Henry B.

    Gibson, C. G. (Pudsey & Otley)

    Remer, John R.

    Bevan, s. J. (Holborn)

    Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John

    Rentoul, Sir Gervals S.

    Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman

    Glyn, Major R. G. C.

    Reynolds, Col. Sir James

    Bird, Ernest Roy

    Grace, John

    Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall)

    Blindell, James

    Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)

    Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Bennell

    Bourne, Captain Robert Croft.

    Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter

    Ross, Ronald D.

    Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart

    Green,. W. P. Crawford

    Ruggles-Brise, Colonel E.

    Bowyer, Captain Sir George E. W.

    Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)

    Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

    Boyce, Leslie

    Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John

    Salmon, Major I.

    Bracken, B.

    Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.

    Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

    Brass, Captain Sir William

    Gunston, Captain D. W.

    Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)

    Briscoe, Richard George

    Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.

    Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart

    Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)

    Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)

    Savery, S. S.

    Brown, Brig.-Gen.H.C.(Berks, Newb'y)

    Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)

    Shepperson, Sir Ernest Whittome

    Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.

    Hanbury, C.

    Simms, Major-General J.

    Buchan, John

    Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

    Skelton, A. N.

    Bullock, Captain Malcolm

    Hartington, Marquess of

    Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)

    Burton, Colonel H. W.

    Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)

    Smith, R. W.(Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)

    Butler, R. A.

    Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)

    Smith-Carington, Neville W.

    Butt, Sir Alfred

    Herbert, Sir Dennis (Hertford)

    Smithers, Waldron

    Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward

    Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller

    Somerset, Thomas

    Campbell, E. T.

    Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.

    Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)

    Carver, Major W. H.

    Hore-Belisha, Leslie

    Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East)

    Castle Stewart, Earl of

    Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.

    Spender-Clay, Colonel H.

    Cautley, Sir Henry S.

    Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)

    Stanley, Lord (Fylde)

    Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)

    Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer

    Stanley, Hon. O (Westmorland)

    Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth. S.)

    Hurd, Percy A.

    Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur

    Cazalet, Captain Victor A.

    Hurst, Sir Gerald B.

    Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)

    Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord H. (Ox. Univ.)

    Hutchison, Maj.-Gen. Sir R.

    Thomas, Major L. B. (King's Norton)

    Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. Sir J. A.(Birm-.W.)

    Inskip, Sir Thomas

    Thompson, Luke

    Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. H. (Edgbaston)

    Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)

    Thomson, Sir F.

    Chapman, Sir S.

    Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

    Thomson, Mitchell-, Rt. Hon. Sir W.

    Christie, J. A.

    Kedward, R. M. (Kent, Ashford)

    Tinne, J. A.

    Clydesdale, Marquess of

    Kindersley, Major G. M.

    Titchfield, Major the Marquess of

    Cobb, Sir Cyril

    Knox, Sir Alfred

    Todd, Capt. A. J.

    Cockerill, Brig.-General sir George

    Lamb, Sir J. Q.

    Train, J.

    Cohen, Major J. Brunel

    Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.

    Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement

    Colfox, Major William Philip

    Law, Sir Alfred (Derby, High Peak)

    Turton, Robert Hugh

    Colman, N. C. D.

    Leigh, Sir John (Clapham)

    Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon

    Colville, Major D. J.

    Leighton, Major B. E. P.

    Wallace, Capt. D. E. (Hornsey)

    Conway, Sir w. Martin

    Lewis, Oswald (Colchester)

    Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. Lambert

    Cooper, A. Duff

    Little, Graham-, Sir Ernest

    Warrender, Sir Victor

    Courtauld, Major J. S.

    Llewellin, Major J. J.

    Waterhouse, Captain Charles

    Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L.

    Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hon. Godfrey

    Wayland, Sir William A.

    Cowan, D. M.

    Locker-Lampion, Com. O. (Handsw'th)

    Wells, Sydney R.

    Cranborne, Viscount

    Long, Major Hon. Eric

    Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)

    Crichton-Stuart, Lord C.

    Lymington, Viscount

    Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.

    McConnell, Sir Joseph

    Wilson, G. H. A. (Cambridge U.)

    Crookshank, Capt. H. C.

    Macdonald, Sir M. (Inverness)

    Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George

    Croom-Johnson, R. P.

    Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)

    Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl

    Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West)

    Maitland, A. (Kent, Faversham)

    Withers, Sir John James

    Cunliffe-Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip

    Makins, Brigadier-General E.

    Wolmer, Rt. Hon. Viscount

    Dalkeith, Earl of

    Margesson, Captain H. D.

    Womersley, W. J.

    Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. (Hertford)

    Marjoribanks, Edward

    Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley

    Davies, Dr. Vernon

    Mason, Colonel Glyn K.

    Wright, Brig.-Gen. W. D. (Tavist'k)

    Davies, Maj. Geo. F.(Somerset, Yeovil)

    Meller, R. J.

    Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)

    Merriman, Sir F. Boyd

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

    Dawson, Sir Philip

    Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)

    Commander B. Eyres Monsell and

    Despencer-Robertson, Major J. A. F.

    Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)

    Major Sir George Hennessy.

    Question, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution," put, and agreed to.

    Resolved, "That the Chairman do report Progress and ask leave to sit again."—[Mr. T. Kennedy.]
    Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.

  PALESTINE AND EAST AFRICA LOANS [GUARANTEE].
  Resolution reported,
  "That it is expedient to amend Sub-section (2) of Section one of the Palestine and East Africa Loans Act, 1926, by inserting after the words 'passing of this Act,' in paragraph (c) of the said Sub-section, the words 'other than charges in respect of loans previously guaranteed under this Act.'"
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution.'
  Lord EUSTACE PERCY: The Financial Secretary to the Treasury and I had a passage of words last night on this subject. I do not want to keep the House up at this hour of the night, but I hope we may assume that we shall have an opportunity of discussing this matter at a reasonable hour on some future day on the Second Reading of the Bill. I hope that that understanding may be agreed to from the other side of the House.
  Sir KINGSLEY WOOD: May we have a reply.
  Mr. C. WILLIAMS: Surely we may have an answer.
  The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Dr. Drummond Shiels): Certainly. I hope there will be an opportunity for a discussion as asked for by the Noble Earl, and I think that an opportunity will be available.
  Sir DENNIS HERBERT: I think we are entitled to something a little more definite on the part of the Front Bench opposite. If we are to allow the Report stage to go through without discussion, we should have some definite undertaking from a responsible Member of the Government that time will be given for a proper discussion on the Second Reading of the Bill. I hope we shall get that undertaking, but if it is not given, we must take such opportunity as we can of discussing this Resolution now on the Report stage.
  Sir K. WOOD: Surely, if the Prime Minister is not able to be here to-night, there must be someone in charge of the Government's business who is able to give a reply. All that we want is an assurance that this Bill will be taken
  1116
  at some reasonable time, in order that it may receive proper discussion. Is there any Minister who can reply to that question?
  Dr. SHIELS: If it is desired to raise any points now, I am prepared to reply, but I think it would be for the convenience of hon. Members that the suggestion of the Noble Lord should be adopted, and that the discussion should take place on the Second Reading. I am as anxious as any hon. Member opposite that the points in question should be dealt with, and I am glad to say that there will be a full opportunity for a discussion of them.
  Lord E. PERCY: May this matter be made quite clear? Have we an undertaking from those responsible that the Bill will be taken at a reasonable hour, when we can have a thorough Debate?
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. T. Kennedy): I think I can say without any hesitation that there will be a full opportunity for discussion on the Second Reading, and that the business will be taken at a reasonable hour. The question, of course, as to what a reasonable hour is, is, I hope, an open question. Any request that this business should be taken at any unusual hour would, I think, be quite unprecedented, and the business will be announced in the ordinary course at the ordinary time.
  Major COLFOX: May we take it, from what the Chief Government Whip has said, that at least a couple of hours will be allotted to the discussion before 11 o'clock at night on some day in the near future? If the undertaking that the Chief Government Whip has just given does not mean that, but merely that the Eleven o'clock Rule will be suspended and the Bill taken after 11 o'clock, the discussion possibly running on into the small hours of the morning, that would hardly be considered an adequate opportunity for discussion. May I ask the Chief Government Whip if he will give us that undertaking?
  Sir HENRY BETTERTON: I took part in the Debate last night, and it was not until about half-past eleven or 12 o'clock that it was taken. The Financial Secretary to the Treasury answered very fully and clearly the question that I put to

  1117
  him, and, after that, my Noble Friend the Member for Hastings (Lord E. Percy) put further questions, which it was agreed needed further discussion. So far as I am concerned, and I think I speak for my Friends beside me, if the Chief Government Whip assures us that we shall have a fair opportunity at a reasonable hour to discuss the further points which were not fully discussed last night, we shall be content; but I think the Chief Government Whip will agree that we ought to be given reasonable time at a reasonable hour—earlier than last night —in order that we may discuss these points.
  Mr. KENNEDY Mr. KENNEDY indicated assent.
  Bill ordered to be brought in upon the said Resolution by Mr. Pethick-Lawrence and Dr. Shiels.

  PALESTINE AND EAST AFRICA LOANS [GUARANTEE].
    PALESTINE AND EAST AFRICA LOANS BILL,
    "to amend Sub-section (2) of Section 1 of the Palestine and East Africa Loans Act, 1926," presented accordingly, and read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 130.]

  POST OFFICE AND TELEGRAPH [MONEY].
  Resolution reported,
  "That it is expedient—

  (i) to authorise the payment out of the Consolidated Fund of such sums, not exceeding in the whole thirty-two million pounds, as may be required for the further development of the postal, telegraphic, and telephonic systems;

  (ii) to authorise the Treasury to borrow, by means of terminable annuities or by the issue of Exchequer bonds, for the purpose of providing money for sums so authorised to be issued or of repaying to the Consolidated Fund all or any part of the sums so issued;

  (iii) to provide for the payment of such terminable annuities, or of the principal of and interest on any such Exchequer bonds, out of money provided by Parliament for the service of the Post Office or, if those moneys are insufficient, out of the Consolidated Fund."

  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."
  11.0 p.m.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I take it that this is the basis for a Bill to be introduced later on. I should like to ask the Postmaster-General how soon that Bill will be introduced and whether there will be an opportunity of discussing it at a reasonable time. This is a question of great practical importance, and it is exceedingly desirable that there should be a full discussion. I should like to know when the Bill will be introduced, when there will be a Second Reading, and whether the Government will undertake that the House will have an opportunity of discussing it at a reasonable time.
  Mr. C. WILLIAMS: It is very nice to hear the right hon. Gentleman for once asking the Government to give us a reasonable amount of time. It is something for which I have been asking, and I hope he will give us full and firm support, because we are doing an important thing in passing this Resolution. It is very late in the evening. We discussed this matter in Committee, not at a very late hour, but at an hour that was not very convenient for many Members, and now we are having the Report stage brought on after 11 o'clock on a day on which we have been discussing a great constitutional Bill. The figure in the Resolution is something in the nature of £32,000,000 and I do not think it is right that the House of Commons should be asked to vote these colossal sums of money after 11 o'clock. We are asked to do this on the flimsiest of pretexts, because we do not even know yet whether this is really the foundation on which a Bill is to be based. It is conceivable that this is one of the Bills that are coming out of the extraordinary collection of oddities which were put forward the other day by the new Lord Privy Seal. If it is one of the collection which enables the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) to give the Government another chance, possibly it is as well that we should see the Bill in print.
  Many people are sick of the way in which the Government are continually bringing in late at night large orders for expenditure and never giving the House a proper and constitutional method of discussing them. I am not criticising the expenditure. It would be easy for me to

  1119
  do so under the Financial Resolution, but I am merely criticising the passing of the Report stage, at the present time. Many people are beginning to realise that this kind of thing being done night after night, when the House of Commons cannot possibly understand the full details— [Interruption]. It is quite clear that hon. Members opposite are not capable of understanding the most simple point. This is one of those cases where the House will be well advised not to give the Government money until we have had a full and adequate account as to the purposes for which the money is required.
  The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. Attlee): In reply to the right hon. Gentleman, the Bill of which this Money Resolution forms the basis will be introduced at the earliest possible opportunity, and it will be brought on at a time which will give ample opportunity for its discussion. It will not be an inconvenient time. To the hon. Member for Torquay (Mr. C. Williams), I would say that his absence from the Debate yesterday was regretted. I realise his very great devotion to business, and I think
  1120
  that he had gone out to get much needed refreshment when this matter came on.
  Bill ordered to be brought in upon the said Resolution by Mr. Attlee, Mr. Pethick-Lawrence and Mr. Viant.

  POST OFFICE AND TELEGRAPH [MONEY].

    POST OFFICE AND TELEGRAPH BILL,
    "to provide for raising further money for the development of the postal, telegraphic, and telephonic systems"; presented accordingly, and read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 131.]
    The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

    ADJOURNMENT.
    Resolved, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. T. Kennedy.]
    Adjourned accordingly at Ten Minutes after Eleven o'Clock.

  MOTOR-COACH LICENCES.
  MOTOR-COACH LICENCES.
  PALESTINE (LIQUOR, IMPORTS).
  PALESTINE (LIQUOR, IMPORTS).
  CAMEROONS AND TOGOLAND (SPIRITS, IMPORT).
  CAMEROONS AND TOGOLAND (SPIRITS, IMPORT).
  DOMINICA (CARIB DISTURBANCES).
  DOMINICA (CARIB DISTURBANCES).
TRADE AND COMMERCE.
  RUBBER INDUSTRY.
  RUBBER INDUSTRY.
  BRITISH EXHIBITION, BUENOS AYRES.
  BRITISH EXHIBITION, BUENOS AYRES.
  FOREIGN SHIPS (REGULATIONS, CONTRAVENTION).
  FOREIGN SHIPS (REGULATIONS, CONTRAVENTION).
  UNEMPLOYMENT (SKEGNESS FORESHORE SCHEME).
  UNEMPLOYMENT (SKEGNESS FORESHORE SCHEME).
ROYAL NAVY.
  FOREIGN SERVICE LEAVE (HIS MAJESTY'S SHIP "QUEEN ELIZABETH").
  FOREIGN SERVICE LEAVE (HIS MAJESTY'S SHIP "QUEEN ELIZABETH").
  OIL FUEL.
  OIL FUEL.
  ROYAL AIR FORCE (RESERVE OF OFFICERS).
  ROYAL AIR FORCE (RESERVE OF OFFICERS).
  NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.
  NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.
  CROWN LEGAL PROCEEDINGS.
  CROWN LEGAL PROCEEDINGS.
  LOCAL TAXATION.
  LOCAL TAXATION.
Preamble
The House met at a quarter before four of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.

LOWER AVON NAVIGATION BILL. [H.L.]
THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (LORD MARLEY): My Lords, on behalf of the noble Earl, the Lord Chairman of Committees, I beg to move the Motion which stands in his name upon the Paper.
Moved, That Standing Order No. 91 be considered in order to its being dispensed with in respect of the Bill, and that the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Marley.)
On Question, Motion agreed to: Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed, the Committee to be proposed by the Committee of Selection.

COVENTRY EXTENSION BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.
GRAND UNION CANAL BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES.
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (LORD PARMOOR): My Lords, in the absence of the Lord Chairman of Committees, I beg to move that Lord Stanmore be appointed to take the Chair in Committee of the Whole House on the Agricultural Land (Utilisation) Bill.
Moved accordingly and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

AGRICULTURAL LAND (UTILISA TION) BILL.
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Earl De La Warr.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly:
[LORD STANMORE in the Chair.]
Clause 1:
Establishment of Agricultural Land Corporation.
1.—(1) The Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries (hereinafter referred to as "the Minister") in conjunction with the Secretary of State for Scotland and with the concurrence of the Treasury may, at any time within one year after the commencement of this Act, by order made in accordance with the provisions of this section establish a corporation (hereinafter referred to as "the corporation") for the purpose of promoting and improving the agricultural development of such land in Great Britain as may be vested in the corporation, by conducting thereon large scale farming operations and otherwise; and the affairs of the corporation shall be administered, controlled and managed by such persons (hereinafter referred to as "directors") as His Majesty in Council may be pleased to appoint, and of the directors at least one shall be experienced in finance and of the remainder at least half shall have had practical experience in agriculture and the number of such directors shall be not less than five and not more than nine persons.
(2) An order made by the Minister and Secretary of State under the last foregoing subsection, shall—

(a) provide for the constitution of the corporation as a body corporate under the name of the Agricultural Land Corporation, having a common seal and power to hold land without licence in mortmain:

(b) provide for the remuneration of the directors out of moneys belonging to the corporation:

(c) provide for the administration and management of the operations of the corporation in Scotland by means of a committee of the directors acting in consultation with such number of persons having practical experience of agriculture in Scotland as may be specified in the order:

(d) empower the corporation to purchase or take on lease land by agreement, and, subject to any conditions specified in the order, to sell, let or exchange for any purpose any land vested in the corporation and to pay or receive money in respect of equality of exchange, and shall incorporate (subject to such modifications as may be specified in the order) the Lands Clauses Acts except the provisions of those Acts with respect to the purchase and taking of land otherwise than by agreement:

(e) define particularly the objects of the corporation:

(f) provide for the establishment of a fund (to be called the Agricultural Land Fund), to be administered and controlled by the directors, for the payment into the fund of all moneys received by or on behalf of the corporation, and for the payment out of the fund of any moneys required for the purposes of the corporation:

630

(g) empower the directors, subject to such conditions as may be imposed by the Minister and Secretary of State with the approval of the Treasury, to borrow money for the purposes of the corporation and shall make provision as to the security upon which money may be so borrowed:

(h) make provision for securing the payment to the Treasury of all moneys received by or on behalf of the corporation not required for the purposes of the corporation:

(i) provide for the keeping of the accounts of the corporation, such accounts to include a profit-and-loss account, and to include a valuation made at the commencement and end of each financial year for the annual audit of those accounts, and for the making of an annual report to the Minister and Secretary of State showing such audited accounts of the corporation as may be specified in the order:

(j) require the directors to furnish to the Minister and Secretary of State such information as to the operations of the corporation as they may at any time demand:

(k) contain such supplementary or con-sequential provisions as the Minister and Secretary of State consider necessary or desirable for giving effect to the objects of the corporation as defined by the order,

and the order shall further make provision as to the circumstances in which the corporation is to be wound up, and shall provide for the application of Part X of the Companies Act, 1929, subject to such modifications as may be specified in the order in the event of the winding up of the corporation.
(3) Before any order is made by the Minister and Secretary of State under this section a draft thereof shall be laid before Parliament, and if either House of Parliament within twenty-one days during which that House has sat next after any such draft is laid before it resolves that the order shall not be made, the draft shall thenceforth be of no effect, but without prejudice to the making of any new order.
(4) Any Order in Council appointing any person to be a director of the corporation may be revoked by any subsequent Order in Council, and any order made by the Minister and Secretary of State under this section may be amended by any subsequent order made by them at any time, but a draft of any such order shall be laid before Parliament in like manner as the original order.
(5) The Minister, as respects land in England, and the Department of Agriculture for Scotland, as respects land in Scotland, shall have power to acquire land otherwise than by agreement for the purpose of vesting the land in the corporation, so, however, that the compensation and other expenses of acquiring any such land shall be defrayed by the corporation.
(6) The Minister and Secretary of State shall make to Parliament not later than the first day of May an annual report as to the operations of the corporation, including a summary of the annual accounts of the corporation.
VISCOUNT ASTOR VISCOUNT ASTOR moved, in subsection (1), to leave out "such" ["development of such land"]. The noble Viscount said: Until a few hours ago I was under the impression that the noble Earl in charge of the Bill would first of all explain the object of Clause 1, and that then those of us who wish to move Amendments would put them forward as an alternative way of carrying out that object. I find that this is not the procedure, and so it is necessary, I suppose, to say a word about the object of Clause 1 in order to explain why in my opinion the proposal which I am going to put forward is a better way of carrying out that object. The object of Clause 1, I understand, is to carry out experiments in large-male farming—although there are added the rather indefinite words "and otherwise," which seem to allow for considerable extension—and to carry them out on a businesslike basis. The method proposed in the Bill is through a Corporation consisting largely of experts and free front Ministerial and Departmental control. The Bill as drafted proposes that the experiments should be carried out on land acquired by and owned by the Corporation, and a million pounds has been voted for this purpose. There are therefore two points that we have to consider: the object and the method by which the object is to be carried out.
As regards the object, I confess, after considerable discussion and examination, I think a case can be made out to-day for carrying out experiments in large-scale farming and otherwise. This is a mechanical age. I think it would be unbusinesslike to suggest that agriculture, of all industries, should not have mechanisation applied to it in the same way as other industries. We know by experience; history shows that when an industry is mechanised it tends to be dislocated. That was the experience of the cotton industry last century and it is so to-day, but in spite of that it has been proved essential for progress that these changes should be made. Whether it is necessary or not in agriculture it is impossible to tell until the experiment has been made.
632
It certainly is a fallacy to imagine that agriculture alone of all industries may not require to be adapted to modern inventions.
It was explained on the Second Reading that the original suggestion for an experiment such as this was put forward by a Committee under Lord Selborne's Chairmanship, and it has been put forward since on more than one occasion by Mr. Orwin, and I myself, in travelling round the country, have run across experiments which are being carried out to-day by individuals. I recently read an article in The Times written by Lord Ernie and I am not quite certain—perhaps Lord De La Warr can tell us—whether the money voted for carrying out Clause 1 can be utilised for the purpose of what Lord Ernie in his most interesting article called process farming. He explains in his article that in Denmark the farmers not only produce the raw material but own their own factories, in which they enjoy the profits from butter and bacon as well as from milk and pigs. He goes on in the same article to suggest that. the million pounds might be better spent in the development of process farming, by loans for the erection of stations for drying or canning vegetables, pulping fruit, drying milk, extracting flour from potatoes and similar objects, processes which mitigate the danger of gluts and afford seasonal employment. I dare say the noble Earl will be able to tell us whether the Corporation could carry out experiments on those lines under Clause 1. As regards the amount of money to be spent, certainly it seems to me that if we were to get for a million pounds an answer as to applying the principle of mechanisation to farming, and as to whether altering our methods of agriculture was desirable or necessary, it would be money well spent in the interests of the industry.
I come now to what may be a more controversial matter—namely, that of methods. The Bill as drafted proposes that experiments should be carried out by the Corporation only on land which they own. There are three alternative ways in which experiments could be carried out. One is in the way which I suggest in my Amendment—namely, grants to private individuals or societies, and I rather gather that that is what Lord Ernie had in mind in his article; or it can be done, as suggested by Lord Lothian in his

633
Amendment, by the Corporation either on land which it owns itself or by grants to private individuals. The proposal in the Bill seems to me to be the least desirable and likely to be the most expensive. There is really no adequate limit to the commitments on which we should be embarking. If the Corporation buy land and the experiment is a failure, they cannot stop, and so the money voted need not necessarily be the limit of our commitment. The object of my Amendment is to enable the Corporation to conduct experiments or supervise the conducting of experiments by giving grants to private individuals or corporations.
There are undoubtedly, to-day, people who are competent and qualified and ready to carry out experiments such as are contemplated, but they are just short of the necessary capital. It would be far cheaper for the Corporation to give those private individuals a grant. In that way you limit the amount of your loss, and if you enter into partnership with individuals when making a grant you can share in the profit if there is one. That is the object of my Amendment. I do not know what procedure the noble Earl, Lord De La Warr, is going to adopt—whether we shall have a general discussion on my Amendment and that of Lord Lothian at the same time—but I have explained briefly the Object of my Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 17, leave out ("such").—(Viscount Astor.)
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: With your Lordships' leave, I would like to present my remarks as covering not only this Amendment, which also stands in my name, but also my Amendment standing in the middle of page 2 of the Marshalled List. The object of the Amendment I have put down is twofold: in the first place to support the principle of the clause and in the second place to bring about an alteration in giving effect to it. The principle of the clause is to spend some public money in permitting experiments in large-scale farming and otherwise, with a view to promoting agricultural development, and to do so exclusively through a Government Corporation spending money on land which it has acquired itself. The purpose of my Amendment is to make it possible for that
634
Corporation to enter into partnership with or to make advances to private individuals or corporations for this same purpose.
As I understand it, the majority or a very large number of those who have given close study from a scientific point of view to agriculture in Great Britain to-day, are in favour of the principle of Part I of the Bill. I do not think it is open to doubt that the most serious problem which confronts agriculture today is whether you can save arable farming at all, whether the whole of that eastern area running from the East of Scotland in the North round the Eastern Counties of England and round as far as Dorsetshire in the South is going to follow the example of Western England and give up arable cultivation altogether or not. The reason is twofold. In the first place, lower costs abroad, due to the highly mechanised methods of the new world or the low rates of wages on the Continent of Europe; in the second, the policy of this country in having doubled—and rightly doubled in my view—agricultural wages since the War. The working costs of British farmers so far as labour is concerned have been almost doubled while the working costs of foreigners have not been anything like doubled, if they have been increased at all.
In these circumstances can arable agriculture survive at all? I think there are a great many people who take the pessimistic view that it is doomed. I have investigated personally a certain number of experiments in mechanisation. Mechanisation in substance is a proposal to substitute mechanical or tractor power for horse power and for those who look after horses, and to substitute artificial manures for the animal manures which have been the main source of the fertility of the land in the past. It is a depressing sight, I confess, to go through a modern mechanised farm. The buildings are empty. There are no animals about the place. The farming is as good as ever but the human life and animal life is very small. What is the alternative? I was recently in Norfolk examining a very interesting experiment there, and I was told that what is actually happening there is that the alternative, which is rapidly coming to the fore, is that the farmers should take

635
the farms and convert them purely into rough pastures, with the result that there is even less labour and even less production on those farms than there is on mechanised farms.
As I understand it the principle of this Bill is to try to meet that situation, on the one hand by experimenting to find out whether it is possible by adopting modern methods to keep arable cultivation alive—a matter, I may say, of the gravest importance to us nationally because if we are not going to produce any arable products in this country we are in even greater danger in time of War than we are to-day—and secondly, by trying to utilise that labour which is inevitably forced off the land by mechanised farming by finding an opening for it in small holdings. I believe that is a sound approach to the problem. The question of small holdings will come up later. I am only concerned now with the question of whether or not it is a good thing to experiment in modern methods which will keep arable farming alive in that third of England in which it is dying to-day. I am in favour of doing so and I think it is worth while spending public money upon it.
Why do I think that such money as is spent ought to be partly spent by entering into partnership with or making advances to private individuals as well as on Government land? I think your Lordships will agree with me that it is normally the function of the owner of land to make these very experiments which are contemplated in this Bill. Is it possible for the owner of land to-day, with the existing system of taxation, to do so? I do not think any country has ever contrived a more disastrous system of taxation for agriculture in the history of mankind. Whatever view you may take of the landlord system, it seems to me beyond question that the worst possible system is to keep the landlord system alive and then make it impossible for it to function at all. That is the present system. As far as I can estimate the State is now taking more than £10,000,000 a year capital out of agriculture. It is taking about £3,000,000 a year in Death Duties, and anybody who knows the land knows that the incidence of taxation, both Income Tax and Super Tax on land is infinitely more heavy than on the ordinary industrial companies. It
636
is a taxation on gross revenue less certain deductions and not on the dividends which pass into our pockets. It is impossible under existing conditions for the owners of land to do the things which they ought to do and I welcome this Bill because, for the first time, it is a recognition by the State that capital ought to be put back into agriculture, and that the only hope of its recovery is that capital should be put back.
Therefore, I am proposing—I know it will open me to the odium of an attack on the ground that I am proposing to subsidise landlords—that in this whole business of experimenting the State should take the power, if it proves advantageous to do so, to enter into arrangements with the owners for this same purpose and not only do it on its own land. I do not personally object to the Government making its experiments on land of its own or acquiring land for the purpose. I think in some cases it is of advantage to do so. I am not afraid of the great bogey of nationalisation. I think that one of the best ways of convincing the public mind about the nature of the ownership of land is that the State should take a certain amount of land into its own hands and experiment, and burn its fingers in the process. The ordinary person believes that the ownership of land is like drawing dividends from War Loans. It is nothing of the kind. It is an extremely difficult and expensive business to conduct, and until the State itself conducts a certain amount of business of that kind I do not think it will understand in the least how to deal with it. And, therefore, I venture to put down an Amendment that the Corporation should be empowered not only to make experiments on land of its own, but also to enter into partnership with private individuals or public authorities or to make advances for the purpose of discovering how the arable industry of this country may be preserved.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: I rise not really to make any considered contribution to the discussion of the particular Amendment which is now before your Lordships, but rather to make a suggestion which possibly may be in the interests of the saving of time. Your Lordships will have seen by the Marshalled list of Amendments that we have some two and a half pages of Amend-

637
ments dealing with the wording of Clause 1, finishing with an Amendment to leave out the clause altogether. If it should turn out—I am not saying it will—but if it should turn out that there is a strong feeling in this Committee that the clause ought to be left out altogether, there will be a very considerable and unnecessary expenditure of time in discussing the details of what is to be in the clause. The noble Marquess who has just spoken said very truly, and indeed my noble friend Lord Astor also said, that there were two things which they had to deal with—first, whether it was necessary and advisable to have these large-scale farm experiments made by the State, and, secondly, assuming that it was advisable, what the best form of machinery was for carrying that into effect. The immediate purpose of the Amendment before us is to modify the machinery. But if the majority of the Committee should take the view that it is not desirable to have these experiments at all, then obviously a lengthy discussion on the exact machinery which should be adopted would really turn out to be a complete waste of time.
What I was going to suggest for the consideration of the noble Earl in charge of the Bill is that perhaps he might concur in thinking that we might have a general discussion on the main point which the noble Marquess stressed and which the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, has also laid emphasis upon, as to whether or not it is desirable to have the large scale farming experiments by the State. If the general sense of the Committee should seem to be against that view then possibly it would not be regarded as reasonable or profitable to discuss Amendments which only deal with the question of how the experiment is to be carried out. It is only in the interest of time, as I hope the noble Earl will appreciate, that I make the suggestion. If it commends itself to the Committee it seems to me that we may save a good deal of discussion which may turn out to be wholly unnecessary.
LORD BUCKMASTER: I wish to say a word in strong support of what has been said by the noble and learned Viscount. It was impassible, both for the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, and the noble Marquess, Lord Lothian, to discuss their Amendments without explaining why
638
it was that they approved of the principle of Clause 1 of the Bill. There are some of us in the House who think that however you amend the clause it is impossible to reconcile it with their improvements. I am one of them, and it seems to me that to discuss all these Amendments before discussing the vital question whether the clause ought to remain in the Bill is exactly like discussing what clothes a man ought to wear when the real question to consider is whether he ought not to be sentenced to death.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: If it is the wish of your Lordships that I should move to leave out Clause 1 I am prepared to do it now.
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Hear, hear.
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY OF THE MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES (EARL DE LA WARR): It is needless for me to say that I hear with surprise that the noble Lord is willing to move that Clause 1 should be left out. There are, I understand, no specific rules on this point and therefore the Government are entirely in the hands of the Committee. But I would put it to your Lordships that there are a number of Amendments of considerable importance on the Paper which it occurs to me might very considerably alter the feeling of many of your Lordships as to whether you are prepared to pass this clause or not. It may well be that your Lordships dislike the whole thing so much that you are prepared to kill the clause at once without further discussion; but I am not entirely sure whether that will really redound to the credit of Committee discussion in this House or not. That, of course, is entirely for your Lordships to decide. For myself, whilst net wishing in ally way to inconvenience your Lordships or waste your time, I would say, speaking for the Government, that we would certainly prefer that at any rate the more important of these Amendments, such as the one that has just been put before your Lordships by the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, and the noble Marquess, Lord Lothian, should be discussed in order that your Lordships should be in a position, if the Amendments are carried, to pronounce on the general principle included in the clause with those Amendments inserted. However, as I say, we are entirely in your Lord-

639
ships' hands, and if you feel so certain that, no matter what form it takes, you wish to move the clause right out of the Bill, then it is entirely for your Lordships to decide and for another place to deal with the matter when the Bill returns to them in that form.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: I beg to move that Clause 1 be omitted from the Bill.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My noble friend will forgive me, but I do not think it is possible to do that. There is a Motion before your Lordships' House to make the particular Amendment which stands at the head of the list of Amendments, and that has to be disposed of. I think my suggestion can only be carried out by the general assent of the Committee. I only put it forward because I thought it might save a very great deal of time.
LORD BUCKMASTER: It is possible for a Motion to be made that the Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Banbury, shall have precedence over the others. I see no objection to that. The real point which I submit is whether the Amendment of Lord Banbury should have precedence over these other Amendments, and I beg to move that it should.
LORD PARMOOR: I really must take objection to that, because we ought to keep our practice right. I dare say that Motion might have been moved specially, with the consent of the Committee, before the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, moved his Amendment which has been supported by the noble Marquess. That Amendment is now before the House. I am not saying that conditions might not arise which would make it of advantage to take the question of leaving out the clause first; but that is not so at the present time. So long as the other Amendments are before your Lordships' House we have to proceed with them.
LORD BUCKMASTER: I cannot see why the noble and learned Lord should object. I would point out to him that the principle of the clause was one of the things vital to the arguments of the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, and the noble Marquess, Lord Lothian. They said the first thing that underlay their Amendment was the principle of the clause. It was the very thing on which
640
they based their ease. If that is so, we ought to discuss the principle of the clause first, and I beg to move that that be done.
Moved, That the Amendment of Lord Banbury to leave out Clause 1 have precedence over other Amendments on the clause.—(Lord Buckmaster.)
LORD PARMOOR: I hope the noble and learned Lord will consider that that really would be an absolute upsetting of our procedure. It might be said of our procedure that we, first of all, go through the Amendments and then the question arises to leave out the clause. But after certain noble Lords have moved an Amendment on a matter of detail it does not seem right that we should pass away to the quite different question of leaving out the clause altogether. I claim that at this time—and I hope that we shall keep to our proper procedure—so long as these Amendments are before the House, as they are at the present time, they ought to be disposed of first.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: May I make a suggestion which would possibly meet the point? As my noble and learned friend Lord Buckmaster has said, in order to determine the merits of this Amendment it is necessary to consider the principle of the clause. Both the mover and the seconder have, in fact, discussed the principle of the clause. If those who are against the clause would express that view on this Amendment and if this Amendment should then be defeated it may well be that the movers of subsequent Amendments would not think it necessary to take up time in moving them. We should achieve the end we all have in view without running any risk of upsetting our procedure.
LORD BUCKMASTER: With the consent of your Lordships, I will withdraw my Motion.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: I hope it will be in order for me to discuss on this Amendment—
LORD PARMOOR: Has the noble Viscount withdrawn his Amendment?
VISCOUNT ASTOR: I am not quite certain how we stand.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: Am I to understand that the noble Viscount has not withdrawn?
VISCOUNT ASTOR: That is so.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: I understand it will be in order for me to do what the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, did at the beginning of his speech—to discuss whether or not, this is a good or a bad clause. If that is so, I propose to say that in my opinion it is an extremely bad clause and I will give your Lordships my reasons for saying so. The clause enacts that the Minister of Agriculture and the Secretary of State for Scotland may, for the purpose of pro-mating and improving the agricultural development of land, buy a certain quantity of land and vest it in a Corporation. Then there are a certain number of directors, half of whom shall have had practical experience of agriculture and one of whom shall know something about finance. They may purchase, take or lease land by agreement and proceed with the establishment of an Agricultural Land Fund. All this is going to cost a million pounds.
In the first place, if noble Lords will turn to Clause 22 they will see that for the purposes of Clause 1 the Treasury are authorised to advance the sum of £1,000,000. I would ask noble Lords whether it is necessary to carry out experiments on this scale. Have they not been carried out before? My noble friend Lord Stanhope—I have his speech here—stated on the Second Reading that in Yorkshire, on the Partington Estate, the Government carried out experiments on an estate of 2,300 acres on which, in ten years, the Ministry lost over £82,000. I do not think this is a good augury for an experiment the antecedents of which show that in all probability we shall lose more money besides the £1,000,000 which it will cost. On the occasion to which I have referred, my noble friend Lord Stanhope drew the attention of your Lordships to the Co-operative Wholesale Society which, in 1930, had a farm acreage of 20,625 acres, and on that acreage lost £34,000 in a single year.
Why should we do this at a moment when it is common knowledge that the country is in a very bad financial position? What are we going to gain by it? Presuming, which I think is extremely
642
probable, that 10,000 or 20,000 acres are bought by this Corporation, and it is found, as the noble Marquess, Lord Lothian, said just now, that by doing away with all the men on the land and by doing away with all the animals on the land and having nothing except machinery and artificial manures possibly—though I do not believe it myself—you might make arable farming pay. This Bill, I understand, was introduced in order to encourage employment; yet the first thing that is going to be done is to do something that will get rid of men on the land, discourage employment, and send more unemployed people to seek the "dole," or whatever is necessary. What is to happen if the £1,000,000 is not sufficient? It must be remembered that the following two clauses also propose to spend money. I presume, if we pass this clause, we shall have to pass the other clauses, which mean a cost of £6,700,000, Therefore, in the interests of economy, in the interests of employment, to avoid turning out the tenant-farmer, which must necessarily result, and to avoid turning away the labourers from the land, I trust your Lordships will reject the clause.
LORD HASTINGS: Might I, before making a few general remarks, say how glad we agriculturists on this side of the House are to see the noble Earl (Earl De La Warr) restored to health, and in his seat and able to deal with the very strenuous business which lies before him. The exceedingly interesting speech which fell from the noble Marquess, Lord was as surely a very remarkable utterance for a distinguished and consistent Free Trader to make. I conceive it impossible that any Protectionist could have been able to explain to your Lordships so lucidly and with such conviction the reasons why arable agriculture in England is now falling away and has become decadent. The noble Marquess has explained that wages have had their effect, and that mechanised agriculture abroad has had its effect, and he leaves us with the certain knowledge that arable agriculture in England, unprotected and compelled to face unaided this accumulation of competition from overseas, is in no condition to compete. The noble Marquess accepts that situation, and then goes on to suggest that the best way to get rid of it, or to

643
ameliorate it, is to adopt national farming on modern mechanised lines.
Surely it would occur to most reasonable people that the first way to deal with a situation such as that which prevails is to endeavour to see if, by some fiscal means, it would not be possible to preserve arable agriculture in that condition in which it now is rather than embark on an elaborate and costly State scheme whereby, and under which, a very large proportion of those persons now engaged in agriculture, however unsuccessfully, would be displaced. Surely it is more desirable to retain upon the land those who are already there, even though it may involve some sacrifice of fiscal principles, rather than deliberately to expropriate them in order to give opportunity for an experiment such as is designed in this Bill. So much for that side of the matter.
It all depends, in my humble view, upon the angle of approach as to whether one considers this experiment desirable or not. The noble Earl in charge of the Bill, in his two speeches on Second Reading, both when he introduced the measure and when he took part in the debate, referred to this clause, and on each occasion he approached it from one angle. It was the angle of expediency. He endeavoured to explain to the House how desirable it was that, in view of the fact that arable agriculture had fallen upon evil days, some alternative method should be found. That, of course, was sound sense. I would not be so foolish as to attempt to controvert it, but I say it depends entirely upon the angle from which the subject is approached. I am bound to approach it from a totally different angle. I know there are in existence, and we all know, innumerable farmers farming 100 acres, 200 or 300 acres under grave difficulties to-day, but they are there, and it is in the interests of the State that they should remain where they are and not be displaced. We also know there are large numbers of labourers employed on those farms who are not able to earn the wage which the State says they should have. That is not their fault. It is, however, the fact. Nevertheless I consider it highly desirable that they should stay where they are. It is in the interest of the State that it should be made possible for
644
them to remain on the farms, and for the tenants to farm successfully where they are.
There is another angle of approach that I make. If this large-scale farming is to be subsidised by the State—for the moment I am not concerned as to the immediate cost; I am concerned more with the large principle involved—if it is held to be desirable to subsidise large-scale farming we have to face the consequences. What are the consequences going to be? For the moment we are dealing with arable agriculture, and we had better confine ourselves to that, although I know large-scale farming can be conducted in other kinds of agriculture as well as arable. But for the moment it is arable farming that we are considering. There are a large number of persons who believe that mechanised farming on a large scale, in the present condition of unprotected agriculture, would fail. They want it to fail, and therefore they would like to see the experiment. That seems to me to be a rather futile method of approaching any big subject. There are many indeed who feel confident that this large-scale farming, even under present conditions in England, would succeed, and that is to my mind the really dangerous possibility, because, if you have spent great sums of State money in inducing a successful experiment, you have to see where it is going to lead to.
You are not to stop at it, but, having found the thing is successful, what do you do? The presumption is that, having discovered it is successful, you would try to extend the experiment. It would no longer be an experiment. It would became part of the adopted practice of agriculture in the country. It is to be remembered that we have not a hinterland, that we are not a prairie country. We are a country with a very limited area of land, an area which is becoming more limited because of the growth of towns and the requirements of the population generally. We have no great fields to fall back upon. We have almost only what we see under our noses. Can we afford to extend prairie farming indefinitely, or even very much, in this country? If we do, what will happen to the people who now live upon the land? You cannot get any large number of persons able or willing to find the capital

645
and to follow the example of this experiment of the Government. You have to have a 6,000-acre farm, which is the correct acreage for this type of farming. I speak on the authority of a gentleman whom I would not mention personally if his name had not already been mentioned by Lord De la Warr. We all know that Mr. Orwin is the protagonist of this scheme and he says that the 6,000-acre farm is the correct size.
How many people in this country will take up 6,000-acre farms and farm them on practical lines? Only a few syndicates. The logical conclusion will be that the Government, having discovered that this farming is remunerative and that very few people are able to do it for financial reasons, will come to the House and say: "Here is a success, give us the money to go on with it" and, in course of time, enormous areas in the country will be farmed by the State on this large-scale basis. That, in my opinion, is very undesirable. We have to look at the consequences of success. You want success and, if you achieve success, where is it going to take you?
Another point is, what is going to happen to the tenant farmers and labourers now upon the land? I admit that, within narrow and restricted limits, it may be possible to accommodate a limited number of those labourers with small holdings, but not every man is prepared to undertake the slave labour of a small holding when he can more easily earn a decent wage by working for someone else. You cannot compel him to do it if he does not want to. In this Bill you propose to compensate the man for his loss of employment. It is hard on the taxpayer that you should take away his work and pay him for it. Remember, too, that he may be attached to his home, which may have been the home of his family for generations. He may not keep his pedigree as carefully as noble Lords keep theirs, but it is there all the same and his present home has been his home for generations. This is a, definitely antisocial measure and I cannot believe how a Socialist Government found it possible to embody this clause in their Bill. We have been told where it came from. I cannot conceive that this clause ever emanated from the mind of a Socialist Minister. It is definitely anti-social to propose to turn a labourer out of his job, to put him in a part of the country
646
where he does not wish to be, and to deprive him of the opportunity of earning his living in the way he wishes to. If there were no other objection whatever to this clause than this forcible ejection of the labourer who now endeavours to earn his living upon the land, I should vote against the clause. I doubt if there are many noble Lords present in this House who will not take the same attitude and I also doubt if half the noble Lords opposite will not follow me into the Lobby.
LORD BUCKMASTER: Since the Second Reading of this Bill sufficient time has elapsed to enable all of us to give careful consideration to its contents. On the Second Reading I expressed myself as very critical of its value, and reflection has confirmed the view which I then expressed and has made me feel that possibly my criticisms were not sufficiently severe. It must be remembered that, in discussing this Bill and its provisions, you must discuss them in relation to the position in which we stand. That is especially true of Clause 1 which is now under consideration. Clause 1 stands by itself. Nothing in the rest of the Bill depends upon it. It is what I think physiologists call encysted. It is entirely within its own cell, and its rejection cannot possibly affect anything else in the Bill. Consider this First Clause and consider it in relation to the circumstances to which I have referred. It is necessary to examine its provisions a little more closely than has hitherto been done. The Bill begins by saying that, for the purpose of improving agriculture, there are experiments to be conducted by large-scale farming and otherwise. The noble Viscount, who moved this Amendment, and my noble friend behind me and, indeed, the noble Lord who has just sat down, assumed therefore that the real outstanding purpose of this Bill was simply to conduct large-scale farming experiments. There is no such restriction within the Bill at all. If you have a phrase "to conduct large-scale farming experiments and otherwise," it is as open for you to keep pigs or poultry as to have a large farm.
There is nothing in the world, once the Bill is passed, to prevent the people who have charge of this Corporation doing exactly what they please where they like. This is not a Bill which takes a definite

647
area and says that it is desirable that certain things should be done there and it is therefore proposed to conduct either experiments or what is hoped will be a successful commercial undertaking. It is nothing of the kind. The people in authority could go anywhere they please, from Cape Wrath to Land's End, from East to West, and conduct large-scale farming or small-scale farming or anything they please. That being the purpose of the clause, how is it proposed to carry it out? It is proposed to carry it out by establishing a company over which there is no public control. It owes no responsibility to any Government or any person. Its sole business begins and ends by having accounts audited, by keeping in touch with some Government Department so as to answer questions if somebody chooses to ask them. It is to be controlled by five or nine persons; one is to be a financier, two are to be taken from the land, and two more are to be taken from anywhere. Who these people are we do not know. When anything of this kind is introduced, as a rule, you put the names of the people in, in order that we might have some consciousness as to who is going to undertake the operation. Nobody knows that here and nobody knows why, if the operation is to be purely agricultural, only two out of five are to be agriculturists.
I asked one of the most eminent agriculturists if there was any reason why one should have a financier to control such a company and he replied: "That is only eye-wash," which is what my own unaided judgment led me to believe. It is incredible, unless you are going to start speculative transactions in land or pigs or poultry, that you should want a financier for a company which has not to raise the money—it is all raised for it by a grateful country—but which has only to spend the money on agricultural operations. This company, being formed, has powers similar to those of any ordinary company, but it never has to lay a balance sheet before the shareholders. I cannot see anything which distinguishes the company which is going to be worked under this clause, from a number of other companies which the City knows only too well are often blown like a bubble, and like a bubble burst, with the exception that, when the ordinary company has been burst, there are shareholders, and they have two remedies. The first is to attend
648
the meeting at which the directors hand in their accounts, and to ask questions and discover what has happened. There is no such power for anybody here. No person can attend the meeting when this thing fails. Somebody may make some comment in the House of Commons or in this House, but that is all that can be done. The shareholder has another remedy. He has the law behind him, and he can call the directors to account if they have neglected their duty. There is no such thing in this Bill. I am not saying that these five unknown men will neglect their duty. You do not ever appoint the directors of any company upon the hypothesis that they are going to neglect their duty. What I say is that, if they do so, there is no power by which they can be called to account under this Bill.
This company, so created and so constituted, is to have at its disposal a million of public funds. Supposing it gets deeply involved and wants more, we know perfectly well what is going to happen. Some provision will be introduced into a Finance Bill providing more money for this company. This million is only the million put down here as the amount from which they can draw. There is no reference to the overdraft, which will probably be just as real as the bank balance itself. Then, this company being under no obligation whatever to publish to anybody its accounts, the only opportunity left is a question, either in this House or in another place. What will a question in this House produce? Your Lordships all know perfectly well what it will produce. It will produce a type-written answer from some Government Department, which will be read out to us by some member of the Government. You have seen that done over and over again, and you will remember that on one occasion, to the amusement rather than the annoyance of the House, the noble Minister who read out a written answer had had two typewritten answers given him, and by mistake he read the wrong one. That is all you will get when you ask how this has happened.
If this country were in easy circumstances, if it had a million to scatter, if it were interested in trying a big experiment and were prepared to risk the money, there might not be very much ob-

649
jection to this clause. But to-day can anybody justify the use of a million of money on such a vague experiment as this? It is a rash and hazardous experiment, an experiment that in itself does not remedy any existing evil. It is nothing but an experiment, but it will most certainly aggravate some evils, though it will redeem none. I do sincerely hope that this Committee will unite in opposition to this clause. It is impossible to share the sanguine hopes of the noble Lord who has just sat down that any members on the other side of the House will join with us. It is their ugly, ill-favoured bantling, and you cannot expect them to join in killing it. That is no reason why we should not put an end to its existence, and I say that the Parties ought to join in doing so.
Speaking as a Liberal—though I have no right whatever, and make no claim, to speak on behalf of anybody except myself, and though the views that I express may be contrary to those of my noble friends who sit beside me—yet, speaking as a Liberal, I say that this clause ought to be rejected, and for these reasons. In the first place, it is vague and inexact. It is a clause to enable this company to go we know not where and to do we know not what. Such provisions will certainly shock the mind of anybody who, like myself, still remembers with pride that the Earl of Oxford and Asquith was his leader. In the next place, whatever else this Bill does, it is going to be an attempt at a semi-nationalisation scheme. This secured the approval of the noble Marquess behind me because he hoped that thereby public money would be wasted, public fingers would be burned and people would be warned off any further such rash and hazardous expenditure. At any rate this is contrary to what I have always understood to be Liberal principles, which are that self-reliance, industry, thrift, the hope and possibility of winning your own reward and the certainty that you will pay the penalty of your own neglect are the real mainsprings of all industry in this country.
Finally, this extravagance is enough to shock any Liberal who has an economic mind. It certainly is sufficient to disturb the very shade of Mr. Gladstone, even if it be, as at this moment I trust it is, in converse with the shade of Homer
650
in the Elysian Fields. Liberalism, therefore, ought, as I understand Liberalism, to reject this clause. Surely the official Opposition ought to unite upon it. The noble and learned Viscount, Lord Hailsham, when your Lordships gave a grudging—and at this moment I am not even sure that it was a wise—approval of this Bill on the Second Reading, assured you that the interests that we desired to protect should be protected on the Committee stage. Now is the moment to redeem that promise. This is a step forward in a proposal that will commit this country to a large, indeed an immeasurable expenditure. Without distinction of Party, I think that at this moment we ought to recognise the principle that, except in cases of proved and established necessity, we will consent to no measure that will add to the public burden. This is not a case where there is any proved necessity, and nobody has suggested it. We are asked to put national money upon an unknown card, an operation which is performed only by a spendthrift or a gamester, and at least in that case the gamester puts on his own money and, when he loses it, it is his own loss and, if he be ruined, it is he and his dependants alone who suffer. But here you are being asked to use the public funds, of which I suggest to your Lordships that we are trustees on behalf of the people, and, unless we are satisfied that the money is going to be properly spent, to permit this expenditure is a breach of trust. I say that it is impossible that the spending of this money can be justified in present conditions, and I would ask you not to risk any more of our slender resources upon what, after all, is nothing but a gambler's throw.
EARL DE LA WARR: I hope that your Lordships will forgive me if I do not follow the noble and learned Lord into the clouds of eloquence to which he has just treated us. Perhaps I may say that at the moment I find it a little difficult to reply to noble Lords, because I am not really quite sure what we are discussing—whether we have left behind the Amendments of the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, and the noble Marquess, Lord Lothian, and have come on to a general discussion. That is what I think has been proposed. If we had had a discussion on Lord Lothian's Amendment,

651
I should have said that His Majesty's Government did see considerable difficulty in the way of accepting that Amendment exactly in the form in which it stood, but that we were intending to promise it very friendly consideration. I mention that in spite of the fact that your Lordships wish to have merely a general discussion, because it illustrates the fact that we were looking at this question not from the point of view of any particular theory or of any particular form of Amendment, but simply and solely because we are convinced that a situation does exist, at the present moment, in the agricultural world, where it is essential that the Government should intervene and take some form of action. The noble and learned Lord who has just sat down said that if the country were in easy circumstances some such experiment would be justified.
LORD BUCKMASTER: Might be.
EARL DE LA WARR: Might be justified. I absolutely and entirely disagree with the noble and learned Lord. If the country were in easy circumstances, and if the whole of the farming area of this country were in a state of prosperity, then it would be completely unnecessary for the Government to intervene with any experiment with regard to new methods. It is because—the noble Lord, Lord Hastings, in his most interesting speech referred, I think, to my Second Reading statement—we are faced with the hard and terrible fact that the arable area of agricultural England is virtually in a state of ruin that the Government have decided to intervene. The question really is how the Government are to intervene. I can understand Lord Hastings opposing this clause, because he is quite prepared to put forward his own proposal. He believes that the Government should intervene by a form of Protection for arable agriculture. I do not know what particular views the noble and learned Lord, Lord Buckmaster, holds on the fiscal issue, but I gather, as he still speaks from the Liberal Benches, that he is still a Free Trader. If he is a Free Trader, and does not believe that it is right to tax the consumer by giving protection to arable agriculture, what is his alternative for dealing with the situation in the Eastern counties of this country? Surely there is only one alternative, and that is to find a new
652
method of fanning. That is the proposition that the Government put forward.
Noble Lords opposite have said that this new method will mean a decrease in the amount of labour employed on the land. Apart from seeing certain large farms myself, and apart from having farmed on a fairly large scale myself, I have also read the records of a number of large farms, and I find that the experience is very conflicting. Whereas there are some large-scale farms, particularly of the type mentioned by Mr. Orwin—wheat-growing form of agriculture—where labour has been reduced, I have also read the records of five or six farms which have been joined, and where, as a result of the vastly increased productivity and efficiency, the labour has been almost doubled. Let me take the contention of Lord Hastings, in particular, at its face value and admit that under certain forms of large-scale farming labour may be reduced. The noble Lord from that fact deduces a terrible picture of taking up happy peasants from their homesteads and casting them forth. That would be all right if the situation in those areas was quite normal at the present moment, and they were happy and prosperous, but the whole case for agricultural reform, which many of your Lordships wish to bring about by Protection, is that the situation in those counties is such that the people living there are in a state of ruin. We know that at the present moment a great deal of that land is ceasing to be arable land, and is tumbling down to grass and being farmed on a ranching basis.
If we are faced with the facts as they are, and not as we would like them to be, then we must realise that it would be better to have that land farmed on an efficient basis, producing the maximum amount of food, even if it means a slight decrease of labour. The argument that we should persist in a particular form of agriculture, even though it be less efficient than the mechanised form of agriculture, against which we have to compete in the New World, is an argument that the cotton mill owners should be forbidden to put in labour-saving machinery in their mills, and that the coal owners should be forbidden to use laboursaving appliances in their mines, and that, on the other hand, the Government should subsidise the cotton mills and the

653
coal mines in order that they may be able to employ more men. I admit that the case for this new experiment in large-scale farming is a hard one. It is a matter of facing the hard fact that this great area in the eastern counties is in a miserable economic state; but I submit to your Lordships that, having to face that fact, we have to realise that the only thing to do, if we wish arable farming to continue, is to see that it is conducted on the most ruthlessly efficient basis possible.
I submit that that is equally necessary whether you have Protection or Free Trade because, whatever the advocates of Protection would contend, surely they would not say that they want Protection for arable agriculture in order to enable it to go on with methods which they know are less efficient than those of our competitors. I hope very much that, whatever your Lordships may do about the insertion of particular Amendments, you will still give Clause 1 the most careful consideration before deciding to throw it out of the Bill, because I do believe that it has got a real contribution to make to the development of agriculture in this country—possibly only a certain area of agriculture in this country but nevertheless an important one—and your Lordships, I believe, will be delivering a great blow to the future development of agriculture if you decide to throw out this clause.
LORD CLINTON: The two noble Lords who first spoke in this debate showed remarkable confidence that this large-scale farming would be of great benefit to the agricultural community. It is confidence which is evidently shared by the Government, but which, I venture to say, is not shared by any member of the agricultural community. What the noble Earl has described as the new style of farming is not of course in itself new. We have had mechanised farming in this country for many years and, what is more, carried on successfully. Many individuals achieved considerable success a few years ago. If it has failed now it is not because their methods were necessarily wrong or because they did not fully mechanise their holdings, but because of a fact which is affecting the whole of agriculture—namely, that the prices of produce to-day are not sufficient to pay the cost of production. That is affecting the whole of agriculture.
654
If the noble Earl in his new method is going to make a further mechanisation experiment, it can only, I imagine, be on a very much larger scale than we have tried before, and I am very much afraid that those who have advocated large-scale farming in this country—not necessarily the Government but others—have had in their minds Canadian or Dominion instances. There are many of your Lordships who know the prairie well and who know that the configuration of that land with its hundreds of square miles of absolutely flat country free from stones, free from drains and from the necessity of drainage, with soil of uniform texture throughout and with the same aspect for all their land, lends itself to large-scale farming with highly mechanised implements. But you will not find in this country areas which are comparable to that. I was glad to hear the noble Earl say that there might be opportunities for this in certain areas which have long been out of cultivation or which have not been cultivated at all, but there is nothing in this measure to say that the Government, or the Corporation, are going to confine themselves to that, and it does seem likely that they will take the opportunity—and naturally so—of getting what good land they can find. I am quite certain they will eventually discover that they are not able to use here these highly mechanised methods which have been possible in the Dominions and which the noble Earl visualises. The large-scale work in the Dominions was exceedingly successful so long as wheat was about a dollar a. bushel, but at the present moment, when its value is 60 cents a bushel, they are in exactly the same difficulties as we are here, and I think, from exactly the same causes.
My noble friend below me spoke of the trouble which was caused by the dismissal of labour, and I think the advisers of the Government, such as Mr. Orwin and Sir Daniel Hall, have all pointed that out. But it is not only labour which would be reduced. The acquisition of an area of 10,000 acres means the disturbance of occupying tenants. Almost the whole trend of our agricultural legislation for the last fifty years has been in the direction of obtaining better security for tenant farmers, and it has largely achieved success. The only cause for which they are likely to be disturbed now arises owing to the incidence of Death

655
Duties, but that has been largely smoothed over by the Agricultural Credits Act of the late Government, which enables tenants to purchase their farms and borrow the money at a comparatively low rate of interest. It has been an exceedingly effective piece of legislation, because for the last two years the Agricultural Mortgage Corporation have lent very nearly £8,000,000 for that purpose. But now there is not one tenant farmer who will be safe under this Bill. Nobody can guess where the blow may fall, and if you can imagine an official of the Ministry of Agriculture going to a district and making a noise about large-scale farming the whole place would be filled with consternation. I do hope that your Lordships will not only consider the matter of expense, which was so forcibly put before the House by the noble and learned Lord beside me, but that you will give effect to the view, in the interests both of the agricultural worker and of the tenant farmer, that we should refrain from passing a measure which may destroy the livelihood of both these classes.
LORD LAMINGTON: May I ask the noble Earl one question? I believe I am right in saying that the Government have at their command large areas of country, such as is held by the Duchy of Lancaster. If I am right in this assumption, I would ask whether they have introduced this system to remedy the evils under which agriculture is now suffering into any of those areas, either by way of experiment or as a proper means of improving the land. I do not know whether the Government can give me an answer off-hand, but I think I am right in saying that the Government have these large areas.
LORD BUCKMASTER: I should like to correct the noble Lord. The Government have absolutely no right or power whatever over any land of the Duchy of Lancaster.
EARL STANHOPE: I think your Lordships will realise from the debate which has so far taken place on this clause that the general feeling of the Committee is very strongly opposed to the proposals of the Government. My noble friend opposite, I venture to think, either said too much or too little. He first of all talked of having examined
656
a good many kinds of large farms where mechanisation was in operation, and that in some cases they were quite successful. Very well, if that is the case why does the Government require to make further experiments? Surely, you can already apply the lesson of what is being done by private individuals in various parts of the country. The Minister himself, in Committee in another place, drew attention to two cases of large-scale farming. In the one case there was an outdoor milk farm in Wiltshire, covering 2,500 acres, and there was another case of an area which he did not name but I think most of us recognise as Lincolnshire, where there was a farm of 4,301 acres, of which 2,451 were under corn and 897 under potatoes, and there were other crops in addition. Further, it had 2,000 sheep, 2,200 pigs and 450 cattle. There is an experiment going on under a private individual. Why should it be necessary to take public money to make further experiments?
But, after all, what is the Government going to try to do? It is going to try to prove that large-scale farming is a success. If it is a success, what then occurs? As the noble Lord, Lord Hastings, has pointed out, there are not many individuals who will be able to take on large-scale farming out of their own pocket. There may be a few syndicates which will be prepared to risk it, but, if they are going to accept the experiment of the Government, they will have to be thoroughly satisfied that the thing is run on commercial lines and by commercial methods. Everybody knows that with public money, whether it is a case of a land corporation or any other, you have to submit accounts to the Treasury. It is done in a form which is not common to commercial businesses, and therefore is not very acceptable, or considered very reliable by private individuals. Therefore, even if you have a successful experiment it is extremely doubtful how far it would be accepted by private individuals.
But there is more than that. As Lord Clinton has pointed out, land varies from field to field, and from farm to farm. Therefore, if you have an experiment, we will say in Lincolnshire, it is extremely doubtful whether Suffolk will agree that it is suitable to its own area. It is even very doubtful whether Sussex will approve, and more doubtful still

657
whether the West Country will. You might take any number of cases. You might have your experimental farm in the West, or the Midlands, or the South. You will have to have a whole series of experimental farms to encourage other people to follow your example. But private individuals will not follow your example, for the simple reason that they would not be able to raise the funds.
There is the other side. The noble Earl said there were large areas in the Eastern part of England which are going out of cultivation, and therefore it was infinitely preferable to have large-scale farming under the Government than to allow these losses to continue. What does that mean? The noble Earl realises that farming in that part of the country, under present fiscal conditions, cannot be made to pay, and therefore he quite deliberately proposes that public money should be spent in adopting an experiment which he knows is hound to fall; that is to say, an experiment where farming will be undertaken at a loss and not at a profit. It would be far better for him if he dealt with the fiscal position instead of producing the First Clause of this Bill.
There is one further point I should like to deal with which is, perhaps, the most important of all. If your Lordships turn to the Bill you will see that the Corporation is to have power to carry out "large-scale farming and otherwise" for the purpose of "promoting and improving the agricultural development" of land. What is meant by "promoting and improving the agricultural development" of land? I submit that anything is possible; not only farming, but the running of a bacon factory, a cheese factory, a jam factory, possibly of shops in which the jam and the cheese will be sold. Where are you going to end? By whom is this to be run? It is to be run by a Corporation more or less allied to the Government, and run with public money. If I wanted to nationalise land or the sale of food products or the production of things like jam and cheese I should do it by means of a land corporation. Therefore, as I am utterly opposed to land nationalisation, I shall, for that reason alone, oppose this clause. For the reasons given so strongly by the noble and learned Lord and by my noble friends Lord Hastings
658
and Lord Clinton, and for the reasons put forward from all quarters of the House, I hope that your Lordships will unanimously agree, at any rate those who sit on this side of the House, to reject this clause.
LORD NOEL-BUXTON: The opposition to this proposal from the Conservative Benches seems to me the more peculiar because we must remember that this suggestion originated not with Socialists nor with Liberals, but with Conservative authorities. Its parentage is entirely Conservative. I would venture to remind the Committee of the words used by the noble Earl, Lord Selborne, and others in 1919, when they urged that a limited number of large demonstration farms run on business lines should be established. The Report of the Selborne Committee was signed also by Mr. Ailwyn Fellowes, afterwards a member of your Lordships' House, Sir Daniel Hall and the late Mr. Edward Strutt, whose authority no one will dispute. Sir Daniel Hall published at the same time a book in which he said that he placed in the forefront the development in Great Britain of extensive farms worked upon the same principle as large industrial concerns. It seems to me that not on the merits but in some other aspect of the matter we must—
LORD CLINTON: May I interrupt the noble Lord for one moment? When he claims Lord Selborne as an authority advising large-scale farming he ought really also to tell your Lordships that the noble Earl only recommended it in conjunction with minimum prices for grain.
LORD NOEL-BUXTON: He recommended large-scale farms on their own merits. At the same time, as it was war time, he was certainly recommending guaranteed prices. But Sir Daniel Hall made no such qualification in his recommendation, and I do not think the Selborne Committee made the proposal dependent upon guaranteed prices. Why, then, must we? To what can we attribute the very strong, even violent opposition to this proposal? Is it not that noble Lords see in it the sinister hand of the nationaliser aiming at nationalisation? One remark which fell from the noble Lord, Lord Clinton, seemed almost to classify this proposal with a proposal for nationalisation in a degree. But would not that, if we look at the thing

659
without prejudice, be mistaking the nature of this proposal altogether? It is surely not the thin end of the wedge of Bolshevism being introduced under careful cover. Ought it not to be regarded as a proposal in the field of research? It is surely in its nature no more a nationalising proposal than the system of county farms, the system of the provision of small holdings by public authorities or the running of demonstration farms by institutes which are financed by the Ministry of Agriculture.
It may be that some noble Lords see little value in the considerable amount of money spent up to now on research. Surely we may distinguish between them and those noble Lords who take an active part in county agricultural work, who are keen on research and who, if they did not suspect a side-issue in this proposal, would be warm advocates of it. Indeed, the proposal might without conflict with principle perfectly well have emanated from a Conservative Government, as, indeed, it nearly did after the Report of the Selborne Committee. And would it not have been welcomed with open arms by some of those noble Lords who are thinking of voting against it? It may well be held that a tariff or a guaranteed price would do a great deal more for agriculture. But those noble Lords who are interested in research will not deny that, quite apart from the merits of the proposal, the question of the type of farm is of vital importance. Looking at the world in general we see that of the three types of farms—the mechanised farm, the medium farm and the family or small farm—the medium farm is going under. Those parts of the world which are still growing corn at a profit have either small holding farms or mechanised farm areas. The medium farm, extremely well as it has served this country in the past, is, unfortunately, going under. It is a melancholy thing that it should be so but no one can deny it.
As the very great merits of an experiment of this kind have not been very fully stated to-day might I remind the Committee that well known authorities such as Sir Daniel Hall have put them down as very many. To begin with, there is a greater insurance against risks and economy in management. Then such a plan would afford a better wage, the
660
wage of skilled labourers, but of course mechanisation could be carried very much further. No medium size farm can afford a motor plough which costs about £300. Further, such farms might do their buying and selling in bulk at very great advantage; and above all, you could afford trained managers such as have been very largely turned out by the institutions of this country already and, to our great loss, are not finding openings in business as in Continental countries, in particular in Germany, where great farms prevail and educated men have good openings to earn a living. Is it not time that we began to use the results of our education in making an experiment of this kind?
The noble and learned Lord alluded to the intolerable cost of such a proposal as this. But we are told from the Conservative Benches that the right remedy for the difficulties of corn-growing is a guaranteed price. What will that cost? To guarantee the price of wheat at 55 s. under present circumstances would cost at least £3,000,000 a year; probably very much more, but at least that. And what is a million to produce? Possibly a very great development of genuine paying resources. I think it has been hinted that this very experiment has been made to a great extent, and may be adequately made, by private owners, but it, has not been adequately made. We have had a certain number of great farms. We have for many years had Mr. Loyd at Wantage, and Lord Rayleigh at one time, I remember, farmed 16,000 acres, but it was not on a modernised or mechanised plan; it was merely an aggregation of mediumsized farms. Then we have had such farms as those of Mr. Debenham and of Sir Charles Hiam. But they are not in big districts and big circumstances, but have been chosen rather in chance areas because of the interest felt by those particular men in the experiment. Nobody surely will claim that we have had as much experimentation as ought to be done. Is it not comparable to the situation in regard to forestry? You have a business involving very large capitalisation, and the necessity of waiting for returns for a considerable time, and, owing to the natural reluctance of private capitalists to put money into a business of that kind, the State has been obliged to intervene in afforestation. But I do not think even the noble and

661
learned Lord objects so violently to that. It seems to me a very comparable case where you do not get your experiment without the action of the State.
Just one word about the displacement of labour. If it is true, as the noble Lord, Lord Hastings, said, that the medium-sized farms are going to carry on, I would shrink from competing with them by mechanised farms, which would mean loss of labour, but surely the alternative is a different one. The land in view is not land which is suitable for small holdings, or, in many cases, for grass land. The light land of East Anglia you cannot lay down to grass, and it is becoming, as the noble Marquess, Lord Lothian, said, land which is comparable to mere ranch land, and, as things are going, it will soon employ no labour or perhaps only a shepherd with his clogs. It is possible to save that land in time so as to employ some labour upon it. The choice is between some employment and none at all in a very large area which is now in danger. It seems to me that those noble Lords who are interested and believe in research, and think the method of farming and the type of holding is really a problem of extraordinary importance, will incur a terrible responsibility if they permit a chance of making an experiment of this kind to be rejected.
VISCOUNT NOVAR: The noble Lord who has just sat down has minimised the effects of this clause, and treated it as a branch of research. I myself doubt whether this kind of research is needed at all. In Canada, to which my noble friend behind me referred, you had not to scrap equipment and displace a population. You entered upon a virgin prairie. The two things are so entirely different they can hardly be compared. But the noble Lord in charge of the Bill, in his enthusiasm, described what the real effect of this clause was intended to be. It was that that part of England which was in a state of agricultural depression should be taken in hand by the State and run in Soviet farms. England is to be divided up into small holdings, and Soviet farms of 6,000 acres, or whatever the economic area may be. What I do not think seems to have been sufficiently appreciated is the enormous eventual cost of these undertakings. We have had a mania for small holdings, which are mainly uneconomic. I know a farm
662
in my own immediate neighbourhood of 680 acres in which £60,000 of the taxpayers' money has been sunk, and the return to the State is rather less than it was when it was a well-managed individual holding. This proposal for the State to embark on farming on a large scale in order to replace the ruined agriculture of England will cost this country nobody can tell how many hundreds of millions of pounds. The agricultural equipment in Scotland represents at least £100,000,000, and that of England must represent many hundreds of millions of pounds. Wherever you go with these large farms you have to scrap all the existing equipment. You have to get rid of the tenants and you have a largely diminished number of people employed upon the land. I can conceive of no more revolutionary measure in agriculture than this and I trust, therefore, that this clause will be rejected by a very large majority.
VISCOUNT ASTOR: As this very interesting discussion was started on an Amendment of mine, perhaps, with your Lordships' permission, I might say a word. I was put in the unfortunate position of having to expound the object of the clause. I should certainly vote against the clause as now drafted, but I should vote for the clause if my Amendment were accepted. I should also, as a compromise, vote for the clause if the Amendment of the noble Marquess, Lord Lothian, were incorporated. I listened, as everybody did, to the very interesting speech made by Lord Buckmaster. I agree with a great deal of what he said. I think he was entirely right in his criticism of the drafting of the Bill. I think it might be a very good thing to take out the words "and otherwise," or to define more accurately the object upon which the money should be spent. It is because I agree with the noble and learned Lord that there is a very great risk of an unnecessary expenditure of money if some national authority acquires the land and carries out the experiment that I put down my own Amendment on the Paper. There is no trace of Socialism whatever in my Amendment. I specifically rule out the alternative of the Corporation owning the land on which the experiments are to be carried out. I propose that they should assist private

663
individuals competent and qualified to carry out research or experiment.
The more I discuss the present state of agriculture in England, the more convinced I am that it is in the national interest to try experiments to see if we cannot put things right. When the method of working cotton in this country was revolutionised last century—and it is being altered again to-day—exactly the same arguments were put forward then against the changed processes as are now being brought forward against this proposal. It is quite true that in certain cases an amount of labour might be displaced. That is the unfortunate consequence of co-relating and applying mechanism to industry, but we find by experience that as you make an industry up-to-date, progressive and prosperous, you get a return which compensates the community, and you get increased employment in other directions. That is why, on the question whether or not an experiment should be carried out, I am for the experiment, although I am against the way in which the Government propose to carry it out, in their Bill as now drafted
I listened to the speeches of Lord Banbury and Lord Hastings as to the results which would follow the adoption of machinery. Their arguments would equally apply to milking machines and tractors, which undoubtedly reduce the amount of labour employed, but, in the interests of progress, because our competitors have adopted them, we have had to adopt them also. I agree with Lord Hastings that there are very few people who can run these huge farms and that there are only a limited number of areas where it is possible to have them. He and other noble Lords have criticised and condemned this proposal as being costly. The alternative—and I speak as a Protectionist who would protect agriculture as I would industry—to some form of mechanisation and rationalisation, is much more expensive than anything which is contemplated under this experiment.
LORD MIDDLETON: But you will keep men at work.
VISCOUNT ASTOR: But you will keep men at work by using spindles and looms.
LORD MIDDLETON: You are keeping them at the public expense.
VISCOUNT ASTOR: Undoubtedly you get greater prosperity and greater employment. That is the history of the development of the last sixty, seventy and eighty years. You get a temporary displacement, but, with increased prosperity, you get increased and compensating employment. There was one other criticism made by the noble Lord, Lord Buckmaster. He criticised the proposals because the Corporation would not be under the direction or supervision of a Minister or Department. If you are to try any sort of research or experiment, you want the men who are to conduct the research or experiment to be free from Parliamentary interference. I presided over a Committee which was responsible for setting up the Medical Research Council and in suggesting machinery for conducting these experiments we thought it essential that the Council which was to carry out these experiments should be subject to dictation by no Minister. What we want is pure research and it would not be research if you could guarantee the results of the experiment.
I do not know what we should do. I personally should vote against the clause if not amended. I would vote for my Amendment and, if it were adopted, would vote for the clause as so amended. I gather from the noble Earl, Lord De La Warr, that he and the Government would be prepared to adopt a sympathetic attitude towards the Amendment of Lord Lothian, but would oppose my Amendment, so, unless I am assured of a considerable measure of support from noble Lords on this side of the House, I do not see any object in moving my Amendment, which would be opposed by the Government and possibly by noble Lords on this side. As I am anxious to bring private enterprise and interest into this policy of experiment, I think it would be advisable to withdraw my Amendment in order that we might have the vote on Lord Lothian's Amendment. At the same time, if noble Lords around me are prepared to support me and not Lord Lothian, I am prepared to go to a Division.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: It might be for the convenience of the Committee if I were to ask the Lord Chairman for his view of the exact effect of the Division we are about to take. Otherwise there might

665
be some confusion when it comes to going into the Division Lobby. As I understand it, the Amendment moved is to leave out "such" in line 17 and the question is that the word proposed to be left out stand part of the clause. Those, therefore, who are in favour of the Amendment would vote "Not-Content"; those against the Amendment would vote "Content." Those of your Lordships, who share the view somewhat generally expressed on this side of the House that
Resolved in the affirmative and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.
the clause as a whole should be rejected, will vote "Content" on this Amendment to show their disapproval of this clause. The Government and those who support it will be voting in the "Not-Content" Lobby; those opposing it in the "Content" Lobby.
On Question, Whether the word "such" shall stand part of the clause?
Their Lordships divided:—Contents, 121; Not-Contents, 21.

CONTENTS.

Wellington, D.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

FitzWalter, L.

Bertie of Thame, V.

Gage, L. (V. Gage.) [Teller.]

Camden, M.

Burnham, V.

Greenway, L.

Exeter, M.

Elibank, V.

Hardinge of Penshurst, L.

Zetland, M.

FitzAlan of Derwent, V.

Hastings, L.

Hailsham, V.

Heneage, L.

Airlie, E.

Hereford, V.

Howard of Glossop, L.

Albemarle, E.

Hood, V.

Hunsdon of Hunsdon, L.

Ancaster, E.

Novar, V.

Illingworth, L.

Balfour, E.

Sumner, V.

Kinnaird, L.

Bradford, E.

Lamington, L.

Breadalbane and Holland, E.

Abinger, L.

Latymer, L.

Cawdor, E.

Addington, L.

Lawrence, L.

Denbigh, E.

Aldenham, L.

Leigh, L.

Doncaster, E. (D. Buccleuch and Queensberry.)

Banbury of Southam, L.

Middleton, L.

Barnard, L.

Monson, L.

Feversham, E.

Bayford, L.

Monteagle, L. (M. Sligo.)

Fortescue, E.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Newton, L.

Graham, E. (D. Montrose.)

Belper, L.

Oxenfoord, L. (E. Stair.)

Grey, E.

Berwick, L.

Phillimore, L.

Harrow by, E.

Biddulph, L.

Polwarth, L.

Iddesleigh, E.

Brancepeth, L. (V. Boyne.)

Queenborough, L.

Ilchester, E.

Buckmaster, L.

Raglan, L.

Jellicoe, E.

Chesham, L.

Ramsay, L. (E. Dalhousie.)

Lauderdale, E.

Clanwilliam, L. (E. Clanwilliam.)

Redesdale, L.

Lindsay, E.

Saltoun, L.

Liverpool, E.

Clinton, L.

Sandys, L.

Lucan, E. [Teller.]

Cottesloe, L.

Sinclair, L.

Malmesbury, E.

Cranworth, L.

Somerleyton, L.

Midleton, E.

Cushendun, L.

Stanmore, L.

Morton, E.

Danesfort, L.

Stonehaven, L.

Mount Edgcumbe, E.

Darling, L.

Strachie, L.

Onslow, E.

Daryngton, L.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Peel, E.

Deramore, L.

Poulett, E.

Desart, L.(E. Desart.)

Sudeley, L.

Radnor, E.

Desborough, L.

Sydenham of Combe, L.

Sandwich, E.

Douglas, L. (E. Home.)

Templemore, L.

Scarbrough, E.

Dynevor, L.

Trenchard, L.

Spencer, E.

Ellenborough, L.

Treowen, L.

Stanhope, E.

Ernle, L.

Wavertree, L.

Vane, E. (M. Londonderry.)

Erskine, L.

Wharton, L.

Yarborough, E.

Fairfax of Cameron, L.

Wynford, L.

Fairhaven, L.

NOT-CONTENTS.

Sankey, L. (L. Chancellor.)

Mersey, V.

Olivier, L.

Passfield, L.

Parmoor, L.(L. President.)

Arnold, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Gainford, L.

Rathcreedan, L.

Beauchamp, E.

Hay, L. (E. Kinnoull.) [Teller.]

Remnant, L.

De La Warr, E.

Sanderson, L.

Ker, L. (M. Lothian.)

Sandhurst, L.

Astor, V.

Marley, L. [Teller.]

Snell, L.

Esher, V.

Noel-Buxton, L.

THE EARL OF LAUDERDALE THE EARL OF LAUDERDALE had given Notice to add to paragraph (e) in sub-

667
section (2): "to show that farming on a large or small scale can be made to pay under present fiscal policy." The noble Earl said: I wish to defer this Amendment until Lord Banbury's Amendment to leave out Clause 1 has been taken, if I may do so by leave of the Committee. I think this will save time.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM moved to leave out Clause 1. The noble Lord said: I do not think it is necessary for me to say anything after the discussion that has already taken place. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Leave out Clause 1.—(Lord Banbury of Southam.)
EARL DE LA WARR: So long as it is quite clear that we take the Division that we have just had as deciding this point, and that if we say nothing now we are not leaving it unchallenged—
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: Hear, hear.
On Question, Clause 1 disagreed to.
Clause 2:
Power of Minister to acquire and hold land for use as demonstration farms.
2.—(1) The Minister shall have power to purchase equip and hold land for the purpose of utilising the land as demonstration farms under the management and control, as agents for the Minister, of local authorities, universities, agricultural colleges, or other bodies, or of any persons who, in the opinion of the Minister, are qualified to manage and control such farms and to give instruction in agricultural subjects.
(2) The Minister shall make to Parliament not later than the first day of May an annual report as to the operations conducted under this section, including the annual accounts of each demonstration farm carried on thereunder, and such accounts shall include a profit-and-loss account for each farm and a valuation made at the end of each financial year.
THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH had given Notice to move to insert the following new subsections:
"(3) The Minister shall also have power out of the moneys to be provided for the purposes of this section and the immediately succeeding section to make grants to the Universities, agricultural colleges, agricultural research institutes, and other bodies carrying out research and experimental work in the interests of agriculture.
"(4) Out of the moneys to be provided under this Act for the purposes of this section and the immediately succeeding section not less than one-tenth thereof shall he made available for the making of grants under the immediately preceding subsection."
The noble Duke said: I will not move this Amendment now but, if this clause is agreed to, I will put it down again on Report.
LORD BANBURY of SOUTHAM LORD BANBURY of SOUTHAM moved to leave out Clause 2. The noble Lord said: I do not think it is necessary to say much about this clause, because the arguments against it were practically all mentioned in the debate to which we have just listened, but I should like to call your Lordships' attention to one point. If you will look at Clause 22, you will see that it says, in regard to Clause 2, that the expenditure shall not exceed £5,000,000, "unless and until Parliament otherwise determines." If your Lordships will look at the other side of the page, you will see that, with regard to the £1,000,000 which were to be spent on Clause 1, which we have just rejected, those words do not occur, and consequently there must be some reason for those words appearing in regard to this clause. My belief is that those words are put in on purpose, in order that noble Lords and members of the House of Commons should think that £5,000,000 is the utmost that can be spent, whereas, by putting these words in, it is secured that all that is required in order to spend £10,000,000, £15,000,000 or £20,000,000 would be to put a sum in a Vote which, from my experience in the House of Commons, very many people would not see. The result would be, like the payment of members, that a large increase would appear and nobody would know anything about it, and when it came up to this House it would be held that we could not interfere with it. Therefore I move that the clause be omitted.
Amendment moved—
Leave out Clause 2.—(Lord Banbury of Southam.)
LORD HASTINGS: This clause suffers to some extent from lack of exposition on the Second Reading stage on the part of the noble Earl in charge of the Bill. Of course, I do not want to accuse him of any intentional neglect, but I have looked up his speeches and it is very difficult to understand what the noble Earl was trying to get at by putting this clause in the Bill. Later investigation would lead one to suppose that this is really not a political but a Departmental effort to enlarge authority in a direction in which to some extent it is now restricted. It is plain

669
that this Clause 2 does not really in effect intend to take over the operations of experimental farms and of research stations, or any of those other activities which are now in existence, I am glad to say, in almost all parts of the country. What it intends to do is to establish demonstration farms, which are to be run in conjunction with local authorities, acting as agents for the Minister, in order to convey to farmers the information which has been collected in these experimental stations.
I hope the noble Earl will not suppose that I am speaking in favour of the clause. The question we have to consider is whether it is wise to give to these authorities, as the clause proposes, the powers to acquire lands and set in operation demonstration farms at the public expense. Is it really justifiable that at the present juncture this House, or Parliament as a whole, should place at the disposal of the Minister funds which he may use, through the agency of these sundry authorities, for demonstration purposes? I have had quite long experience in this matter of experimentation and demonstration of the scientific development of agriculture, and I know from that experience that if there is one thing more certain than another it is that when you begin to demonstrate you must simultaneously produce your accounts. No practising farmer will believe or give any credence to what you do in experimentation or demonstration, unless you can prove to him that it is a commercial proposition. This clause endeavours to carryout exactly what I have said, but it places these operations in the hands of local authorities, and suchlike, in whom, without in the least desiring to give offence, I would say that the farmers have no belief whatever.
If the farming community is able, as it is able, to run these demonstration farms, of course with expert assistance and a guarantee that the funds are being expended in a commercial fashion, then the farmers will believe, but they will not believe so long as demonstration farms are carried on by local authorities, and I consider that, however desirable it may be to have demonstration farms established, it is fatuous and futile to establish them so long as their administration is going to be in the hands of public authorities. That is one reason for voting
670
against the clause. Another reason, and a greater and financial one, is whether we are justified at the present time in permitting the expenditure of public money, the necessity for which has not been clearly demonstrated. No case has been made out for the clause, and even if it had been made out I should object to it because it is futile, and the purpose would fall to the ground.
LORD DYNEVOR: On the Second Reading I said that I objected to the Bill on financial grounds alone, and that is the chief reason why I am objecting to Clause 2. The Government go on borrowing and borrowing money. Only a few days ago Miss Bondfield, the Minister of Labour, told the House of Commons that the Unemployment Fund Debt amounted to £76,000,000, and that the present borrowing powers of £90,000,000 would be exhausted in about thirteen weeks. Therefore in another twelve weeks the Government will be borrowing again, and this Bill suggests further and further borrowing. I wish as far as possible to curtail all expenditure of every kind. In paragraph 4 of the Financial Memorandum we are told that any sums required by the Minister other than the sums mentioned in the preceding paragraph are to be defrayed out of money provided by Parliament, up to such an amount as may be sanctioned by the Treasury. So we have no idea now what Clauses 2 and 3 are going to cost. On those financial grounds I hope that your Lordships will reject Clause 2.
LORD CRANWORTH: I should like before we divide to support the plea of Lord Hastings that we should be told exactly what these demonstration farms are. I do not myself know in the first place how they differ from the experimental farms, or from the large-scale farms in Clause 1, and I noticed with some surprise that Lord Noel-Buxton considered that these farms were the same as the large-scale farms, because he called the large-scale farms demonstration farms, showing clearly the confusion that was in his mind This country is honeycombed with experimental farms, and may I say—I am excepting, of course, Lord Hastings—that many of these experiments are chiefly conducted with the object of showing how, for a certain expenditure, more produce can be grown, and they are just

671
about successful in showing how that is done. If, on the other hand, these demonstration farms were, by fair farming, whether by new methods or old, not by using surplus labour from factories but by fair farming, prepared to show how farming can be run at a profit, then I think they might be worth the experiment.
I think there might be lessons to be learnt by this experiment. I think the farmers might learn some useful lessons and I do not think the lessons would end there. It is possible that the Ministry might learn something from these farms. It is not impossible that the Minister might learn something; and I would finally suggest that if these demonstration farms remove one curious illusion, that the whole of the British public appear to suffer from—namely, that the farming community are the only portion of the inhabitants of this island who do not know how to make farming profitable—then it might be worth while entering upon this experiment.
EARL DE LA WARR: I am very glad that at any rate the noble Lord, Lord Cranworth, feels that there is something in this clause even if it is only to teach the Ministry, the Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary something about agriculture. Personally I feel that when dealing with farming a man is very lucky if he has finished learning when he has become a very old man indeed. Perhaps before I deal with the merits of the clause, I ought to say I quite agree with the noble Lord, Lord Hastings, that I do rather owe the House an apology for not dealing with it more completely on Second Reading; but I felt that as it was rather a long Bill, I would deal with what I then thought were the more controversial parts. Perhaps first I might deal with the financial point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Dynevor. He took the line that it was a mistake to spend anything at the moment, and he compared this expenditure with borrowing for the Unemployment Insurance Fund. I think that is a very unfair comparison, because whereas, once the money has gone out of the Insurance Fund, it leaves nothing behind, excepting that it has enabled a certain number of people to live for a certain number of weeks who perhaps
672
otherwise would not have been able to do so, here there are actually realisable assets—
LORD DYNEVOR: I did not compare the two. In effect I said, "You will have in a few weeks to borrow more money for the Unemployment Insurance Fund; do not borrow more money under this Bill."
EARL DE LA WARR: With all deference, that certainly looks as if the two expenditures are of the same type. But I want to suggest that this is a very distinctly productive expenditure. The expenditure will be made on purchasing definite assets in the form of land and building, then on running the farm on purely commercial lines, in such a way as to produce wealth for the community in the form of assistance to the agricultural industry and in the form of its being a commercial proposition; because the whole purpose of these demonstration farms is that they should be run definitely for the purpose of demonstration as commercial farms. From that point of view they are not intended in any way to compete with the existing research and educational institutions which are run by county councils, by the agricultural colleges and by the Universities. It is quite possible that a case could be made out even there for the State intervening, as there are only, I think, 33 educational farms in the country. We were told that the whole country was peppered with them, but there are only 33 over 60 counties. Therefore, there are a large number of counties without them.
However, the purpose of this clause is not to rectify that position at all. This clause is inserted because it is felt that, while there is an immense amount of scientific knowledge about farming being circulated from the various research and educational institutions in the Kingdom, there is very little actual economic demonstration going on. Such institutions have been run very successfully in other parts of the world, notably by the Canadian Government, and it was felt that here in this country was a very definite need left at the present moment unsupplied. It was with that in our minds that we inserted Clause 2. As far as I know from having attended the debates in your Lordships' House for a few years, it has been most noticeable that in the question of agricultural edu-

673
cation, agricultural research, or agricultural demonstration, the Ministry has always received the very greatest support in its enterprise, and I hope that your Lordships will decide to give this policy of establishing economic demonstration farms in this country a trial.
I hope particularly that Lord Hastings, who has done so much in his own county for agricultural research and education, will revise his opinion of this clause, and will give it support, which the Government would certainly value very much. His own experience of carrying on a demonstration farm has not been that it has been run on totally uneconomic lines, nor has my own personal experience in the County of East Sussex—the farm run by our County Council—been that at all. It has been a very successful research institution. It has also been run on very economic lines. It is very greatly respected by the farmers in the district, and it has been slightly hampered by the fact that its main purpose has been to carry out experiments. We want farms not to carry out experiments, but simply and solely to demonstrate the economic facts.
LORD BUCKMASTER: I should not have intervened but for one remark of the noble Earl. This is no longer to be the conduct of a scientific experiment: this is to be an economic investment of public cash in a farm. We are told this is to be done to make a profit for the public purse, and to show other people how that profit can be made. Well, let those of you who believe that the Government can do what the private individual cannot do, that is, make a profit for himself, vote for the clause. Those of you who believe, as I do, that it is perfectly incredible that a Government Department, having no particular motive for making a profit, can succeed in making what the private individual, driven by his own necessities, fails to accomplish, will vote against the clause, as I most assuredly shall.
THE EARL OF ANCASTER: I should like to supplement what the noble Earl has said. I think I am stating the absolute truth when I say that there is at the present moment a very large area of land in close proximity to myself, belonging to the Crown. The Ministry of Agriculture, it is true, have not complete power over the Crown lands, but I know that,
674
if it is thought that there is some good scheme on foot, arrangements can be made by which very often those who look after the Crown lands can adopt suggestions of the Ministry of Agriculture. In fact, I think I am right in saying that the Minister of Agriculture is practically the president of the body which looks after the Crown lands. Here is a practical suggestion then. Here you have a very large area of land, fairly good land, situated in Lincolnshire, which, at the present moment, has no tenants at all, and I believe the Crown have appointed a bailiff to farm it. Here is a demonstration farm: why not concentrate upon that and make that your demonstration farm? I am living in close proximity, and I promise I will be there every week to watch the operations and see how they are going to make it pay. It seems to me, without needing such a clause as this in the Bill, that here is a great opportunity for all the light and leading of the Ministry of Agriculture and all the professors in the land to get down to it and show how this large tract ought to be farmed, so as to make it of great benefit to the taxpayers, by the Crown lands paying a large amount towards the taxes instead of being a loss. It seems to me that the clause is not required.
LORD CLINTON: I am very glad that the noble Earl has explained to your Lordships what this clause means because very few of us, I think, were acquainted with its meaning. It is quite clear that it has nothing to do with experimental research. It is purely a commercial business. Noble Lords will recollect that the Ministry of Agriculture have attempted the commercial side of farming on several occasions. I can remember at least three occasions on which they set themselves to show how a profit could be made. The noble Earl will perhaps remember first of all the demonstrations as to how sandy areas on the East coast could be made to bear crops. They devoted one such area to stock farming and the production of tobacco. In the course of three or four years on that area alone there was a loss of between £30,000 and £40,000, and but for the fact that they were able to persuade the Forestry Department to buy it from them at a very high cost the loss would have been very much larger. Then there was

675
another attempt which in a very short period lost about £1,200,000. Then there was a very interesting experiment in which an attempt was made to show that by arable farming you could give a farm three times the cow-carrying capacity it would have if it remained under pasture. That, of course, was a very unfortunate failure, because I think in individual hands the experiment might have been worked out successfully. In a very short time that experiment had to be given up, the few remaining farms were handed over to the Rural Economic Research Department at Oxford and the live and dead stock were driven away.
Even supposing that under this scheme you can show that a farm can be run commercially, can it be done in such a way as will bear comparison with the ordinary farming of the country? Recollect that under the University or the research station you would have the benefit of a highly competent manager who would have at his disposal the whole of the available scientific advice, and, so far as we are aware, he would have an unlimited command of money. If he is successful it really does not convey anything to the ordinary farmer who is farming under normal conditions. At the research station at Rothamsted we made an experiment not very long ago to show how land could be cultivated at a profit and we were successful in proving a negative. We have adopted now what is really a much better scheme which I am sure the noble Earl knows quite well—that after we have found certain things to be experimentally successful we hand them over to other farms to work out on a practical scale. I believe in that way it is possible to get a useful demonstration, but I doubt very much so long as it remains in the hands of a University or an experimental station whether you will ever find anything which will really benefit and assist the ordinary farmer.
LORD POLWARTH: It is with a little hesitation that I express the hope that your Lordships will accept this clause. We have just rejected large-scale experiments for the very good reason that even if they were successful no one could copy them. But here I think there is an opportunity of doing something to assist experimental and research work by demonstrating what can be done by
676
new methods, such as better grain and better treatment in various ways. It is more than thirty years since I visited the Government experimental farms in Canada. Even then they were doing most excellent work and the farmers came and saw crops raised there, which were better than their own, and they were ready to adopt the seeds and the methods experimented upon on those farms. No farmer that I know will copy his neighbour's methods; at least he will not acknowledge that he will do so. But if the methods are those of a body altogether independent of a rival farmer he may, and probably will, be ready to copy what he sees has been a success. If he sees a better crop of wheat or of oats than he is growing himself he will ask what kind of seed has been used.
In my part of the country, Scotland, the largest and best farmers are taking a very keen interest in such demonstration work as is now being done. In the seed testing stations, in the work of the society for investigating animal diseases, these men are taking a very keen interest and are supporting the work on the public and local authorities of which they are members. I think it would be a very great pity if anything were done which might check that in any way. I would rather say that we ought to do all we can to assist and develop the work which is contemplated in subsection (1) of Clause 2 under the management of local authorities, agricultural colleges and other bodies. Therefore, I hope that your Lordships will allow this clause to go through as I think it contains the germ of useful experiment which is within the reach of farmers to copy.
EARL STANHOPE: The noble Lord who has just sat down has to a very large extent answered his own speech. At the beginning of his speech he seemed to imply that there were no experimental farms in this country at all.
LORD POLWARTH: No.
EARL STANHOPE: Whereas, as the noble Earl opposite has told us, there are thirty-three. At the end of his speech the noble Lord told us that the farmers in Scotland were constantly going to seed testing stations and so on, and were keenly following out the experiments there made. If these proposed farms were merely a small extension of the ex-

677
perimental farms I think some of us would have less objection to them. Nothing surprised me more than the speech of the noble Earl, the Under-Secretary, because he told us that these were really not going to be experimental farms at all but what I think he called economic demonstration farms. One of the things that I thought the officials of the Ministry of Agriculture would not do was to suggest that the farmers of this country are not doing their utmost to make both ends meet. Surely we may say that in some ways they may be backward and are not perhaps in some respects prepared to spend as much money as some of us would like to see in making experiments; but everyone who knows them will agree that the farmer is doing his very utmost to make both ends meet and therefore requires no demonstration from the Government to make him do that.
Really to make a very large increase in the number of demonstration farms throughout the country to demonstrate things that the farmers are trying their very utmost to do already seems to me totally unnecessary. I ventured to suggest on the Second Reading of this Bill that far and away the cheapest method of getting farmers to use these methods is to put them into chars-a-bancs and motor cars and send them round to see the methods in action. The same remark was made in another place but the reply of the Minister was that farmers were very often prepared to admit visitors to their farms when they have time but they find it interferes with their work. It is not fair to ask them to accept these visitors. Exactly the same thing is true of Government farms. If the manager is to attend to his farming, he cannot welcome visitors. Therefore, if it is true that the farmer does not like visitors, it is also true of the Government farm. I suggest that in the financial condition of the country the number of demonstration farms which we have already is sufficient, remembering the very different conditions of agriculture in this country to those in Canada where, I agree with Lord Polwarth, the experimental farms have been of great value and interest, because prairies there have the same soil and climate, whereas in this country every county differs from every other county.
678
For those reasons, I think that largely to increase demonstration farms by the Government is quite unnecessary.
LORD BAYFORD: Before the noble Earl replies, may I put this point? Have not the local authorities powers to establish such farms as these now, and are they not the best judges of whether they are required or not? Is there any evidence that in places where they can be established the local authorities have been reluctant to establish them?
EARL DE LA WARR: In regard to the point just put to me, I do not think the house needs reminding that the present is not the time to expect very much development from the local authorities in this direction. One of the reasons why the Government decided to accept this responsibility themselves instead of placing it upon local authorities is that it was felt that at the moment local authorities would be unlikely to undertake any further development, or to wish to undertake any further development, in agricultural education. At the same time, we wish to avail ourselves of the experience that they have had, and, therefore, we were taking powers to make arrangements where possible to ask local authorities or other suitable local bodies to act as agents for the Government. I must say that the attitude of your Lordships, and particularly the attitude of the noble Earl, Lord Stanhope, as regards the importance of agricultural education and demonstration, which he appeared to consider very slight, surprised me not a little. I think agricultural education is of great importance. What little experience I have had, and what I have learned at meetings with farmers, has forced me to the conclusion that everywhere there is a tremendous appreciation of what is being done by the existing institutions, and I should have thought that one of the most profitable developments we could have made at the present moment was in the direction of extending these facilities.
EARL STANHOPE: The noble Earl told the House these were not experimental farms.
EARL DE LA WARR: What I am saying at the moment is that the value of these institutions for demonstration is tremendous. What is necessary is to have

679
institutions that are specifically established for demonstration. The noble Lord asked why cannot farmers go round to private farms? Then he answered himself by saying it is a nuisance to the private farmer. On the other hand, he said it would be a nuisance to the State institution also. It would, I may point out, be possible for the public institution to keep someone quite separate from the administration of the farm for taking visitors around. It would not be neces-
Resolved in the negative and Clause 2 disagreed to accordingly.
sary to charge in the accounts the cost of showing whether or not the farm was a commercial proposition. I do appeal to your Lordships in the name of agricultural education and demonstration in this country to think twice before you vote against this clause.
On Question, Whether Clause 2 shall stand part of the Bill?
Their Lordships divided:—Contents, 20; Not-Contents, 112.

CONTENTS.

Sankey, L. (L. Chancellor.)

Astor, V.

Passfield, L.

Mersey, V.

Polwarth, L.

Parmoor, L. (L. President.)

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L. [Teller]

Clwyd, L.

Marlborough, D.

Dickinson, L.

Rathcreedan, L.

Hay, L. (E. Kinnoull.) [Teller.]

Remnant, L.

Beauchamp, E.

Sanderson, L.

De La Warr, E.

Ker, L. (M. Lothian.)

Snell, L.

Harrowby, E.

Noel-Buxton, L.

NOT-CONTENTS.

Wellington, D.

Bumham, V.

Gainford, L.

Churchill, V.

Green way, L.

Camden, M.

Elibank, V.

Hardinge of Penshurst, L.

Exeter, M.

Esher, V.

Hastings, L.

Zetland, M.

FitzAlan of Derwent, V.

Heneage, L.

Hambleden, V.

Howard of Glossop, L.

Airlie, E.

Hereford, V.

Hunsdon of Hunsdon, L.

Albemarle, E.

Hood, V.

Illingworth, L.

Ancaster, E.

Novar, V.

Kinnaird, L.

Balfour, E.

Sumner, V.

Lamington, L.

Bradford, E.

Latymer, L.

Breadalbane and Holland, E.

Abinger, L.

Lawrence, L.

Cawdor, E.

Addington, L.

Leigh, L.

Denbigh, E.

Banbury of Southam, L.

Middleton, L.

Doncaster, E.(D. Buccleuch and Queensburry.)

Barnard, L.

Monteagle, L. (M. Sligo.)

Bayford, L.

Newton, L.

Feversham, E.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Oxenfoord, L. (E. Stair.)

Fortescue, E.

Belper, L.

Phillimore, L.

Graham, E. (D. Montrose.)

Berwick, L.

Queenborough, L.

Grey, E.

Biddulph, L.

Raglan, L.

Iddesleigh, E.

Brancepeth, L.(V. Boyne.)

Ramsay, L. (E. Dalhousie.)

Lauderdale, E.

Buckmaster, L.

Redesdale, L.

Lindsay, E.

Chesham, L.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Liverpool, E.

Clanwilliam, L. (E. Clanwilliam)

Saltoun, L.

Lucan, E. [Teller.]

Sandys, L.

Malmesbury, E.

Cottesloe, L.

Sinclair, L.

Morton, E.

Cushendun, L.

Somerleyton, L.

Mount Edgcumbe, E.

Danesfort, L.

Strachie, L.

Onslow, E.

Deramore, L.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Poulett, E.

Desart, L. (E. Desart.)

Radnor, E.

Desborough, L.

Sudeley, L.

Sandwich, E.

Douglas, L. (E. Home.)

Sydenham of Combe, L.

Scarbrough, E.

Dynevor, L.

Templemore, L.

Spencer, E.

Ernle, L.

Teynham, L.

Stanhope, E.

Erskine, L.

Trenchard, L.

Vane, E. (M. Londonderry.)

Fairfax of Cameron, L.

Treowen, L.

Yarborough, E.

Fairhaven, L.

Wavertree, L.

FitzWalter, L.

Wharton, L.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Foxford, L. (E. Limerick.)

Wynford, L.

Bertie of Thame, V.

Gage, L. (V. Gage.) [Teller.]

Clause 3:
Power of Minister to acquire land for purposes of re-conditioning.
3.—(1) If the Minister is of opinion, with respect to any piece of land, that the execution thereon of reclamation, drainage, or other work is necessary in order to enable the piece of land to be satisfactorily used for agricultural purposes, he may purchase and hold the piece of land and execute thereon such work as aforesaid for the purposes of letting, selling or otherwise disposing of the piece of land when the said work has been executed:
Provided that the Minister shall not acquire any land under this section otherwise than by agreement save as hereinafter in this section expressly provided.
(2) If it appears to the Minister that any piece of land suitable for use for agricultural purposes cannot be satisfactorily used for those purposes by reason of its being in a seriously neglected condition, the Minister may, after consultation with the council of the county or county borough, as the case may be, and after giving notice to the owner and the occupier of the piece of land, authorise any person to enter on and inspect the piece of land and report to him thereon.
(3) If after receiving a report under the last foregoing subsection with respect to any piece of land the Minister is satisfied that the piece of land is in a seriously neglected condition and that the condition thereof has been caused by the failure of the owner thereof to execute thereon any necessary works of maintenance, or in the ease of land not in the occupation of the owner, by the failure of the owner to take reasonable steps to reserve or enforce any right for securing the execution on the piece of land of any necessary works of maintenance, then, subject to the provisions of this section relating to arbitration, the Minister may cause to be served upon the owner a notice requiring the execution on the piece of land within such period as may be specified in the notice (not being less than six months after the service of the notice upon the owner) of such works as may be specified therein, and may, if at the expiration of that period the Minister determines that the requirements of the notice have not been complied with, purchase the piece of land otherwise than by agreement, and hold the piece of land and execute works thereon as if it had been acquired under subsection (1) of this section:
Provided that if, after the determination of the amount of the compensation to be paid to any person in respect of his interest in any piece of land proposed to be compulsorily acquired under this subsection, it appears to the Minister that, having regard to the determination, the total expenditure involved in proceeding further under this section would not be justified, the Minister may, at any time within six weeks after the determination, by notice in writing withdraw any notice to treat served on that person or on any other person interested in the piece of land, and in such case any
682
person on whom such a notice of withdrawal has been served shall be entitled to obtain from the Minister compensation for any loss or expenses which he may have sustained or incurred by reason or in consequence of the notice to treat and of the notice of withdrawal, and the amount of such compensation shall, in the event of a dispute with respect thereto, be determined by a single arbitrator appointed by agreement between the parties to the dispute or, in default of such agreement, by the President of the Chartered Surveyors' Institution.
(4) Where any such notice as aforesaid requiring the execution of works is served upon the owner of a piece of land, a copy of the notice shall he served as soon as may be upon every person upon whom the Minister would if lie proposed to acquire the land compulsorily, be required to serve notice to treat under Section eighteen of the Lands Clauses (Consolidation) Act, 1845; and all such notices and copies of notices may be served in like manner as such a notice to treat as aforesaid, and may require the persons served to give such particulars of their estate and interest in the piece of land to which the notice or copy relates as might be demanded by such a notice to treat as aforesaid:
Provided that, without prejudice to the duty of the Minister under this subsection to serve copies of notices upon such of the persons mentioned in the said Section eighteen as, after diligent enquiry, are known to him, no person shall be entitled to have such a copy served upon him unless he notifies the Minister in writing of his claim to receive such a copy not less than three months before the expiration of the time limited by the notice for compliance with the requirements thereof.
(5) In the event of any dispute between the Minister and any person upon whom a notice or a copy of a notice has been served in accordance with the provisions of the two last foregoing subsections as to whether—

(a) the piece of land to which the notice relates is in a seriously neglected condition; or

(b) the condition of the piece of land has been caused by the failure of the owner thereof to execute thereon any necessary works of maintenance, or, in the case of land not in the occupation of the owner, by the failure of the owner to take reasonable steps to reserve or enforce any right for securing the execution on the piece of land of any necessary works of maintenance; or

(c) any requirements of the notice are unreasonable; or

(d) the time limited by the notice for compliance with the requirements thereof ought to be extended; or

(e) any requirements of the notice have not been complied with,

that person may, subject as hereinafter provided, refer the dispute to a single arbitrator appointed by agreement between the parties to the dispute, or in default of such

683
agreement by the President of the Chartered Surveyors' Institution, and, where any such dispute is so referred, the Minister shall not take any further proceedings under this section except in accordance with the award of the arbitrator:
Provided that—

(a) the arbitrator shall not award that the time limited by any notice for compliance with the requirements thereof ought to be extended unless he is satisfied that all practicable steps are being taken for complying with the requirements of the notice other than any requirements which he holds to have been unreasonable, and where the arbitrator awards that the time aforesaid ought to be extended his award shall specify the period of the extension; and

(b) a person shall not be entitled to refer to arbitration a dispute under this subsection, in the case of a dispute as to the matters mentioned in paragraphs (a) or (b) thereof, after the expiration of two months from the date on which the notice or a copy of the notice was served upon him, in the case of a dispute as to the matters mentioned in paragraph (c) thereof, after the expiration of the time limited by the notice for compliance with the requirements thereof, in the case of a dispute as to the matters mentioned in paragraph (d) thereof, after the expiration of seven days from the expiration of the time limited by the notice for compliance with the requirements thereof, or in the case of a dispute as to the matters mentioned in paragraph (e) thereof, after the expiration of fourteen days from the date on which notice to treat is served upon him under Section eighteen of the Lands Clauses (Consolidation) Act, 1845.

(6) Any person upon whom a notice requiring the execution of work or a copy of such a notice has been served under this section shall have power, notwithstanding anything to the contrary in any lease or other instrument, to enter on the piece of land to which the notice or copy relates and execute the work specified in the notice, and if any person other than the person executing the work is, under any lease or other instrument, liable (whether to him or otherwise) to execute the work or any part thereof, any expenses incurred by the person executing the work in the execution thereof or of that part thereof, as the case may be, may be recovered as a debt due to the person executing the work.
(7) Any person authorised by the Minister to exercise any powers or duties under this section shall be so authorised in writing and shall, if required by the owner or occupier of the land to which the authority relates, produce his authority to him, and if any person prevents or obstructs any person so authorised in the exercise of his powers or duties under this section, or prevents or obstructs any person entitled under the last foregoing subsection to enter on a piece of land and execute work thereon, he shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not
684
exceeding twenty pounds, or, on a second or subsequent conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding three months.
(8) Any of the powers and duties conferred on the Minister by this section with respect to any piece of land, except the power of acquiring or selling it, may, by arrangement between him and the council of the county or county borough, as the case may be, be exercised and performed by that council as agents for the Minister.
(9) An account, to be known as the Land Reconditioning Account, shall be drawn up annually by the Minister in such form and containing such particulars as the Treasury may direct, showing all expenditure incurred by him and the application of all moneys received by him for the purposes of this section, and that account shall be audited by the Comptroller and Auditor-General and shall be laid before Parliament together with his report thereon.
(10) For the purposes of this section—

(a) every parcel of land in separate occupation shall be deemed to be a piece of land, and a piece of land shall be deemed to include any buildings usually occupied therewith and any easements or rights appurtenant thereto;

(b) the expression "agricultural purposes" includes all purposes directly connected with the use of land as arable, meadow or pasture land, or orchard, or for market gardens or osier-beds;

(c) the expression "owner," in relation to any land, means the person (other than a mortgagee not in possession) entitled, either with or without the consent of any other person, to dispose of the fee simple of the land;

(d) the expression "works of maintenance" means the repair or reconditioning of farmhouses, cottages, agricultural buildings, drains, embankments, ditches, bridges, fences, walls, hedges, gates, roads, and water supply; and

(e) the expression "agricultural buildings" has the same meaning as in the Rating and Valuation (Apportionment) Act, 1928.

LORD CRANWORTH LORD CRANWORTH moved, at the beginning after "If the Minister," to insert "in agreement with the council of the county or county borough as the case may be." The noble Lord said: The object of this Amendment is to call in the assistance of the county council to the Minister to co-operate in the spending of money. I feel that this is an important Amendment and it is one which the noble Earl will find little difficulty in accepting. When the Improvement of Livestock (Licensing of Bulls) Bill was before the House, the noble Lord, Lord Strachie, very rightly pointed out that the interference of Whitehall in farming

685
was very unpopular. The noble Earl replied for the Government, also very rightly, that continuity of policy was more important still, and that, as the Ministry were already functioning in that respect, it was desirable that the county councils should not be brought in. In this ease that argument is entirely inappropriate because, as your Lordships are well aware, the county councils already function in regard to any land that is improperly farmed. That is a far more important function than that which is in question here, because your Lordships know that, whereas land that is left uncultivated may take years to get back, buildings left in an improper condition can be at once put right with an expenditure of cash. I hope that the noble Earl will find no difficulty in accepting this Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 31, after ("Minister") insert ("in agreement with the council of the county or county borough as the case may be").—(Lord Cranworth.)
EARL DE LA WARR: The noble Lord has asked me to accept this Amendment., but I think that if he considers it for a moment he will realise that in this part of the clause it is really quite inappropriate. What we are dealing with here is the matter of personal negotiation between the owner and the Government, and the county council does not really come into the matter at all. I quite agree, and it is admitted in subsection (2), that, where compulsion is to be exercised it is perhaps just as well to have some form of protection by the county council for the rights of the owner, but that question does not enter here, and I really do not see how the county council could be brought into subsection (1) because, after all, if the Minister or the State is willing to make a purchase, and if the landowner is willing to make a sale for a specific purpose, I cannot for the life of me see why we should drag in the county council to give its approval of an entirely voluntary bargain. I hope, therefore, that the noble Lord will not press this Amendment.
LORD CLINTON: I think the noble Earl has probably good ground for the reply that he has given to my noble friend below the gangway. I should like to see the county council brought in merely as an assistance to the Minister.
686
I think it would be an advantage to him if he were in touch with the local authority, who would be able to tell him where land that required reclamation was to be found. Otherwise, he would have to have a survey of the whole country. It is only for that purpose that I should like to see them brought in, but on the whole, if the Minister does not require the assistance of the county council in this matter, I do not know whether my noble friend would desire to press the point.
EARL DE LA WARR: I could give this assurance. Of course the Minister does intend to avail himself of the information which the county council will have in its possession but that is a different matter from inserting it compulsorily in the Bill. Therefore I think it would be better if the noble Lord would withdraw his Amendment and allow me to give an undertaking to act in consultation with the county council.
LORD CRANWORTH: I am prepared to withdraw my Amendment and with less reluctance because I think it is only fair to point out to the noble Earl that so far as I am concerned I look upon this Clause 3 as perhaps not quite so crude as Clause 1 or so expensive as Clause 2, but in my opinion as otherwise the worst clause in the Bill, and I shall endeavour to get it deleted. Therefore I gladly fall in with the suggestion of the noble Earl at the present, moment.
LORD STRACHIE: I hope the noble Lord does not intend to withdraw his Amendment because, speaking on behalf of the County Councils' Association, they support his Amendment and cannot see what objection there can be to it. Certainly it would be of advantage that those on the spot should be able to give information to the Minister. The Minister cannot go down and investigate the case and there might be some Minister who would know nothing about the particular case. On the other hand, we think that through the county council or its officers it could be ascertained whether the land was neglected or not. Therefore it seems to me that it is quite unreasonable not to accept this Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD CRANWORTH LORD CRANWORTH moved, in subsection (1), after "satisfactorily," to

687
insert "and economically." The noble Lord said: I move this Amendment for this reason, that I have observed that what I should consider satisfactory is not always construed in the same way by other people, and there are certain people on the same side as the Government who look upon a thing as satisfactory merely according to the amount of money expended. I therefore venture to hope that the noble Earl, who is of my own way of thinking, will agree to this Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 34, after ("satisfactorily") insert ("and economically").—(Lord Cranworth.)
EARL DE LA WARR: I have not really any objection in principle to the word "economically," if any of your Lordships really knows what it means. There are a great number of forms of value which it is possible to adopt. Do you mean 5 or 6 per cent., or 4 or 3 per cent. return, or are you to have regard to national economy too? If your Lordships are going to press the Amendment I do not think I am inclined to resist it, but at the same time I would appeal to the noble Lord not to press it, because it really is a most meaningless word, and might land us in great complications. I think really it is included in the word "satisfactorily," and I would, on the whole, ask your Lordships not to insert it.
LORD CRANWORTH: I regret that the noble Earl looks upon it as a useless and meaningless word. I notice that it is so among many of his friends, but I myself do not feel inclined to withdraw the Amendment. The noble Earl asked whether we meant one, two, three or more per cent. return. I do not mean anything of the sort.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: I am sure we are all interested to know that members of the other side are unable to understand the word "economically." It is a fact which we have long suspected but I am a little surprised to hear it frankly admitted by the noble Earl. We attach a little more importance to both the substance and the word, and when we are asked what sort of return do we mean the answer is that this clause does not mean anything in which you are carrying on a business. This clause empowers the
688
Minister to do certain reclamation work and thereafter to dispose of the land, and the test is whether what is done results in financial gain and not in financial loss. The transaction would not be economical if you spent more in buying and reclaiming the land than you would get for the land when it was sold. If the transaction results in a balance on the credit side, and not a debit balance, then it is an economic transaction, but if you are going to spend more than the land is going to be worth after reclamation, then we, at any rate, do not regard it as economic finance. I hope the Government will see their way to accept the Amendment, especially as the noble Earl's refusal was somewhat half-hearted.
May I take this opportunity of pointing out to him, and to the Government, that this is one of the matters to which I made reference on the Second Reading and on which it might be suggested that an Amendment might raise a technical question of Privilege. In any real sense it does not do so. At some stage we shall require to have from the Government an assurance that the question of Privilege on some of these Amendments, if they are put in the Bill, either by acceptance by the Government or by the vote of the Committee, will not be insisted upon in another place; that is to say, that the Government will invite the House of Commons to waive its Privilege, as it often does in a proper case. The reason why I raise the point now is that there are some of these clauses which some of us would be willing to let the Government have under certain limitations, but which if those limitations were not included we should not be able to agree to at all. I am sure that the Government would not wish to put us in the position of having passed clauses with limitations which we think essential, and then finding those limitations thrown out by the House of Commons on the ground of Privilege, and the clauses standing in the Bill in the form in which they originally stood and in which we should have voted against them.
I hope the Government will not think that I am doing anything that is unreasonable, but when the Report stage comes I shall ask the Government to be good enough to state what is their intention with regard to each of the clauses

689
ultimately passed, and if it should turn out that they are unable to give the desired assurance on some of the clauses which we have amended, then some of us who would have been disposed to vote for those clauses in their altered form would be bound to vote against them on Report. I hope the Government will not think I am saying anything which is unfriendly when I mention that caution, because I do not think it would be fair to them or to the House that we should go on and then find ourselves put into a position which we would not willingly accept. It does not arise very much here, but it does arise, and as this is the first opportunity I have had of mentioning it on the Committee stage, I have ventured to put the matter to the House.
EARL DE LA WARR: The noble and learned Viscount will forgive me if I say at the present moment it is quite impossible for me to say anything on the question of Privilege. Obviously that is a matter for the House of Commons to decide. Of course if the Government does accept a particular Amendment I presume the, Government is in honour bound to stand by it. On the question of the meaning of the word "economically," I accept that Amendment. I would, however, say that it is the intention of the Government possibly to let this land and therefore the question of the percentage return does come into it, and as the noble Lords, Lord Cranworth and Lord Hailsham, both quite failed to give any definition whatever of the word "economically" I think perhaps I might be allowed to stand by what I said about it. Subject to that, I accept the Amendment.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: May I just make clear—because I obviously failed to do so—what I was trying to point out before. Of course the question of Privilege is a question for the House of Commons, but, as the noble Earl knows, quite often the House of Commons is invited in a proper case by the Government of the day to waive the question of Privilege and to deal with an Amendment on its merits. What I am asking the Government to do is to give an assurance at some period, certainly not later than Report, as to whether they will or will not advise the House of Commons to waive their Privilege with regard to some Amendments. I ask
690
them to give that assurance because, unless we can get that assurance, so far as I am concerned, there are a great many clauses which I should vote against but which I should be prepared to advise those who vote with me to pass if they were passed with some of the Amendments which appear on the Order Paper. The noble Earl will see that the assurance I am asking for is not an unfair one, because the alternative is that some of us at any rate would feel bound to vote against the clause altogether.
Take Clause 3. As it stands, I would vote against it; with certain limitations I should differ from Lord Cranworth and do my best to get it through. Unless I know that the Government are not going to say that my Amendments raise questions of Privilege, I should feel bound to vote against the clause. I am not asking the noble Earl to give any answer, but I am doing my best to make clear that before Report it will be necessary for him to give an assurance of that kind, unless he wants to force those of us who would like to help him to get the clause in a modified form, but who cannot accept the clause as it stands, into the position of voting against the clause altogether for fear of having the Privilege point raised when the Bill is sent down to another place.
EARL BEAUCHAMP: I regret very much that a very important constitutional point should be raised on this side issue with regard to this particular clause. It is a matter of such great importance that should have hoped we would have a discussion on this at a later stage, with due notice. I only rose to say that the suggestion made to His Majesty's Government is one which it would be exceedingly difficult for them to accept. I am quite sure that there would be found among the friends of the noble and learned Viscount himself in another place a large number of people who would repudiate the idea that the House of Commons is in a position to forego its rights and privileges in regard to money matters, brought before it whether by Bill or otherwise.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: It is done constantly.
EARL BEAUCHAMP: The rights of the House of Commons with regard to money matters are so clear and distinct

691
that I do hope that we shall not by a side issue at this present moment, or without due consideration, make even the suggestion to His Majesty's Government that they should take the course which has been proposed by the noble and learned Viscount.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: If the noble Earl would be good enough to look into the question he would find that, so far from its being a novelty, it is a matter which is constantly done in the House of Commons, and has been done in my own experience when I was there, without the slightest objection. It is the Privilege of the House of Commons, but, if the House of Commons chooses, it has a perfect right to waive Privilege, and the fact is then entered in the journals of the House of Commons. That is commonly done. It has been done on the advice of His Majesty's Government in my own experience more than once, and I cannot see any possible reason why it should not be done in this case. All I am proposing to ask the Government is to assure us that, in regard to certain limitations, they will give the House of Commons the advice to make that waiver because, unless they are able to do so, I should not be able to vote for some of the clauses.
EARL BEAUCHAMP: The House of Commons has frequently waived its Privilege, but I do not remember an occasion when the Government in these circumstances has been asked to pledge itself not to raise the question of Privilege in another place. That is a novelty to which I raise the strongest objection.
EARL DE LA WARR: I am glad the noble Earl has spoken, because I felt that as a junior member of this House, it was not for me to pronounce on constitutional issues. But, now that the matter is raised, I would say that, whereas we would be most unwilling to see the noble and learned Viscount in opposition to Clause 3, or any other vital clause of the Bill, I hope he will realise that there are certain forms in which this Bill might leave your Lordships' House which might lead us to think that it might just as well be killed.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD CRANWORTH LORD CRANWORTH moved, in subsection (1), to leave out "letting." The noble Lord said: The purpose of this
692
Amendment is obviously to safeguard the public purse and the taxpayer. If you were to leave the Bill as it stands there would seem to be no limit to the expense that might be involved; but if the sole right that the Minister has, after he has taken land and reconditioned it, is to sell, I think it is unlikely that extravagance to any very great extent will step in, because it will be so obvious to the general public.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 37, leave out ("letting").—(Lord Cranworth.)
EARL DE LA WARR: I hope that the noble Lord will not press this Amendment, because it might have very serious effects on the Exchequer, and it might cause very considerable expense. Imagine a case arising where certain land can only be sold at a very poor price. On the other hand, a good offer to let is received. Must the Minister be in the position of refusing that offer to let, so that he has to sell at a poor price? The noble Lord knows perfectly well it is very often more difficult to sell than to lease land, and therefore I hope that he will not press this Amendment.
LORD CLINTON: I quite understand that it is to the convenience of His Majesty's Government to hold this land for letting or otherwise disposing of it. In my complete innocence of these matters I should have been inclined to agree with him; but I have had a severe shock as the result of reading a report of a meeting presided over, I think, by the noble Lord, Lord Noel-Buxton. So far as it is reported, that meeting decided that this Bill beginning at this clause was the beginning of land nationalisation. If that is so, surely we should be foolish if we did not take warning by what we were told. I say at once that it would not have occurred to me but it evidently was, it is reported, in the opinion of the noble Lord and we know it is the opinion of the Socialist Government that it should eventually come. I rather hope that my noble friend will insist upon his Amendment in the circumstances.
LORD HASTINGS: I also hope that my noble friend will insist upon his Amendment. Here again, we have to look at the consequences. We have to look rather further than at what is actually contained

693
in the Bill. There is no denying the fact that it is possible that a very large number of owners of land which requires reclamation would be in no way reluctant to see this land purchased by the Ministry of Agriculture. It is possible that a very large area will be dealt with under this clause and if no condition is put into the Bill that the Minister is compelled to sell—let us add a time limit if necessary—he may well find himself in ten or a dozen years in the possession of an enormous area of reclaimed land. The difference between that and nationalisation is to me very difficult to define. If the noble Lord requires a Teller in favour of this Amendment I shall have the greatest pleasure in assisting him to insist, so far as we are able, in cutting out the word "letting." I regard it as of great importance that it should be removed.
EARL DE LA WARR: Supposing land is left in the hands of the Minister, I cannot see what objection your Lordships could have to that in principle. A great deal of land is under the control of public authorities at the present moment.
LORD HASTINGS: Too much.
EARL DE LA WARR: It seems to me that what the noble Lord, Lord Hastings, is really doing is this. In the pursuit of political prejudice against the State owning land or having any control over it, he is going to insist that possibly the Minister who has been responsible for reclaiming this land is to make a bad bargain at the expense of the State by having to accept a bad offer to sell instead of letting it at an economic rent. A great deal was said about inserting the word "economically" only a few moments ago. It seems that those who were most insistent on the insertion of
that word are now going to insist on the deletion of a word which may well allow the scheme to be operated economically. It seems to me it would be most unfortunate if the noble Lord, Lord Hastings, and others allowed their political prejudices to intervene in an economic matter and compelled the State thereby to be the loser.
LORD BAYFORD: I rather agree with what the noble Earl has said. If we once admit the principle of the Ministry of Agriculture stepping in and executing this work, I do not think we ought to put unnecessary difficulties in their way. If we are going to tolerate the clause at all, I do not want to see it made unworkable. If you allow the Ministry to come in and to execute this work and then say "Unless you can get a buyer, you must farm it yourselves", I must say that I think you would be unnecessarily handicapping them, and I should not be willing to support that.
LORD CRANWORTH: After what has been said, I do not think that I can withdraw my Amendment. I appreciate what was said by my noble friend Lord Bayford, and all my inclination is to remove the whole clause. I hope to do that in due course. I may not be able to do so and I may have to swallow it with such Amendments as I can secure. I look upon this as an important Amendment. To my mind, the whole of this subsection is put in as a little bit of jam to disguise from your Lordships the powder of nationalisation which the rest of the clause has in it.
On Question, Whether the word "letting" shall stand part of the clause?—
Their Lordships divided:—Contents, 81; Not-Contents, 34.

CONTENTS.

Sankey, L. (L. Chanedlor.)

Doncaster, E. (D. Buccleuch and Queensberry.)

Spencer, E.

Stanhope, E.

Marlborough, D.

Feversham, E.

Vane, E. (M. Londonderry.)

Fortescue E.

Camden, M.

Grey, E.

Astor, V.

Exeter, M.

Iddesleigh, E.

Burnham, V.

Zetland, M.

Lauderdale, E.

Churchill, V.

Albemarle, E.

Lindsay, E.

FitzAlan of Derwent, V.

Lucan, E.

Hailsham, V.

Ancaster, E.

Malmesbury, E.

Hambleden, V.

Beauchamp, E.

Mount Edgcumbe, E.

Hereford, V.

Bradford, E.

Onslow, E.

Mersey, V.

De La Warr, E.

Sandwich, E.

Abinger, L.

Hay, L. (E. Kinnoull.) [Teller.]

Rathereedan, L.

Addington, L.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Aldenham, L.

Heneage, L.

Saltoun, L.

Bayford, L.

Ker, L. (M. Lothian.)

Sanderson, L.

Clanwilliam, L. (E Clanwilliam.)

Kinnaird, L.

Sandhurst, L.

Latymer, L.

Sandys, L.

Cottesloe, L.

Lawrence, L.

Sinclair, L.

Cushendun, L.

Monteagle, L. (M. Sligo.)

Snell, L.

Desborough, L.

Noel-Buxton, L.

Somerleyton, L.

Dickinson, L.

Oriel, L. (V. Massereene.)

Stanmore, L.

Digby, L.

Oxenfoord, L. (E. Stair.)

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Douglas, L. (E. Home.)

Passfield, L.

Erskine, L.

Polwarth, L.

Templemore, L.

Fairhaven, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L. [Teller.]

Teynham, L.

Faringdon, L.

Trenchard, L

FitzWalter, L.

Queenborough, L.

Wavertree, L.

Gage, L. (V. Gage.)

Ramsay, L. (E. Dalhousie.)

Wharton, L.

Gainford, L.

NOT-CONTENTS.

Wellington, D.

Elibank, V.

Deramore, L.

Novar, V.

Fairfax of Cameron, L.

Airlie, E.

Foxford, L. (E. Limerick.)

Breadalbane and Holland, E.

Banbury of Southam, L.

Hastings, L. [Teller.]

Cawdor, E.

Barnard, L.

Lamington, L.

Graham, E. (D. Montrose.)

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Middleton, L.

Midleton, E.

Berwick, L.

Phillimore, L.

Morton, E.

Biddulph, L.

Raglan, L.

Poulett, E.

Brancopeth, L. (V. Boyne.)

Redesdale, L.

Radnor, E.

Chesham, L.

Strachie, L.

Clinton, L.

Treowen, L.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Cranworth, L. [Teller.]

Wynford, L.

Bertie of Thame, V.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Resolved in the affirmative and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.
LORD CRANWORTH LORD CRANWORTH moved, in subsection (1), to leave out "or otherwise disposing of." The noble Lord said: The noble Earl having had such a handsome success will, doubtless, be disposed to accept this Amendment to leave out the words "or otherwise disposing of." He will, of course, first of all explain what they mean. As they stand it seems to me they can do anything they like with the land. They might make it into demonstration farms or large-scale farms. In any case I feel quite certain the noble Earl will be inclined to accept the Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 37, leave out ("or otherwise disposing of").—(Lord Cranworth.)
EARL DE LA WARR: I am afraid the noble Earl has rather misjudged the effect of the Division upon me, though I admit it has quite put heart into me for the moment, having felt rather crushed during the last hour. Many of these words are a simple form of protection to the Exchequer so that the best possible use can be made of the land. This land might be in an area where Part II, relating to small holdings, was going to be
696
operated. The land could be used for the purpose of small holdings, and it might well be found more economical for the Minister so to use that land rather than to sell or let it. Therefore I think it would be best if these words were left in and the matter left to the discretion of the powers.
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME: I hardly think the word "disposing" is the proper word to cover that "Disposing of" means giving away, or exchanging, or disposing of in some other form.
EARL DE LA WARR: I am advised by my legal advisers that what I say is correct, and that this land might be used, if necessary, for small holdings. That is what is meant by "otherwise disposing of."
LORD CRANWORTH: Could not the noble Earl meet me by putting in some words which would make it quite clear? It does seem to me that "or otherwise disposing of" does leave it quite open for any use to be made of this land.
EARL DE LA WARR: It gives no new powers at all, but I will look into it again, if the noble Lord would like, before Report and let him know, but I am advised it gives no new powers whatsoever.
LORD CRANWORTH: If the noble Lord will look into it and reassure me I will not press my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE EARL OF LAUDERDALE THE EARL OF LAUDERDALE moved, in subsection (1), after "or" ["selling or otherwise disposing of"] to insert "feuing." The noble Lord said: I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 37, after ("or") insert ("feuing").—(The Earl of Lauderdale.)
EARL DE LA WARR: I accept this.
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN moved, immediately before the proviso in subsection (1), to insert "or he may enter into partnership with or make advances to public authorities or private corporations or individuals for the purpose of accomplishing the aforesaid object." The noble Marquess said: I feel a little difficulty in moving this Amendment for the reason that we have had no elaborate account or justification of this clause from the Government Bench. I imagine before the vote is taken we shall have some statement in detail of the case for this clause. I am not in a position to do that in detail, because I have not at my services the resources of the Government, but I have no doubt that this clause is sound in principle. I do not think anybody can travel about the agricultural land of this country without realising the decline which has taken place in its equipment since the War. In some earlier remarks I made this afternoon I said that one of the main reasons was the incidence and extent of taxation of agricultural land. I put forward the estimate, which I am prepared to substantiate in figures, that the amount of capital which is actually taken out of agriculture by the State every year is to-day about £10,000,000, and that, owing to the existence of taxes, it is almost impossible for an agricultural landlord who is not possessed of other resources to do more than maintain his property at best in its existing condition, and in many cases he is unable to do that.
I welcome this clause for the reason that it is a recognition at large by the State that it is necessary to put capital back into agriculture. The terms of my Amendment are designed not to inter-
698
fere with that purpose but to spread it over the whole land of the country. My objection to its being confined to land owned by the Minister is twofold. In the first place it means that an unnecessary expense is placed upon the Government in having to acquire land before it can reclaim it. In the second place I see no reason—assuming as I do assume, and as the Government must assume, that there is a general need for reclamation and reconditioning—why it should be confined only to land that is owned by the Government. It is obviously just as much needed in the case of land owned by other people. If there is a need, as I have not the slightest doubt that there is, for reclamation and reconditioning, it ought to be possible for the Government, through machinery with which I will deal in my next Amendment, to make advances on suitable terms for the reconditioning and reclamation of such land on suitable conditions, and not to confine it to land which is owned or purchased by the Government.
There are many precedents for this course. The most obvious is the Forestry Commission. In this case certain grants are made in the interest of plantations and so much per acre is allowed according to the character of the tree. The second instance is drainage, in regard to which an advance up to one-third can be made by the Department to private individuals or owners. The most obvious case, of course, is that of housing. Here a system of subsidising private enterprise has been, I venture to say, extremely successful—a great deal more successful than the method of direct Government action. There are many ways in which this particular problem of putting work which is essentially needed into the land can be worked out. I do not think it is necessary for me at this stage to go into further detail. I have quoted those precedents and there are obviously other ways in which it could be done.
It may be said that a great deal of this is already being done under Land Improvements Acts but if you look at the Report of the Land Department for the last year, you will find that the average annual sum expended in the last few years is £150,000, which proves the need for this kind of expenditure. If the Government think it necessary, as I believe it is, that this work should be

699
undertaken on a larger scale than hitherto, and if they have come to the conclusion that £5,000,000 can usefully be expended on this purpose, it seems to me that this House ought to require that the expenditure should be made in such a way that it will benefit the whole land of the country. That is the purpose of my Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 38, at end insert the said new words.—(The Marquess of Lothian.)
THE DUKE OF MONTROSE: I would suggest, if I may, that the noble Marquess might leave out the words "enter into partnership with or," and his addition would then read:—
"or he may make advances to public authorities or private corporations or individuals. …"
and so on. It seems to me that the words "enter into partnership" incur a danger of dual ownership, and that they would be better left out, merely empowering the Minister to make loans or advances.
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: I do not feel at all strongly on this point. It is a method that has been worked out by which land could be reclaimed under conditions which would make it possible for the owner to terminate the partnership at a particular stage. I am not wedded to this form of words, but I think the method that I propose would be advantageous and might be useful in bringing back capital to the land on suitable terms.
LORD BAYFORD: In view of the place where the noble Marquess is sitting, I should like to ask him whether he realises that this is undoubtedly an Amendment on which a question of Privilege might arise? I should like to know if his neighbour, Lord Beauchamp, will support him in asking the Government to waive Privilege on this question.
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: I am inviting the Government and the House of Commons to attain the object in this particular way. I do not think I can ask the Government at this particular stage to pledge itself to waive Privilege. Perhaps the House of Commons will have to take a free vote.
EARL DE LA WARR: This is certainly quite an interesting proposal, but I do not think it takes us very much further,
700
because there are already two bodies that are in a position to lend money to landowners for this purpose—namely, the Land Improvement Company and the Agricultural Mortgage Corporation. This means that a new method can only be brought into operation by the Government being empowered to lend money at lower rates than are already provided for by these bodies. This would really have the effect of knocking them both out of existence, or certainly the Land Improvement Company, and it would also be, in effect, a subsidy for landowners. I do not know what your Lordships' views are on the subject, but I cannot help feeling that the landowner should either be put in a position to look after his land or else he must get somebody else to do it for him. I do not see that there is any case for giving him a subsidy to carry out his obligations towards the land. I hope, therefore, that the noble Marquess will not press this Amendment. It is true that we were prepared to accept a somewhat similar wording on another clause, but that was in regard to special experimental work and not to carrying out a normal obligation. I am afraid, therefore, that I cannot accept this Amendment.
LORD CLINTON: I think the noble Earl's objection is very typical of the attitude of the Party to which he belongs. He gives this proposal a bad name and says it is a subsidy to the landowner, and therefore it must ipso facto be stopped. But of course the proposal of the noble Marquess, as he has pointed out, is not without precedent. It is quite true that the Land Improvement Company and the Agricultural Mortgage Corporation lend money and, as I am a director of both, I must say that they lend it on the best possible terms. But we have done a great deal more than that. Ten years ago the Forestry Commission was allowed to give grants to private owners for planting, and very great advantage has been taken of this arrangement. I would personally very much rather see grants given to owners to reclaim land than that the Government should take it upon themselves. It would be done far more cheaply by the ordinary owner. I would support very strongly the proposal of the noble Marquess.
LORD HASTINGS LORD HASTINGS moved to leave out the last line of subsection (1)—"save as hereinafter in this section expressly provided." The noble Lord said: The words "save as hereinafter in this section expressly provided" appear to those of us who have studied the matter to have no meaning whatever. The noble Earl may possibly take the contrary view, and we should be very interested to hear what it is. It will be realised that this subsection of Clause 3 provides for the acquisition of land by the Minister by agreement, and then the words that propose to leave out follow. When this subsection is carefully looked at it will be found that no provision of the kind is made, because in subsection (3) the provision made for acquiring land otherwise than by agreement applies only to the particular kind of land mentioned in this particular subsection, and therefore the words "save as hereinafter in this section expressly provided" are not only objectionable in themselves but are redundant and have no meaning.
Unhappily, the Lord Chancellor is not in the House. Otherwise, I would have made it my business to appeal to him for a ruling, but I do contend, and I think the noble Earl will agree when he looks into the matter with a little more care, that in subsection (3) of Clause 3, there are conditions providing that the Minister may acquire land otherwise than by agreement but only after inspection of land which is in a seriously neglected condition and when the Minister is satisfied that the owner is in default. That, however, does not apply to subsection (1). If the noble Earl is in disagreement with me no doubt he will give an explanation, but unless an explanation is forthcoming, it appears to me that these words are not only objectionable but redundant.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 41, leave out line 41.—(Lord Hastings.)
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: May I point out that I do not think the noble Lord is quite correct. If you look at the clause you will see first of all that if the Minister is of opinion with respect to any piece of land that the execution thereon of reclamation, drainage, or other work is necessary in order to enable the piece of land to be satisfactorily used then he can acquire that land under this
702
section but not otherwise than by agreement "save as hereinafter in this section expressly provided." Therefore, what appears in the next subsection evidently relates to that particular provision. If you go to subsection (2), it says this:
"If it appears to the Minister that any piece of land suitable for use for agricultural purposes cannot be satisfactorily used for those purposes by reason of its being in a seriously neglected condition, the Minister may, after consultation with the council of the county or county borough"
do certain things; and then by subsection (3), after "receiving a report under the last foregoing subsection," he may acquire the land by compulsion. What would the result be if those words were left out? The power would be entirely in the hands of the Minister. What is the good of leaving out the words proposed to be left out by this Amendment and leaving in these later words? You are going to do no good, but you will leave the Minister power on his own ipse dixit to acquire the land compulsorily. You must either leave this latter part out or leave the first part in.
EARL DE LA WARR: I think it is mainly a drafting misunderstanding. If the noble Lord looks at line 41, he will see the word "section", and it also appears in line 40. That applies to the whole of Clause 3, but it says that "the Minister shall not acquire any land under this section otherwise than by agreement save as hereinafter in this section expressly provided." That is provided in the clause. Later on, in subsection (3), at page 5, line 28, you may be slightly confused by a reference to subsection (1), but 3 (1) is a subsection, and that part of the clause refers back solely to that subsection, whereas lines 40 and 41 are referring to the whole of the clause. I know the ways of lawyers are somewhat difficult to apprehend but I understand that it is actually right in drafting.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: I am sorry to think that the ways of lawyers are difficult to understand, but I confess, having listened to the explanation and read the clause, that I do not think that this is properly drafted. The noble Earl says that the proviso with which we are dealing is a proviso which refers not to subsection (1) but to the whole clause. Then

703
it should be at the end of the whole clause. It ought either to read "The Minister shall not acquire land under this subsection otherwise than by agreement," and leave out the words which the mover of the Amendment wishes to leave out, or else the whole proviso should come right at the end of the clause. As it stands, it appears to deal with the subsection.
EARL DE LA WARR: Perhaps the best way would be to deal with the matter on Report.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN had given Notice to move, at the end of subsection (1), to insert "provided also that the Minister may empower the Agricultural Land Corporation established under Section one of this Act to act as his agent for giving effect to this clause." The noble Marquess said: I am not quite certain whether I am in order in moving this Amendment. Clause 1 has disappeared, and therefore the Agricultural Land Corporation has disappeared too, but that does not prevent me from advocating the principle which underlies this Amendment—namely, that this function of reclamation and reconditioning should not be undertaken by the Minister, but entrusted to something in the nature of a public utility corporation. I do not know what may be the view of the noble Earl in charge of the Bill, but if he is able to accept the principle, it will be very easy to amend the form of words on the Report stage. I think most noble Lords will agree.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: How can any noble Lord move an Amendment to a clause which is not now in the Bill? We have deleted Clause 1, and it is only wasting time to move Amendments to a clause which has been struck out.
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: I am not moving an Amendment to Clause 1.
EARL DE LA WARR: May I make a suggestion which might help? The best course would perhaps be for the noble Marquess not to move his Amendment now, but to redraft it for the Report stage, when I can promise him, without committing myself further, to give it friendly consideration.
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: I will not move it now.
[The sitting was suspended at ten minutes before eight o'clock and resumed at five minutes past nine o'clock.]
VISCOUNT ASTOR VISCOUNT ASTOR moved, at the beginning of subsection (2), to insert:
"If it appear to the Minister that farm buildings cannot be satisfactorily used for the purpose of milk production by reason of their not complying with the conditions set out in such orders as may be made by the Minister of Health under Section three of the Milk and Dairies (Consolidation) Act, 1915, the Minister may, either by way of grant or by way of loan, or partly by way of grant and partly by way of loan, make advances to the owner of the buildings for the purpose of the execution of any necessary alterations or repairs so that the buildings may comply with the conditions set out in the order:
Provided that—

(a) If the buildings are in the occupation of the owner the grant or loan shall not exceed two-thirds of the estimated cost of the works in respect of which the grant or loan is to be made; and

(b) If the buildings are let, a grant or loan for the whole of the estimated cost of the works may be made, but in such case the rent payable by the occupier in respect of the buildings shall not, for a period of twenty years, exceed the amount of the previous rent increased by a sum equal to three per cent. of the amount by which the estimated cost of the works in respect of which the grant has been given exceeds the amount of the grant given under this Act.

The provisions prescribed for the repayment of any loan, and the conditions attaching to buildings in respect of which any loan has been given, shall be made subject to the same conditions (in so far as they are applicable) as are set out in Sections two and three of the Housing (Rural Workers) Act, 1926, or"
The noble Viscount said: I trust that the Amendment which I move will appeal to your Lordships. It does not involve the expenditure of any more money than is already voted under the Bill. There is no compulsion arising out of my proposal and it does not deal with nationalisation in any way whatever. My Amendment would not enable any Government Department to acquire any property. Subsection (1) of Clause 3 deals with the reclamation of land. Subsection (2) deals with reconditioning of buildings. There is a definition in subsection (10) as to the buildings which are covered, but I thought it advisable to deal specifically with cowsheds.
My Amendment is limited entirely to cowsheds. The structures where cows are housed are in an entirely different category from the structures where horses, pigs or bullocks are housed. Parliament by the Milk and Dairies Act has imposed certain specific and definite obligations on the owners of cow houses as: regards ventilation, light and so on. It has not imposed any similar obligation upon owners of stables or of sheds where bullocks are housed, or of pigsties. I think that all your Lordships will agree that in a large number of cases the Milk and Dairies Act is a dead letter. The other day I read an article in an important paper written by a well known medical officer of health and he said quite frankly that in the area for which he was responsible the administration of the Milk and Dairies Orders was, to use his own words, a dead letter. We know perfectly well that there are a considerable number of cowsheds which do not come up to the requirements. To a certain extent those buildings belong to small farmers. They find it difficult to comply with the conditions which are laid down under the Act in question.
I need not emphasise here the importance of assisting dairying. It is very interesting that in the last two days there should have been started, quite independently, in two popular newspapers, the Daily Express and the Daily Herald, a campaign, "Drink more milk." That shows how important it is to help to develop the dairy industry. I know from experience that you cannot possibly push a "Drink more milk" campaign unless at the same time you can do something to improve the cleanliness and hygienic condition of the milk. Improving the structures where it is produced is one of the first essentials. I have taken as the precedent for my proposal the Housing (Rural Workers) Act, 1926. Under that Statute assistance is given to the owners of cottage property to recondition their structures. That Act was passed by a Conservative Government and has within the last few days been extended for a further period of five years by the Labour Government; so that the principle of assisting private individuals to put their property in order has been adopted by two Governments—a Conservative Government and a Labour Government. My Amendment would
706
enable assistance to be given both to owner-occupiers and to tenants. Where the latter are concerned, I have specifically made it impossible for the owner to make use of the grant in order to exploit his tenants. Having got the grant, it is not possible for him to put up the rent unreasonably.
In the preparation of this Amendment I have been in touch with the leading association representing dairy farmers, the British Dairy Farmers' Association, and I may say that they are wholeheartedly in support of the Amendment. So I move it on the ground that it does not involve the expenditure of any more money than has actually been voted already; it does not reverse the purposes of the clause as drafted and it merely adds to the objects on which the money may be spent. I trust that my proposal will meet with support, and I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 42, at the beginning insert the said new paragraphs.—(Viscount Astor.)
LORD STRACHIE: I do not quite understand why the noble Viscount refers to Section 3 of the Milk and Dairies (Consolidation) Act, 1915, because I see that that section has reference to power to stop the supply of milk likely to cause tuberculosis. The noble Viscount said that the county councils were simply ignoring orders with regard to the ventilation and lighting of cowsheds and the proper sanitary condition of those places. Nothing in the section which he quotes deals with such matters. The section deals only with milk which is tuberculous.
VISCOUNT ASTOR: I think that Section 3 was left in by mistake. I originally drafted the Amendment to deal with graded milk. I altered that after discussing the Amendment with the British Dairy Farmers' Association, so if the noble Lord omits the reference to Section 3 the Amendment will read: "such orders as may be made by the Minister of Health under the Milk and Dairies (Consolidation) Act."
LORD STRACHIE: Quite so; but perhaps the noble Viscount will tell me when the British Dairy Farmers' Association passed any resolution in support of his Amendment. I happen to be on the Council of that Association, and I am

707
not aware that they have ever passed any such drastic Amendment as the noble Viscount suggests. As far as I know, in all the great dairy counties of the West of England, those dairying orders were found to be unnecessary. We are only dealing now with orders as regards cowsheds, their lighting and floor space and the general cleanliness of the buildings—that they should be properly whitewashed and things of that sort. The noble Viscount says that has been a dead letter. Why has it been a dead letter? I can tell him. If he lived in a dairy county, as I do, he would know that the order was a dead letter because it was absolutely unnecessary. I can inform the noble Viscount that a large number of people who competed in clean milk competitions in the County of Somerset got first or second or third prizes, or were commended for having perfectly clean milk, yet their buildings could not have passed the Milk and Dairies order requirements. That order was simply a doctrine of perfection.
Even if it had not been a doctrine of perfection, it was unnecessary, as we were able to prove in Somerset and other Western counties that clean milk can be produced under conditions which do not comply with the Milk and Dairies orders. The thing to do in order to produce clean milk is to see that the sheds, as they always are, are properly whitewashed and kept clean, and that the milkers are clean before they milk the cows, and that the cows are properly groomed and in proper condition. When you have manure in the milk it is because the cow has not been properly cleaned and its udders are dirty. It is that which produces unclean milk. I think that we were justified in the West of England in refusing to obey those orders, especially in the serious conditions of agricultural depression which prevailed. In some eases it would have meant, in order to make the alterations, that the landlord or the occupier would have had to spend from £10 to £20 per cow upon the milksheds. I cannot help thinking that if the noble Viscount were only aware of the circumstances he would realise why it is that these orders were a dead letter. It is because it was not necessary to apply them. If it were necessary to apply them, and it could be done, dirty milk might still be produced even if the sheds did have from £15 or
708
£20 per cow spent upon them. It might be said that the farmer, who could not afford that expenditure, would not be compelled to produce milk, but might be told, under those conditions, that he must not produce milk but must turn his attention to some other kind of farming.
I cannot understand why the noble Viscount wishes to put this provision into the clause. If he will forgive my saying so, I do not think it is germane to the clause. The clause says the Minister is to acquire land for the purposes of reconditioning, but it does not say the Minister is to be called on to pay for the reconditioning. I see the noble Viscount's Amendment talks about loans being made to landlords or owner-occupiers. The loans might be made at a high rate of interest. He also provides for the Government making grants. I think it would be very unlikely that the present Chancellor of the Exchequer would be ready to make large grants to landlords. The present Labour Government's idea is that they would like to get rid of landlords entirely. Therefore it is not likely that they would do anything to help them to improve their estates or cowsheds. I hope the noble Viscount will not press his Amendment. I am sure he quite misunderstands the purport of it. I hope he may be able to tell me what resolution was passed by the British Dairy Farmers' Association supporting this Amendment.
THE EARL OF AIRLIE: I should like to support the noble Viscount's Amendment because, not only in my area but in many others, there are many farmers who would undoubtedly produce milk if aided in this way. The precedent has been given in the Housing (Rural Workers) Act, 1926. If more milk could be produced in this country, it would be a great help to farmers, as it is one of the few things which are at present paying their way.
THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH: I rise to contradict the noble Earl, because I should have thought he would have been perfectly well aware that at the present moment the whole production of milk in Scotland is a very serious matter.
THE EARL OF AIRLIE: Not in my area.
THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH: Perhaps it is rather behind the others. The position is so bad that in Glasgow they would

709
not get on at all if it were not that the English farmers were so badly organised, and at the present time they are, in fact, selling 2,000,000 gallons a year to Cadbury's. I oppose this Amendment because at present it is a fatal thing to provide money for more byres. The production of milk is so great that it cannot be sold profitably at the present time and, although in the past few years it has been a profitable business, it is not becoming so now that there is a great danger of too much production. It is true we do not drink enough milk in this country, but that is because of the number of faddists and doctors who go round the country saying that the byres and cowsheds are not up-to-date. Taking the whole world over, milk is produced under cleaner conditions in Great Britain than in any part of the world. What inspection do the milk powders and the milk in tins, which are imported, receive? It would be a great mistake to give any public assistance to increase the number of dairies at the present time, because disaster would come on the whole of the milk trade.
THE EARL OF AIRLIE: In my area there was such a shortage of milk that I had to start a dairy farm myself to produce enough milk.
LORD BELHAVEN AND STENTON: I must agree with the noble Lord who has just spoken, because the difficulty now is getting a certificate and the only way to get a certificate is to carry out the wishes in the matter of the sanitary inspector. I had a meeting with the sanitary inspector and said: "I am an old man and I would be glad if you would let me know what has to be done so that I may not be asked again in my life-time." I carried out the work. It was not very economically done, but it had to be done or I would not have let the farm. I know there has been a surplus of milk in some districts, but the fact remains that this would have been of the greatest assistance to me and would even now be of assistance to me, if this Amendment was carried.
LORD BAYFORD: I would suggest to the Committee that perhaps it would be rather unwise to multiply breaches of Privilege. This is as strong a breach of Privilege as you could possibly have. There may be one or two privileged matters to be discussed later, about which there may be a good deal of con-
710
tention, but this is gratuitously putting in an Amendment that is as strongly privileged as it could possibly be, and I think it is unwise to multiply such examples.
EARL DE LA WARR: If the noble Viscount is going to withdraw this Amendment, I will not waste the time of the Committee upon it.
VISCOUNT ASTOR: I am not going to withdraw it.
EARL DE LA WARR: I am sorry to hear it. I must say I am inclined to agree with the noble Duke. I am not sure that this Amendment, whatever its merits, is really appropriate to this Bill. Surely if it were intended by those who passed the Milk and Dairies (Consolidation) Act that there should be public assistance accompanying a statutory obligation regarding cowsheds it should have been inserted in that Act. If Parliament has changed its mind and thinks it should be done now, surely it would be more appropriate to bring in an amending Bill to the Milk and Dairies Act. On the question of Privilege, I would not venture to advise your Lordships either way. I leave that to the noble and learned Viscount who leads the Opposition. On the merits of the case, Lord Strachie said that the Labour Government wishes to do away with landlords. Quite apart from that point, which again is not very relevant to this Bill, I think that any Government of any complexion would be inclined to say that it is only reasonable, if provisions are made for milk production, that the owner should see to it that he has his cow sheds in the statutory condition. The landowner can borrow at present for that purpose from the Land Improvement Company and the Mortgage Corporation on very favourable terms.
One last point. Even if the points that I have already put do not count, I think that what the noble Duke said about the present state of the milk market shows that we are not justified in specially selecting milk and dairy cowsheds as an object of expenditure at the moment. We all know that the so-called over-production of milk is really rather under-consumption, but even with that qualifying factor we should not be justi-

711
fied in spending public money on this purpose. I would ask the noble Viscount, therefore, not to press his Amendment.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: I should like to confirm that which my noble friend Lord Bayford said. This is a most extraordinary breach of Privilege. We may be perfectly right in moving to reduce expenditure, but this is an Amendment to put a charge upon the public. Let me tell the noble Viscount that if he were a member of the House of Commons he could not move an Amendment of this kind there. The only person who can move to impose a charge upon the subject is a member of the Privy Council—I do not think the noble Viscount is a member of the Privy Council—and he must have the consent of the King. I do not think the noble Viscount has the consent of the King. If he were a member of the House of Commons, therefore, he could not move this Amendment. Of course he could move an Amendment to reduce expenditure. That is the privilege of every member of the House of Commons, whether a private member or a Privy Councillor. But the noble Viscount is imposing a new burden upon this House, by giving the privilege to a member of this House to impose a charge upon the subject, which a member of the House of Commons cannot do.
VISCOUNT ASTOR: Let me answer one or two points made during the discussion. I do not understand that my Amendment increases the expenditure of public money.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: Are you going to find it then?
VISCOUNT ASTOR: Let me explain. A definite sum of money has been voted by the House of Commons for certain clauses, including Clause 3. My Amendment does not increase the amount of money required; it merely adds to the purposes for which that money which has already been voted, may be spent.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: But if you have £100 voted to spend upon a certain subject, and you introduce another subject, how can you spend that £100, which has already been spent on something else?
VISCOUNT ASTOR: I propose to share the £100 between the object for which it was originally voted and something which is added. As to the question put by Lord Strachie, I think the letter signed by the secretary of the British Dairy Farmers' Association said that he had read my letter and that it was agreed to support my Amendment.
LORD STRACHIE: The noble Lord says that they accepted this Amendment but, as he explained, the Amendment does not mean what he intended.
VISCOUNT ASTOR.: They said that, subject to my making the alterations which I have now made, they would support my Amendment. I amended my original Amendment in order to meet the suggestion of the British Dairy Farmers' Association. I am sorry I omitted to take out the reference to Section 3. I am surprised that I have not received more support for this proposal. Here is one branch of agriculture which can be developed. Here is a proposal to assist it in a way which will be far more economical than many of the proposals to subsidise wheat and sugar-beet growing, and I am very disappointed, regardless of any question of Privilege which might possibly be raised, that I have not received more support. Of course, if I do not receive any support from this side and the noble Earl in charge of the Bill feels that he cannot recommend the acceptance of my Amendment, there is no object in pressing it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD CRANWORTH LORD CRANWORTH moved, in subsection (2), to leave out "it appears to" and, after Minister, to insert "in agreement with the council of the county or county borough, as the case may be, is of opinion." The noble Lord said: This Amendment is really the same as one which I introduced before, and I think, if I heard the noble Earl aright, he agreed to accept it at this stage.
EARL DE LA WARR: No, what I did say was that bringing in the county council was much more appropriate on this portion of the clause than on subsection (1). I think the only disagreement is whether it should be "in consultation with" or "in agreement with." The Government has "in consultation with," and I am afraid I cannot agree to accept the Amendment.
LORD CRANWORTH: The noble Earl has gone a long way towards agreeing with me, because he says that he likes the bringing in of the county council, but he would rather have "consultation" than "agreement." I venture to suggest that "agreement" is somewhat better than "consultation," because you may consult a person for a very long while if you have made up your mind to disagree with him beforehand. As the noble Earl has gone so far as to say that he thinks the county council should be brought in, and in fact the Bill brings them in, I hope he will also agree that "in agreement with" is a better phrase than "in consultation with," which latter really leaves the matter entirely in the hands of the Minister.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 42, leave out ("it appears to") and after ("Minister") insert ("in agreement with the council of the county or county borough, as the case may be, is of opinion").—(Lord Cranworth.)
EARL DE LA WARR: I think the point really is this, that whereas it is obviously desirable that the county council should be consulted on this matter, yet ultimately the responsibility for decision and action under this clause is the Minister's. He is carrying out a national policy in laying down a certain national standard. It is therefore obviously undesirable to bring the county council into the matter in such a way that they can prevent him from taking action. As your Lordships know, the words "in consultation" in an Act of Parliament are really very much stronger than in actual conversation. They do mean in effect that serious consultation has to take place and they mean that it is very unlikely that the Minister would take action against the advice of the county council; but they also mean that ultimately the standard that is laid down is national, not local, and I think that is obviously desirable in such a serious matter as this.
LORD CRANWORTH: I am sorry to disagree with the noble Earl. The county council have the much more important duty of being the arbiter in the question whether proper cultivation is carried out, and I think I am right in saying that in that case they do not act in consultation with the Minister. If they are in fact the arbiter in such a matter surely it is not
714
very much to ask that the Minister should find himself in agreement with the county council in this matter.
EARL DE LA WARR: Under the powers referred to by the noble Lord the county council are the sole arbiters from beginning to end and the whole decision is their responsibility. In this case it is the Minister's responsibility, and it is not only the Minister's responsibility for taking action, it is also the Minister's responsibility for expending any money that needs to be expended. It is national money that is to be expended, not local money. Therefore I think the ultimate decision must be in the hands of the Minister. Obviously in these circumstances the Minister could not possibly operate without the assistance of the county council. After all, I am very nearly in agreement on this point, but I do think it is going rather far to say that in no circumstances can the Minister take action if the county council is against it. Also, in some cases, it might put the county council in a very invidious position. All of us who have served on county agricultural committees know how very unpleasant it is to deal with cases of certificates for bad farming, and, indeed, for purely personal reasons, how very difficult it is to get them. In the case of large landowners it might be even more difficult and more invidious and I should have thought that, both from the county councils point of view and from the landowners' point of view, it would be infinitely preferable to have the ultimate responsibility with the Ministry rather than with the county council.
LORD BAYFORD: Speaking as a county councillor I rather agree with the noble Earl. I think it would be a very invidious and disagreeable thing for the county council to have to do, and when there is a disagreeable thing to be done I would much rather it were done by the Government than by the county council.
LORD HASTINGS: There is another aspect of this. It is really a matter of whether we believe in centralisation or decentralisation. That is the important point, to my mind. As Lord Cranworth has pointed out, the county councils at present are directly responsible for seeing, or endeavouring to see, that the land is properly cultivated. They do their

715
best in that regard. But you are proposing in this Bill entirely to override and overrule the present jurisdiction of the county council in this particular respect. If you think that it is necessary that every county in England should aspire to a certain standard, and that the Minister should be the arbiter of that standard, well and good. But surely decentralisation has a lot to be said for it. Local option is a very important and valuable thing, and I cannot help feeling that in the long run, in spite of the fact, as Lord Bayford said, and rightly said, that it would be very invidious for the county council to decide these matters, happily their decisions are impersonal. They are conveyed to their officials; the individual county councillor is not necessarily brought into it. Obviously they have a better opportunity of determining whether or no the land is in the condition described in the Bill than the Minister and his inspectors have. They are also in touch with the local conditions which have caused the state of affairs to arise, but which the Minister's inspector is not in touch with. They are better able to say whether the individual is in default or not, and whether it is the act of God or the act of an individual. I think on the whole we should find it more convenient that the Minister should be in agreement with the county council rather than that he should be an independent arbiter in this case, acting of course through an official who has no definite local knowledge. I know there are two sides to the case, but I cannot help thinking it would be well on the whole to accept the noble Lord's Amendment. It seems to me that it would make the thing work better.
EARL DE LA WARR: After what has been said, and after the way in which the noble Lord, Lord Hastings, has put it, I find it very hard not to accept this Amendment. On the other hand, I think that most of his arguments apply to the words already in the Bill "in consultation with" as well as to "in agreement with."
LORD HASTINGS: Yes.
EARL DE LA WARR.: But I really think it puts it in a more workable and elastic form. For that reason, I would ask the noble Lord not to press his Amendment, but to accept my assurance and the assur-
716
ance of the Government that no Minister could possibly think of acting in the kind of manner described. Anyone who has dealt with these matters would know that such a thing was impossible.
LORD CRANWORTH: It depends upon the view of your Lordships in this matter. I am not convinced. I must confess that I am firmly of opinion that "in agreement with" is better than "in consultation with." I admit it is perfectly true that the county councils have not proved an entirely satisfactory body to administer the question of the cultivation of land. That is because, as we all know, the agricultural committees have consisted of a majority of farmers who have found it extremely difficult to have lunch with a man at twelve o'clock and in the afternoon to say that he was not farming properly. That does not apply in the present case. As long as the majority of the agricultural committees are farmers they will be perfectly ready to say that the landowner is not doing his job sufficiently well; in fact, they will be rather eager to do so. Therefore, I think that argument falls to the ground. I can see that the noble Earl is weakening. I honestly think it would be a very real gesture on his part and do a very great deal to bring Clause 3 into operation. I sincerely hope that he will agree to this Amendment. If not, and I can get anyone to support me, I think that I must go to a Division.
EARL DE LA WARR: I do not like to refuse to give in after such a speech, but I should really like to make a gesture on another Amendment.
A NOBLE LORD: Do it on the next one.
LORD CRANWORTH: I have made one gesture. However, if I cannot get anyone to support me, I ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD CRANWORTH LORD CRANWORTH moved, in subsection (2), after "satisfactorily" to insert "and economically". The noble Lord said: In moving this Amendment—
EARL DE LA WARR: I will make the gesture here.
LORD CRANWORTH: This is an Amendment which has really already been agreed to, I think.
EARL DE LA WARR: I will accept it.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 1, after ("satisfactorily") insert ("and economically").—(Lord cranworth.)
LORD CRANWORTH LORD CRANWORTH moved, in subsection (2), after "any" ["authorise any person"] to insert "duly qualified." The noble Lord said: This is really a verbal matter and probably the noble Earl will agree to it.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 6, after ("any") insert ("duly qualified").—(Lord Cranworth.)
EARL DE LA WARR.: In principle there is really no objection to these words; but purely as a matter of drafting it always seems a pity to put in words that are not really necessary. I think it can be assumed from the wording of the clause that a man must be qualified. Indeed, the Minister would be very foolish if he did not appoint a qualified man, for he has to stand in a witness box, probably after having delivered his report, and justify himself before the arbitrator, who certainly is a qualified man, being appointed by the President of the Surveyors' Institution. For legal reasons it is always a pity to put in words that are not necessary. They may be interpreted in any way later in the Courts. If the noble Lord is not keen on these words, I ask him not to press the Amendment.
LORD CRANWORTH: My position is this. If the noble Earl were the person to select the official I would be satisfied, but I have not the same confidence in other people, and I think the man should be duly qualified. I do not think the words are redundant.
EARL DE LA WARR: You realise that the Minister will lose his case later before the arbitrator unless he does appoint a qualified man? The man has to justify himself before the arbitrator. I do not think the Amendment is really necessary.
LORD CLINTON: Surely there is no real objection to the Amendment. Is this not a common form of words in an Act of Parliament? The words "competent" and "qualified" have been frequently used.
EARL DE LA WARR: The trouble is—I am speaking from what my legal advisers say—when it comes into Court a Judge always assumes that the words had some special reason for being put in, and he looks about for some interpretation of the term "duly qualified," and perhaps puts on some special interpretation which probably was never intended. It is always best, if words are not necessary, not to put them in. As it is perfectly clear as it is, I would ask the noble Lord not to press the matter. It is purely drafting.
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME: The noble Earl has not answered the question of my noble friend Lord Clinton, as to whether or not it is a usual expression in Acts of Parliament.
EARL DE LA WARR: The answer is that it is not a usual expression.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: The noble Earl says it is merely drafting. If it is drafting, why does he resist it?
EARL DE LA WARR: Because it is bad drafting, and it is important to keep the drafting as good as possible.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: From what the noble Earl says we, on this side, can only assume that the probability is that a person will be appointed who is not qualified; because if the noble Earl resists in this strenuous form the two words "duly qualified" the only assumption we can draw is that some person will be appointed who is not qualified.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: It is not often I find myself supporting the Government, and I always regret it when I do, but there is just this difficulty in the words suggested. If you say a duly qualified person, then the Judge or arbitrator who is called upon to interpret the words would look in the Act of Parliament to, find what was the due qualification of a person for entering and inspecting the land, because the expression "duly qualified" would imply there was a definition somewhere as to what qualifications were required—that he must belong to this, that or the other society, or have this, that or the other experience. I think it would create a difficulty if you said he had to be duly qualified, and then did not tell the tribunal, which will ultimately have to determine whether he

719
was duly qualified or not, what you meant by the expression and what was a due qualification.
My noble friend Lord Clinton asked if it was not common to put in an Act of Parliament such an expression as "qualified person." It is not uncommon, but then you put in the definition clause what a qualified person is, and, unless you are prepared to put in such a definition in this Bill, the words will not help. I believe the fact that this appointment and this report have to be justified before an independent and qualified person is probably a sufficient safeguard against an unqualified person being appointed and making a report, because the first question that will be asked is: "What qualifications did your reporter have?" and, if the answer is "None; he was a Member of Parliament," the arbitrator will say: "You could not expect the owner to accept a report by so ignorant a person." There is sufficient protection in the qualified tribunal and I suggest that the words "duly qualified" would cause difficulty in administering the Act.
LORD CRANWORTH: I beg leave to withdraw. I would have done so with alacrity if the noble Lord opposite had not put up such a strenuous defence.
EARL DE LA WARE: I thank the noble Lord for overcoming his prejudices.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD CLINTON LORD CLINTON moved, in subsection (3), to leave out "after receiving a" and insert "the." The noble Lord said: The object of this and the following Amendments in my name is to relieve the Minister of the very large powers given to him under this clause. There is a growing objection to the powers with which Ministers invest themselves and the fact that the Minister has powers in this clause against the taxpayer and the landowner makes it reasonable to see that every precaution is taken. In the last subsection the Minister can order a report to be made on the land in question and, under this subsection (3), important determinations would be left to him. In the first place, he has to say whether the land is suitable for agriculture, in the second place whether the land can be satisfactorily used on account of its neglected condition, and thirdly, he has
720
to determine if the condition is due to the neglect of the owner. All those determinations are questions of fact and can only be properly determined by a duly qualified person.
They are facts within the province of the ordinary surveyor and valuer and ought not to be left to the officials of the Ministry of Agriculture. It would add a great deal to our confidence in the decision if the decision is made by the valuer himself. If these Amendments are made the clause would read as follows:
"If the report under the foregoing section with respect to any piece of land is to the effect that the piece of land is in a seriously neglected condition and that the piece of land is suitable for use for agricultural purposes but cannot be satisfactorily and economically so used by reason of its being in a seriously neglected condition"—
if the valuer reports that that is the case, then the Minister may give notice; he cannot himself decide any of these questions. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 6, line 8, leave out ("after receiving a") and insert ("the").—(Lord Clinton.)
EARL DE LA WARR: I think probably a number of your Lordships can sympathise with the desire of the noble Lord that this power should not be left solely in the hands of the Minister, but I would suggest to your Lordships that the effect of this Amendment is to take the responsibility from the Minister, who, after all, can be got at by Parliament, and to place it in the hands of the official who is making the report and whom nobody can get at. This puts the Minister in the position of being able to go to Parliament and say that this action has been taken, but it is not really his responsibility because the report has stated certain facts and, as the result of these facts being settled, it was for him to take certain action. Whatever you feel about the Minister, I think you will agree that this is an infinitely worse position. This is almost a constitutional question, as to whose responsibility it is for this action to be taken. I should have thought that normally it is essential that whoever takes this action should be answerable to somebody, and in this case the somebody would be Parliament. I hope the noble Lord will not press his Amendment.
LORD CLINTON: I do not, I am sorry to say, in the least agree with the noble Earl. The responsibility of the Minister is confined by these Amendments merely to giving notice. Everything after that goes, under a future Amendment that I wish to move, to an arbitrator. No constitutional question can be involved in the Minister giving notice. If, in the first instance, certain things have caused the land to be in a neglected condition, we go to an arbitrator and find out if the arbitrator agrees. The Minister does not act except by giving notice that he proposes to take the land over.
Resolved in the negative, and Amendment agreed to accordingly.
LORD CLINTON LORD CLINTON moved, in subsection (3), after the first "land", to insert "is to the effect," and to leave out "the Minister is satisfied." The noble Lord said: I beg to move.
THE LORD CHAIRMAN: This Amendment and the next are consequential, are they not?
EARL DE LA WARR: In most cases the position of the official and that of the Minister can both be called to account before the arbitrator.
LORD CLINTON: The Minister may take action if there is no appeal, but when there is an appeal the Minister drops out and it goes to arbitration.
EARL DE LA WARR: Exactly.
On Question, Whether the words "after receiving a" should stand part of the clause?
Their Lordships divided:—Contents, 14; Not-Contents, 84.

CONTENTS.

Ancaster, E.

Dickinson, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L. [Teller.]

Beauchamp, E.

Gainford, L.

De La Warr, E.

Hay, L. (E. Kinnoull.) [Teller.]

Rathcreedan, L.

Iddesleigh, E.

Sanderson, L.

Noel-Buxton, L.

Snell, L.

Mersey, V.

Stanmore, L.

NOT-CONTENTS.

Wellington, D.

Vane, E. (M. Londonderry.)

Desborough, L.

Digby, L.

Camden, M.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Douglas, L. (E. Home.)

Exeter, M.

Astor, V.

Dynevor, L.

Zetland, M.

Bertie of Thame, V.

Fairfax of Cameron, L.

Churchill, V.

Faringdon, L.

Airlie, E.

Elibank, V.

FitzWalter, L.

Albemarle, E.

FitzAlan of Derwent, V.

Gage, L. (V. Gage.)

Bradford, E.

Hailsham, V.

Hastings, L.

Cawdor, E.

Hambleden, V.

Heneage, L.

Donoaster, E. (D. Buceleuch and Queensberry.)

Hereford, V.

Howard of Glossop, L.

Novar, V.

Lamington, L.

Feversham, E.

Latymer, L.

Fortescue, E.

Abinger, L.

Lawrence, L.

Grey, E.

Addington, L.

Middleton, L.

Ilchester, E.

Aldenham, L.

Oriel, L. (V. Massereene.)

Lauderdale, E.

Banbury of Southam, L.

Oxen foord, L. (E. Stair.)

Lindsay, E.

Bayford, L.

Phillimore, L.

Lucan, E.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Polwarth, L.

Malmesbury, E.

Berwick, L.

Queenborough, L.

Midleton, E.

Biddulph, L.

Redesdale, L.

Morton, E.

Brancepeth, L. (V. Boyne.)

Sinclair, L.

Mount Edgcumbe, E.

Chesham, L.

Somerleyton, L.

Onslow, E.

Clanwilliam, L. (E. Clanwilliam.)

Strachie, L. [Teller.]

Peel, E.

Templemore, L.

Poulett, E.

Clinton, L. [Teller.]

Trenchard, L.

Radnor, E.

Cottesloe, L.

Treowen, L.

Sandwich, E.

Cranworth, L.

Wavertree, L.

Scarbrough, E.

Cushendun, L.

Wigan, L. (E. Crawford.)

Stanhope, E.

Deramore, L.

Wynford, L.

LORD CLINTON: I consider them so, if the noble Earl will accept them.
EARL DE LA WARR: Yes.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 9, after ("land") insert ("is to the effect"), and leave out ("the Minister is satisfied").—(Lord Clinton.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 10, after the second ("is") insert ("suitable for use for agricultural purposes but cannot be satisfactorily and economically so used by reason of its being").—(Lord Clinton.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD CLINTON LORD CLINTON moved, in subsection (3), to leave out "relating to arbitration." The noble Lord said: I move this for the purpose of bringing the words in again later. I think the clause will read better if this Amendment is made.
EARL DE LA WARR: Have we passed line 10?
LORD CLINTON: Yes. I regard that as consequential. Does the noble Earl wish to say anything about it?
EARL DE LA WARR: I do not think I can now; I am sorry. I have only a slight drafting objection. It is not important and we can deal with it on Report.
LORD CLINTON: The noble Earl will see that line 24 is the more suitable place for the words I am proposing to omit here.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 18, leave out ("relating to arbitration").—(Lord Clinton.)
EARL DE LA WARR: I will take it there.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD CLINTON LORD CLINTON had given Notice to move, in subsection (3), after "such" ["within such period"] to insert "reasonable." The noble Lord said: I do not think this is very important. If we get the word "reasonable" in when we come to the question of arbitration I do not mind. I now move, after "such works," to insert "of maintenance." I think it ought to be clearly stated here that the only works referred to are works of maintenance. I think it is implied by the clause, but I should prefer that the words were inserted.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 23, after ("works") insert ("of maintenance").—(Lord Clinton.)
EARL DE LA WARR: I think this is purely drafting and I am advised that the clause is perfectly clear as drafted. I hope the noble Lord will not press his Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD CLINTON LORD CLINTON moved, in subsection (3), after "period," to insert "it is determined by the Minister or by arbitration under this section." The noble Lord said: This is a more important Amendment. The object is that when notice has been given there shall be a determination by the Minister or by arbitration. The arbitration clauses are on the next page.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 24, after ("period") insert ("it is determined by the Minister or by arbitration under this section").—(Lord Clinton.)
EARL DE LA WARR: I am not quite clear what the purpose of the Amendment is and whether it is really drafting.
LORD CLINTON: It is something more than a drafting Amendment. After notice is given someone has to determine whether the work shall be carried out. Formerly the Minister determined that, but we have taken away that power from the Minister if the owner wishes to go to arbitration. If there is no objection the Minister will determine. If there is objection, the matter will go to arbitration to be determined.
EARL DE LA WARR: The subsection provides that the Minister may serve notice requiring certain work to be done. If, after the expiration of the specified time of notice for the execution of the work, the Minister determines that the requirements of the notice have not been complied with, he may purchase the piece of land otherwise than by agreement
LORD CLINTON: That is the clause as it stands.
EARL DE LA WARR: Yes. Subsection (5) provides for an appeal by the person served with notice to an arbitrator on any of the grounds specified in subsection (5). So that if subsection (5) is read with subsection (3) it is clear that if the person served with notice has appealed to an arbitrator, until the arbitrator has determined the matter in dispute no action can possibly be taken by the Minister to acquire any land under subsection (3). Surely as that stands it is perfectly satisfactory and I do not quite see what advantage there is in altering it.
LORD CLINTON: I can explain, if the noble Lord will let me. In line 18, we have deleted the words relating to arbitration, so you have no reference to arbitration in this subsection. Now we bring it in here—"or if the arbitrator determines." I think it is quite clear what the intention of the clause is and it may not affect the original meaning of the clause very much. At the same time, I think it does help to show that the determination is not left to the Minister alone but is with the arbitrator also.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: I should have suggested that there is very little difference between what the noble Earl intends and what my noble friend is making clear in his Amendment—namely, that there is a right of appeal to an arbitrator and, as the noble Earl quite truly says, subsection (5) (e) includes any one of the matters which may be arbitrated. The question as to whether the requirement of the notice has been complied with, having regard to the fact that I gather there has been deleted the three words relating to arbitration in line 18, I think probably it does make it clearer to have the Amendment which is suggested. I would suggest to the noble Earl that he should for the time being accept it and then see on Report if there is any misunderstanding.
EARL DE LA WARR: That is the suggestion I was going to make.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD CLINTON LORD CLINTON moved, in subsection (2), to leave out "the Minister determines." The noble Lord said: This is consequential.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 24, leave out ("the Minister determines").—(Lord Clinton.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD CLINTON LORD CLINTON moved, in subsection (3), after "under" ["under subsection (1)"] to insert" and for the purposes specified in". The noble Lord said: I will accept the view of the noble Earl upon this matter, but I think it does make it clearer if, after the word "under", you add the words "and for the purposes specified in". If the noble Earl raises any strong objection, I will not move it, but it seems no harm can come of it.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 28, after ("under") insert ("and for the purposes specified in")—(Lard Clinton.)
EARL DE LA WARR: I can only say we have discussed the matter thoroughly with our drafting officers, and I think, on the whole, they prefer the existing drafting.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME moved, after paragraph (b) of subsection (5), to insert:
"(c) the execution of the proposed works of maintenance would result in so increasing the economic value of the land as to render the cost of the proposed works remunerative; or"
The noble Viscount said: May I start by saying that I hope when the time comes the whole of this clause will be thrown out In the meantime, I propose to move the Amendment which stands in my name. This clause gives power to the Minister of Agriculture in certain cases to acquire land for the purpose of reconditioning. By subsection (5), provisions are made for reference to a single arbitrator of certain questions, where notice has been served by the Minister requiring works of maintenance to be executed. The object of this very important Amendment is to procure that the arbitrator shall be required by the Act of Parliament to consider and decide whether the execution of required works of maintenance would be economically sound—that is to say, in the words of the Amendment, "would result in so increasing the economic value of the land as to render the cost of the proposed works remunerative."
It will be observed that in paragraph (d) on page 9 of the Bill "works of maintenance" mean the repair or reconditioning of farmhouses, cottages, agricultural buildings, drains, embankments, ditches, bridges, fences, walls, hedges, gates, roads and water supply. If the Minister requires the execution of such works, it might, as all who are acquainted with agriculture are aware, involve an expenditure many times greater than the value of the land and far larger than might be economically sound. To shorten the discussion, I will try to anticipate the answer of the noble Earl. He will point to the proviso at the bottom of page 5 of the Bill, under which the Minister may withdraw, if it appears to

727
him that the total expenditure involved in proceeding further would not be justified. Under that provision, however, the Minister may only withdraw after the determination of the amount of compensation to be paid for the land compulsorily acquired and that provision, therefore, rests on the amount of compensation to be paid. That is an entirely different point to the point of this Amendment, which seeks to secure that in the preliminary arbitration, before proceedings under the Land Clauses Act are instituted, it shall be decided by the arbitrator whether the proposals of the Minister are economically sound.
Amendment moved—
Page 6, line 42, at end insert:
("(c) the execution of the proposed works of maintenance would result in so increasing the economic value of the land as to render the cost of the proposed works remunerative; or").—(Viscount Bertie of Thame.)
EARL DE LA WARR: Perhaps it would be to the convenience of the Committee if we had a general discussion of all the Amendments to this effect. If that is so, I will not reply now.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: I agree that there are three or four Amendments down which seek to achieve the same end. I do not know which those who support the principle of these Amendments think is the best. Speaking for myself, I prefer Lord Clinton's Amendment. It would obviously not be convenient to discuss each one of them and we might, while discussing the merits, decide which one we prefer.
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME: I am by no means wedded to the wording of my Amendment and would willingly withdraw it, if the noble Viscount thinks that Lord Clinton's Amendment covers the point raised in my Amendment.
LORD CLINTON: In all these Amendments we are seeking to reach the same object—namely, to avoid being compelled to carry out works of maintenance which are economically unsound. I am not quite certain whether, in doing works of maintenance, which, after all, are repairs, you would attract an increased rental. The definition of works of maintenance here is as in the Finance Act—namely, works which in almost every case are by legal obligation or custom of the
728
country to be carried out by the landlord to keep his place in repair. So long as we get something to prevent the owner being compelled to carry out works which no prudent man would do, I shall be satisfied. I do not want to lay any stress upon my own form of words, but I think the word "return" is on the whole better than "increased rental".
THE EARL OF LAUDERDALE: My Amendment is practically the same as that of Lord Clinton. It stands to reason that there must be a certain increase of rental if this extraordinary maintenance scheme is carried out at the instance of the Minister, and the chief factor which the arbiter has to keep in view is that question of increased rental. I am prepared to withdraw my Amendment in favour of my noble friend's.
THE EARL OF RADNOR: I also am willing to withdraw my Amendment.
EARL DE LA WARR: The difficulty about these Amendments is that, while it is clear in regard to subsection (1) that the matter is purely one of agreement between the owner and the State whether it is going to be to the national interest for the land to be taken over for necessary repairs, here it is rather a different matter, because one has to recognise that the more gross the neglect of an estate—and therefore the more necessary it is for the Minister to intervene—the less economic it is probably going to be to repair that estate. We all know that, if we take our repairs as they come, it is a simple and economic matter to keep the estate in proper repair, but if you allow things to go on—and it is only in that event that the Minister is likely to intervene—you are not going to get any great return to the owner for putting his land straight. I am tempted to refer to the famous case that I mentioned on Second Reading. There is very little doubt that when an estate is in such a condition as that the amount that will be spent on it will not in any sense justify an increase of rental. That virtually means that, if you put in stringent words about a specific return being necessary, you are going to make this part of the clause inoperative.
I would therefore ask you to consider a matter of principle. Do we or do we not consider that the ownership of land is a trusteeship? Do we or do we not

729
believe that certain obligations rest on all landowners to keep their land in repair'? Personally I take the view that there is that obligation, and I believe that it rests upon a landowner who has for a long time neglected his land to such an extent as to make it necessary for this clause to be brought into effect—after all it is only intended to bring it into effect in the grossest cases—to put his estate in order. I hope very much we shall not put in these strongly limiting words, which are virtually going to make the clause inoperative. I think the real difficulty is that perhaps it is not sufficiently realised how gross the neglect must be before this clause comes into operation. It is not intended to deal at all with matters of everyday application, but only with cases with which none of your Lordships will have the slightest sympathy. I therefore ask your Lordships to leave the clause as it is. We have made a concession by inserting the word "economically" at the beginning, which the noble and learned Viscount who leads the Opposition has told your Lordships has very considerable meaning. I hope therefore you will be satisfied with that concession and not press this Amendment, which will very considerably handicap this clause of the Bill.
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME: I understand that the great objection of the noble Earl is to the wording about increase of rent. My Amendment simply refers to "so increasing the economic value"—a rather different thing from rent.
LORD CLINTON: I think there is no question about increase of rent; but I assure the noble Earl that we are not attacking the principle of the clause. We only want to avoid compelling an owner to spend more than, as a prudent man, he is entitled to do. There are too many cases in which land is going out of cultivation because the tenant could not work it at a profit.
EARL STANHOPE: The noble Earl hoped that we should be satisfied with putting in the word "economically." Perhaps we should have been if he had understood the meaning of it but obviously he did not. Therefore we cannot be satisfied that it is going to be sufficient protection.
EARL DE LA WARR: It was put in in another part of the Bill.
EARL STANHOPE: I am glad he understands it at one portion of the Bill. The real point is this, that if an owner refuses to make improvements the Minister buys the land and does the improvements himself. If the land is in a very bad condition the price which the Minister will have to pay will be a very low price, and therefore, although he will have to spend a great deal of money to put it back into a proper state, he will be compensated by the low price. However bad land may be in this country it does not compare with what we have in such a Dominion as Canada. Take also the case of land in West Australia where trees have to be cut and grubbed before cultivation. Can he quote similar cases in the United Kingdom? All we suggest is that where you are going to undertake land improvement of this kind the price of the land and of the improvements shall not be so high that you will not get an adequate return for your money. We do not take the question of rent, but the Amendment proposed by Lord Clinton merely says the works of maintenance shall be such that the return which is received for that expenditure shall be adequate, and therefore shall be a sufficient reason for undertaking that expenditure at the public cost.
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME: What I propose to do is to withdraw my Amendment in favour of Lord Clinton's and reserve my rights till Report, after having had a consultation with my legal advisers to see whether his or my Amendment is the better of the two.
THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH: I hope Lord Clinton will stick to his Amendment, to which I think the movers of all the other Amendments have given way. We all know that it is a very different thing if one person has to order and another person has to pay, and there must be some protection. That rule applies in this case quite as much as in private life. It really is absolutely essential to provide a safeguard against abuses, and, far from it spoiling the Bill, I think it would have a great advantage, and it would probably have the practical result that people would keep their buildings in much better condition. One must remember that arbiters are not always up

731
to date, any more than railway inspectors are. One man orders one thing and another man orders it to be taken away. There really must be some safeguard. Take a landowner who has not kept his property in order. It may be his fault, or he may not have a shilling to do it with. But surely the worst thing you could possibly do for the future of agriculture is to make a man who has not much money spend a large sum on an alteration which will do very little good, and which will hamper him in doing other things to his property which really will maintain the land in proper condition.
EARL DE LA WARR: It is quite evident that your Lordships wish to have something on this matter inserted. May I suggest, therefore, that, in spite of your Lordships' preference for Lord Clinton's Amendment, you should consider the Amendment moved by the noble Earl, Lord Radnor, of which for the moment I am afraid I cannot promise acceptance without consultation, which of course will take place before Report. It certainly raises fewer difficulties for the arbitrator than any other Amendment. I think any of the other Amendments must face the arbitrator with very difficult hypothetical considerations—questions of return which are bound to make it very difficult for him. For the moment I know that Lord Radnor's Amendment is withdrawn, but I think the discussion is fairly open.
THE EARL OF RADNOR: I prefer the wording of Lord Clinton's Amendment to the wording of my own.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: I confess I have a preference for Lord Clinton's Amendment. If it were a case in which the noble Earl were to say on behalf of the Government he could accept the words which Lord Radnor has on the Paper but that he should resist the other Amendments, I think that might be a matter which is worth consideration. But unless one can obtain that assurance I think it would not be wise to reject the Amendment which I think the majority of your Lordships prefer. I gather that the noble Earl is not in a position to give that assurance.
EARL DE LA WARR: If the noble and learned Viscount insists I will take my life in my hands and take the responsi-
732
bility of accepting that Amendment. What I would very much prefer and what would be simpler would be this. If you inserted Lord Radnor's Amendment, you could very easily change it on Report to that of Lord Clinton, if by that time I cannot give a definite assurance. That, I think, would be the easiest way of settling the matter. There would be a good chance of it not having to be changed again. I can most certainly promise the friendliest consideration of Lord Radnor's Amendment. I am afraid I cannot promise any consideration of the others.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: If we put in Lord Clinton's Amendment it would be quite simple to make it read with Lord Radnor's on Report merely by leaving out four or five words at the end. Perhaps the noble Earl would consider that. It is not worth fighting on a matter of convenience, but I think the feeling of the majority of the Committee is that it would be better to have Lord Clinton's Amendment in for the time being and then to see whether the noble Earl is prepared to go as far as he hopes when we come to Report. We shall then have an opportunity of considering—because he understands that I cannot undertake—whether or not that would meet the difference of opinion which divides us at present.
EARL DE LA WARR: It is clear that I cannot accept Lord Clinton's Amendment or promise any consideration at all. Might I ask how the matter really stands for Report? Is it that the noble and learned Viscount undertakes if we accept Lord Radnor's Amendment then—
NOBLE LORDS: Lord Clinton's.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: I have no power to give that undertaking. The suggestion has only just been made and the noble Earl will see that I cannot possibly bind those who put these Amendments on the Paper. All I am suggesting is that inasmuch as the noble Earl seemed to think there was a chance of agreement on Lord Radnor's Amendment, since Lord Clinton's was Lord Radnor's plus five or six words, that we should put in Lord Clinton's, which is what we should like, and leave the Government, if it thinks there is any possibility of coming to an arrangement by

733
altering it to Lord Radnor's, to communicate, as is often done, through the usual channels with Lord Clinton and, if he likes, myself, to see whether anything can be done. For the moment, since obviously nothing can be agreed, I suggest that the Committee should put in Lord Clinton's, Amendment, for which I think the majority have a preference.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment moved—
Page 6, line 43, after ("unreasonable") insert ("having regard in particular to the costs of the works of maintenance and to the return that may be expected from that expenditure").—(Lord Clinton.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD CLINTON LORD CLINTON moved, in proviso (a) in subsection (5), after "instrument," to insert "but after giving reasonable notice in writing to any other persons interested in the land." The noble Lord said: It is evident the idea is that there may be other persons concerned who are not at the farm. It is very important indeed that they also should receive notice of the intending inspection. I suggest to the noble Earl that he should allow these words to be inserted.
Amendment moved—
Page 8, line 9, after ("instrument") insert ("but after giving reasonable notice in writing to any other persons interested in the land").—(Lord Clinton.)
EARL DE LA WARE: I think if the noble Lord looks at subsection (4) he will see that provision is already made for what he wants, but that the liability has been placed upon the Minister to serve this notice. That really is the point.
LORD CLINTON: It does not cover the point at all; it is merely telling everybody that he has to treat this notice as an indication that he is going to the farm to inspect it. They are two quite different points.
EARL DE LA WAR: No; it is not only referring to where he is to treat, but it is all those with whom he has to treat, and he has to send the notice at once.
LORD CLINTON: It is a notice of his visit of inspection, and there is no doubt whatever that all the people interested should know that he is going to inspect.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD LAMINGTON LORD LAMINGTON moved, after subsection (9), to insert the following new subsection:
"(10) Where any works have been executed by the owner of the piece of land in accordance with a notice served upon him under this section it shall be competent for the owner to require that the rent to be paid for the piece of land as from the date when the said works are completed shall be fixed by arbitration, and, for the purposes of such arbitration the provisions of Section twelve of the Agricultural Holdings Act, 1923, other than subsection (4) of that section, shall, so far as applicable, have effect."
The noble Lord said: Works of maintenance may include large items of expense, which have already been referred to. They include the repair and reconditioning of farm-houses, cottages, agricultural buildings, drains, embankments, ditches, bridges, fences, walls, hedges, gates, roads and water supply. It is obvious that a very large sum of money indeed would have to be spent. In many cases the farm, having fallen into disrepair, will be let at a very low rent; therefore it is desirable, when this very extensive expenditure is to be incurred, that the landlord should have some chance of recouping himself. In the Bill there is no provision for adjusting the rent and that is the object of my Amendment. As an alternative, instead of demanding arbitration, it might be better for him to have this expenditure included in the claim for maintenance and, therefore, this alternative provision is put in the Amendment. It is only just that, when these large sums, for which no return is likely to be given at all, have to be spent, the landlord should have a chance to recoup himself by appealing to the arbitrator to take it into consideration.
Amendment moved—
Page 9, line 3, at end insert the said new subsection.—(Lord Lamington.)
EARL DE LA WARR: The object of this Amendment is to enable the owner, who has had to execute works of maintenance, to require that the rent to be paid for the land as from the date when the works are completed shall be fixed by arbitration. There is considerable justice in that claim, but, if the noble Lord will turn to paragraph (d) in subsection (5), he will see there is a question there of the time limited by the notice for com-

735
pliance with the requirements, which can be extended by the Minister or, if he does not do so, it is a matter for arbitration. That means, in fact, that either the Minister or the arbitrator could decree that the works to be executed need not be completed until there has been time for the owner to give the existing tenant notice under the Agricultural Holdings Act for the appeal to arbitration. I suggest it would really be better to leave the matter as it is with that power in the Bill rather than to attempt by a side wind in this Bill to amend the Agricultural Holdings Act. An agreement on that Act was arrived at only after long and arduous negotiations between the various parties interested and it would be very undesirable in this Bill to attempt any interference with it, especially as the point can be dealt with in the Bill as it stands.
THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH: I would advise my noble friend to withdraw his Amendment. It can be put down again if necessary, after further consideration, on Report stage.
EARL STANHOPE: The noble Earl spoke about giving notice to a tenant, hut, if you give him notice, you must give him two years rent as compensation.
EARL DE LA WARR: This is a question of arbitration.
EARL STANHOPE: I understood the noble Earl to say that the completion of the works might be postponed so that you might give notice to your tenant. If the landlord gives notice, the tenant has the right to claim compensation up to two years rent.
EARL DE LA WARR: It was not a question of raising rent but of arbitration for rent, of which special notice has to be given.
LORD LAMINGTON: As an additional safeguard to the landlord, surely the noble Earl has no objection to it. He needs protection.
THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH: May I point out that this might be done in the middle of a lease?
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: I do not think the answer of the noble Earl is very satisfactory. He says that there is power in paragraph (d) for the the Minister or arbitrator to
736
extend the time for completion. There is nothing in the Bill as I read it to compel the Minister or arbitrator to have regard to the fact that when the work is completed the landlord, who has done very expensive works, is to get no remuneration, in the case of a lease, for the expenditure incurred. I think a point has been raised by my noble friend Lord Lamington that requires attention. If the noble Earl would look into it between now and Report, it might be a good plan to withdraw the Amendment. I do not think the noble Earl's suggestion quite meets the difficulty.
EARL DE LA WARR: I will certainly consider it. I agree that a real point has been raised, but I am unwilling to interfere with the question of the Agricultural Holdings Act.
LORD LAMINGTON: I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD STRACHIE LORD STRACHIE moved, in paragraph (d) of subsection (10), to leave out "drains, embankments, ditches." The noble Lord said: My Amendment refers to the complicated provision by which the Minister is able to give notice to an occupier to do certain works and, if he fails to do them, they fall upon the landlord. I do not think this is very fair. The agreement which the tenant enters into is a matter of arrangement. There are cases where the landlord undertakes the care of hedges, ditches, embankments, walls and roads, the tenant paying a higher rent. In the case we are considering, the tenant undertakes this work, being on the spot and seeing what work is needed. Apparently, by ibis clause, the Minister comes to the landlord and says: "Your tenant is unable to keep his ditches, and so on, in order; we call upon you to do the work which your tenant ought to do." The only way to enforce the tenant's duty is to give him notice. He will then claim compensation. I know many cases where the tenant has gone into Court and it has been decided that the rent was too high to allow him to do repairs, and he has received compensation. A very lenient view is taken by arbitrators in these cases, and it is often held that it is hard upon the tenant to place the cost of maintenance upon him. The Minister

737
says: "We do not care about that. We insist and we call upon the landlord to come down upon the tenant and if he does not do it the landlord has got to do it himself." That seems to be very unfair indeed—to call upon the landlord to execute work which the tenant by his agreement has undertaken to do.
Amendment moved—
Page 9, lines 22 and 23, leave out ("drains, embankments, ditches,").—(Lord Strachie.)
LORD HASTINGS: I trust the Committee will give attention to this Amendment. A reasonable landlord naturally takes every opportunity of enforcing the terms of his agreement with the tenant, but at the same time difficulties are created by the Act of 1920. By this Bill you are adding insult to injury, because you are proposing to penalise the landlord for being unable to do that which by the Act of 1920 Parliament has made it impossible for him to do. Here you are placing obligations upon the landlord which clearly are obligations of the tenant, but which Parliament by a previous Statute has debarred the landlord from enforcing. I admit that it would be very difficult to get at the tenant, but that is no excuse for penalising the landlord. I regard the Amendment as being some improvement from that standpoint. It is a definite injustice which ought to be amended.
EARL DE LA WARR: I really do not see where the difficulty occurs. I should have thought it was a perfectly clear matter. Of course where the liability under the lease is the landlord's there is no difficulty. It is a question of where the landlord has in his lease passed over the obligation to the tenant. The purpose of this subsection is to render first the landowner liable for the obligation that was originally his and then to give him power to enter upon and execute the works if the tenant will not execute them. In the last line of the subsection the landowner is given power to recover the debt that is due to him as a result.
LORD HASTINGS: Recover from his own tenant and not from the Minister?
EARL DE LA WARR: From the tenant, whose obligation it is to carry out the work.
LORD HASTINGS: Any landlord who recovers from an East Anglian tenant is a very clever person.
EARL DE LA WARR: If the landowner has asked the tenant to carry out an obligation which he knows the tenant cannot carry out, he has passed on his obligation to one whom he knows cannot carry it out, and I do not think there is any point at all.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM moved to leave out Clause 3. The noble Lord said: Clause 1 and Clause 2 stated distinctly their object. The first was to develop agriculture, and the second was to provide demonstration farms. But it is very difficult to discover what is the real object behind this clause. I have read it very carefully on many occasions, and this morning I read it again. I made a little note at the bottom of my Bill, and this is the note: "This is land nationalisation. Land in bad condition may be bought and owned by the Minister." I heard with much regret from Lord Clinton that I was correct, because the noble Lord, Lord Noel-Buxton, has apparently been making speeches out of Parliament in which he has stated that this clause is the beginning of land nationalisation.
LORD NOEL-BUXTON: I made no such speech at all.
LORD CLINTON: It was at a meeting at which the noble Lord presided.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: And I gather that the noble Lord did not contradict it.
LORD CLINTON: He did not say so.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: The noble Lord did not contradict it. It is perfectly evident that that is the real object. It is a very long clause, and the real object is concealed in a great quantity of verbiage. There are three or four pages, which an ordinary person would not understand, and which I believe even a noble Lord or a learned member of the Bar would not understand—or at any rate two of them would not agree upon what the meaning of it was. The meaning, however, is perfectly clear. I admit we have made it a little bit better, but not much. The Minister may practically do what he likes.

739
He may go round and say that the land requires reconditioning or that the buildings require it. There is to be an arbitrator. That is all very well, but who is going to pay his expenses or who will bother to go to him and point out that the land is not in a bad state or that the buildings do not require reconditioning? It all depends upon the opinion of the arbitrator and, having in view the fact that if he is pleasant to the Minister he may get an appointment, he probably will decide in the way the Minister likes.
The real object of the clause is to allow the Minister to take possession of land. An Amendment was moved to leave out "letting." It was not carried and, therefore, the Minister can take possession of land. He need not sell it; he can let it. That is the beginning of land nationalisation. It is ten minutes past eleven, when we all ought to be in bed, probably, and cannot discuss these things clearly. I do not propose to say any more than that this is an insidious attempt to start land nationalisation and I sincerely hope, as I am going to divide the House, that I shall be able to carry your Lordships with me.
Amendment moved—
Leave out Clause 3.—(Lord Banbury of Southam.)
LORD CRANWORTH: I support my noble friend in his appeal. As I said, when discussing this clause before, I admit that the clause is not so cruel as Clause 1 and is not so expensive as others which come later. But I look upon it as in some respects the worst clause in the Bill and for these reasons. First, that it finds fault in a man, not for the fault itself, but because the fault is combined with the fact that he is an owner of land. That is his real offence. In proof of that I would point out that certain of these works of maintenance are the duty of the tenant—ditches, gates, and fences in most parts of the country are the tenant's duty. Therefore you will find in two farms side by side a tenant who lets his fences, ditches and gates fall into disrepair, suffers no harm whatever, and renders himself liable to no penalty, while the man next door who is the owner of land and does the same thing renders himself liable to a very heavy penalty. The vast majority of your Lordships who know about land
740
will realise that it is a far greater crime to the nation to let good land get into such a state of cultivation that it is impossible to repair it within seven or eight years. If land becomes full of dock, spear-grass, charlock, thistles and the like, it may take seven or eight years to clear it. If works of maintenance are let down, it is merely a matter of the necessary money to put them right within a few months.
How is this crime which is inseparable from landowning to be punished? It is to be punished by taking away the land and handing it over to the Government. It is undeniable that that is nationalisation. I ask whether the Government have a mandate for nationalisation and I say emphatically that they have not. There is a majority in this House definitely pledged against nationalisation. It is possible that the day will come when nationalisation will be voted for by the people of this country. When that day comes it will be the duty of your Lordships to accede to that demand and to hand to agriculturists the inestimable benefit of getting their capital at 4½ per cent. instead of 1½ per cent. as they get it now. But that time has not yet come. I would point out that in my part of the country at all events the candidates who stood on the Government side made very little reference to nationalisation. Their reticence reminded me of the hymn with regard to entering the promised land in which it says "one glimpse enough for me." That in fact was the attitude of the Labour candidates in my neighbourhood. They were well aware that if the glimpse was of any length their chance of becoming members of Parliament was remarkably small.
The second point in regard to which I find objection to this Bill lies in the fact that its object is to hit a man when he is down. Agriculture for the last three-quarters of a century, through consecutive Governments of all shades of opinion, has been put in the background, subjected to every kind of adversity, until finally it is in a state when it is down and pretty well out, and this Bill takes the opportunity of saying "Now agriculture is down let us stamp on it." That is what it does. I think this Bill tackles the problem from a wrong angle. The problem is indeed a severe one, but I venture to suggest that the solution of

741
it is to say: "We will make agriculture a paying proposition." After all, the Government has a mandate. They took it themselves. It was acceded to by the whole of agriculture. Their mandate was to make farming pay. It was a mandate given to them by the noble Lord, Lord Noel-Buxton, and it was accepted by the whole farming community. If that had been adopted there would be no need for the present Bill. I think that if it were a paying proposition all these works of maintenance would in fact have been in the very best condition, as they were at a time when it was possible to make farming pay. Therefore I think the problem has been attacked from the wrong angle.
We have seen many Amendments to this Bill put forward by your Lordships. They have all been designed to try and minimise the hardships and injustices that are imposed by the Bill. How far have they been successful? Who have they left out? I suggest they have left out the big and rich landowners. They have left out the majority of your Lordships. They have, if my information is correct, undoubtedly left out the gentleman in Hampshire about whom we have heard so much. All of them will be able to say that they have not done the works of maintenance because it was uneconomic to do so. Has anyone been left in? say "Yes." I say there are many scores, hundreds, perhaps thousands of small men who own their own farms. Some of them inherited them, some bought them with their savings during the War. None of them got them as a free gift of charity, but they got them and they farmed them and they have seen during the last years their means sinking down, their land getting less valuable. They have not been able to carry out what we call the works of maintenance. Their works of maintenance have been to maintain bread in their children's stomachs and boots on their children's feet.
Why have they not retained their works of maintenance? Because they have not had the money to do so. Is it going to be said of us that we devised Amendments which let the rich landowners out but did not seek to provide protection for those poor men of whom I speak? Your Lordships would not; like to do that. In joining in the appeal of
742
my noble friend Lord Banbury, I say that this clause is wrong in principle and in intention, and is directly contrary to the votes of the electorate at the last Election, and I sincerely hope your Lordships will reject it.
LORD DYNEVOR: The Bill tells us that Clauses two and three together will cost a capital sum of £5,700,000, but what will it cost annually we do not know. If the Minister carries out the powers given him under the provisions as to works of maintenance, the expenditure will be terrific. This Bill undoubtedly means an enormous increase in the staff of the Minister. The Bill makes no bones about that, because the financial statement says distinctly that the Bill will necessitate an increase in the Ministry's administrative and technical staffs and that it is impossible to state any precise figure as to the cost of such additional staff, but it will, however, clearly be large. I do not remember ever before having read a statement from the Government which so clearly stated that the cost of the extra staff was going to be large. When a Government issues a warning of that kind, you can be sure that it means adding hundreds of thousands to our annual cost. I support the motion of my noble friend Lord Banbury.
LORD CLINTON: I am sorry to disagree with my noble friend. I can see some good in this clause. The first part of subsection (1) is the only part of the Bill which has any effect on unemployment. That is a reason why we should consider it favourably. One would much rather see the unemployed working on reclamation schemes than doing nothing at all. Complaints are made about the cast but, if it is the intention of the Government that these works shall be carried out by unemployed men, then the cost will be transferred to this fund from the Unemployment Fund and should not be an additional charge to the country. With regard to the second part of the clause, which deals with the power to enforce good management by the owners, let me remind your Lordships that this House passed a clause almost exactly similar in 1919 when Lord Ernie was Minister of Agriculture. I do not think your Lordships liked the clause then more than you do now, but

743
I remember the argument which my noble friend used. He said it was not the function of your Lordships to protect those who were not doing their duty by their estates. I agree that in those days it was somewhat easier to do your duty than it is to-day, but I am certain that this must be taken into account when you go to arbitration.
But I do not in the least agree with my noble friend when he says that the Amendments that we have made affect only the large owner and not the small owner. They affect both exactly alike. I do not think he can point to any instance of a small occupying owner being injured and the large owner escaping. I listened to him carefully, but I cannot understand why he attempted to put that argument before you. I do not want to speak at length, but I do feel—and I hope I can find some of your Lordships to support me—that this is not a wholly bad clause. It is one of the better clauses of the Bill, and therefore I think your Lordships should support it.
LORD NOEL-BUXTON: Surely this clause deals with an evil which all feel to be an urgent one. Surely no noble Lord fails to experience distress when he encounters a case of wasted land or fails to attempt to cogitate a remedy. Here we have a purely practical proposal, which has no earthly connection with nationalisation, to prevent the many cases of neglect. Many of these are not due to the cause of which Lord Cranworth spoke—the inability to maintain repairs—but to caprice. The case in Hampshire to which Lord De La Warr alluded is not an isolated one, though no one who has been in the Ministry of Agriculture will fail to feel that this case alone is sufficient ground for some attempt at administrative action to make such conditions impossible.
Let me point to an experience which shows that neglect is a fairly widespread trouble which needs drastic treatment. Take the experience of war time. You then had conditions in which farming was profitable. We are told that neglect is due to the level of prices, but that certainly did not cause neglect in war time. Public opinion added a further stimulus to land owners. Yet the exceptional powers of war time had to be used on an astonishing scale. Out of forty-nine English counties, forty-five used these
744
powers to deal with neglect. I will not trouble your Lordships at this hour with figures. Broadly, the agricultural committees, quite apart from orders to plough up land, served several thousands of notices upon farmers because of neglect. That was neglect which indicated that land was not being used in an economic manner where conditions made it profitable to farm.
LORD CLINTON: Perhaps I may be allowed to interrupt. The neglect to which the noble Lord alludes is not neglect of works of maintenance which is considered under this Bill.
LORD NOEL-BUXTON: I am inclined to dispute the statement to this effect, that they were very largely associated with negligence of this kind, and the fact that it was thought necessary after the War to deal with these cases shows that it was not purely a phenomenon of war time. Lord Lee's Act provided very drastic machinery for dealing with neglect and to my mind it was a disaster that that part of the Act was repealed which gave power to the State to acquire mismanaged properties. That seems to me evidence that some proposal is needed. I wish we could hear of any other, but do let us at least give a fair and unprejudiced consideration to a plan which is surely not to be rejected because it incidentally involves the acquisition of a certain amount of land which is trifling compared with the amount which has been acquired by local authorities for other purposes.
Surely negligence to-day does constitute a very great national loss and an injustice to the men employed on the land. Neglected land is not only a loss in itself but a pest to the neighbouring farmers, and it seems to me that it would be most disastrous if the clause were rejected.
LORD HASTINGS: Noble Lords on the Government Benches seem to be determined not to understand that the reason why works of maintenance have not been enforced and land has fallen into a poor condition is that the prices of produce have been so low that farmers have been unable to maintain cultivation. If the Government would devote their minds to improving the prices of agricultural produce then there would

745
be no need for Bills of this kind, because with better prices there would be no further trouble.
A great deal has been made throughout the debate of the notorious case in Hampshire. I do not propose to go into the matter in detail, but I think it will be of some interest to noble Lords that the owner of this property who has been so much execrated let it in pre-War times when the buildings were still good at 10 s. per acre. That will give your Lordships some idea of the value of the land if that was a proper rent at a time when agriculture was not in too had a way and when the buildings were in a good condition. What sort of rent do your Lordships suppose such land would fetch to-day? And what kind of profit would the Government be likely to make out of reclaiming it? I am told that the land is so poor that even the thistles are now dying out owing to the poor quality of the land. If that is so Heaven help the Department which endeavours to reclaim and then let or sell it at a profit. If we had a little common sense and did not talk so much nonsense we should get on better. There would be no need for such clauses if only the Government would devote their minds to the real problem how to make farming pay, which is one of the reasons why they sit on those Benches and we do not.
EARL DE LA WARR: Representatives of noble Lords opposite sat on these Benches for a great deal longer time than we have done and possessed more power in another place a short time ago. I do not think it is necessary to go any further into the question of what we are coming to know as the man in Hampshire. I do not know what he let his land at before the War, but I can tell the noble Lord that one part of his estate was farmed by a farmer who was well known throughout the county for his sheep, corn, and the large dairy which he kept, and that in another part of his estate a farmer with 1,000 acres ran a large pedigree flock of sheep, and produced some of the best cereals grown. Further, a great deal of the discussion has really turned round this particular individual—probably a great deal more than the man is worth.
746
The fact remains that, however much the noble Lord, Lord Banbury, may try to arouse our prejudice by talking about land nationalisation, we have got a specific problem here to deal with. It is not a question of nationalisation nor is it even necessarily a question of allotting blame. The noble Lord, Lord Cranworth, talked about the eternal finding fault with the landlord. We are not dealing to-night with the moral issue of who is to blame for this condition, we are dealing with the fact that as a nation we are facing a problem of vast areas of land which are in a very bad state, and somehow or other we have to attempt to find someone who can put them right. It is perfectly clear, and doubly clear from what has been said this evening, that the landowner is not in a position to tackle this problem, and therefore we offer him a way out. We say in subsection (1) that if you feel that you are not able to invest the necessary capital in your land we will give the State powers and finance to negotiate with you, to take your land off you voluntarily, and do that which you yourselves would like to do. Surely that is a reasonable proposition. I should have thought that it was a proposition that every landowner who had a real love for and devotion to his land would jump at. Because surely there are a great many of us in this country who would much rather see our land in a first-class condition of equipment than merely have the satisfaction of pointing to it and knowing that it belonged to ourselves.
And even on subsections (2) and (3) and the rest of the clause, the part of the Bill which Lord Cranworth spoke of as the condemnation of the landlord, I cannot see that at all. The noble Lord, Lord Hastings, spoke about the land in Hampshire. If this were a question of general condemnation, he would have been discussing, not the land in Hampshire but his own land. He knows perfectly well that his land is not in that condition, nor is the land of any noble Lord in this Chamber. The fact of the matter is that subsections (2), (3) and (4) are designed to deal with quite exceptional cases of neglect. I should have thought that almost any landowner would have felt that it was really almost in defence of his own system that he should insist that cases of this type should be dealt

747
with, because I am quite sure that if any attempt is made to defend cases of gross neglect it can do nothing but hasten the end of the whole system.
We are told that we have no mandate to deal with this question—I think the noble Lord said with the question of nationalisation. I know nothing about a mandate for the nationalisation of land. This Bill does not deal with that subject. I say that we are perfectly prepared to face the country on the provisions of this Bill and I ask what your Lordships are doing if you oppose this clause? As far as I can see you are saying to the landowner and to the State: "We will not permit you to negotiate for the voluntary acquisition of a landowner's estate in order that the State may put it into proper repair." And you are supporting cases of the grossest neglect of agricultural properties. I cannot believe that anyone in your Lordships' House is prepared to adopt that attitude—the attitude of refusing the voluntary acquisition and reclamation of land, or of defending the type of case that the noble Lord, Lord Hastings, has just mentioned.
Those are the only matters contained in this clause and for that reason I appeal to your Lordships to leave it in the Bill. You have altered a very great deal of the clause. I think you have altered it in almost every case where you wished, and the clause is now drafted in the form in which you desire to see it. The Government, of course, were unable to accept a number of the Amendments; nevertheless, it is now in the form as amended by your Lordships. I would hope, therefore, that you will leave it in the Bill as it is. You have already removed a great deal of the substance of the Bill and apart from anything else, it would be very satisfactory if we could leave the Chamber this evening with something accomplished in the direction of something left on the Paper.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: I will not detain your Lordships very long. I confess I felt a good deal of sympathy for the indignation expressed by some of those who opposed this clause at the attitude of His Majesty's Government. It is true that they came into office with a mandate and on a promise of making farming pay. It is true, of course, that this Bill is not going to make farming
748
pay. I entirely sympathise with those who say that the Government are not by this Bill carrying out their mandate. That to my mind does not conclude the matter. I agreed entirely, indeed I voted with the decision of the Committee in refusing to pass Clause 1 which proposed this large scale-farming experiment. I agree entirely with the refusal to pass the demonstration farms in Clause 2. I confess that if I were confronted with the alternative of having Clause 3 as drafted or no Clause 3 at all I should have voted against the clause.
But we have not Clause 3 as drafted. We have made what I think are very material improvements in the clause. In the first place, we have made it a condition of subsections (1) and (2) that the method must be economically sound. Secondly, we have inserted provisions that the work which is to be done under subsection (2) must be reported as work which will render the land suitable for use for agricultural purposes and that the land cannot be satisfactorily and economically so used by reason of its being in a grossly neglected condition. We have, therefore, very much limited its operation. Finally, and much the most important of all, we have made it a condition which may be determined by arbitration, a condition of any works which the Minister requires, that they will be works which will justify the expenditure put into them. So that nobody can be compelled to do work which will not repay the cost of doing it.
That being the position, what is it that this clause does, as it now stands? Under subsection (1) it allows the Minister to reclaim land which can be satisfactorily and economically reclaimed and which he can acquire voluntarily by agreement with the owner. As my noble friend Lord Clinton has pointed out, that may be a power which will be a useful one in dealing with unemployment. All subsection (2) of the clause does is to provide that where land is in a grossly neglected condition—remember those words—where by reason of that condition it is prevented from being satisfactorily or economically used for agricultural purposes, and where works are required which when done will pay for themselves by the improved value of the land—that in those conditions, and those

749
conditions only, if a, man refuses to allow the work to be done, then my noble friend Lord Cranworth said the land is to be taken away from him. He will forgive me saying that is not quite an accurate description of what happens. The land is not taken away. The Minister is able to buy the land at a fair price. That is not at any rate confiscating the property.
Another noble Lord said there would be an immense annual cost on these works of maintenance beyond the £5,000,000, but in fact doing the works of maintenance will be part of the capital cost, because you are not here carrying on the business of running a farm. What you are doing is acquiring the land which is grossly neglected in order to put it in a proper condition for disposing of it by sale or lease or otherwise and therefore the cost of these works of maintenance is necessarily part of the £5,000,000. It is true the financial memorandum says that the Bill as a whole will require an increase of the Ministry staff, but it is not fair to say the whole of that increase is to be put down to Clause 3. I think it is obvious only a small part of it will be so put down. If we refuse to pass this clause then all we are in fact doing is to say we will not allow the Minister where he can acquire land by agreement which can be economically reclaimed to do so, and that we will not allow these people whose land
is grossly neglected and which can be put right by financially sound expenditure to be interfered with, and that we will not allow that land to be put right by buying it at a fair price when people will not put it right themselves.
I think that if we were to take up the position of championing these few black sheep among the vast land-owning community it would be a position that would be a very unfortunate one to adopt, and one which does not in the least agree with the practice or theory of the great bulk of your Lordships' House. I do think it would be a great mistake for us to throw out Clause 3. At the same time, when the Report stage comes I shall ask again for an assurance that we are not going to have our Amendments cast out in another place on the ground of Privilege and then be told that we have to take Clause 3 as it stood in its original form. If there is any risk of that then I shall put down an Amendment to leave out Clause 1 of the Bill on Report. I shall do that if the question of Privilege is raised with regard to these Amendments. I hope your Lordships will now pass this amended clause, because I believe it would be. a mistake to throw it out.
On Question, Whether Clause 3 shall stand part of the Bill?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 75; Not-Contents, 17.

CONTENTS.

Marlborough, D.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Hay, L. (E. Kinnoull.) [Teller.]

Wellington, D.

Astor, V.

Churchill, V.

Heneage, L.

Camden, M.

Elibank, V.

Ker, L. (M. Lothian.)

Zetland, M.

FitzAlan of Derwent, V.

Kinnaird, L.

Hailsham, V.

Lamington, L.

Albemarle, E.

Hambleden, V.

Latymer, L.

Ancaster, E.

Mersey, V.

Middleton, L.

Bradford, E.

Noel-Buxton, L.

Cawdor, E.

Abinger, L.

Oriel, L. (V. Massereene.)

De La Warr, E.

Addington, L.

Oxenfoord, L. (E. Stair.)

Feversham, E.

Bayford, L.

Polwarth, L.

Fortescue, E.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L. [Teller.]

Grey, E.

Berwick, L.

Iddesleigh, E.

Biddulph, L.

Queenborough, L.

Lindsay, E.

Clanwilliam, L. (E. Clan-william.)

Rathcreedan, L.

Lucan, E.

Sanderson, L.

Malmesbury, E.

Clinton, L.

Sandhurst, L.

Mount Edgcumbe, E.

Dawson of Penn, L.

Sinclair, L.

Onslow, E.

Deramore, L.

Snell, L.

Peel, E.

Dickinson, L.

Somerleyton, L.

Poulett, E.

Douglas, L. (E. Home.)

Stanmore, L.

Sandwich, E.

Fairhaven, L.

Stonehaven, L.

Scarbrough, E.

Faringdon, L.

Templemore, L.

Spencer, E.

Gage, L. (V. Gage.)

Trenchard, L.

Stanhope, E.

Gainford, L.

Treowen, L.

Vane, E. (M. Londonderry.)

Hastings, L.

Wavertree, L.

NOT-CONTENTS.

Exeter, M.

Hereford, V.

Dynevor, L

Fairfax of Cameron, L.

Airlie, E.

Banbury of Southam, L. [Teller.]

Lawrence, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Phillimore, L.

Radnor, E.

Chesham, L.

Redesdale, L.

Cranworth, L.

Strachie, L.

Bertie of Thame, V. [Teller.]

Digby, L.

Wynford, L.

Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

Resolved in the affirmative and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.
Clause 3, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 4:
Provisions as to acquisition, of and dealing with land by Minister.
4.—(1) In relation to the acquisition of land by the Minister under this Part of this Act, the Lands Clauses Acts, as amended by the Acquisition of Land (Assessment of Compensation) Act, 1919 (except Sections sixteen, seventeen, ninety-two, one hundred and twenty-three, one hundred and twenty-seven to one hundred and thirty-three, one hundred and fifty and one hundred and fifty-one of the Lands Clauses (Consolidation) Act, 1845) are hereby incorporated with this Act, subject to the modifications mentioned in Part I of the First Schedule to this Act:
Provided that—

(a) before giving notice in accordance with Section eighteen of the Lands Clauses (Consolidation) Act, 1845, of his intention to acquire any land otherwise than by agreement, the Minister shall, except in the case of land which he is empowered so to acquire by the last fore going section, comply with the provisions of Part II of the said schedule; and

(b) nothing in this Part of this Act shall authorise the compulsory acquisition of any land which is the property of any local authority or has been acquired for the purposes of a railway, dock, canal, water, or other public undertaking, or which is, or forms part of, any common or any town or village green, or any area dedicated or appropriated as a public park, garden, or pleasure ground, or used for the purposes of public recreation, or which forms part of the trust property to which the National Trust Act, 1907, applies.

(2) Any land held by the Minister under this Part of this Act shall be held on behalf of His Majesty, and the Minister shall, subject to such conditions as may be determined by the Treasury, have power, for any purpose to manage, sell, let, or exchange any such land, and to pay or receive money in respect of equality of exchange.
LORD HASTINGS LORD HASTINGS moved, at the end of subsection (1), to insert "or is owned or occupied for the purpose of working minerals." The noble Lord said: This Amendment really speaks for itself. It is merely a proposal to add to the exemptions and I trust the noble Earl
752
may find himself able to accept it, because it is perfectly obvious that areas occupied for the working of minerals could not really be made available for the purposes of this Bill. It is only a limited portion of land and it must not be thought it is covered by a slag heap. Around a pithead, where seams are being worked, it is greatly to the interest of the colliery company to occupy the land, if only for a period, in order to avoid payment of compensation for subsidence. No sensible Minister would desire to take land liable to subsidence, but it would be wise, I am advised—and I share that opinion—to include this among the exemptions. This will cause no difficulty to the Ministry in carrying out the Bill.
Amendment moved—
Page 10, line 16, after ("applies") insert the said new words.—(Lord Hastings.)
EARL DE LA WARR: This Amendment was moved in another place and, after considerable discussion, was not pressed to a Division. On general principles I agree with the noble Lord. Indeed, under the Bill we have only power to purchase land suitable for agricultural purposes, by reason of its being seriously neglected. Apart from the fact that we have no power to purchase mining land, if there were a mining property on the land, it would obviously be to the advantage of the Ministry not to purchase it, because it would be at a very inflated value and mean expending a lot of money on purposes foreign to the Bill. The reason why we do not want to accept the Amendment is that it is quite possible there might be on the estate being purchased a chalk or gravel pit, or some such small mining undertaking, and its inclusion in compulsory acquisition might rather seriously affect the value of the remainder of the land. I can assure the noble Lord that we are in absolute agreement with him on the principle which persuades him to move the Amendment, but we prefer not to put the Amendment into the Bill because it would make complications in these small cases.
LORD HASTINGS: It is very satisfactory to be told by the noble Earl that the Ministry would not in ordinary circumstances apply the powers of the Bill to this particular kind of land. But I think it would be infinitely safer if it were put in the Act of Parliament. The noble Earl will not for ever sit on that Bench nor will the present Minister be for ever Minister of Agriculture and one does feel that a very reasonable provision such as this ought to find its way on to the Statute Book. It is very probable that another Minister might wish to take this land, and it is possible under the Bill, and I submit that it would create no hardship to the Ministry and would not interfere with the operation of the Bill if this Amendment were inserted; and it might avoid disastrous complication which otherwise could occur. I hope the noble Earl will reconsider his decision.
EARL DE LA WARR: So far as I can see either way there is slight risk of complication arising and it seems to me we have to decide on the basis of where complication is least likely to arise. In the case of property with a mining value the whole assumption is against the Minister being willing to pay what would no doubt be a very high mineral value for the land.
LORD HASTINGS: That is not so. The noble Earl must not suppose for a moment that this only concerns land actually round about the pit head. It is not land on which the mining company wants to deposit slack. It is the custom for a mining company to occupy land in order to avoid a much larger expense which would arise in the event of a subsidence. It is agricultural land which the Ministry might reasonably be able to
754
acquire at an ordinary agricultural value. That is the kind of land I have in view. It may even be poor moor land, but if the Ministry is able under the powers of the Bill compulsorily to acquire it that would interfere very gravely with the coal trade and might involve a coal company in large sums for compensation. Having raised the point, and thereby established my right to refer to it again on Report, if the noble Earl will do me the favour of inquiring into the matter rather more closely on the lines I have indicated, I am quite willing to withdraw the Amendment, provided I have the prescribed right of putting it down on Report.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD STRACHIE LORD STRACHIE had an Amendment on the Paper to move, at the end of subsection (1), to insert "or any land which forms part of any park, garden or pleasure ground or land adjoining a dwelling-house or garden attached thereto, or any woodland." The noble Lord said: After considering what the effect has been of the deletion of Clauses 1 and 2, and the substantial amendment of Clause 3, I think it is undesirable at this moment for me to move this Amendment, but I reserve my power to do it on Report.
Clause 4 agreed to.
Clause 5 agreed to.
House resumed.
EARL DE LA WARR: My Lords, I beg to move that this House do now adjourn.
House adjourned at five minutes past twelve o'clock midnight.